Sensible Erection | A Tribute to Mid-Centry Kodachrome

Monday, 23 January 2012

quote [ Instead of being dependent on Flickr users to post their old Kodachrome images I would take matters into my own hands. I started buying whole collections of slides from the 50s and 60s at estate sales, flea markets and elsewhere. I would then send the slides away to be scanned. ]

This post is dedicated to Kodak and JOECAM
background from CNN

[art] [by sanepride@10:10pmGMT] [+10 Good]

Comments

KingPellinore said @ 10:26pm GMT on 23rd Jan [Score:1 Insightful]

sanepride said @ 10:27pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Yes I was anticipating this.

KingPellinore said @ 10:33pm GMT on 23rd Jan
How about this one?

sanepride said @ 10:43pm GMT on 23rd Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Damn. Well played.

incpenners said @ 11:01pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Well, how about this!?

sanepride said @ 11:26pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Maybe pushing it a bit.

KingPellinore said @ 12:05am GMT on 24th Jan

sacrelicious said @ 12:08am GMT on 24th Jan

swiggy said @ 12:08am GMT on 24th Jan [Score:1 Good]

NickelJoe said @ 12:36am GMT on 24th Jan

sanepride said @ 1:09am GMT on 24th Jan

theolypse said @ 5:14am GMT on 24th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]

KingPellinore said @ 12:09am GMT on 24th Jan
I have to admit, my favorite Beatles post break up are George and Ringo. In that order.

happiest_sadist said @ 1:08am GMT on 25th Jan
Poor Stu.

xgp007 said @ 10:32pm GMT on 23rd Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
WHERE IS JOECAM.

sanepride said @ 10:53pm GMT on 23rd Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
I'm hoping he may yet show up and upmod a post like this one.

drd69 said @ 10:49pm GMT on 23rd Jan

John F Kennedy’s assassination was filmed by Abraham Zapruder on Kodachrome

as was the photograph by Steve McCurry of an Afghan girl

drd69 said @ 10:50pm GMT on 23rd Jan

Of course the above were not mid century but interesting none the less.

Didel said @ 11:24pm GMT on 23rd Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
First, upmod for the shout out to JOECAM, may the elder gods bring him back home.

But really, this may not be popular, but I find the kodachrome (and other older photograph films) a bit fetishistic. I guess I see them like I see records. An old technology that despite it's adherents beliefs, is an outdated technology that has since been replaced, yet there are those for whatever reason that still cling to it and proclaim it to be the better system.

Now, I don't have a problem with somebody liking something just because it's old or they think it's still a better system (or at least a system they know and are comfortable with), I just take issue with those that proclaim it's actually better than the current technologies that exist.

And like the film itself, in this case, I find the images to be reinforcing an stereotypical image (no pun intended) of Mid-century Americana, that for many was a myth and did not exist. And by fetishizing (that's not a word.) this film, we're also fetishizing 50's American culture.

Not that I'm saying you are saying that saney, I'm just in a bad mood.

sanepride said @ 11:33pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Sure, I don't disagree with anything you say here. I don't really lament the passing of Kodachrome or any film technology. There's definitely a 'fetishism' in the process and the images and sure there's a perhaps deceptive view of life depicted in them, but I think that adds to their appeal

KingPellinore said @ 11:45pm GMT on 23rd Jan
Kind of how Vertigo wouldn't look like it does if it wasn't shot on the film available at the time.

Film, video, digital. It's like paints on a canvas. We're ingrained for certain emotional reactions in response to different mediums. I guess that's why modern directors sometimes still shoot in black and white.

Or maybe not. I'm a little toasty and may just be talking shit.

stereobreadsticks said @ 1:36pm GMT on 24th Jan
I see what you're saying, and I agree that there are social and political problems associated with mid-century American fetishism. That being said I think you're unlikely to find many people who would claim that older films are better than newer technologies in the sense that they actually provide higher quality, more realistic representations of the world. When people say they prefer old photographic or motion picture film (and to a lesser extent vinyl versus digital audio formats, though there is actually a case to be made for the sound quality of analog formats when it comes to music so it's not quite as clear cut as it is with visual media), what they're really doing is expressing an appreciation for the aesthetic of those older media. It's sort of like appreciating abstraction in painting and sculpture or the intentional use of lo-fi recording equipment in music, the fact that the media representation differs from reality is implicitly or explicitly acknowledged by both the artist and the viewer and that difference from the actual reality is a major part of what the viewer appreciates in the work.

mrcucumber said @ 2:49pm GMT on 24th Jan
....I just take issue with those that proclaim it's actually better than the current technologies that exist

Well, that depends on what your goal is. If you want convenience or the ease of use of digital, then sure. Film can never compete with that. But in the end it's always optics, exposure, and how color is represented in a final print - if an actual print is what your after - and Kodachrome had it's benefits. Sharp, contrasty, saturated and fastish for commercial distribution. The effects of film degeneration notwithstanding. The first image on the website is outstanding simply from a technical point of view.

rndmnmbr said @ 3:52am GMT on 25th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
I don't think there's any question that digital is a better medium than film. In an age of digital manipulation, CCD's are king - plus it's nice not having to pay for processing. The only way film is superior to digital in any way, a properly composed image taken on high-quality fine grained film stock scanned with a drum scanner can still produce higher resolutions at cheaper prices than digital - and most people don't need that quality at all.

On the other hand, the aesthetics of film is unmatchable with digital sensors. Sure, you can crank the saturation to nil, fiddle with contrast, and digitally add grain to get the look of Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600, but it's not going to be the same as a roll of Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600. I still use my digital constantly, but sometimes I like to load up my Rebel 2000 with film and go walking around in urban downtown backalleys.

You see, digital vs. film is a false dichotomy. They're mediums, that's all, you can capture a beautiful image with either one. Capturing that beautiful image is still all about the technique and the lens, nothing more. A good photo is a good photo, no matter what medium it's in.

lilmookieesquire said @ 11:50pm GMT on 23rd Jan
I suppose in the end, he just likely forgot his password or something... but...

Joecam's profile:

http://www.sensibleerection.com/profile.php/3328
(last visited: Last visited on Monday, 1 August 2011)

Joecam's profile says "man from new york"...

There is a joecam's fotosite: http://joecam.zenfolio.com/f898259847
with a set of new york pictures. If it's his, it was last Modified 25-Oct-11. So that's good in that it postdates SE. But it's in dutch, so I think it might be from another joecam on the net. Their email is jo_maes@skynet.be so you can ask him.)

I guess the main question to ask is Does anyone remember searchable information on joecam? If nothing else, maybe we can search obits around SE last used time.

lsdbeta said @ 12:13am GMT on 24th Jan
we need to ask marck what his registered email with SE is.

sanepride said @ 12:37am GMT on 24th Jan
Right. In order to find JOECAM first you have to find St. Marck.

arrowhen said @ 12:42am GMT on 24th Jan [Score:5 Funny]
Your princess is in another castle.

lsdbeta said @ 5:00am GMT on 24th Jan
Or just ask an SE mod.

steele.ero said @ 12:49am GMT on 24th Jan
Pardon me, Mr. Joecam,

It's steele.ero from SE.

A number of people have been concerned for your well being given your
recent disappearance. I just figured I'd drop a quick note to see if
you have anything you'd like relayed to those worrying. If you choose
to ignore this email, I won't bother you again.

Hope all is well with you,

steele
------------------------------
I sent that september 26th, never heard anything back.

steele.ero said @ 1:49am GMT on 24th Jan
btw I sent that to the email I had for him. just realized i didn't make that clear.

leezurd said @ 5:45am GMT on 24th Jan [Score:1 Funny]
...and, that e-mail was _______________(?)

Just wondering.

Not, that things could be tracked down with this knowledge, or anything...

I'm just...

...curious.

*figits / makes another drink*

mrcucumber said @ 2:41pm GMT on 24th Jan
Not that it matters, but the email I used to register here no longer exists.

radioelectric said @ 12:53am GMT on 24th Jan
Has anyone on SE met him? Do we have a photo of him from a "what do you look like?" thread?

KingPellinore said @ 1:04am GMT on 24th Jan
.be is Belgium, isn't it? If so, it probably isn't Dutch, but Flemish.

Don't know if that helps, but hey...

zkhan said @ 2:09am GMT on 24th Jan
I think .be is Belgium, too. Damn. If there were only a way to find that out.

bbqkink said @ 4:13am GMT on 24th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
+1 Joe Cam +1 some good snaps.

Especial like this one. Rich gut and his son...someone like me (younger) in background...(I'd kill to have that boat.....
(older) Rich guy on boat....Boats are holes in the water you through money in.

leezurd said @ 5:54am GMT on 24th Jan
Heh.

Had a very good friend while growing up in Florida.
His Dad was a hydroplane racer. (Last name was Winston)
I remember a very similar scene on the shore of lake Maggiore during the summer of 1979.
I remember him suffering through a pretty big accident that ended that years hopes. But, it didn't involve an injury.
I miss that part of my childhood.

Thanks for reminding me of that!