Kodachrome Reveals Photographers Errors

[dmr]

That's why I bring up Kodachrome all the time. I'd like to see it become more popular so it doesn't end up like many other good films. I think some "skirt" or "suit" "mouth" decides when a film must "go".

My hunch is that when a particular film, such as Kodachrome, is withdrawn, it's usually not by whim, but by declining demand. (Or in some isolated cases to steer demand over to a similar product.) Let's face it, Kodachrome is not the most popular film out there. It's slow (relatively), unforgiving, not as brilliant as the newer films, and inconvenient to get processed.

However, I also get the hunch that when Kodak decides to give up film entirely, it will be primarily by shortsighted corporate whim, in an attempt to give some numbers a boost in the short term.

 

[sooner]

I'm interested in the longevity of slide film, and appreciate many of the comments here. Where can one research the archival ratings of various slide films? I love shooting slides, partly because pictures of me as a baby/kid from 30-some years ago look like they were taken yesterday (except for the hair styles, of course), and I want to preserve mine for my kids. Googling this didn't bring much up. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.....Sooner/John

 

[djon]

Kodachrome was beaten by Kodak's first E6, over two decades ago.

That Kodak continued the product was due to the fact that they had a near-monopoly on the processing. After a while they turned all processing over to outside companies (licenses?), but E6 was superb and was processed with 4 hour turnaround in most US cities...

...and then along came superb C41 film, minilabs, 1 hour service.

Note: zero significant slide projector improvements after 1970. The public didn't even own good slide projectors and it had wanted prints all along, so it shot C41 and flocked to minilabs. Kodachrome died in the Seventies, but nobody noticed.

 

[djon]

IMO "archival" means 100 yrs without obvious change...

The ultimate archival storage is digital, with multiple backups (I use both an external HD and CDs). Digital backups will periodically need to be passed digitally along to whatever technology comes next...therefore it's good to file in TIFF (lossless).

Kodachrome changes and fades. My own collection shows it's no more stable than 30-yr old E4 (my Kodachromes from cc 1970 have faded a little, my fathers from 1950 are still good looking but have faded/changed more and would require masks to deal perfectly with the selective fading).

 

[Trius]

djon: OK. What is Kodak's current E6 that you recommend to demonstrate its superiority over K64? Or should we compare K200 to a 200 speed E6?

When Kodak refers to archival properties, they distinguish between long term storage in dark, controlled conditions and periodic viewing via projection. IIRC, E6 films have archival properties that may be superior to Kodachrome when frequent projection is considered. But for continual storage in dark, controlled conditions.

The Kodachrome tech pub (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...5/e55.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.9.22.7.14.14.3&lc=en) states:

"Archival (KODACHROME Films are the most archival transparency films) "

The suggested application guide for Kodak Professional Color Transparency Films (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103rf/e103rf.pdf) indicates that K64 and K200 are archival dark keeping. E6 films are not so designated, but this may be an older publication, even though it is still posted.

Any discussion of "archival" properties needs to be based on the definition of archival. I am not an archivist, so can't speak to the various definitions. But as I understand it, professional archiving includes storage conditions which are beyond what most home users can supply.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't shot a lot of E6 (Kodak or otherwise) lately, so I'd like to see real differences for myself with today's films. I'll shot some chromes and evaluate for myself.

Iskra: Agreed.

Trius

 

[Iskra 2]

I'm interested in the longevity of slide film, and appreciate many of the comments here. Where can one research the archival ratings of various slide films? I love shooting slides, partly because pictures of me as a baby/kid from 30-some years ago look like they were taken yesterday (except for the hair styles, of course), and I want to preserve mine for my kids. Googling this didn't bring much up. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.....Sooner/John

Hi Sooner, check the manufacturer's Technical Sheets. I won't repeat what Kodak and Fuji have to say, confirm for yourself what most know already. Without dropping names, some Museums avoid E6 films....... and......... digital storage is a "pain" for most of us interested in taking pictures instead of archiving CD's. Think about archiving a 35 mm Kodachrome slide. How big is the file if the entire image is captured (a drum scan)? Hmmmm..... see what most realize? Why compromise your treasured images? :angel: ........... and........ project one of those old slides with an old projector. Does it get any better? 😀

Image quality for most of today's consumers is an unknown. :bang:

:angel: