That's interesting. Since Kodachrome retains silver, and thus you can't use dust reduction technologies, I found it nearly impossible to scan. You must have a very clean environment.
I have a small scanning business where we market to seniors and their children to 'digitize' their heirloom transparencies. Scanning 40 year old Kodachrome slides is a joy. They look like they were made last week. The colour, the quality is fantastic. Especially when compared to 40 year old E6 type slides which are faded and thin.
Kodachrome does not retain silver, all of it is removed in the bleach.
The problem isn't in coating the film - it's the process (and process control) that's the issue.PE do you know if kodachrome was ever coated with the machine in B38?
In my book, "Investigating" means the public relations department said "let's run this up the flag pole and see who salutes it!".
Causes lots of false activity, makes people feel a tingle down their leg, and nothing gets done.
This technique is used by politicians of all stripes - it's easy to deny, and keeps their name in the press.
I just believe about 0.00314159% of what Kodak Public Relations / Advertising / Investor Relations says. Lips move, nice things are said, and nothing happens.
Well 5 pages of us on APUG have saluted it since yesterday. However if it really is "Kodak executives" running from the mouth in public without real thought and an almost zero chance of it happening then Kodak may live to regret the damage to its credibility this kind of thing can have.
pentxuser
There is something in Kodachrome which blocks infrared light. This makes use of dust removal and scratch removal impractical. Blemishes have to be removed manually. I have never had issues with color reproduction, and the only exposure issues have come from me initially improperly exposing the film in camera.Really? I don't know why I was never able to get good scans of it then. I'd have a nice, clean, perfect little image (to my eye at least) and couldn't for the life of me get a decent scan. Color was off, exposure was off, too much dust showing up, etc.
but, in all truth, a bit of a palaver at APUG is almost certainly of zero interest to anyone outside APUG.Well 5 pages of us on APUG have saluted it since yesterday. However if it really is "Kodak executives" running from the mouth in public without real thought and an almost zero chance of it happening then Kodak may live to regret the damage to its credibility this kind of thing can have.
pentxuser
Kodachrome slides are really thin - so thin, that the surface of the slide actually has a fair amount of physical relief that corresponds with the dense parts of the slide. If you look at the surface of a Kodachrome slide, you can actually see the relief with the naked eye.Really? I don't know why I was never able to get good scans of it then. I'd have a nice, clean, perfect little image (to my eye at least) and couldn't for the life of me get a decent scan. Color was off, exposure was off, too much dust showing up, etc.
Agree. Same thing happens with my scanner when I do B/W (which is most of the time). Need to remove scratch and dust with Gimp or something else.There is something in Kodachrome which blocks infrared light. This makes use of dust removal and scratch removal impractical. Blemishes have to be removed manually. I have never had issues with color reproduction, and the only exposure issues have come from me initially improperly exposing the film in camera.
There are two points here:
There is, in recent years, a definite trend towards nostalgia in numerous products and designs. An obvious example is vinyl discs....it is unarguably easier to use CD's, MP3's and downloads, all with excellent quality. But some (including myself) still like the sound quality and querks of vinyl, and are willing to pay for costly discs and high-end turntables. Why should Kodachrome be different.
And not all photography is about "ultra-accurate" colours (whatever that may be...all our eyes and brains see colour differently). But, if that is the only criteria, why do we bother with B&W, sepia toning, cyanotypes and all the other processes ? And maybe there is also some nostalgia, or at least intellectural or artistic interest in using old processes ? For that matter, why do artists still use paper, paint or coloured pencils, when a digital image is quicker, easier and a more accurate record ?
You've come crawling back. Yes, that would be nice.
Credibility? I moved to Ilford and Fuji years ago.Well 5 pages of us on APUG have saluted it since yesterday. However if it really is "Kodak executives" running from the mouth in public without real thought and an almost zero chance of it happening then Kodak may live to regret the damage to its credibility this kind of thing can have.
... If one tasted one next to the other, one would notice the difference, however leaving months in between for the old stock to disappear for a while meant that the Coke Classic could be foisted on the public. ...
The cherry on top would be MGB's circa 1967-1971 design (without Lucas Electrical systems).
Between 1961 and 1984 they went from Calgary to the Kodak processing lab in North Vancouver, BC.Outside the USA, Kodachrome was always sold with processing included and it was sent back to Kodak for developing, so I don't think that would be a problem for those who used it before. Always used to take about a week to get the slides back, but I have no idea where they went for processing.
If you want to see the results of many different scans of many different Kodachrome images, go to http://ronald.andrews.googlepages.com/kodachrome
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?