I am not married; I do need to justify anything to you.
Sadly Spock is dead...but aside from that my original argument was about being 100% logical. I'm arguing from that standpoint. Roll back a dozen posts and see where this started.
A fool and their money are soon parted.
This is the way of business. If we were frankly fully 100% Spock logical we'd have rolled up film and dumped it all a decade ago. It's illogical to shoot film. Humans are illogical, we like illogical stuff. We're all a little stupid and fun is stupid. 100% smart logical people don't have fun. We all need some idiocy.
This is where I started my Spock roll. You didn't seem to read it honey pie.
Sure I read it, but I also considered the source. Logical thinking.
Count in the equipment and learning curve, it's far cheaper to get a digital print.
Should I count breakfast as well, but only for one and not the other?
Ok. How about it's cheaper to make 50 16x20 b&w enlargements than it is to get them made. How about it's more reliable to make a b&w enlargement to try to use a printer to do it.
It doesn't matter, anyway. Logic is not what drives people to do anything. Perceived value is much more motivating. As for arguing about practicality, what is the use of arguing about the practicality of something that is, in most instances, superfluous? Are your photos "practical"? Do they serve a "purpose"? Does it matter if they are objectively "good"? Does anyone's life depend on them? In other words, do what you want without any concern for practicality.
wikipedia says the cyan layer absorbs infrared. most money these days in labs come from scanning i presume
How long do you need to your shots to last? This ongoing thread itself will outlast most of us.
I have held some 5x7 Kodachromes from a from of mine, taken in 1950. Things of beauty, the colour was just as bright as the day it was processed.Ha.Good one. I lust for it in 5X7 sheets again, which of course would probably be $200 a sheet if it ever were resurrected.
How long do you need to your shots to last? This ongoing thread itself will outlast most of us.
At least most of us hope to be alive long enough to witness the public hanging of anyone who dares to re-attach the Kodachrome name to anything other than the real deal.
link plsI made friends with a fellow on Facebook who has made a Kodachrome processor using sheets of acrylic like the old print washers.
It’s heartening to see he’s got a scrub brush remjet removal station and a long red light re-exposure station.
I think it’s going to work.
I find making C prints from my own color negatives easier and much much less frustrating than using photoshop. I don't like minilab digital prints from film or digital. Inkjet is OK except that the cartridges are always empty or clogged.I was being rhetorical. Question was framed within the 100% logical thread of discussion.
It is illogical to make optical enlargements in the age of high definition digital cameras and strong complex digital post processing.
You can defend the art and I'll stand by with you. Defend the logical practicality and you're being delusional.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?