[PRCo] Re: Kodachrome film

[Fred Schneider]

But no one projects a slide for two minutes ...  it is unlikely that  
it will ever accumulate that much time in a lifetime.

Of you project your slides for that long, I'll get up and go home.



fws
On Aug 19, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Bill Robb wrote:

> 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,
>>>>>
>> "You take railroad photos,
>>
>>>>> don't you?"  I answered, "Yes, how do you
>>>>>
>> know?"  He said that Central
>>
>>>>> sells most of its Kodachrome film to railroad
>>>>>
>> photographers.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob 8/18/05
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>