[PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film

Fri Aug 19 17:04:36 EDT 2005

There's a host of misinformation out there on almost any digital subject.  I
attended a seminar several years ago on digital imaging, and all the
speakers did was frighten the listeners about how short a longevity any
medium had.  They cited audio tape as an example of something that wouldn't
be any good after ten years; video tape was said to have an even shorter
life.  I have audio tapes that were recorded in 1951 and are still perfectly
listenable (assuming there's a half-track recorder around to properly play
them!), so I have to take these comments as somewhat less than reliable.

The other thing that we have to remember is the reality of The (Your
Specialty Here) Full Employment Act.  All these people out there preaching
doom need work.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Bill
Robb
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:44 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film

His name is John Ryan.  He is young, a former Cover
One contest winner and will have a quarterly column on
digital photography.

I would have thought more like two hours also.
Otherwise anyone who had done several slide shows
would see some difference. I'm curious about his
source.  Could it be Kodak and could they have a
motive to discourage sales of a declining product
line?  Also could be that the formula for Kodachrome
has changed as the market drops and raw material
supplies and prices fluxuate.

Bill Robb

--- "Edward H. Lybarger" <trams at adelphia.net> wrote:

> The image degradation that occurs by projecting
> Kodachrome is vastly
> overrated in this article.  Your slide is not
> "irreparably damaged" after
> 120 seconds of screening.  If that were so, a lot of
> my stuff would be a
> wasteland.
>
> I'd be curious to know who the author was (I don't
> read the magazine on a
> regular basis).  The real expert on image permanence
> appears to be a gent by
> the name of Henry Wilhem, whose articles appear in
> legitimate photo
> journals, but not generally railfan magazines.
>
> Kodachrome degradation does occur with increased
> projection, but you need to
> be talking two HOURS, not two MINUTES.
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
>
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On
> Behalf Of Bill
> Robb
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:17 PM
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film
>
>
> There's an article on digital photography in
> September
> 2005 Railfan & Railroad with a couple of interesting
> quotes:
>
> "Much of the complaining over digital images has
> been
> the work of a small but vocal minority."
>
> "Even the much-acclaimed Kodachrome, once the
> standard
> in longevity, will begin to fade after just two
> minutes of cumulative projection.  Show a shot for
> ten
> seconds twelve times, and your slide is irreparably
> damaged."
>
> Speaking of longevity, do any of you with large,
> unique collections have a will or a willing will to
> protect your collection and ensure your wishes are
> carried out should something unexpected happen to
> you?
>  Most of us are past 50 at least.  Ray Neilson the
> producer of the GPS traction videos recently passed
> away relatively quickly and only in his 50s.
>
> I see advantages to digital (ability to make
> multiple
> copies, multiple storage mediums: CDs, memory cards
> and print; and keeping the original in your hands).
>
> Have any of you ever lost a roll of film, had a roll
> of film break in the camera or had the film damaged
> when sent in for processing?  We tend to forget
> these
> things years later.  I lost a roll of Pittsburgh
> traction slides with a break in a roll of film in
> the
> 70s. Oh, how that hurt!
>
> Kodachrome is no longer readily available outside of
> the big city speciality camera stores these days it
> seems.  For most part I use digital now, with a
> professional print of the photos I like.  I also
> backup my images on CD.  I don't trust my computer's
> hard drive.  Never have, never will. But I only take
> photos for my own enjoyment.  I don't profess to be
> trying to document history, although in its own way
> each photo documents history whether or not I intend
> it to.  :) It's just a great way to enjoy myself.
>
> One thing to remember, prints can survive getting
> wet
> in a flood.  Most can be restored.  After all what
> is
> in an old-fashioned dark room?  On the other hand,
> anything digital would be destroyed.  This is why it
> pays to have print copy.  And floods don't just have
> to be from below.  Today many tiolet tanks develop
> cracks and start pumping and pumping....
>
> Bill Robb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Fred Schneider <fschnei at supernet.com> wrote:
>
> > And there are pictures of yours truly as an infant
> > in 1940 that have not faded
> > materially.  Must of my Ektachromes from 1960 are
> > shot.  Dad's Ektachromes are
> > badly faded as well as his Anscochromes and
> > Anscocolor slides.   However, I've
> > been told that most of the films not have a
> similar
> > dye longevity and at age 65,
> > what do I care?   Where am I going to put 10,000
> > general interest slides
> > anyway?   Furthermore, no one seems to be
> concerned
> > with whether or not they can
> > read digital files next year.   And our own census
> > department can't read the
> > tapes from the 1960 census.
> >
> > Bob Rathke wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, Fred.  That's why on fantrips and
> runbys
> > I usually take up a photo
> > > position hundreds of yards away from the railfan
> > crowd.  And while riding a
> > > trolley or train I've been known to photograph
> the
> > curious local residents
> > > on the street rather than the car or train I'm
> > riding in.
> > >
> > > I've been shooting Kodachrome since 1957
> because,
> > in the words of Paul
> > > Simon, "They give us those nice bright colors."
> I
> > was burned by the awful
> > > color shifts in Ektachome film in 1960-61, while
> -
> > happily - after 48 years,
> > > Kodachrome has proven that its color lasts.
> > >
> > > Bob 8/18/05
> > >
> > > -----------------------------
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
> > > To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:25 PM
> > > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film
> > >
> > > > Long ago I came to the conclusion that
> railfans
> > were hampered by the
> > > > opinions of too many of their friends, and
> that
> > the best railroad
> > > > photographs were taken not by railfans but by
> > journalists whom no one had
> > > > told that 1) people should not be included, 2)
> > that the rods had to be
> > > > down, 3) that the doors had to be closed, 4)
> > that only the right side
> > > > could be photographed, and so forth.  Is the
> use
> > of Kodachrome just one
> > > > more example or is it simply that we were
> burned
> > too many times with the
> > > > dye longevity of other emulsions?
> > > >
> > > > P. S.  I count people like Philip Hastings,
> > David Plowden,  and Jim
> > > > Shaughnessy as photo journalists because they
> > earned many a check for
> > > > their work  and we know that Ted Benson and
> > Winston Link  earned their
> > > > living that way.  These men are (were) masters
> > (in the biased opinion
> > > > of Fred).
> > > >
> > > > Bob Rathke wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I had a meeting in the Loop today, so I took
> > the Metra train downtown.
> > > >> On the way back to Union Station, I stopped
> at
> > Central Camera to buy some
> > > >> slide storage boxes, and I found that they
> had
> > a large supply of
> > > >> Kodachrome 200 film at $8 per 36-exposure
> roll,
> > so I stocked up.
> > > >> When I was checking out, the clerk said to
> me,
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com