Here's my 50 cents worth. (unable to express myself in 2 on any subject):
First, let's get one thing out of the way: Kodachrome's long life is only in
dark storage. when projected, it has one of the shortest lives of all
chromes.
Kodachrome has been an ongoing problem for Kodak. It is an admittedly good
film, but with some significant downsides. As I am given to understand by
photochemists, at the time it was developed, it was not possible to produce
a film with the dyes in the emulsion, like Ektachrome. Again, I'm not a
chemist, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm led to believe that all the dyes
are in the K chemistry. This makes it very unstable, and process control is
quite difficult. At one time, there were experienced chemists on duty where
ever Kodachrome was processed. This instability causes the color balance
problems many of us see.
Some years ago, Kodak revised the chemistry to make it more stable, and
began to manufacture the "Kodachrome Mini Lab", which allowed others than
Kodak to process Kodachrome for the first time. This was reported in the
press as an attempt on the part of Kodak to save Kodachrome, as they didn't
want to be in the lab business.
[Kodak has had an on-off relationship with the processing business. The
regional labs that were once known as Kodak, and are now known as Qualex,
have been in and out of Kodak ownership several times. Various business
plans for the company have included or not included consumer labs. I suspect
that this business can be volatile and can be unprofitable for a large
corporation to operate]
Those of us that have used Kodachrome know well the processing and color
balance problems. Some are able to get over the tendency to shift magenta
for the sharpness, just as many were able to live with Ektachrome's tendency
to shift blue for the quick processing. Most of us, though, have been less
able to deal with Kodak's tendency to return chromes with dirt, scratches,
and huge water spots. And then, there's the ongoing use of those cardboard
fuzz factories they call mounts.
Is Kodak trying to kill Kodachrome? Anyone who's worked in a large
corporation can agree that there are probably some people that are doing
just that, but as a corporation, no, I don't think so. It's more a situation
of lack of complete devotion. It would probably be better for them, as I
don't think they can make much money at it.
Every day, E6 gets better. Provia F is a viable replacement [your too green
is my better than magenta], and Fuji does seem to be more interested in the
business. Kodachrome has its advantages, but the lack of r&d will be the
thing that eventually kills it, as the disadvantages become less acceptable.
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|