Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
I have the right to reply to this thread, having as I do a collection of 20,000 Kodachrome slides from 1968 to 1994. It's not as if it is alien to me.
As Stephen has rightly pointed out in a later post, the process is dead on a cost-basis alone. I, along with anybody else here can see the beauty of Kodachrome slides more than 50 years since they were shot. But all that reminiscing isn't going to bring it back. Now, how about we embrace what we still have of film while that lasts? Or is that opportunity going to be wasted jockeying on keyboards? Sorry, but I've got photography to do.

Of course you have the right to reply to the thread, and to hold your own views, but surely not to tell people to "move on" when their interests and ideas don't happen to match your own.

You have photography to do...good, but it does not give you the right to expect that other people must share your enthusiasm, they may think that "jockeying on keyboards" interests them more, and why not?

Just because Kodachrome is "dead", in your opinion. does not mean that it's history and technical processing must no longer be discussed because you think it is a wasted opportunity. I have little interest in many subjects...for example, my wife has studied the history of fashion which is totally outside my interest, but I would not criticise. or dictate that Forums on that subject are a waste of time. I just don't read them.

P.S. What about the many "alternative processes" which have been studied and brought back from the "dead" to produce original and successful results? (Don't start, I am not saying that Kodachrome will be....but are there not toning processes for B&W based on similar principles to the color coupling used in Kodachrome?)