Hi Bob Thanks for the recommendation, I do not see a "pro" mark on the yellow/red sample box, just "Kodachrome 64". I think I should try to get some for that price :-) greetings Markus
>>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:26 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good? >> >> >>Pro Kodachrome 64 is designed to mature in the dealer's cooler. >>Consumer grade Kodachrome 64 is very shelf stable. >>I have frozen it and used it years after it was out of date. >>I can't say for sure how it will hold up, but I would take the chance. >>Regards, Bob S. >> >>On 4/13/06, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I have an 8400f, which probably came with the same software yours has. >>> The canoscan software is crap, and requires significant tweaking for >>> each scan. I don't think it accommodates profiles. VueScan is quite >>> a bit better. There's even a Kodachrome setting. It's much easier to >>> get a usable image via VueScan that can be tweaked in Photoshop. It's >>> not perfect, and the colors aren't quite as saturated as they are on >>> the slides, but that could be due to the flatbed scanner combined with >>> my own inexperience. >>> >>> On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Hi Scott >>> > Oooh, good that you mention the scan problems you have. I >>would have to scan >>> > the slides too and I don't know if my Canon 9900f flatbed >>scan will be any >>> > good for that? >>> > Did you have some success with Vuescan or the supplied >>scanner software so >>> > far or could you at least correct - what errors ever - from >>a Kodachrome >>> > scan later in Photoshop? >>> > greetings >>> > Markus >>> > >>> > >>-----Original Message----- >>> > >>From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:47 AM >>> > >>To: [email protected] >>> > >>Subject: Re: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> Hi Mark >>> > >>> I have the opportunity to get some Kodakchrome 64 slide >>film dated 2003 >>> > >>> including development and framing and postage >>> > >>> for around 2 dollars a 36 exposure roll. The film comes from a >>> > >>professional >>> > >>> photo dealer who had them always cooled in the fridge. >>> > >>> He sells them now because Kodak stops developing slide >>film here in >>> > >>> Switzerland at the end of the year as far as his information >>> > >>goes so I would >>> > >>> have to use it soon. He says that because of the special >>nature of that >>> > >>> Kodachrome film such a long storage should not cause quality >>> > >>problems. He >>> > >>> says that compared to today's slide film this type is rather >>> > >>soft and color >>> > >>> muted, he sounds honest to me. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I would love to try about 40 rolls slide film at 10% of its >>> > >>original price, >>> > >>> would you trust it for **a not** important project? I have >>> > >>never used slide >>> > >>> film, I would be quite a new experience for me :-) >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>>From what I hear and read, Kodachrome is very stable. If it's been >>> > >>refrigerated like he says, then it's definitely worth a >>shot. And at >>> > >>$2 per roll, why not? You might as well use it while you can. >>> > >> >>> > >>I'm really starting to like Kodachrome, and just dropped off three >>> > >>rolls today. If only I could figure out how to scan it.......... >>> > >> >>> > >>-- >>> > >>Scott Loveless >>> > >>http://www.twosixteen.com >>> > >> >>> > >>-- >>> > >>"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Loveless >>> http://www.twosixteen.com >>> >>> -- >>> "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >>> >>> >>
