Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,953   Posts: 1,522,776   Online: 1018
      
Page 44 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3438394041424344454647484950 LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 493
  1. #431

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza View Post
    I don't mean to be rude to anyone here but there are many other photographic pursuits I have which I feel deserve far more of my time. Both for financial reasons and personal photographic enrichment. My biggest interest at this point in time (apart from running my lab) is developing a replacement pos to pos analog process to replace Ilfochrome. I'm also interested in exploring colour processes both in camera and in darkroom which are not dependent on materials or technology from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc...
    This is more than fair and sounds like it is coming from a guy who like me, knows we all only have 24 hours in one day despite what technological marvels lie ahead. I think nailing down a replacement for Ilfochrome would be a great idea, I had a nice exchange of emails with Christopher Burkett recently that was quite eye opening in terms of who ended up with the majority of the last run of that material. I am far more interested in printing a show from my exsisting Kodachromes than shooting and souping new ones.

    So where does a thread like this go from here...?....that seems to be the problem. I think while having people asking for a form of home brew K-14 recipe book from the likes of you and Ron is verging on reasonable, it might still take more time than you are willing to part with to break it down and present it.

    That seems to be the new rub here, people want your process so they can find the next lab guru who is willing to give it a shot. We all have to be fair and respectful of people's time and individual needs. I would be the last person to complain that someone is not handing me a K-14 cookbook, I don't exactly see a venture capitalist posting on here that they have a few million that they need to spend on a "good cause"...
    Last edited by PKM-25; 08-29-2013 at 08:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #432
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,346
    Aside of Kodak many other manufacturers all over the world did manufacture films of the Kodachrome-type.
    And even more labs existed.

    This whole Kodachrome thing looks to me like searching for a holy grail.

  3. #433
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,928
    Images
    65
    Ken, you said "Besides, building on the previous work of others is how science and engineering progresses." earlier. Yes, true, but the purpose is to move on to better things than in the past. So, this statement, in the context of this thread, is wrong.

    You also said " We've seen that as a proof-of-concept exercise right here. That was the genesis of this thread.", but we have seen that it is too hard and too expensive. I've said I know how to do it and will not even attempt it.

    Clayne, you said: "So we basically have 2 people on here who *could* just brain-dump all they know about this process into this thread, regardless of the fact that it may never pan out into anything suitable, a boatload of Kodachrome still sitting around out there, and we're not even going to get it out there so others can *try*? "

    Well, as one of those people, I remind you that the entire sequence is in the patent, and it is also in the Kodak PDFs. They were given earlier in this thread. I think that enough is enough! Does it have to be repeated on every page of this thread or should we make a video of it for youtube?

    PE

  4. #434

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Well, as one of those people, I remind you that the entire sequence is in the patent, and it is also in the Kodak PDFs. They were given earlier in this thread. I think that enough is enough! Does it have to be repeated on every page of this thread or should we make a video of it for youtube?
    This actually speaks to me of a much larger problem brought on by the internet age. If someone can not easily find an answer, they give up and move on to easier questions. For example, people ask me things like "Can you still buy film for that?" or "Where can you even buy film anymore?" and yet they will stop at nothing to go handle a DSLR in a local camera store and then turn around and order it from Amazon. Well I just want to say..."You can buy FILM on Amazon people, LOOK for it!"

    What I am getting at is that people have been generally dumbed down by their own lack of intrepid thinking in terms of deciding upon something and then leaving no stone unturned to get the answer or the result they are looking for. This thread is a great example as Mr. Frizza left no stone unturned to attain his goal of getting a color result from Kodachrome film in a post K-14 era, experimental or otherwise. You have mentioned over and over again that the patents exist and is also in the Kodak PDF. If I wake up tomorrow and have some divine revelation that I am supposed to develop rolls of Kodachrome, I would get those PDF's and all relevant information in hand before sending a PM to you and Mr. Frizza for additional practical info. I would also talk to my friend at Dwayne's to get some background on the process from that standpoint.

    All the information to process Kodachrome is out there in the world, it's no secret locked in a Morton salt mine in South Hutchinson Kansas. What is missing now in this thread is the person who is actually going to do more than just talk about it and point fingers of blame that they are not getting some damned hand out from the two people on this thread that have the experience and knowledge to activate the process.

    But that is the web for you really, mostly talk and no action...no pictures for that matter either.

  5. #435

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    ...No one tried to stop the OP. Why was he allowed to continue, but now others can't give it a try as well?...
    Therein lies the crux of why those who cry "enough!" are so frustrated with the perpetuation of this thread and the haranguing of first Steve, then Ron and Gerald. Anyone can "give it a try." Nobody is giving it a try. Unless and until someone does, all the energy and bandwidth dissipated in this thread detracts from potentially useful discussion about areas of chemical imaging that aren't dead.

    Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."

  6. #436
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,087
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Ken, you said "Besides, building on the previous work of others is how science and engineering progresses." earlier. Yes, true, but the purpose is to move on to better things than in the past. So, this statement, in the context of this thread, is wrong.
    Perhaps then what's missing here is an updated frame of reference to help judge a more accurate definition of "the past".

    If the current state of the system is such that there is a significant amount of leftover Kodachrome squirreled away in freezers* (both exposed and unexposed) and there is no longer any processing option available for those rolls, then any movement toward creating a new processing option would, in my book, fall under the category of a "move on to better things than in the past."

    I mean, right now the most recent "past" is that no available processing options are available at all. Any new follow-on option, even if it's not exactly the same as the original option, is better than no option at all. Maybe not for everyone. But judging by past posts to this thread, definitely for some.

    Ken

    * I have one roll of K64 myself. But it's not for shooting. It's for smelling...

    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  7. #437
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,087
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."
    The point is not that they haven't yet given it a follow-on try. It's that there is a small group here that is actively discouraging anyone from trying at all. And thus far, they seem to be succeeding. Other posters have already mentioned taking their discussions offline from APUG because they are afraid of the reactions they are seeing here. That's just intimidation, plain and simple.

    From scientific, engineering, and professional points of view, that's the mindset I don't understand.

    And as far as energy and bandwidth goes, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own allotments of those? Their energy belongs to them, not us. I have no right to tell them how they should spend it. Or that they should move on because I don't like what they are discussing.

    Do you?

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-29-2013 at 11:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  8. #438

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    858
    The simpler, more colour-accurate, cheaper, currently home-achievable alternatives to Kodachrome are E6 transparency films.

    This particular wheel was reinvented some time ago - no need to do it again, except from an industrial archaeology perspective.

  9. #439

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,849
    Ken, don't you think that there are other people who choose to not rack up post counts on the internet that have tried to soup it? I do and I think that if they arrived at anything even remotely viable in terms of financing it and getting a return on that investment, we would have heard about it by now. The analog world is not fully represented on this site, I am willing to bet over 50% of truly active analog shooters never post here because they choose not to spend every waking moment on a lame-a$$ computer.

    The bottom line is that if someone wants to try to get a color result out of Kodachrome, the info is out there and they can ask people on here directly via a PM for info if they choose since threads are often an unnecessary distraction from getting the real work done. And who is really intimidating anyone here? There is not a single person on here that has said they want to really give it a try but feel like that it is impossible based on what has been said so they are not going to.

    Once I decide I am going to do something, I damn well do it and not a single person can tell me otherwise. All I see on here is the same old time wasting mission of post after post on the internet instead of living real life. People who do don't talk about it, they do it and then SHOW you what they did. Continually talking about something instead of doing it is a wide spread information age based sickness. I bet if someone comes on here with info about what they have tried, Ron and Stephen would be more than happy to lend a hand, otherwise, WTF is the point?

  10. #440

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    ...Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The point is not that they haven't yet given it a follow-on try. It's that there is a small group here that is actively discouraging anyone from trying at all...
    Incorrect. They're being discouraged from continuing to blather endlessly about it. If/when someone actually tries, I'm confident that every poster in this thread would be very interested in reading about the results. Until then, not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    ...Other posters have already mentioned taking their discussions offline from APUG because they are afraid of the reactions they are seeing here. That's just intimidation, plain and simple...
    Nonsense, Ken. No children are involved in this thread. If the strongly stated opinions of those with decades of organic chemistry and photographic engineering experience convince naive posters to end their repetitious fantasies here and continue them elsewhere, in my opinion that's a successful APUG outcome, not intimidation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    ...as far as energy and bandwidth goes, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own allotments of those? Their energy belongs to them, not us. I have no right to tell them how they should spend it. Or that they should move on because I don't like what they are discussing. Do you?
    The "right" to "tell" anyone what they can and cannot do on APUG is reserved to this site's owner. Terms of service spell out what members and subscribers are authorized to post.

    As long as my posts adhere to APUG's rules, I have the "right" to express my opinion that, in its current form, this thread is nothing more than a distraction from more productive discussions. There are so many other aspects of analog photography which haven't already died -- like Kodachrome has -- that would derive more benefit from exploration and promotion. In my opinion, this thread can actually be considered detrimental. So yes, I have the "right" to post a suggestion that we "move on" from this thread. If I did so as often or insistently as fantasies have been repeated in it, you might have cause to gripe. But I haven't.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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