I've seen piles of ruined, faded old Kodachrome slides. There's nothing inherently permanent about those either. All it takes is a lack of air circulation and some humidity, and mold and mildew take over. PVC storage sleeves ruined many others. And many outright faded due to too much projection.
I too am a B&W film only photographer for my "normal" photography ... it gives me far more enjoyment than any digital.
My colour slide photography is very specialised ... medium format stereo photography. Once you see a stereo pair of 50x50mm colour slides (Ektachrome or Provia, I prefer the latter), viewed in a good optical stereo viewer, you will be hooked! It is literally as though you are standing in the exact place you took the photo, it's hard to find words to describe the realism. And once you're hooked, you spend too much money on film and all the trappings of film-based stereoscopy.
Not if Kodak did it in-house. And any excuse for why they can't do it is just a convenient excuse!
Couldn't you scan smaller formats and display them in 3D through a smart TV. My Sony TV displays 3D using active 3D glasses.
I am a huge fan of sterephotography, and while I've gotten proficient at the "cross your eyes" viewing approach, I'd love to learn which viewers you prefer and where I might get one. Medium and large format slides in stereo sound like pure magic.
It ain't going to happen!
Invest your karma in Fuji Supergloss instead. It's an even better product than Cibachrome, and can be developed in ordinary RA4 chem.
What is likely possible is to atleast create an E6 version with the basic look of Kodachrome.
I would buy this. I think a lot of other photographers would too. Kodachrome has enough of a reputation and legend behind it that Kodak could easily rely on it for marketing. Just imagine, KodEktachrome available in 35mm, 120, and sheets. I want it right now!
Just imagine, KodEktachrome
And you probably don't want to talk to any of the engineers like the late Ron Mowrey, who considered Kodachrome to be inferior to modern Ektachrome, due to the nature of the components available for such a process.
And you probably don't want to talk to any of the engineers like the late Ron Mowrey, who considered Kodachrome to be inferior to modern Ektachrome, due to the nature of the components available for such a process.
ICf you want it to happen, chat up the people who use Ektachrome for motion picture work. If their isn't push for it from both the still photo users and the motion picture users, it is unlikely to happen.
I would buy this. I think a lot of other photographers would too. Kodachrome has enough of a reputation and legend behind it that Kodak could easily rely on it for marketing. Just imagine, KodEktachrome available in 35mm, 120, and sheets. I want it right now!
Which is why we need a new E6 version of it!
The inherent problems in the last versions of Kodachrome - which were a bit better than earlier versions - meant that there was a built in inability to achieve colour fidelity.
The E6 films of the same era did not suffer from those problems, and were therefore able to achieve better colour fidelity.
I guess you could design into modern E6 materials the problems with Kodachrome colour fidelity, but would you want to?
You may consider it inaccurate, but it captured the essence of the scene more faithfully than any other.
Outright accuracy makes for a sterile and clinical image. Many of us seek more.
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?