Make Kodak Great Again?
Make America Analog Again!
It is Trump's fault that we do not have Kodachrome, Plus X and HIE!
the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached.
It is Trump's fault that we do not have Kodachrome, Plus X and HIE!
...we have 17 pages of utterly irrelevant pseudo-technical debate.
... any slide film product with the dye couplers added during the development process would be a "legitimate" Kodachrome-type film, regardless of the colour rendition.
...Make America Analog Again! Mike
Well, actually I do wonder why we lost HIE. If Rollei (Agfa?) can profitably make that almost-IR film, why couldn't HIE survive?
Tri-X is very different to what it was in the 50's yet people seem to still like it. I'm sure that if Kodak were to come out with a revised Kodachrome they would make sure to keep the look and feel of the film similar to the original. They would be no point in reintroducing it otherwise.
What is really odd is that after 17 pages and links to previous discussions as well, is the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached.
What I mean is:
HIE was a true IR film. You could use a #25 red filter, look through the viewfinder, and the result would be from the infrared portion of the spectrum.
The Rollei film is "almost IR" -- it has too much sensitivity to the visible part of the spectrum so that if you want an infrared-only image you need to use a filter which is opaque to visible light (e.g R72). But you can't use that on an SLR and see through the lens. If you use a #25 filter, the IR effect isn't very noticeable because of the light from the visible part of the spectrum that has passed through.
I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lolDunno, I've seen some blood boil and eyes turn red when people discuss the MURDER OF TRIX ARRRGGGGGGG! IT USED TO BE SILVERREERERERERRE!
Dunno, I never liked the stuff. I'm a Tmax kind of guy.
I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lol
I saw a factory film of the kodak plant back in the 50's and you could see them tossing in tons of silver ingots into a vat full of nitric acid to create the silver nitrate needed for producing film!
I wonder if they are cost cutting and reducing the silver content, or simply the production volume is so low that nowhere near that much silver would ever be used these days?
...What is really odd is that after 17 pages and links to previous discussions as well, is the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached. Therefore the more interesting discussion is what would that new film be, but of course that is a discussion way beyond the SQEP of all but one or two people on this or any other such thread, so instead we have 17 pages of utterly irrelevant pseudo-technical debate.
At some point in the future scientists will study threads such as these to try and understand how such insanity manages to flourish amongst a group of people.
Apparently Kodak/Alaris hasn't made any sort of official announcement, so there is only speculation.Disregarding the pseudo science, what is your source for this so called 'fact' ?
...
Apparently Kodak/Alaris hasn't made any sort of official announcement, so there is only speculation.
But one fact is that Kodachrome, as it stands now, is not a product, it is a tradename. The owner of that name can apply it to any product they see fit.
You can get Trix at any grocery store and combines well with milk.Dunno, I've seen some blood boil and eyes turn red when people discuss the MURDER OF TRIX ARRRGGGGGGG! IT USED TO BE SILVERREERERERERRE!
I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lol
I saw a factory film of the kodak plant back in the 50's and you could see them tossing in tons of silver ingots into a vat full of nitric acid to create the silver nitrate needed for producing film!
Myth #6: Silver rich films and papers are better than modern films and papers that use lower silver.
This is an out and out myth!
In the early days of photography, emulsion making was a very imprecise science and led to emulsions in which there were a lot of what we called "Dead Grains". They were either insensitive to light or just would not develop. So, in order to get the right contrast or Dmax in a photoproduct, a high level of silver had to be coated. To achieve a density of 3.0 in a film may have taken 500 mg of coated Silver per unit area, 100 years ago, and today only 300 mg of silver per unit area. But, in both the old and new film, only 300 mg of silver per unit area is being developed. You see, a density of 3.0 can be related to an exact amount of real silver metal (taking into account the form of the silver that the developer creates).
The benefit in older emulsions comes from packing the Silver halide crystals tightly to give fine grain. Well, this is good, but today, the same grain can be achieved by making smaller crystals with better senstitivity. So, this evens out. In fact, we come out better with modern, finer grained films with lower silver. The modern films are less turbid and therefore are sharper! So we get the same grain today at higher speed and with greater sharpness all other things being equal, and we can use less silver halide per unit area. Just keep in mind that the amount of Silver metal that forms the image is likely the same or nearly the same in both the Silver rich and low Silver products.
Now, lets think back to myth #5 regarding old and modern developers. Here is a case where there may be another item to support myth #5 as being potentially a true fact. Old, silver rich films and papers will react differently in some of the old developers due to the fact that they were often designed with higher energy to try to push the dead grains into activity without fogging the product.
I have no specific cases for this latter to offer you, but merely present it as a possible special case!
Ron Mowrey
Well, actually I do wonder why we lost HIE.
This guy on the Film Photographers groups is telling everyone that he will develop your Kodachrome rolls for $25. The results are mediocre with some decent color shifts but it is color and Kodachrome (You will need to be a member of the Film Photographer's group to view) https://www.facebook.com/groups/119931904758842/permalink/1226654574086564/
Commander Keen, is this confirmed?That's piratology!
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?