Me too!
Me too!Provia 100f is the closest extant equivalent.
Not very close, but a nice stab at it from Fuji.
Love that film to bits.
Kodak could make a boatload of money with the Kodachrome name.
They already sell vintage logo Kodak apparel, including Kodachrome.They'll put it on t-shirts and water-bottles.
How about it's more reliable to make a b&w enlargement to try to use a printer to do it.
Yes, I knew that. My post reflects what I really care about. Unlike the "current crew," I recognize that the only reason to use film is for its life expectancy. Otherwise, digital wipes the floor with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome and anything else "the current crew" really cares about.
That's not a reasonable statement. A novice at darkroom printing will struggle as much as a novice at digital printing. An expert at either will make short work of the task.
If your process is good, then digital has a slight advantage, because you know exactly what you're going to get before you commit any ink to paper.
I was talking about making an enlargement vs using an actual printer. I can wait 5 months and readily make an enlargement - it'll work just as well as the last time I did it. Every time I try to use my medium format inkjet printer, however, it wastes who-knows-how-much ink because it needs the head cleaned.
So it is a reasonable statement.
You might as well claim that development and darkroom printing is too difficult because your chemicals expired.
Not at all the same. Not even close to the same.
I bought 2 135 rolls of Fuji Provia on Thursday they cost £32 ( $42 U.S ) and the processing will cost £20 ( $26 ) that's 72 pence (almost $1) every time you press the shutter release.provia is the only slide film I’d consider shooting any more. boy has the price rocketed. i have a small fortune in my fridge that has doubled or tripled in price
Get a better printer. You might as well claim that development and darkroom printing is too difficult because your chemicals expired.
Of course it is. You're bringing in external factors that are irrelevant to the process of producing a darkroom, or digital, print. Saying you haven't used an inkjet printer in several months as a negative for digital printing-- Can you honestly say you could walk into your darkroom for the first time in 6 months, and produce a quality print without mixing new chemicals? Or at the very least, "waste" some of those chemicals to validate that they're still good?
It's part of the cost of the process.
Your bias
I'm not expressing any bias. I don't actually have any idea what you're actually arguing against. A printer is more irritating to use than making an enlargement. Period. If you don't think so, you don't know how to make an enlargement. (Not to be confused with digitally adjusting an image, which is undoubtedly easier than doing it in a darkroom. But I can make an enlargement of a digital image.)
I have had ten or so printers over the last 30 years. I'm quite aware how they work. Only two of them were Epson.
I'm not expressing any bias. I don't actually have any idea what you're actually arguing against. A printer is more irritating to use than making an enlargement. Period. If you don't think so, you don't know how to make an enlargement.
I have had ten or so printers over the last 30 years. I'm quite aware how they work. Only two of them were Epson.
Epson inkjets are notorious for having issues if they sit. Sorry you had a bad printer, but not all inkjet printers are bad, and many people use them quite successfully.
Your bias, however, is irrefutable, and sooner or later, the APUG anti-digital crew will descend, so there's not much point in discussing it.
We'll just have to disagree.
I mix chemicals when I enlarge. I don't use stuff that's been sitting around mixed for months (I don't leave anything sitting around for months). Anyway, that is unrelated. If you think the state of the printer is irrelevant to the process of making a digital print, there's nothing that can be said. I had an Epson Artisan that made excellent prints. Oh, what was wrong with it? Well, air bubbles in the tubes. It would waste around 1/4 of an ink cartridge getting rid of those. What else. The print head would get crusty. An 8x10, by the time you got one without lines or other weird artifacts, probably cost about $25, because the state of the printer added to the cost of the print.
Epson eventually released a firmware update that bricked the printer because I had a third-party ink cartridge in it. I couldn't find any way to reverse that so I smashed the printer to pieces with a hammer.
nice oneI’m not sure what this thread is about but here’s a Kodachrome imaggio that wipes the floor with any digibob Kemra.
View attachment 301558
I’m not sure what this thread is about but here’s a Kodachrome imaggio that wipes the floor with any digibob Kemra.
View attachment 301558
Indeed.How so?
Indeed.
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?