The same is true of transparency films. I have some Kodachrome transparencies from the early 1950s that are still excellent, and some where the image has almost vanished. I have a group of 127 ektachrome slides from 1960 that are mere ghosts. Paul
Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > On Monday, May 20, 2002, at 06:48 PM, William Robb wrote: > > > Batch to batch variations were pretty big, and they were always > > trying new formulations of either emulsion or chemistry. The > > technology of colour negative photography was still pretty > > young. > > When I was a newly-born baby, my father worked at Agfa Canada. If you > want examples of how wildly variable the longevity of prints made in the > early days of colour photography can be, one needs to look no further > than my family's photo albums. > > While I was at Sheridan, with access to a 4x5 copy stand, I made a > number of 4x5 duplicate negatives of images that have become almost > unviewable since then. > > I agree with Bob about making pigment prints on rag paper. This isn't > as costly or time-consuming as one might think: you can pick up an Epson > 2000P fairly reasonably these days, and good rag papers are only a few > dollars per sheet. Of course, if you farm the work out, it can get a > little pricey. > > -Aaron > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
