[PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film

[James B. Holland]

Probably a great number of items come into play here.

Personal Prejudice.

New vs old.

Youth without enough experience to recognize that this has been said of 
Every Old Tech replaced by New Tech  --  he shall get his later when 
Digital is replaced!

THE   VERY   SAME   THING   happened to  TrolleyCars  (with Don's 
Permission!!)    ----    they were old, hated, unwanted, dilapidated 
technology and had to be replaced by rubber tires.       Now Rail is 
making a comeback under another name but It Is Still Doing  THE   VERY   
SAME   THING    ----    taking people from the Proverbial Points A to 
Points B  --  Still CanNot Find These Places On Maps!

This is a case of being caught up in the medium and Missing The Message  
--  the final outcome, whether print or pixels OR.......???!!! :-D

THANK   YOU   KODAK   for providing a means for keeping memories alive.

THANK   YOU   DIGICAMS   for continuing the tradition of Kodak!




Edward H. Lybarger wrote:

> 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
>

=======Message--Truncated=======



Jim__Holland


I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!

down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!