I would imagine that each got cheaper (similar model) during the span each were utlizied as THE technology of the time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And then they got more expensive...
Also, 'expense' can be cultural, physical, environmental, intellectual, emotional... Not just financial.
Cheers,
R.
Exdsc
Well-known
I'm always baffled when people use the term film as if film is a single unified magical entity.
Kodachrome was a film and so is the Kodak gold something at wal-mart, are they the same stuff?
The kodak gold something negatives will be yellow in a year or so... Kodachrome on the other hand was great for storage. similarly Kodak gold something images are complete crap compared to the most basic phone camera, while Kodachrome images had a unique quality that is simply impossible to achieve with other means
Bring back Kodachrome and I'll sell all my digital gear. Similarly even if you give me Kodak gold something for free and pay me to shoot with it, I won't.
Kodachrome was a film and so is the Kodak gold something at wal-mart, are they the same stuff?
The kodak gold something negatives will be yellow in a year or so... Kodachrome on the other hand was great for storage. similarly Kodak gold something images are complete crap compared to the most basic phone camera, while Kodachrome images had a unique quality that is simply impossible to achieve with other means
Bring back Kodachrome and I'll sell all my digital gear. Similarly even if you give me Kodak gold something for free and pay me to shoot with it, I won't.
matt_mcg2
Established
My job involves archiving digital images on a large scale [for a famous UK library]. It can be done, and done well, but it isn't cheap, and it needs to be done deliberately, iyswim. Migrating data to new media, keeping hard drive arrays powered up, or tape robots maintained, running power to data centres, and so on. That's an active task. However, for what it's worth, I had cause recently to retrieve a load of images shot in the very early days of digital imaging of cultural heritage objects [stuff from large format scanning backs], and the files are fine. The percentage that had any data corruption at all was tiny, and I suspect they were corrupt before they were archived. The image quality is pretty good, too. Not as colour accurate as more recent stuff, but pretty good for digital images that are nearly 20 years old.
With well processed film, or prints, assuming they are left somewhere without extremes of environment, there's a decent chance they'll still be usable, even if no-one has actively looked after them.
With well processed film, or prints, assuming they are left somewhere without extremes of environment, there's a decent chance they'll still be usable, even if no-one has actively looked after them.
leicapixie
Well-known
Digital is wonderful. It is so much better than film esp. B/W. The new cameras are better than anything ever before. We've all read the same hoo ha.
NASA has files, millions it can no longer retrieve. If NASA cannot, what chance has leicapixie? Going thru my thousands of rolls, prior to long term storage only 2 rolls had faded.They were done at a "Pro-Lab". My develop in kitchen,bathroom, wherever were all pristine!
Since going to digital I have upgraded my computers, 5 times in 10 years. I need to go up to Windows 8, in order to make full use of Internet..
I am still shooting almost same film as i did in the 60's.
Scanning sucks. It really is nothing like a wet print. Not close.
I once was asked about a Magnum Workshop a friend did, here in Toronto.
I thought he would need to go digital.. Well suffice to say Gumanow developed and proofed his negatives each night after the day shoot. He made prints for show and or scan.. Gumanow was always on time, the digital users were not! I was most impressed. Totally impressed.
Digital is convenient. It may be as easy to see as hear 8 track tapes..
NASA has files, millions it can no longer retrieve. If NASA cannot, what chance has leicapixie? Going thru my thousands of rolls, prior to long term storage only 2 rolls had faded.They were done at a "Pro-Lab". My develop in kitchen,bathroom, wherever were all pristine!
Since going to digital I have upgraded my computers, 5 times in 10 years. I need to go up to Windows 8, in order to make full use of Internet..
I am still shooting almost same film as i did in the 60's.
Scanning sucks. It really is nothing like a wet print. Not close.
I once was asked about a Magnum Workshop a friend did, here in Toronto.
I thought he would need to go digital.. Well suffice to say Gumanow developed and proofed his negatives each night after the day shoot. He made prints for show and or scan.. Gumanow was always on time, the digital users were not! I was most impressed. Totally impressed.
Digital is convenient. It may be as easy to see as hear 8 track tapes..
Photo_Smith
Well-known
That's because they pretty much are the same stuff, it not that baffling really; silver halides suspended in gelatine on a plastic substrate.
It's not magic though...
Not exactly but there are more similarities than differences, they have a similar fabrication process with different chemical make up. Kodachrome has no colour couplers (added during processing) and a Remjet backing, Gold has a orange mask– those are the big differences.
Kodachrome has a very stable image probably good for several hundred years in dark conditions, it's life in sunlight can be measured in days, projected light in hours-so it depends.
Kodak Gold is a very stable emulsion with the latest synthetic dyes certainly you will be unlucky for it to last less that 50 years under normal storage conditions (assuming good processing).
Certainly Gold is capable of better images than the most basic 'camera-phone'
I have some Gold I shot in the 1980's that even today looks pretty good and certainly stacks up well against any camera phone.
That's rather silly. People pay me to take images and ~I'll give them what they want.
Here is a Kodak image from 1968 I printed a few years back:
Here's a Kodak Gold picture from about 1988:
A little grainy compared to modern 200 ISO film, hardly 'crap' have you thought your issue might be user error?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Ho Hum, I used to take the digital files from the camera's card (Smart Media) and store them on the hard disc in the computer. And back them up on floppy discs.
Later on I copied from the hard disc to CD's.
Later on I copied from the hard disc to DVD's.
Later on I copied from the hard disc to external HD drives and so on and so forth.
Each time I changed computers I've put all my pictures on the new hard disc and nothing much has changed, they load a bit faster and the monitors have improved and got bigger.
Whatever the next change is I'll probably repeat what I've been doing.
As for slides, some I took in the fifties have nasty crystals growing on them...
Regards, David
Later on I copied from the hard disc to CD's.
Later on I copied from the hard disc to DVD's.
Later on I copied from the hard disc to external HD drives and so on and so forth.
Each time I changed computers I've put all my pictures on the new hard disc and nothing much has changed, they load a bit faster and the monitors have improved and got bigger.
Whatever the next change is I'll probably repeat what I've been doing.
As for slides, some I took in the fifties have nasty crystals growing on them...
Regards, David