Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,424   Online: 810
      
Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1721222324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 341
  1. #261

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    997
    In the late '80s, Ray DeMoulin tried to give Kodachrome a 'push'.. See http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00XWtx

    A key comment by Ron Andrews is "He started all of these development programs because he wanted them. Later in the project when someone finally did some number crunching, they found that the sales projections didn't justify a new film. Ray could get the programs started on his say so, but he still had to answer to some other people before he could get a product out the door."

    I worked on a number of projects for Ray. I should mention that he is the guy at Kodak that started the program I worked on for the original DCS - but he did (and still does) love film!


    You might want to look at Ron Andrew's Kodachrome pages at http://www.randrews4.com/kodachrome.html
    Last edited by Prof_Pixel; 11-09-2012 at 09:31 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added Ron Andrew's pages URL

  2. #262
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,229
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    What I mean by it was on life support in 1978, is that already Kodachrome was starting to lose market share to other film technologies, like E6 and C41, even if digital had never been invented, we would still have seen Kodachrome fade into history.
    On the market share issue, I have no disagreement with you.

    I did, however still prefer the qualities of Kodachrome right through the early 1980s. When the Kodak lab in western Canada closed, that definitely started to wain.

    I assume that you weren't in Canada at the end of the 1970s, or bought Kodachrome from outside the country, because as far as I am aware all Canadian sold Kodachrome included processing until the early 1980s.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #263
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,822
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    I never actually used Kodachrome, the results I saw were grainy with weird colours, and it was slow, and more expensive to process. 75 years ago, it was a brilliant idea, but, really, Kodachrome was on life support when I started shooting colour in 1978, there were other transparency films with better colour accuracy, finer grain, higher speed and easier processing even then, 34 years ago now.
    No to most of that. It was rather slow, granted. But it wasn't remotely grainy, except the short lived 200 stuff. In fact it was so sharp that well into the 80s commercial shots and some stock agencies preferred either a 35mm Kodachrome or an 8x10 Ektachrome. Anything else wasn't as sharp. The colors were not subjectively weird, whatever the curves may look like. As I posted before, sometimes Caucasian flesh tones can be a bit pale, but overall the color is rich and vibrant. It does have its own look.

    There's a fair amount of Kodachrome from my 2010 "farewell to Kodachrome" on my Flickr page. Some do look grainy, but those are on Kodachrome 200, which was also all well past expiration by then too. I bought it all off eBay all stores being out of it by the time I started buying it, and had no way to know how it had been stored before I got it.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerco...7625927349242/

  4. #264
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    What I mean by it was on life support in 1978, is that already Kodachrome was starting to lose market share to other film technologies, like E6 and C41, even if digital had never been invented, we would still have seen Kodachrome fade into history.
    Market share was not lost until 1990 or therabouts.

    PE

  5. #265
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Market share was not lost until 1990 or therabouts.

    PE
    Thanks for stating that, PE. Kodachrome was not "on life support" in 1978, or anything close to it. It was used extensively. That's 4 years after K-14 was introduced. If it had been on life support, would Kodak have come out with 120 format K64 and K-200 8 years later?

    The E-6 films were improving, but they had to overcome a Kodachrome user base that had found nothing to replace it, and many were going to continue to use the K-films because they were so familiar with them.
    Myself, I found Fujichrome oversaturated and Ektachrome to be bluish. I have wildflower slides from 1982 that were taken at the same time, Ektachrome in one camera and K-64 in the other, and the California poppies on the Kodachrome were orangeish the way they really were, and on the Ektachromes they were yellow. It took a long time for E-6 films to be widely preferred over the K-films, not just accepted in their place.
    Last edited by lxdude; 11-09-2012 at 11:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #266
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    On the market share issue, I have no disagreement with you.

    I did, however still prefer the qualities of Kodachrome right through the early 1980s. When the Kodak lab in western Canada closed, that definitely started to wain.

    I assume that you weren't in Canada at the end of the 1970s, or bought Kodachrome from outside the country, because as far as I am aware all Canadian sold Kodachrome included processing until the early 1980s.
    I was here, born and raised, I got into serious photography in the late 70's and into slides in the early 80's, the Kodachrome I saw shot by friends was not impressive, I used some other chrome films myself, and then gave up on it, when I realized I wasn't going to be projecting them, and printing negatives was cheaper and easier. This is one of the problems a lot of people here are running into, printing from slides now that the successor to Cibachrome, Ilfochrome is history, is only really possible using digital technology.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  7. #267

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Market share was not lost until 1990 or therabouts.

    PE
    Not wanting to drag up what I posted some two years ago (and was well discussed then)....here, in the UK, this was just about the time when the previous high-quality factory processing went to pieces, with scratched films, poor mounting, slow service, which should never have happened with a "flag-ship" product.

  8. #268
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,209
    Images
    225

    Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    No to most of that. It was rather slow, granted. But it wasn't remotely grainy, except the short lived 200 stuff. In fact it was so sharp that well into the 80s commercial shots and some stock agencies preferred either a 35mm Kodachrome or an 8x10 Ektachrome. Anything else wasn't as sharp. The colors were not subjectively weird, whatever the curves may look like. As I posted before, sometimes Caucasian flesh tones can be a bit pale, but overall the color is rich and vibrant. It does have its own look.

    There's a fair amount of Kodachrome from my 2010 "farewell to Kodachrome" on my Flickr page. Some do look grainy, but those are on Kodachrome 200, which was also all well past expiration by then too. I bought it all off eBay all stores being out of it by the time I started buying it, and had no way to know how it had been stored before I got it.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerco...7625927349242/
    Roger were you there at the lab on the last day with Dan (Bayer) and I? There were a bunch of photographers so it's hard to remember them all.


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #269
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,618
    I just want to corroborate what you say on your flickr page.

    Your wife is indeed lovely. She also looks like she's a delight to be around, and I will venture to say that you are one lucky guy.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #270
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,822
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Roger were you there at the lab on the last day with Dan (Bayer) and I? There were a bunch of photographers so it's hard to remember them all.


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nope. Never been in any Kodachrome lab.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin