Today, Kodak announced the final production run of Kodachrome film, after a 74-year run.  Kodachrome is yet another  casualty of the long march towards digital formats, as fewer and fewer sales of Kodachrome film have meant continuing to mass produce it is no longer viable.

“KODACHROME Film is an iconic product and a testament to Kodak’s long and continuing leadership in imaging technology,” said Mary Jane Hellyar, President of Kodak’s Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group. “It was certainly a difficult decision to retire it, given its rich history. However, the majority of today’s photographers have voiced their preference to capture images with newer technology – both film and digital. Kodak remains committed to providing the highest-performing products – both film and digital – to meet those needs.”

To be sure, Kodak acknowledges that there is only one professional film outlet in the US that processes Kodachrome film, that being Dwayne’s Photo located in Parsons, Kansas.  They have announced that they will continue to sell the film until supplies run out (probably in the Fall of 2009), and will continue to process it until December, 2010:

This is a sad occasion for us, as we’re sure it is for many of you. While we understand the business realities driving Kodak’s decision, we are still sorry to see the film go.

Kodachrome has been hailed as being remarkably color accurate, unique in its characteristic deep color saturation unmatched by other film formats, and praised for its longevity in storage.  Properly cared for, most Kodachrome film has managed to retain its color accuracy despite decades of aging.  One case in point is this circa 1949 image.  Some of us who are way too young to have lived in this era, find it incredibly striking to find such a vivid color photograph, when we’re used to seeing numerous faded black-and-whites depicting the era.

The rich color and depth of Kodachrome is owed to a unique and very complex film processing method, which differs substantially from the process in use for “modern” film formats.  Dawyne’s is, at this point the only photofinisher up to the task, and Kodak is the only supplier of the chemicals needed to render photos from Kodachrome film.    Thus, not only is Kodachrome’s days numbered, but the time runs short for those with unprocessed film to do something about it.

After several delays, fits and starts, the US has finally left the age of analog TV behind today.   One by one, stations across the nation shut down their analog transmitters and have resumed broadcasting in DTV only.  this was supposed to happen much sooner in the year, but the transtition was stalled several times, upon fears that millions of Americans were (and may still be) unprepared for the switchover.

Whether these households are prepared now or not, newer media has certainly marked the passage of their predecessor.  YouTube is officially spotlighting classic television shows today.  And its users are unofficially marking the death of analog TV by recording and posting the final signoffs of various TV stations’ analog transmitters, including many stations the did the switchover early and spent time in their final analog moments with a retrospective:

Other shutdowns were done with less fanfare.

So long, Analog.  While we move to better broadcast formats, there’s a certain something about test patterns, signoff messages and even snow on our TV sets that holds a place in the hearts of those of us who grew up with them.

An interesting post and ensuing discussion this weekend occurred on the Association of Moving Image Archivists listserv.  Jim Wheeler reports on what could be an ominous sign for Quadruplex and 1-inch Video tape archives around the world. Video Magnetics, Inc., one of the last vendors that services the Quad and 1-inch tape machines, appears to be hitting hard times.

Write Wheeler in his AMIA-L post (click here for full article):

Video Magnetics is the only company that I am aware of that rebuilds 1 inch and 2 inch video heads. Recently, I chatted with the owner (Tony Korte) and he has laid off most of his people. Tony had 45 employees a few years ago and now has five. He will probably have to shut down next year.

There are currently no vendors producing 2-inch tape machines, with the last widely-produced AMPEX and RCA models being introduced in the late 1970s. Even so, is reign spanned three decades, having been introduced in 1956, and used by broadcasting agencies well into the 1980s. Without a doubt, lots of valuable television history exists on Quad tape. Quad slowly began to be supplanted by 1-inch tape in the mid 1970s, with players being made by NEC as late as 1988.

As Wheeler notes, without a knowledgeable vendor servicing the read/write heads for the existing, aging fleet of Quad and 1-inch players, the ability to retrieve the content off the countless reels of tape out there will be lost at an unpredictable rate.

Video Magnetics has been around since 1976. According to their website, they began at that point selling refurbished Quad video heads for Ampex and RCA video recorders. As late as 2006, the company added the ability to service more recent-vintage Sony Betacam SX gear, in addition to modern DVCPRO format VTRs.

Some might say its death was long-overdue in an increasingly digital photographic world. Others continue to cling to it and bristle at the thought of having to change to newer imaging technology. Regardless of what side you’re on, the demise of the Polaroid instant film format has been slow and tortuous. And even now, it looks like those thick, dvelop-before-your-eyes sheets are getting a breath of new life.

December marked the final official production run of Polaroid film, with availability of Polaroid-manufactured film packs expected to dwindle by late 2009. And although Polaroid is trying to assuage fans of the format with a digital surrogate, the PoGo Instant Mobile Printer, There’s still a dedicated group of format zealots who insist that the format’s discontinuation will be a serious crimp on their artistic creativity. Most of them have congregated atSave Polaroid, a site where enthusiasts have hoped to either convince Polaroid that their business decision is unwise, or get some other manufacturer to keep making the film.

Polaroid’s business case for dumping the format is based, of course, on its “instantness” being superseded by digital imaging. For the price of a couple of packs of Polaroid film, anyone can buy a basic digital camera that creates images of arguably better quality, and that’s assuming you don’t already have one built into your cell phone or other portabe electronic device. And in the time it takes to wait for a Polaroid to develop and the image to fade into view, a digital image can be on flickr, Picasa, Mobile Me or dozens of other sites, seen by anyone who cares to view it.

Before you criticize: I agree, a cell phone camera or a $75 Walmart special isn’t going to give you gallery-quality photographs. But then again, neither will a Polaroid. I mean, really… in my childhood I was given a cheap drugstore 110-film camera that produced images way better than the bulky, expensive, handed-down Land Camera the parents brought out from time to time. Even before I got my photographic chops, I knew the images from the Polaroidwere embarrassingly bad. But if you wanted an image right away before the 1990s, well, that’s what you had to put up with. As a result lots of childhood photos and memories were recorded on those thick, white-bordered sheets.

Perhaps I’m just a digital purist at heart, and that’s why the imperfections of Polaroid make it repugnant to me. But I’m just one viewpoint out of many, and the dedicated people at Save Polaroid find the idiosyncratic nature of Instamatic Film to be the very reason the format should be saved.

I can’t argue with the convenience and clarity of digital imaging. I use my digital camera all the time. It takes beautiful pictures and I don’t have to worry about loading film. But of the thousands of digital photos I have taken in my life, 99.9% of them will likely sit on a hard drive as raw data for an eternity, never to be transferred to paper, displayed, or shared.

With instant film you don’t get to make the choice of whether or not a picture is “good enough” to make a print. You get a print every time. You can’t just hit delete because someone was making a weird face, or the framing wasn’t quite right or in some way the image doesn’t live up to the unattainable idea of perfection we have all have in our heads from being exposed to too many Photoshopped images. The picture comes out no mater what.

A point can be made here that some find artistic value in imperfection. This is the very foundation of Lomography – the “art” of photos taken on mediocre-quality cameras by amateurs, solely for the kitsch of the weird effects made by flawed optics. To some, the washed-out colors, poor image depth and sub-standard clarity of Polaroid instant film makes it a similarly accessible artform to the masses of shutterbugs who find it better than the challenge of making a good photograph on a good camera.

In any case, while some are bemoaning the loss of this film format, I’m fairly confident that in a way it proponents have little to worry about… the motto “don’t think, just shoot” will surivive just fine in the digital age.

Fortunately for those who cling to Polaroid, a White Knight of sorts has stepped in to save the format. Ilford Photo, a subsidiary of Harman Technology, Ltd, has launched The Impossible Project, a venture aimed at re-starting Polaroid Integral Film production by 2010. They have purchased Polaroid’s production equipment and instant film factory, and are now focused on obtaining the materials they need for production:

Recent experiments and promising findings of the past few months have shown that existing components from other film products as well as new components CAN be adapted to create completely new types of high quality integral film. Impossible b.v. has exactly 12 months to research, experiment and develop new and better solutions for replacing/upgrading problematic/expensive components, and present a NEW Integral Instant film, ready for mass production at the end of 2009.

Quite an ambitious charge. If they deliver what they promise, they may not only give new life to countelss Poalroid cameras in existence, but may even improve on the quality of the film stocks and images they provide. But, that also begs the question: if this new film is better than the old version, is it still the same?