Re: [Leica] RE: Kodachrome blues

[chucko@siteconnect.com (Chuck Albertson)]

Without wanting to date myself too much, when I started shooting
transparency film, Kodachrome II (for a short while) and then K25/K64, was
the film of choice. The E-4 alternatives, Ektachrome-X and High Speed
Ektachrome, were grainy, not nearly as sharp, and had an annoying bluish
cast to them. If I recall correctly, the Ektachromes cost more, too.
Kodachrome's archival qualities were pretty well known then, but mostly on
the basis of anecdotal evidence. It was a few years before Henry Wilhelm
started taking an independent look at the subject, and publishing the
results of his research.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "GPYLE" <gpyle@netnitco.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Kodachrome blues


> Les:
>     As one from the "older crowd" I can honestly say that, for myself at
> least,  thoughts of permanence, at least for color slides, was not high on
> the list of determining factors.  I was introduced to Kodachrome by my
> father.  Kodachrome was available everywhere photographic film was sold
and
> it was so commonly used that a 35 mm color transparency was just refered
to
> as "a Kodachrome".  I don't remember when Ektachrome was introduced.
> Perhaps someone else will.   With me, permanence has been a welcome
suprise
> and one that justifies my continued use of the film.   As to your side
note,
> both b&w prints and negs will last a very...*very*....long time provided
> they have been properly processed and stored.  And that is the key.
>
> George Pyle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Les Bonser <lbonser@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 2:45 PM
> Subject: [Leica] RE: Kodachrome blues
>
>
> > I've been following the Kodachrome thread that's been running for the
last
> > couple days.
> >
> > I have only just tried Kodachrome recently; but found it very
interesting.
> I
> > really liked the three-dimensionality of the slides. A friend of mine, a
> guy
> > who thinks his $400 Olympus digital is the tops in photographic
> excellence,
> > even commented on the quality.
> >
> > My question to the older crowd is this: When you were shooting
Kodachrome
> > 30-40-50 years ago, did you know it was going to last as it has, or has
> its
> > permanence been a welcome surprise.
> >
> > On a side note, I know B&W prints, properly processed, will last a long
> > time. What about B&W negatives?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Les
> > lbonser@worldnet.att.net
> > Photo Gallery: http://home.att.net/~lbonser
> >
> >
> >
>
>