• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodachrome

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cholentpot said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not married; I do need to justify anything to you.
 

This is where I started my Spock roll. You didn't seem to read it honey pie.
 
Cholentpot said:
This is where I started my Spock roll. You didn't seem to read it honey pie.
Click to expand...

Sure I read it, but I also considered the source. Logical thinking.
 
OK, this may have been covered already, but I don't want to try to read the whole thread to find it. Do modern E6 emulsions have the same legendary storage lifetime for the developed images as Kodachrome had?
 
OMg what the heck with this thread.

Short answer: No on the E-6, although it was getting really better at the time they basically stopped any development (ha, see what I did there).
The main issue with longevity and E-6 is in couplers as I understand it.
 
Cholentpot said:
Count in the equipment and learning curve, it's far cheaper to get a digital print.
Click to expand...

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.
 

And you've circled back to make my point. There's no logic in all this, therefore as illogical as it would be to bring back Kodachrome in name only, I think it would still sell and work. Illogic drive the market. Be illogical.
 
not sure if it applies to other slide films but i read ICE doesn’t work on kodachrome (something in it absorbs infrared like BW film) which also limits the amount of profit labs would make if they brought it back. no one would want to buy scans.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the issue is that Kodachrome being basically a three layer B&W film has a raised 'relief' on the emulsion side and the ICE reads that inconsistently enough to make it non-functional.
 
wikipedia says the cyan layer absorbs infrared. most money these days in labs come from scanning i presume
 
Cinema said:
wikipedia says the cyan layer absorbs infrared. most money these days in labs come from scanning i presume
Click to expand...

In what relationship to developing and printing? Sources?
 
How long do you need to your shots to last? This ongoing thread itself will outlast most of us.
 
DREW WILEY said:
How long do you need to your shots to last? This ongoing thread itself will outlast most of us.
Click to expand...

It's our duty to keep it coming until Kodak resurrects the Kodachrome name. We then start a new 20 year thread of how bad it is.
 
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.
 
DREW WILEY said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Logically, Kodak could make a boatload of money with the Kodachrome name. Doesn't have to be the same as it was, just different from an existing product line. Let's assume the marketing and accounting departments have had a couple of meetings on the subject and will roll out that brand again when market conditions are favorable.
 
DREW WILEY said:
How long do you need to your shots to last? This ongoing thread itself will outlast most of us.
Click to expand...

YOU
WIN
THE
PRIZE!!

Seriously, i'm counting on this one to reach the 100 page mark.
 
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.
 
DREW WILEY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hanging is too lenient...
 
I 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.
 
Provia 100f is the closest extant equivalent.
Not very close, but a nice stab at it from Fuji.
Love that film to bits.
 
link pls
 
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.
Everything is cool if you are good at it. My Dad's Kodachrome slides scan well, require only slight adjustments in Light Room and make beautiful prints with my cheap Canon Inkjet printer.
I have some amazing digital cameras, never use them. Well maybe infrequently is more accurate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register