I'll go along with that. Last year I scanned a few hundred of my Father's old slides from the late fifties and early sixties. At the same time I scanned a bunch of my stuff from the late sixties and seventies.
The Kodachrome looked like it was developed yesterday. Can't say the same about a lot of the Ektachrome. Many of those were faded. They were all skewed to blue by various amounts. See you later, gs <http://georgesphotos.net> On 8/20/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Roberts" > Subject: Re: Kodachrome processing: Ambiguous press release > > > > > > > It's probably been a decade since Kodachrome was popular enough to > > justify its existence from a business standpoint. I suspect it's a > > hard-cord group of traditionalists within Kodak that have kept > > Kodachrome going for so many years. > > Kodachrome has some unique properties that make it very desirable. > It has incredible resistance to heat damage, and is still the only > viable colour product if you need archival stability. > It's dark storage life is measured in centuries, though it will fade > relatively quickly if projected. > I suspect that National Geographic has been single handedly keeping > Kodachrome alive for some time now. I know that Kodak was trying to drop > it at least a dozen years ago, and bowed to their pressure to keep it > going at that time. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
