Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: the fling is over/my search has ended
From: Rolfe Tessem <>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 19:16:49 -0500
References: <20020401152538-r01050000-C6512889-45C7-11D6-9263-003065C7DF66-1 013-010c@>

> On 4/1/02 Ted Grant wrote:
>> What some of the people here praising Kodak for their KR processing and
>> perfection of every roll coming back peachy keen is wonderful for them.
> When
>> so many of us have had film destroyed or mucked up beyond belief for a
>> company of Kodak's stature.
>> Besides that,  folks here have absolutely no idea the mental trauma and
>> amount of monetary loss a professional photographer can suffer when all
>> his/her efforts and irreplaceable film has been wiped out. It's quite
>> devastating really, particularly on a high profile assignment.

Actually, I think it is a reminder that that the Kodachrome processing 
machinery is from an earlier era. I don't remember hearing these horror 
stories about Kodachrome processing 20 or 25 years ago, and I suspect one 
reason is that the processors are just plain getting old.

Secondly, they are, by virtue of their design, not of the "dip and dunk" 
variety that is considered standard nowadays in any professional E6 lab. 
Machinery that runs the film, stapled to the previous roll or not, through 
the chemical baths on rollers is prone to so many failure points that some 
failures are sure to occur.

The beauty of the "dip and dunk" processors is that, mechanically at least, 
there isn't *that* much to go wrong. And if something does go wrong, it 
shouldn't affect a huge number of rolls.

And let's not forget Jobo in all this. With a small investment (at least by 
Leica standards) you can be absolutely sure of getting good negs or 
transparencies. The E6 3-bath chemistry has also improved to the point that 
it seems to be indistinguishable from the older 6-bath version. Which 
translates into pretty simple processing, especially in one of the Jobo 

Finally, in my business, which is television production, we carry negative 
insurance on everything we do which covers complete reshoots and business 
loss in the event of a lab screwup (it also covers camera malfunctions, 
faulty stock, etc.) I'm surprised that there isn't similar coverage 
available for professional still photographers.

- --
Rolfe Tessem
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
- --
To unsubscribe, see