>>3693321>>3693325>muh KodachromeThats just people being hipster CONSOOMERS and wanting something “unique”/uncommon to “set their photography apart”.
They can’t set their “photography” by focusing on their photography, try have to do it by a niche form of gearfagging.
The most important part about their “photography” is what film it was shit on, not the photography itself. Meaning their photography has no merit of its own.
Also Kodachrome could have easily been made as an E6 film. Kodachrome just has a certain emulsion formula, with certain spectral sensitisation dyes, and certain dyes formed by the dye coupler being in each colour developer bath rather than built into the emulsion (since they were water soluble they weren’t used in the emulsion but in 3 separate colour developers).
Here’s the thing, the silver emulsion itself? Easy enough to match and make for an E6 film.
The spectral sensitisation? Exactly the same could be used, or replacements achieving the same spectral sensitivity.
The dyes formed themselves? No problem, just a non-water soluble form of dye couplers that would make the same spectral complete dyes. Kodak has a patent on being able to precisely tune the chain length on the dyes and being able to produce any kind of dye they wanted.
The emulsions, spectral sensitivity and spectrum of the dyes left behind all evolved, Kodachrome was outdated.
It’s the photography that is shit, not the film, or digital camera.
People look at certain photos like the Vietnam war girl, and want to shoot a certain film thinking their photos will be good, not realising it’s not the film that makes that photo good.
Or Sebastian Sagado’s
>if I shots Tri-X I can make photos that are powerful like pic related, because it’s the film that makes it good 