KA: Kodachrome "just not practical to try to replicate in today's market."

[E. von Hoegh]

This thread is more stupid than the deleted thread. What a waste of brain cells. oh, the humanity...

Well, it's better than tv...

 

[RPC]

Back on topic: Anyone saw the Kodachrome movie on Netflix? I have a technical question about the Kodachrome photos displayed during the end credits. What is the trick used to make those Kodachrome look so amazing? I mean the contrast and colors are out of this world. Anyone knows?

That was not the original topic. It is about the marketplace not supporting the return of Kodachrome, not a discussion of the characteristics or use of the film.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That was not the original topic. It is about the marketplace not supporting the return of Kodachrome, not a discussion of the characteristics or use of the film.

It seems that some consider this thread "proof" that Kr is still viable and must be brought back. Nutty.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That was not the original topic. It is about the marketplace not supporting the return of Kodachrome, not a discussion of the characteristics or use of the film.

It seems that some consider this thread "proof" that Kr is still viable and must be brought back. Nutty.

Additionally the thread allows logically thinking members to bash the delirious.

 

[RattyMouse]

It seems that some consider this thread "proof" that Kr is still viable and must be brought back. Nutty.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!

Those nutters.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

At least the deleted thread was funny and did not have anything about Kodachrome!

It seems the deleted thread would still be around if it hadn't been designated as deleted. Or was it? What was the original post in that thread?

When did that thread exist and how long was it?

Maybe we should have an undeleted thread instead of this one because it seems easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is to bring back Kodachrome.

 

[removed account4]

It seems the deleted thread would still be around if it hadn't been designated as deleted. Or was it? What was the original post in that thread?

i believe it was started by a guy named kevin and he no longer wanted the thread to exist so
he edited to say deleted and after that it became a 1000 page thread about existence and the meaning of life ..

 

[Sirius Glass]

It seems the deleted thread would still be around if it hadn't been designated as deleted. Or was it? What was the original post in that thread?

When did that thread exist and how long was it?

Maybe we should have an undeleted thread instead of this one because it seems easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is to bring back Kodachrome.

Start another on and you will see about existence and the meaning of life ... and that magenta is not a color.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm sorry, but you guys let the deleted thread be deleted!

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm sorry, but you guys let the deleted thread be deleted!

PE

Yes it’s THEIR fawlt... “those nutters”.

 

[Lionel1972]

Yeah - PE just mentioned it : "At least it is not about Kodakchrome".....So let me first state in short the following.I realy don't like to come off topic in that way some others did it here. I can understand if some have a total different look to issues about Kodakchrome - but who can say what will happen in the future or who is right and who isn't. So why is the culture of argumentation gone ? To state off topics is no serious way.

Hi trendland. Thanks for putting back some common sense to this thead where it seems many Kodachrome bashing posters take pretext of past market states to obliterate any possibility of future evolution of said market which may hint to a return of Kodachrome ever. They do have the right to dislike Kodachrome, they do have the right to prefer black and white or print film, but disqualifying any discussion about the potential of any interest in Kodachrome today or in the future by means of making fun of those who express an interest for Kodachrome is just not part of what a fair argumentation should be.

By the way I was indeed refering to that movie directed by Marc Raso. I know it was shot on Kodak Vision 3 35mm film then digitally timed and graded. I was asking about the look of the Steve McCurry Kodachrome photos displayed during the end credits.

 

[trendland]

Hi trendland. Thanks for putting back some common sense to this thead where it seems many Kodachrome bashing posters take pretext of past market states to obliterate any possibility of future evolution of said market which may hint to a return of Kodachrome ever. They do have the right to dislike Kodachrome, they do have the right to prefer black and white or print film, but disqualifying any discussion about the potential of any interest in Kodachrome today or in the future by means of making fun of those who express an interest for Kodachrome is just not part of what a fair argumentation should be.

By the way I was indeed refering to that movie directed by Marc Raso. I know it was shot on Kodak Vision 3 35mm film then digitally timed and graded. I was asking about the look of the Steve McCurry Kodachrome photos displayed during the end credits.

Yes I understand. ..I havn't seen the full movie I remember a trailer of this film last year. I will go first to Netflix and come back later.
with regards

 

[RPC]

Hi trendland. Thanks for putting back some common sense to this thead where it seems many Kodachrome bashing posters take pretext of past market states to obliterate any possibility of future evolution of said market which may hint to a return of Kodachrome ever. They do have the right to dislike Kodachrome, they do have the right to prefer black and white or print film, but disqualifying any discussion about the potential of any interest in Kodachrome today or in the future by means of making fun of those who express an interest for Kodachrome is just not part of what a fair argumentation should be.

You speak of fair argumentation, but you still haven't shown us any good evidence of why there is a market for Kodachrome today or in the future. Have you sent that letter to Kodak yet? Show us something instead of baseless arguing with those with good evidence that it won't return.

 

[faberryman]

Thanks for putting back some common sense to this thead where it seems many Kodachrome bashing posters take pretext of past market states to obliterate any possibility of future evolution of said market which may hint to a return of Kodachrome ever. They do have the right to dislike Kodachrome, they do have the right to prefer black and white or print film, but disqualifying any discussion about the potential of any interest in Kodachrome today or in the future by means of making fun of those who express an interest for Kodachrome is just not part of what a fair argumentation should be.

There are few Kodachrome bashers. That line of argument is disingenuous and a red herring. Most photographers think Kodachome was an excellent transparency film, if not the best ever made. The argument centers on whether Kodachrome is now commercially viable. Apparently, Kodak thinks it is not commercially viable. They discontinued its manufacture in 2009 and its processing in 2010 after decades of declining sales. There is no sign of its revival, however much its proponents may wish it. Kodak can't even get the new Ektachrome out the door. And there are serious concerns over the future of Velvia and Provia. Transparencies are all but dead. Shoot transparency film while you can.

 

[flavio81]

and made Ringo Starr one of the best drummers of all time.

Drummer here. You triggered me.

He is. Ringo Starr is one of the best drummers of all time and my favorite pop-rock drummer. Lots of studio drummers and band drummers know that. His timing is impeccable. The quality of the timbre he brings from the instrument is very good. His fills are original, creative and compliment the song. His influence on other drummers is enormous. Cue John Bonham: "I'm just a Ringo that hits harder."

His versatility is enormous, from latin rhythms ("i feel fine") to straight rock ("helter skelter") to experimental ("tomorrow never knows") to double-bass-drum-in-1967 ("good morning, good morning"), complex ballads ("something"), etc. He could keep the song in place even with so much noise from the crowd the group couldn't hear themselves.

The amount of originality he has brought to drumming is considerable, for example "ticket to ride", the intro to "come together", the bridge on "something", the fills on "i want you (she's so heavy)".

And most important of everything -- he's an excellent example of a drummer that contributes to the song. He never overplays and always plays exactly what the song requires.

To fully appreciate what I say, listen to the whole Abbey Road record. It is a drumming masterpiece, if you appreciate drums as the instrument that complements the song and makes it work 'just right.'

Ringo was the top drummer in Liverpool before the beatles were famous, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Ringo got his own spot in the show act, singing and playing. Paul's brother always suggested to bring Ringo to the Beatles, which they finally did; the rest is history.

John Lennon and George Harrison could have used any drummer after splitting from the Beatles. Guess who they called for playing in their first solo records? Ringo. (Paul was at odds with the other 3.)

In the beatles' own words:

"Ringo is right down the center, never overplays."
"We loved him. And we just thought he was the very best drummer we'd ever seen. And we wanted him in the group. We were big fans of his."
- Paul McCartney

"Ringo's got the best back beat I've ever heard and he can play great 24-hours a day."
- George Harrison (note also complimenting Ringo's endurance.)

PLAYBOY: Let's move on to Ringo. What's your opinion of him musically?

LENNON: Ringo was a star in his own right in Liverpool before we even met. He was a professional drummer who sang and performed and had Ringo Star-time and he was in one of the top groups in Britain but especially in Liverpool before we even had a drummer. So Ringo's talent would have come out one way or the other as something or other. I don't know what he would have ended up as, but whatever that spark is in Ringo that we all know but can't put our finger on -- whether it is acting, drumming or singing I don't know -- there is something in him that is projectable and he would have surfaced with or without the Beatles. Ringo is a damn good drummer. He is not technically good, but I think Ringo's drumming is underrated the same way Paul's bass playing is underrated. Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period. He is an egomaniac about everything else about himself, but his bass playing he was always a bit coy about. I think Paul and Ringo stand up with any of the rock musicians. Not technically great -- none of us are technical musicians. None of us could read music. None of us can write it. But as pure musicians, as inspired humans to make the noise, they are as good as anybody.

Also, he was also a keen Spotmatic and Nikon F user. Talk about taste!

 

[Lionel1972]

You speak of fair argumentation, but you still haven't shown us any good evidence of why there is a market for Kodachrome today or in the future. Have you sent that letter to Kodak yet? Show us something instead of baseless arguing with those with good evidence that it won't return.

Sorry, it is illogical to ask for proof of a potential and unknow quantity. I never pretended the market is without a doubt there waiting impatiently for a return of Kodachrome. On the other hand one cannot prove there is not and will never be any market again for Kodachrome. Just because no one knows what the future holds. Simple logic here.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm thinking of doing one of two things; which would be best?

1. Putting this inane thread on "ignore"
or
2. Putting all participants on this inane thread on ignore.

Please advise me...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm thinking of doing one of two things; which would be best?

1. Putting this inane thread on "ignore"
or
2. Putting all participants on this inane thread on ignore.

Please advise me...

Are you going to ignore yourself too?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Kodachrome has been deleted. Time to move on.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm thinking of doing one of two things; which would be best?

1. Putting this inane thread on "ignore"
or
2. Putting all participants on this inane thread on ignore.

Please advise me...

Do both!

PE

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm thinking of doing one of two things; which would be best?

1. Putting this inane thread on "ignore"
or
2. Putting all participants on this inane thread on ignore.

Please advise me...

Coin toss.

 

[BrianShaw]

I really wish somebody... anybody... would have the common courtesy to answer my question.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

 

[RPC]

Sorry, it is illogical to ask for proof of a potential and unknow quantity. I never pretended the market is without a doubt there waiting impatiently for a return of Kodachrome. On the other hand one cannot prove there is not and will never be any market again for Kodachrome. Just because no one knows what the future holds. Simple logic here.

Not asking for proof, just evidence. You have shown none. Evidence is solid that there is insufficient market for its return, and never will be, yet you persist with your baseless arguments. What is the logic there?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Do both!

PE

That would be a very thorough approach.
Or, he could just not click on the thread...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Can we put ourselves on ignore?