Kodak kills Kodachrome film after 74 years
Alfred Molon
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
feedType=RSS
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
John Navas
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.24abe9557...@news.supernews.com>:
>The end of film is approaching:
>http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
>feedType=RSS
Hardly the end of film, just the end of a GREAT film! [SOB!]
Loved both 25 and 64, the latter being my primary film for sports
photography, producing awesome images (including a couple of national
magazine covers).
Kodak Elite 100 is very good, but not the same. [SIGH]
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Allen
> The end of film is approaching:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
> feedType=RSS
>
the news I Almost went into shock. I have friends who travel a great
deal, record those trips, and then bore people senseless, with continual
arguments about "don't care" things "which street corner in some tiny
burg in some tiny country was it taken". I don't think they know that
any film was ever made except Kchrome.
Allen
Allen
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:43:07 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <MPG.24abe9557...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>> The end of film is approaching:
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
>> feedType=RSS
>
> Hardly the end of film, just the end of a GREAT film! [SOB!]
> Loved both 25 and 64, the latter being my primary film for sports
> photography, producing awesome images (including a couple of national
> magazine covers).
>
> Kodak Elite 100 is very good, but not the same. [SIGH]
>
surprised to find that the old original Kchrome (8 Weston, 12 GE--before
ASA or ISO) showed no deterioration with age, while the later, faster
versions showed color shift, some almost to the point of being unusable.
What really surprised me was that all the others, home-processed
Fujichrome had survived better than the newer Kcrhomes and
home-processed Ektachromes all being roughly the same age. Some of the
Ektas were completely unusable, even as a family record. There were a
couple of rolls of commercially processed Agfachrome that had also stood
up well, but too small a sample for me a general statement.
Allen
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>>
> A few years ago I got out all my old slides and scanned them. I was
> surprised to find that the old original Kchrome (8 Weston, 12 GE--before
> ASA or ISO) showed no deterioration with age, while the later, faster
> versions showed color shift, some almost to the point of being unusable.
> What really surprised me was that all the others, home-processed
> Fujichrome had survived better than the newer Kcrhomes and
> home-processed Ektachromes all being roughly the same age. Some of the
> Ektas were completely unusable, even as a family record. There were a
> couple of rolls of commercially processed Agfachrome that had also stood
> up well, but too small a sample for me a general statement.
> Allen
All my Kodachromes, from 1948 on, are perfect. All my E6 Ektachromes
are perfect. All my E4 Ektachromes are useful as "scan to B&W" only,
including the one and only photograph of the one and only post-big-earthquake
major eruption of Rainbow Pool in Yellowstone. The NPS has a dupe
which I hope survived better.
All my Kodak color negatives, including Ektacolor large format
from 1970, are fine.
Doug McDonald
John Navas
in <8sqdncMavNOg49_X...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Hardly the end of film, just the end of a GREAT film! [SOB!]
>> Loved both 25 and 64, the latter being my primary film for sports
>> photography, producing awesome images (including a couple of national
>> magazine covers).
>>
>> Kodak Elite 100 is very good, but not the same. [SIGH]
>>
>A few years ago I got out all my old slides and scanned them. I was
>surprised to find that the old original Kchrome (8 Weston, 12 GE--before
>ASA or ISO) showed no deterioration with age, while the later, faster
>versions showed color shift, some almost to the point of being unusable.
>What really surprised me was that all the others, home-processed
>Fujichrome had survived better than the newer Kcrhomes and
>home-processed Ektachromes all being roughly the same age. ...
My K64 slides from the 1980s are unchanged, albeit stored properly.
Ron Hunter
> The end of film is approaching:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
> feedType=RSS
>
Twibil
>
> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
except that it plays fewer notes.
It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
You were saying?
GregS
Allen
circumstances--of course with many changes over the years, but always
together. I was very surprised at the differences between the old K10
(for want of a better name) compared to K25 and K64, K10 from the fact
that when ASA got into the film speed business they chose values halfway
between the Weston and General Electric (the two biggest manufacturers
of exposure meters back then), thereby somewhat alienating everyone
instead of reaaalllly alienating half of us. Personally, I preferred the
Weston; mainly because when you needed to increase sensitivity it had a
hinged baffle over the photocell. The GE had to be broken into two
parts. I still have my old Weston along with my father-in-law's GE.
Allen
Bowser
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:efg445thdj4625am7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:43:07 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <MPG.24abe9557...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>>The end of film is approaching:
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
>>feedType=RSS
>
> Hardly the end of film, just the end of a GREAT film! [SOB!]
> Loved both 25 and 64, the latter being my primary film for sports
> photography, producing awesome images (including a couple of national
> magazine covers).
>
> Kodak Elite 100 is very good, but not the same. [SIGH]
Funny, when I first read this I thought I'd actually miss Kodachrome. But I
won't. I loved the stuff (only shot ASA 25) and really loved the special
look, but I haven't used any in so long, I can't remember when. I very
rarely shoot film now, so for me, even though it was great stuff, it's no
big deal. The 5D II will have to suffice, I guess.
Bob Larter
What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Twibil
>
> >> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
>
> > In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
> > stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
> > except that it plays fewer notes.
>
> > It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>
> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
Kool! A kamera-toting Kreationist!
But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well) carbon dating
cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
old, and, that being the case, it's a pretty fair bet that we're not
going to have to wait another 35,000 years for it to be built.
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2009/06/25/news_pm_flute0625+Z.jpg
Comprende? ):-P
Kennedy McEwen
<5b5e581f-660e-4465...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 26, 11:51�pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
>>
>> > In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
>> > stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
>> > except that it plays fewer notes.
>>
>> > It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>>
>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>
>cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
>a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>
>So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
>might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
>old
That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
John McWilliams
> In article
> <5b5e581f-660e-4465...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Jun 26, 11:51 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>>>
>>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>>
>> But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well) carbon dating
>> cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
>> a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>>
>> So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
>> might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
>> old
> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
'Zackly.
--
john mcwilliams
Twibil
> In article
>
> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
Not so.
When, as here, the actual plus or minus spread is unknown, and the
words "stone-aged" have already been used in reference to age, all you
have to do is state the most likely date (35,000 years) and express
the fact that there's an uncertainty as "plus or minus". The
assumption that the date we're speaking of is 35,000 years in the past
is implicit.
Now, it's probably more grammatically correct to put the "plus or
minus" after the date rather than before it, but nobody's going to
mistake the meaning of the sentence in context unless they *want* to,
and that's all that matters.
So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
I'm anti-semantic.
John McWilliams
Only if you don't keep on replying.
If the spread/deviation isn't known, "ca." works pretty well.
For all the effort you spent on justifying a poorly constucted phrase
many posts above, you could've worked on clarity in sentence
construction. It does pay off.
--
lsmft
Kennedy McEwen
<165395a0-7f26-44cb...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 27, 4:17�am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>>
>> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
>> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
>
>Not so.
>
>
>Now, it's probably more grammatically correct to put the "plus or
>minus" after the date rather than before it, but nobody's going to
>mistake the meaning of the sentence in context
The context added nothing. You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
like a man.
Twibil
>
> > So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
>
> Only if you don't keep on replying.
In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
> For all the effort you spent on justifying a poorly constucted phrase
> many posts above, you could've worked on clarity in sentence
> construction. It does pay off.
Yeah? Rather than playing net-Nanny to pump up my ego, I've been
writing and selling free-lance magazine articles since clear back in
the 1970s. Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've make them
better- but the checks get cashed the same way in either case. (And
just to stay *mildly* on-topic, I've also taken the photos and drawn
the artwork to illustrate said articles.)
So thanks anyway, but I already pretty much know how to make English -
and photography- "pay off", and can do so quite nicely without your
help.
Twibil
>
> The context added nothing.
Only understanding, for those who comprehend what they read.
> You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
> like a man.
Right. Like you've suddenly been crowned Queen of the Net-Nannies and
now have the authority to order other Usenet posters about, and decide
who's "a man" and who isn't. Perfect example of the cliche' about how
posters who like to whine about spelling and grammar are the same ones
who rarely have anything cogent to say about the actual thread.
What a maroon.
John McWilliams
Oh, right. Post a few of the recent articles you've written, you
anonymous coward, and I'll never correct your grammar or spelling, much
less reason, again. Grammatical error in long paragraph, but you'll not
catch it.
--
lsmft
Bob Larter
> On Jun 26, 11:51 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you think?
>>> In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
>>> stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
>>> except that it plays fewer notes.
>>> It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>
> Kool! A kamera-toting Kreationist!
>
> But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well)
Of course. I was just making pedantic fun of your error.
> carbon dating
> cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
> a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>
> So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
> might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
> old,
In other words, it's 35,000 years old, +/- 4,000 years.
> and, that being the case, it's a pretty fair bet that we're not
> going to have to wait another 35,000 years for it to be built.
>
> http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2009/06/25/news_pm_flute0625+Z.jpg
>
> Comprende? ):-P
;^)
Bob Larter
> In article
> <5b5e581f-660e-4465...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Jun 26, 11:51 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> 74 years is a pretty darn good run for ANY technology, don't you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> > In an unrelated story, a bone flute was found not too long ago in a
>>> > stone-aged German cave. It works just exactly like a modern flute
>>> > except that it plays fewer notes.
>>>
>>> > It carbon dates to plus or minus 35,000 years.
>>>
>>> What, it might come from as much as 35,000 years in the future?
>>
>> But in reality (as you no doubt knew perfectly well) carbon dating
>> cannot give you an exact date-specific age: all it can do is give you
>> a *range* of dates -and that's the plus or minus.
>>
>> So the flute in question is *most likely* 35,000 years old, but it
>> might be anywhere from (for instance) 31,000 years to 39,000 years
>> old
>
> That would be 35,000 plus or minus 4,000 years, not "plus or minus
> 35,000 years" of an unknown age, which could be zero.
Exactly my point. ;^)
Bob Larter
> On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
>> Only if you don't keep on replying.
>
> In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
Relax dude, you're just getting a mild ribbing.
Twibil
> Twibil wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:55 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> So play word games all you want, but kindly leave me out.
> >> Only if you don't keep on replying.
>
> > In that case, fuck off, you self-important little pussy-lipped prick.
>
> Relax dude, you're just getting a mild ribbing.
Thanx for the attempted help, but I *really* prefer to decide these
things for myself.
I'll even extend you the same privilege.
Kennedy McEwen
<63bfe121-3d7f-4a71...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jun 27, 5:13�pm, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The context added nothing.
>
>Only understanding, for those who comprehend what they read.
>
>> �You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
>> like a man.
>
>Right. Like you've suddenly been crowned Queen of the Net-Nannies
Nothing to do with Net-nannying, but noting and commenting that you
don't possess the maturity to admit your mistake even after it is
spelled out to you, almost in single syllables, by numerous others.
Nobody want's to, or is trying to, stop you demonstrating juvenile
behaviour online, so feel free to carry on.
tony cooper
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article
><63bfe121-3d7f-4a71...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
>>On Jun 27, 5:13�pm, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The context added nothing.
>>
>>Only understanding, for those who comprehend what they read.
>>
>>> �You were wrong. Stop digging and stand up
>>> like a man.
>>
>>Right. Like you've suddenly been crowned Queen of the Net-Nannies
>
>Nothing to do with Net-nannying, but noting and commenting that you
>don't possess the maturity to admit your mistake even after it is
>spelled out to you, almost in single syllables,
*Almost* in single syllables? All syllables are single. Words can
have one syllable, two syllables, or be polysyllabic, but the
syllables are single units.
> by numerous others.
>Nobody want's to, or is trying to, stop you demonstrating juvenile
>behaviour online, so feel free to carry on.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
C J Campbell
Meh. You can look at frescoes of Roman era farmers working in their
fields and they look exactly the way Van Gogh painted them thousands of
years later.
Nowadays a technology that lasts 74 years is impressive, but that is
only because the pace of technological progress in the last few
centuries is far beyond that which prevailed for tens of thousands of
years before that. The world we live in today would seem equally
incomprehensible to either Alexander the Great or Frederick the Great.
We would all seem to them to be inscrutable magicians. But they would
have understood each other's worlds quite well.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
C J Campbell
> The end of film is approaching:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?
> feedType=RSS
I burned through a lot of Kodachrome 25 and 64 in its day, but I don't
recall using the film for nearly 30 years. I was shooting mostly Fuji
by the mid-70s, then Kodak Elite films.
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> I'm anti-semantic.
Hello, Twibil:
You horrid bigot, you! :-)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
John Turco
>
> Twibil wrote:
<edited for obscenity>
> > Yeah? Rather than playing net-Nanny to pump up my ego, I've been
> > writing and selling free-lance magazine articles since clear back in
> > the 1970s. Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
> > themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've make them
> > better- but the checks get cashed the same way in either case. (And
> > just to stay *mildly* on-topic, I've also taken the photos and drawn
> > the artwork to illustrate said articles.)
> >
> > So thanks anyway, but I already pretty much know how to make English -
> > and photography- "pay off", and can do so quite nicely without your
> > help.
>
> Oh, right. Post a few of the recent articles you've written, you
> anonymous coward, and I'll never correct your grammar or spelling, much
> less reason, again. Grammatical error in long paragraph, but you'll not
> catch it.
Hello, John:
I caught Twibil's mistake (and capitalized it):
"Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've
MAKE them better- but the checks get cashed the same way in
either case."
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
tony cooper
John McWilliams
Hah!
I am sure we'll not see any evidence of his 'paid' work, neither text
nor links.
What other names have you posted under, Twibil?
--
john mcwilliams
John Turco
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:49:16 -0500, John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> > John McWilliams wrote:
> >>
> >> Twibil wrote:
> >
> > <edited for obscenity>
> >
> >> > Yeah? Rather than playing net-Nanny to pump up my ego, I've been
> >> > writing and selling free-lance magazine articles since clear back in
> >> > the 1970s. Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
> >> > themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've make them
> >> > better- but the checks get cashed the same way in either case. (And
> >> > just to stay *mildly* on-topic, I've also taken the photos and drawn
> >> > the artwork to illustrate said articles.)
> >> >
> >> > So thanks anyway, but I already pretty much know how to make English -
> >> > and photography- "pay off", and can do so quite nicely without your
> >> > help.
> >>
> >> Oh, right. Post a few of the recent articles you've written, you
> >> anonymous coward, and I'll never correct your grammar or spelling, much
> >> less reason, again. Grammatical error in long paragraph, but you'll not
> >> catch it.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Editors have occasionally changed my words around to suit
> > themselves -screwing things up just about as often as the've
> > MAKE them better- but the checks get cashed the same way in
> > either case."
>
> You accepted "the've"?
Hello, Tony:
Hey, dawg...John McWilliams only mentioned >one< "Grammatical error" and
so, I stopped looking, after finding "make." <g>
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
--
Paintings pain and pun
<http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>