- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 23
- Format
- 35mm
Hi all,
A recent post by Ron Andrews (http://ronald.andrews.googlepages.com/kodachrome) talks about the longevity of Kodachrome. He quotes a Wilhelm Research document published in 1993.
Chapter 5 of William Wilhelm's "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" refers to the Arrhenius test, which is an accelerated aging test for a 20% loss of a film's least stable dye.
The results? Echtachrome (made starting in 1988): 220 years; Kodachrome 185 years.
A quote from Chapter 5: "Agfa has indicated that, based on its experience with the Arrhenius test, the dark storage predictions given for its products...may have a margin for error as high as 50%."
So what are we to make of all this?
Is Echtachrome's life expectancy is 220 years +-110 years while Kodachrome's is 185 years +-92.5 years?
So, worst-case (for Kodachrome), Echtachrome could last 330 - 92.5 = 237.5 years longer than Kodachrome.
Or, Kodachrome could last 277.5 - 110 = 167.5 years longer than Echtachrome.
Or is it that Kodak would have used the same testing methods for both of its films -- meaning that modern Echtachrome really does last longer than Kodachrome?
There's no doubt that Kodahcrome's slower 64 speed is a negative (I use a tripod at all times), as is its lack of projection stability, but I like the way Kodachrome looks (rich without being annoyingly saturated).
Should we all switch to Fuji Provia 400x because of it "provides improved image stability and resistance to fading" -- presumably even better than Echtachrome?
Or is Echtachrome the winner?
I suppose that the Kodachrome 100 and 400 that were never released would have had even better archival properties?
What are your thoughts? I would appreciate your help.
A recent post by Ron Andrews (http://ronald.andrews.googlepages.com/kodachrome) talks about the longevity of Kodachrome. He quotes a Wilhelm Research document published in 1993.
Chapter 5 of William Wilhelm's "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" refers to the Arrhenius test, which is an accelerated aging test for a 20% loss of a film's least stable dye.
The results? Echtachrome (made starting in 1988): 220 years; Kodachrome 185 years.
A quote from Chapter 5: "Agfa has indicated that, based on its experience with the Arrhenius test, the dark storage predictions given for its products...may have a margin for error as high as 50%."
So what are we to make of all this?
Is Echtachrome's life expectancy is 220 years +-110 years while Kodachrome's is 185 years +-92.5 years?
So, worst-case (for Kodachrome), Echtachrome could last 330 - 92.5 = 237.5 years longer than Kodachrome.
Or, Kodachrome could last 277.5 - 110 = 167.5 years longer than Echtachrome.
Or is it that Kodak would have used the same testing methods for both of its films -- meaning that modern Echtachrome really does last longer than Kodachrome?
There's no doubt that Kodahcrome's slower 64 speed is a negative (I use a tripod at all times), as is its lack of projection stability, but I like the way Kodachrome looks (rich without being annoyingly saturated).
Should we all switch to Fuji Provia 400x because of it "provides improved image stability and resistance to fading" -- presumably even better than Echtachrome?
Or is Echtachrome the winner?
I suppose that the Kodachrome 100 and 400 that were never released would have had even better archival properties?
What are your thoughts? I would appreciate your help.