A reality check is my father's Kodachrome slides are fading stored in the dark - all pre K25 my K25 slides are fine, my E6 lab processed are just as good as the ones I processed in Chrome 6 which had no stabiliser, some of my lab processed C41 negatives are fading.
Ian
Ian - regarding pre K25 (my very first Kodachrome25 was from 1979 - K14)
we should not forget the addition of years livetime of them.
I suppose your pre K25 (you stated: "fading") are going back to the 60th,
am I right?
And I suppose the colors they have today
are usefull (they have faded only smal).
Then we can resume that even Kodachrome II and Kodachrome x have still colors since more than 50years.
Thats amazing I would say.
So we can say K12 was not a bad process at all.
If you have old slides from the original Kodachrome (they named it not
Kodachrome I because there was no need for) we are speaking aboud slides
with an minimum age of 60 - 70 years.
By the time - some tv dokumentaries have shown USAF using Kodachrome
over europe.Aerial motion pictures from
1944-45.
Quite likely digital restored with colors
never seen from this time before.
Kodak (in mind from an old article) made climatic tests with E6 and Kodachrome and assumed consistent fade of (theoraticaly) from each color layer of 30% and came to the result of
livetime to less than 200 years to E6
and only more than 135 years to K14.
within extremest fine storage conditions.
Conditions wich are unreachable to normal people outside an national archive.
I am not realy beliving this "big advantages" of modern E6 at all in comparision to K14.
Perhaps it was a little marketing/advertising to E6 some years later they began to kill Kodachrome.
Now my simple question Ian : should we not thing on stabilizers that they could
not be the best of the best we can get
to E6 ?
Because we all know that E6 doesn't have had a real chance to reach K14
in livetime - at any time (with dark storage of cause)
with regards