Kodak kills Ektachromes

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" writes:

Bruce wrote:



I never did figure out who they thought the market
was that needed ISO 1600 daylight film.


Me neither.

Because daylight film shot under tungsten lighting produces a nice "warm"
feeling, but tungsten film shot under daylight is unusable.

Daylight film shot under household incandescent is hideous. I don't
think much of anybody left it unfiltered or unadjusted.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I've read a lot of professional photographers writing about how they
gave it up because processing was slow and unreliable (by their
standards). E-6 is 3-hour standard service in any big city (1-hour
rush); K-14 was taking them over a week, and wasn't as reliable.


Towards the end, perhaps. But I recall the days when Kodachrome was
processed in London and the service was very fast - if you mailed it
on a Monday you got it back in the mail on a Wednesday. If you hand
delivered it on a Monday it came back in the mail on Tuesday.

I used it some, in London (on visits), in that period. But even that is
24 hours instead of 3 hours .

I can even recall the address:
29 Deer Park Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 3UG.

Yikes. But I remember the address of my favorite restaurant in Chicago,
that closed more than a decade ago, so I can't actually complain you're
wasting brain cells :-). (I've never lived in Chicago. It was at 2218
N. Lincoln.)

It is etched on my mind having sent so many films there in yellow and
red mailers. ;-)

Sure.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

RobertL writes:

On Mar 6, 4:03*pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Michael writes:
On 2012-03-05 16:09:53 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Savageduck writes:

On 2012-03-01 21:01:48 -0800, Scammed Public said:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...lorReversalInd...

Aah! A new Rich persona & nom de Newsgroup.

Yup! It is sad to see the erosion of the film market. It is even
sadder to consider that this might have bee one of the last
potentially salvageable Kodak assets.

But there's clearly over-supply in the film market, and with no
realistic prospect of demand growth, getting rid of some suppliers is
necessary to let the remaining ones survive.

But it was the two best that went. Kodachrome was magnificent film and
the newer Ektachromes a close second, Fuji lovers
notwithstanding. When the market thins out by losing its best players,
something is wrong.

The market decided 15 years ago that it preferred Fuji slide films. *The
fact that not everybody agreed doesn't change it.

Also the Kodachrome processing was slow and uncertain, which ruled it
out for professional use.

Except, AIUI, for archival purposes - because it's colours were the
most stable long term (and aged predictably) it was routinely used
for documenting paintings etc.

Very good dark storage, poorer than Ektachrome in light resistance. So
your slides are fine until you project them :-). (That's still useful,
you just have to remember it and be careful.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-03-07 15:59:27 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet said:

snip


Very good dark storage, poorer than Ektachrome in light resistance. So
your slides are fine until you project them :-). (That's still useful,
you just have to remember it and be careful.)

But awesome for home movies. Each frame is projected for a fraction of
a second, so you can watch movies again and again and again (more than
you ever would want to) over many years and the colors remain. I have
my Dad's old 16mm Kodachrome from the 1950s and 1960s to prove it.
--
Michael