Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com> wrote:
[snip]
Peter leaves out some very real advantages of Kodachrome:
Objectively:
- -better acuity than *any* E6 emulsion, and better rendering of
fine details
- -Much better archival stability than E6 films (this is a *really*
big issue!!!!).
Subjectively:
- -a prettier palate than the current crop of E6 emulsions (although
I like Astia a lot).
- -a prettier grain structure (although, again, I like Astia).
I'm not a pro magazine photographer, and I am not beholden to
that industry's price-performance calculation.
For me, the qualities of Kodachrome are worth the wait and price.
It would sadden me enormously to lose Kodachrome 25 just at that
moment in my life where I have obtained optics capable of fully
exploiting that emulsion's characteristics.I dearly hope that
Eric Welch's speculation about Kodachrome 100 is correct. And
I think it bizarre that Peter would gloat over a reduction in the
variety of emulsions available to serious photographers, professional
or otherwise.
..........................................................................
Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: alexey@webcom.com
| PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840