Kodak do all their own processing here. Apparantly, in the US it was against
some law. Most other countries you buy it with the processing already paid
for.
All my slide mounts since 1995? have been plastic, not cardboard.
Kodachrome apparantly has less life when projected often, but how often do I
project my slides? Not very often. If I were going to I would get a copy
anyway.
The problem is the NOW generation. What a home loan? Get it now. Want
service? get it now. Want photos? Get it now. Hence the increase in E6, 1
hour labs and digital. Forget about quality, get it now.
My view anyway.
Foxy
----- Original Message -----
> Here's my 50 cents worth. (unable to express myself in 2 on any subject):
>
> First, let's get one thing out of the way: Kodachrome's long life is only
in
> dark storage. when projected, it has one of the shortest lives of all
> chromes.
>
> Kodachrome has been an ongoing problem for Kodak. It is an admittedly good
> film, but with some significant downsides. As I am given to understand by
> photochemists, at the time it was developed, it was not possible to
produce
> a film with the dyes in the emulsion, like Ektachrome. Again, I'm not a
> chemist, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm led to believe that all the dyes
> are in the K chemistry. This makes it very unstable, and process control
is
> quite difficult. At one time, there were experienced chemists on duty
where
> ever Kodachrome was processed. This instability causes the color balance
> problems many of us see.
>
> Some years ago, Kodak revised the chemistry to make it more stable, and
> began to manufacture the "Kodachrome Mini Lab", which allowed others than
> Kodak to process Kodachrome for the first time. This was reported in the
> press as an attempt on the part of Kodak to save Kodachrome, as they
didn't
> want to be in the lab business.
> [Kodak has had an on-off relationship with the processing business. The
> regional labs that were once known as Kodak, and are now known as Qualex,
> have been in and out of Kodak ownership several times. Various business
> plans for the company have included or not included consumer labs. I
suspect
> that this business can be volatile and can be unprofitable for a large
> corporation to operate]
>
> Those of us that have used Kodachrome know well the processing and color
> balance problems. Some are able to get over the tendency to shift magenta
> for the sharpness, just as many were able to live with Ektachrome's
tendency
> to shift blue for the quick processing. Most of us, though, have been less
> able to deal with Kodak's tendency to return chromes with dirt, scratches,
> and huge water spots. And then, there's the ongoing use of those cardboard
> fuzz factories they call mounts.
>
> Is Kodak trying to kill Kodachrome? Anyone who's worked in a large
> corporation can agree that there are probably some people that are doing
> just that, but as a corporation, no, I don't think so. It's more a
situation
> of lack of complete devotion. It would probably be better for them, as I
> don't think they can make much money at it.
>
> Every day, E6 gets better. Provia F is a viable replacement [your too
green
> is my better than magenta], and Fuji does seem to be more interested in
the
> business. Kodachrome has its advantages, but the lack of r&d will be the
> thing that eventually kills it, as the disadvantages become less
acceptable.
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|