=======================================================
-> This is The 'SPORRS' Mailing List
-> Info File: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/infosporrs.htm
-> Note: Remember to include your name in each list post or reply.
-> Please delete all unnecessary quoted text from the original message!
=======================================================
Brian Jennison wrote:
> K25 and K64 were introduced when, 1973 or 1974?
So you missed what Greg (and Kodak) said: Kodachrome has changed in the
nineties from the environmental concerns associated with its processing,
and it's no longer the same film, so no, you actually have less experience
with today's Kodachrome than I have with the Velvia I have been shooting
for nine years now. Give it a break. Technology is constantly changing
and nothing is like it was ten years ago or twenty years ago. How can
accelerated age testing be good for only the new Kodachrome, but not the
new E-6 films? I know that some devoted Kodachrome shooters would like to
believe that tests only work on Kodachrome, but the answer to that question
is that it can't, because the tests and results are the same. There is no
'nostalgia factor' in the laboratory. Such a bias can only exist in
someone's head, burned in from nostalgia and blinded by brand names. The
baseball Cardinals were a great team in 1982, but were they a great team
last year? Everything changes. So much for a name.
> From an archival perspective, the K25s that I
> shot in 1974 still look good, formaldehyde or not. And the Ektachromes
> that I shot in 1973 still suck! Brian
With all due respect, this statement is literally useless. Seriously, what
useful information can we extract from that nostalgic statement? We need
to keep this list free of flames and cheerleading. There is a better way
to use bandwidth than this. If you have something technical or descriptive
to say about your film that would be useful to others using film today,
then say it. Otherwise, please save it for some other list's soapbox
editorial. Stubborn opinions based on nothing more than a name are useless
today. Everyone knows that the E6 (and E-4) of yesteryear was not archival
and has long since been discontinued, so there is no need to compare apples
with oranges here anymore. They don't make that stuff anymore, so
comparing to it today and telling us that it STILL hasn't gotten any better
(duh!) is just silly. It's a good thing that something WAS learned from
the early failure of E-4 and E-6. It got better by necessity and through
research and progress. To the point where they erased the drawing board
and started over with new technology and specifically NOT what to do with
the new films. Kodachrome was great in its heyday, but it was run over by
technological progress and environmental concerns in the nineties.
What does arguing about things that you are not familiar with prove? So
you like your old Kodachrome? That's great. I like mine too. I can be
nostalgic too. But it's a new ball game now with new players, so it's time
to retire the old numbers with the old champs, and look at the new
generation, which arrived here and made it to the top for good reasons,
despite early setbacks in their youth. The concept of evolution driven by
necessity must escape some of you. Perhaps the thought of some
blindfolded, stumbling and bumbling scientists that must have thrown away
the gold plated instructions to the Kodachrome 'miracle' is more amusing?
"If you are basing your opinions of today's film on yesterday's technology,
you are cheating yourself and missing the point". This statement works
equally well now for both Ektachrome and Kodachrome. Luckily, technology
gets better with time by default. What a sorry world it would be that we
live in if we would have actually forgotten how to make film correctly
after a specific point in time. If we were all doomed to wait for time to
go by to prove our technological advances, then society would certainly be
arrested by our own fears and research and industry would be at a
standstill. We'd all be dead before we learn to analyze and test for the
effects of time on simple products like celluloid and dye. That's how
silly this topic has gotten.
Thread closed. This list isn't here for cheerleading.
Dave Cohen
SPORRS List Owner, Webmaster
=======================================================
-> SPORRS: 'Serious Photographers Of Railroad Related Subjects'
-> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/
-> Message © 1998 SPORRS® - All Rights Reserved
=======================================================
