Another one bites the dust: RIP Kodak Kodachrome

Kodak has announced today the discontinuation of Kodachrome slide film, first launched in 1935.  This is sad but not at all surprising news.  Kodachrome was unique from the more modern E6 process slide films and required special equipment to process-- currently, only one lab in the United States still processes it.

Read more in this Associated Press article.

I've never shot a roll of Kodachrome 64 (which is the last version still available), but I did use the 200 variety in the last ten years.  Ironically, I distinctly remember purchasing several rolls in a Walgreens, which just shows how quickly digital photography has transformed the industry.  In less than a decade a once iconic film has gone from being available in a drug store, to obscurity, and soon into the history books.

What I liked most about Kodachrome was the 3D quality of the slides themselves.  There is no way to accurately show this on a two dimensional computer screen, but if you hold a Kodachrome slide in the air and tilt it sideways, on the layer side is a visible relief of the image.  That is, the bright areas of the slide are very thin, where as the darker areas are thick.  I'm not sure if this makes for a better image, but it certainly made Kodachrome unique.

According to Kodak, Kodachrome will be available until the current stock runs out, likely sometime in the fall.  Buy it while you can.

satellite love (before and after)

I thought this would be a good photo for my before and after series.  This is the original, unprocessed photo:



I shot this with a Nikon D90 and 16-85mm lens at 85mm.  When I took this photo I knew that I would try cropping it in post processing.  I really wanted to zoom in closer on the satellite dishes and the moon but didn't have a longer lens with me at the time.  Fortunately, the photo was high enough quality to allow for the cropping-- this is an instance where having a 12mp sensor verses 6mp really comes in handy.

Aside from the cropping, I really just darkened the whole image, and boosted the saturation a bit in the sky.  I did this all with Adobe Camera RAW.

Olympus goes retro, announces E-P1 "Digital Pen"

I received this email at 1am this morning, telling me that Olympus has finally made good on their long speculated new Pen Camera:



Dubbed the Olympus E-P1, or "Digital Pen", it's their first offering in the Micro 4/3rds lineup, and the first compact camera to have interchangeable lenses and a DSLR sized sensor (in this case, the same sensor used in Olympus DSLRs).  For more information and detailed specs, I suggest reading the previews at DPReview, Imaging Resources, or visit the Olympus E-P1 page.

Olympus has apparently also realized that attractive women sell cameras:



So why is this camera significant?

The E-P1 slides into an underdeveloped spot of the camera market, namely a camera that can produce photos indistinguishable from a DSLR but in a lighter, much more compact body.  This will appeal to serious amateurs who think DSLRs are too bulky, and many professionals will buy this camera not to replace their DSLR, but as a secondary "carry everywhere" camera.  Others have tried to capture this market, notably Sigma with their DP cameras, but those have been marred by poor performance and other issues.  Panasonic has its own Micro 4/3rds cameras, in the excellent G1 and the GH1, but those cameras are not nearly as compact.  Thus, this new Olympus model is pretty unique.



Just glancing at the specs, I'd say Olympus has a winner on their hands.  I was worried it would lack image stabilization, but nope, that's included.  Also included is a dust reduction system.  The sensor is the same 12.3 MP sensor used in other Olympus cameras, so image quality should be on par, and the E-P1 has a whole host of exposure modes and manual controls to satisfy camera purists.  Yes, it lacks a built in flash and a viewfinder, which is unfortunate, but this was necessary (according to Olympus) to reduce the size of the camera.  Finally, the E-P1 includes a 720p video mode for those obsessed with the idea that their still camera must also shoot video.



Did I mention that it looks really snazzy?

There are, of course, unknowns at this point.  How well does the autofocus system work?  How well will the 17mm f2.8 lens perform?  Is the LCD screen good enough to compensate for the lack of a built in viewfinder?  These are things that will be answered as reviews start trickling in.

Retro Marketing Genius?

Camera specs aside, I have to give Olympus kudos for the marketing and launch of this camera.  For the last few months, Olympus has been touting the 50th anniversary of the Pen cameras on their web site, leading to speculation (now proven correct) that this was a precursor to a new Digital Pen camera.  This has served two purposes: 1) it's built up a lot of interest for this new camera, and 2) it's made people nostalgic for the old Pen system, which like the E-P1, was innovative in its time for its size and features.



Tying the E-P1 to the Pen cameras from the 1960s is a brilliant move.  It allows Olympus to be retro and cool, and at the same time, they get to rebrand themselves as something more than a second fiddle company to Nikon and Canon.  Instead, they're the company with the history of innovation compared to Nikon and Canon's status quo.  That's not really true or fair, but that's beside the point-- it's effective marketing, and the other camera makers would be wise to pay attention.

Another thing worth noting is the price, which is less than expected.  $750 for just the camera body, $800 with the 14-42mm zoom, and $900 for the camera and the 17mm lens.  While yes, that is still quite expensive, rumors had this camera in the $1000 range or more, so this is a good job of managing expectations on Olympus' part.  The E-P1 actually seems like a bargain by comparison.

A faceless childhood

The display window of a children's clothing store in NYC, February 2009.  I can't remember what it was called.  I find mannequins to be creepy in general, but mannequins of children-- in particular faceless mannequins of children-- now that takes it to a new level.  I can't imagine why anyone would think this is a good idea?

Nikon D90 with 16-85mm lens.

Kobe and Me (a flickr stats love story)

This is the second most viewed photograph on my flickr account.  It's losing out only to this photo of the Bean, and is beating many, many excellent shots, including this one.  Since I first posted it in 2006 it has been viewed an astounding 2,474 times, and just today has already received 21 views.  I know this because of flickr's extremely addictive stat tracking system, which not only tells you how many hits a particular photo is getting, but in many cases where those hits are coming from.

I find this all rather amusing, because to be honest, I don't think it's a very good photo!  In fact, were I to take this one in 2009, I'm not sure if I would even post it on flickr (or at least I would process it better-- it looks a bit flat to me).  Rather, the reason this shot gets so many views is because I titled it "Kobe" and the word "house" appears in the description and the tags.  You see, apparently there's a lot of interest on the internet for "Kobe Bryant's House", and people have been unwittingly drawn to this shot after doing a Yahoo image search.

For the recond, this is actually a photo of the Humboldt Park lagoon in Chicago and the Humboldt Park boat house, with some random guy in a Kobe Bryant Jersey.  Kobe Bryant, I'm fairly sure, does not live in Humboldt Park nor fish in this lagoon.

Finally, as an aside... Go Nuggets Magic!