kodachrome vs. fujichrome durability
HugYourPug
James Robinson
>
> Kodachrome claims near archival durability. How do other slide films compare?
This is a controversial area, since many factors affect the life of the
images, and may not have the same effect on different film types.
Storage, processing, and exposure to light are examples of some of the
factors. Looking at projection alone as an example of the complexity of
the factors, Kodachrome films tend to fade more quickly than E6 films
when repeatedly projected, but have much better life when in dark
storage.
A much-quoted comparison was made by Henry Wilhelm, who performed
accelerated tests on the permanence of films. His results are also
controversial, since there is no solid agreement on how best to perform
such tests, and if certain factors might have been omitted that might
unknowingly affect the results. For what they are worth, here are some
of his estimates (in years) for there to be a 20% fade in one of the
colors. These would be for film in dark storage:
K25, K64, K200: 580
Ektachrome, all: 225
Fujichrome, not Velvia: 185
Fujichrome Velvia: 135
Agfachrome 1000: 75
ScotchChrome 1000: 45
Note that these should only be considered as relative numbers, not
absolutes, as even Kodak doesn't claim anywhere near a 500 year life for
Kodachrome in typical storage conditions.
Goodby Kodak
"independent testing". BUT...
Of my 1000s of 30s, 40s and 50s slides, only Kodachrome remains
reasonably true to the original colors. Most others are horrible and
WAY off. Ektachromes are red, commercial Panaviews are brown and Anscos
are green.
Perhaps in another 50 years I'll be able to believe the latest claims.
James Robinson wrote:
>
>
> A much-quoted comparison was made by Henry Wilhelm, who performed
> accelerated tests on the permanence of films. His results are also
> controversial, since there is no solid agreement on how best to perform
> such tests, and if certain factors might have been omitted that might
> unknowingly affect the results. For what they are worth, here are some
> of his estimates (in years) for there to be a 20% fade in one of the
> colors. These would be for film in dark storage:
>
> K25, K64, K200: 580
> Ektachrome, all: 225
> Fujichrome, not Velvia: 185
> Fujichrome Velvia: 135
> Agfachrome 1000: 75
> ScotchChrome 1000: 45
>
> Note that these should only be considered as relative numbers, not
> absolutes, as even Kodak doesn't claim anywhere near a 500 year life for
> Kodachrome in typical storage conditions.
--
Sunbelt Stereo Photo Productions
(tagline)
I've had enough disappointment from Kodak. I've had brand new film bad
right out of the box. I've had terrible processing from Kodak Premium
Processing. I've gotten an arrogant answer to my e-mail to them asking
them to reconsider dropping Royal Gold ISO 25. Now they drop the only
truely unique film they had left, Kodachrome ISO 25, my favorite since
1963. So I renamed my log-on signature and say to them...
Goodbye Kodak!
Lewis Lang
>From: James Robinson was...@mailcircuit.com
>Date: Thu, Dec 27, 2001 3:28 PM
>Message-id: <3C2B3E00...@mailcircuit.com>
Sorry, James you're mistaken - or perhaps I have misread your statement as
claiming 500+ year dark storage life for Kodachrome films. I have the June1990
Popular Photography article "The Great Fade Test!!" (by Henry Wilhelm?, no
author mentioned) on pg. 42 that mentions... "For the accelerated dark-storage
tests (Tables B, c, E, G and I), the time given in days may be multiplied by
about 130 to give an approximation of real world conditions."
Here is what the test table states converted into years, YMMV ;-)
(From the same Pop Photo article as mentioned above):
"K25, K64, K200: 206.6
Ektachrome, all: 80.14
Fujichrome, not Velvia: 74.8
Fujichrome Velvia: 65.9
Agfachrome 1000: 26.7
ScotchChrome 1000: 16"
*Various other Agfachromes tested out at 49.9 in years
**This test is a 11.5 year old test and I wonder if/whether the results still
stand verses the films of that time (some the same films and some different
films in use today as well as how well the current crop of color neg films do
in dark storage?...
***I've heard of Ektachrome/most all E-6? films rated at now about 100 years
but I wonder if this is just hype/rumors I/we might've heard. It would be nice
though to have all current E-6 and C-41 process films last about a century
though in real life (we'll see in about 100 years, if we are around as long as
the archival longevity of the films are ;-))... ;-) :-)
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
ThomasH
>
> >Subject: Re: kodachrome vs. fujichrome durability
> >From: James Robinson was...@mailcircuit.com
> >
> >>
> >> Kodachrome claims near archival durability. How do other slide films
> >> compare?
> >
> >This is a controversial area, since many factors affect the life of the
> >images, and may not have the same effect on different film types.
> >colors. These would be for film in dark storage:
> >
> >K25, K64, K200: 580
> >Ektachrome, all: 225
> >Fujichrome, not Velvia: 185
> >Fujichrome Velvia: 135
> >Agfachrome 1000: 75
> >ScotchChrome 1000: 45
> >
> >Note that these should only be considered as relative numbers, not
> >absolutes, as even Kodak doesn't claim anywhere near a 500 year life for
> >Kodachrome in typical storage conditions.
>
> Sorry, James you're mistaken - or perhaps I have misread your statement as
> claiming 500+ year dark storage life for Kodachrome films. I have the June1990
> Popular Photography article "The Great Fade Test!!" (by Henry Wilhelm?, no
> author mentioned) on pg. 42 that mentions... "For the accelerated dark-storage
> tests (Tables B, c, E, G and I), the time given in days may be multiplied by
> about 130 to give an approximation of real world conditions."
Let me also say sorry,
there is even more to the story.
I have the following article in my archive written by D. Littlewood,
let me quote a fragment of this message with a data about how the
film material performs if it is exposed to light (or projected!).
Than a surprise: E6 proves more durable than the Kodachrome. Besides,
we all scan nowadays for archival purposes. At 4000dpi and 14bit
channel a 35mm image can be stored in as much as over 150Mbyte of
data.
[... quote from my archive
Wilhelm's book "the Permanence and Care of Colour Photographs" (1993;
Preservation Publishing Co, Grinnell, Iowa; ISBN 0-911515-00-3 hb, -01-1
pb) is the most detailed work I have found on conventional film/papers.
It is getting a bit old now. Wilhelm's web site
(www.wilhelm.research.com, from memory) is rather less forthcoming but
has some good stuff on digital inject inks and papers. If anyone knows
of any more up to date stuff on film or photographic printing paper,
please let us know.
According to the book, Kodachrome is predicted to last 185 years (-Y)
(the test criterion being to a loss of 20% density in the least stable
layer; -Y means the yellow layer was in this case the most affected). It
is also less prone than E6 films to the development of yellow staining
in dark storage. Predictions for Fujichrome Velvia and 100D (remember,
this was a 1993 book) are for 150 years (-Y and -C). The various Kodak
E6 films of the time had a projected life of 100-200 years (variously -Y
or -C). Most colour neg film came in well under 100 years, as did Agfa
reversal film. For comparison, Ilfochrome prints have a predicted life
of over 500 years.
The situation is quite different if one looks at light fading - for
example in a projector. Here are the figures for hours to reach the
limit for general commercial and amateur use:
Fujichrome E6 4.5-5.5 hours
Ektachrome E6 2.7 hours
Agfachrome E6 2.0 hours
Kodachrome K14 1.0 hours
Under these conditions, all lost most quickly from the magenta layer.
Given the time since the book was published, it is likely the E6 films
have been improved; that may be something of a leap of faith, but Fuji
in particular seem to have always taken permanence quite seriously.
The message is, modern E6 films are nearly as good as Kodachrome
in the dark, and much better in the light. From this point of view
only (i am not commenting here on the quality of image) E6 is the
way to go. If you project slides a lot, you would be well advised
to use duplicates.
...end of quote]
I agree, Kodachrome is a dinosaur. E6 materials were evolving
as long there was no digital photography and clearly outrank
Kodachrome.
Now with the explosion of digital photography I am sure that
all film is doomed real soon.
Thomas.
James Robinson
>
> Sorry, James you're mistaken - or perhaps I have misread your statement as
> claiming 500+ year dark storage life for Kodachrome films.
You did misread my comment. I said that I didn't believe that
Kodachrome had a 500+ year storage life, and agree with your post. It
makes sense that the numbers reflected the days of accelerated testing,
and you need a multiplying factor to work out the actual anticipated
life. I pulled the data I quoted from a web site that described the
numbers as years of expected life, which I presumed was wrong.
The numbers you quote still suggests a life in excess of what I have
seen elsewhere. I seem to recall that Kodachrome was expected to have a
dark-storage life of about 100 to 120 years with minimal color change.
Much, of course, depends on the storage conditions, particularly
temperature and humidity.
I suspect that the average person isn't that careful, and just has their
processed images stored in boxes in the back of a closet somewhere. If
100 years is used for the anticipated life of Kodachrome stored this
way, then at the risk of reading too much into Wilhelm's table, E6 film
would see similar color shifts in the range of 35 to 40 years.
Lewis Lang
>Let me also say sorry,
>there is even more to the story.
>
>I have the following article in my archive written by D. Littlewood,
>let me quote a fragment of this message with a data about how the
>film material performs if it is exposed to light (or projected!).
>Than a surprise: E6 proves more durable than the Kodachrome.
Thomas:
This is no surprise, really, Wilhelm’s Pop Photography article said as much
over a decade ago and by now its accepted as more or less common knowledge (for
those who know about the relative archivability of various slide films).
Besides,
>we all scan nowadays for archival purposes. At 4000dpi and 14bit
>channel a 35mm image can be stored in as much as over 150Mbyte of
>data.
>
That’s really a different issue altogether. I could have my images laser beam
etched onto titanium for durability/longevity ;-) but that doesn’t really
comment on Kodachrome vs. Fujichrome...
I don’t see it that way. I see the two mediums as complementary and coexisting,
but like longevity of Kodachrome vs. E-6 time will tell Thomas.
What I would really like to know is _whether_ the various E-6 films have been
improved for dark storage longevity, and if so, what are their current ratings
in years?
Hopefully one day Wilhelm will have another edition that includes both more
modern films as well as more current data on perennial E-6 favorites - is the
Velvia of 2002 longer-lasting than the Velvia of 1990, how long will Sensia 100
and Provia F100 last, etc...
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: kodachrome vs. fujichrome durability
>From: James Robinson was...@mailcircuit.com
>Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2001 6:09 PM
>Message-id: <3C30A9D8...@mailcircuit.com>
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, James you're mistaken - or perhaps I have misread your statement
>as
>> claiming 500+ year dark storage life for Kodachrome films.
>
>You did misread my comment. I said that I didn't believe that
>Kodachrome had a 500+ year storage life, and agree with your post.
Sorry then, my mistake about your mistake :-)
It
>makes sense that the numbers reflected the days of accelerated testing,
>and you need a multiplying factor to work out the actual anticipated
>life. I pulled the data I quoted from a web site that described the
>numbers as years of expected life, which I presumed was wrong.
>
>The numbers you quote still suggests a life in excess of what I have
>seen elsewhere.
Where?
I seem to recall that Kodachrome was expected to have a
>dark-storage life of about 100 to 120 years with minimal color change.
>Much, of course, depends on the storage conditions, particularly
>temperature and humidity.
>
This seems like a Pop Photography article that did a summary on this a few
years back (more current than the Wilhelm? 1990 article though) w/ nothing to
back it up, like some vague editors comments/folk wisdom. Any sources on this
longevity figure?
>I suspect that the average person isn't that careful, and just has their
>processed images stored in boxes in the back of a closet somewhere. If
>100 years is used for the anticipated life of Kodachrome stored this
>way, then at the risk of reading too much into Wilhelm's table, E6 film
>would see similar color shifts in the range of 35 to 40 years.
I think you have read too much into Wilhelm’s table, against E-6. Conventional
wisdom (whatever that is, probably majority/mob rules) used to say that
Kodachrome lasts about a century in dark storage and E-6 about 50 years. All my
E-6 from the early ‘80’s (about 20 years ago, and not yet up to the 35-40 year
mark, mostly Fujichrome 50/100 and some Ektachrome 64/200) is fine. I think
that you’d probably have to go back to E-4 from the early to mid ‘70’s? to
start to find some evidence of fading (conditions depending). Anyway, I
personally doubt that current E-6 (from the early to mid ‘80’s on) Fujichrome
or Ektachrome is as volatile in dark storage as you say. But we are both
guessing here unless you accept Wilhelm’s data as gospel, and in that case even
his data is quite dated by now so it seems more likely that E-6 films last even
longer than he quotes in his articles/books.
I wish I had bought tons of Fujichrome 50 and Ektar 25 and the original amature
Elite whose grain rivaled K25 at four times the speed, what great films. Astia
is great too (luscious tonailty, sharp and fine grained plus beautiful skin
tones) but its too expensive so I shoot mainly Sensia 100 from B&H (supposedly
this is or used to be the amature version of Astia, though I’m not sure what
the subtle differences are other than perhaps tonal scale and the density of
the base for scanning/magazine reproduction?). (Astia) Kind of reminds me of a
modern Ektachrome-X in its soft (contrast, not sharpness) rendition of
subjects, I just hope it lasts longer than that old E-4 film, though... :-)
James Robinson
>
> >The numbers you quote still suggests a life in excess of what I have
> >seen elsewhere.
>
> Where?
I can't remember. Probably some article in Pop Photog. or somewhere
similar.
> I seem to recall that Kodachrome was expected to have a
> >dark-storage life of about 100 to 120 years with minimal color change.
> >Much, of course, depends on the storage conditions, particularly
> >temperature and humidity.
>
> This seems like a Pop Photography article that did a summary on this a few
> years back (more current than the Wilhelm? 1990 article though) w/ nothing to
> back it up, like some vague editors comments/folk wisdom. Any sources on this
> longevity figure?
No, just something I remember reading.
> >I suspect that the average person isn't that careful, and just has their
> >processed images stored in boxes in the back of a closet somewhere. If
> >100 years is used for the anticipated life of Kodachrome stored this
> >way, then at the risk of reading too much into Wilhelm's table, E6 film
> >would see similar color shifts in the range of 35 to 40 years.
>
> I think you have read too much into Wilhelm’s table, against E-6. Conventional
> wisdom (whatever that is, probably majority/mob rules) used to say that
> Kodachrome lasts about a century in dark storage and E-6 about 50 years.
I am just interpolating the Wilhelm table. Since neither Kodachrome nor
E6 have been around long enough to verify the table, it's all there is
to go on, as long as one trusts the techniques. Relatively, according
to Wilhelm, E6 film has about 1/3 the life of Kodachrome in dark
storage.
One should also remember that even if there is color shift on the film,
the images are probably recoverable with digital techniques. Thus, the
worry is more the breakdown of the film base, mold, or the physical
separation of the emulsion. Given that film seems relatively durable,
the images should last well beyond my lifetime.
> Anyway, I
> personally doubt that current E-6 (from the early to mid ‘80’s on) Fujichrome
> or Ektachrome is as volatile in dark storage as you say. But we are both
> guessing here unless you accept Wilhelm’s data as gospel, and in that case even
> his data is quite dated by now so it seems more likely that E-6 films last even
> longer than he quotes in his articles/books.
Agreed.
ThomasH
>
> SNIPS
>
> >Let me also say sorry,
> >there is even more to the story.
> >
> >I have the following article in my archive written by D. Littlewood,
> >let me quote a fragment of this message with a data about how the
> >film material performs if it is exposed to light (or projected!).
> >Than a surprise: E6 proves more durable than the Kodachrome.
>
> Thomas:
>
> This is no surprise, really, Wilhelm’s Pop Photography article said as much
> over a decade ago and by now its accepted as more or less common knowledge (for
> those who know about the relative archivability of various slide films).
Lewis:
For me this fact was unknown. Till recently, despite my interest
in photography I was completely unaware that if exposed to light,
the E6 material performs better than the Kodachrome in terms of
durability.
>
> >Besides,
> >we all scan nowadays for archival purposes. At 4000dpi and 14bit
> >channel a 35mm image can be stored in as much as over 150Mbyte of
> >data.
> >
>
> That’s really a different issue altogether. I could have my images laser beam
> etched onto titanium for durability/longevity ;-) but that doesn’t really
> comment on Kodachrome vs. Fujichrome...
I disagree. What I mean is that in the future, real soon actually,
we will store our images in digital form, which potentially can hold
forever. Thus the quest for the durability of chemical substances on
film will become secondary, if not unimportant. What is more important,
is how well the film can be scanned. And here I made with the LS4000
very good experiences with Agfa and Fuji slides, whereas Ektachrome
proven to be very troublesome to the scanner (some sort of grain/noise
pattern appears.) I do only slides.
[...]
> >Given the time since the book was published, it is likely the E6 films
> >have been improved; that may be something of a leap of faith, but Fuji
> >in particular seem to have always taken permanence quite seriously.
> >
> >The message is, modern E6 films are nearly as good as Kodachrome
> >in the dark, and much better in the light. From this point of view
> >only (i am not commenting here on the quality of image) E6 is the
> >way to go. If you project slides a lot, you would be well advised
> >to use duplicates.
> >
> >...end of quote]
> >
> >I agree, Kodachrome is a dinosaur. E6 materials were evolving
> >as long there was no digital photography and clearly outrank
> >Kodachrome.
> >
> >Now with the explosion of digital photography I am sure that
> >all film is doomed real soon.
> >
> >Thomas.
>
> I don’t see it that way. I see the two mediums as complementary and
> coexisting, but like longevity of Kodachrome vs. E-6 time will tell
> Thomas.
On the latter we agree of course: only the time will tell the truth.
Wilhelm's institute might be mistaken in their assumptions. They must
emulate conditions and extrapolate.
But I am sure that there will be no coexistence of film and digital
over a longer time. Except the medium format and large format
photography, the days of the 35mm film are counted, just like the
days of the 33.3 rmp LP were over much faster than nostalgians wanted
believe it. Do you remember all the "sound tests" where the testers
with their super-human hearing were able to "hear" the advantage of
the analog vinyl and the diamond needle compared to the "artificial
sound" generated by an Analog/Digital converter? Or that the CD was
designed to hold only approx. 65min to "ensure the parity of the media
with the LP?" Thus we can not have an entire Opera on one media, we
had to swap CD's for years despite that the LP's were long forgotten.
Digital is the way to go. It is just so that the visual information
has proven to be technically much more challenging to capture
correctly and to store compared to the audio information. But the
modern digital cameras cover already very well small print photography
and even for journalists digital media is fantastic in terms of
immediate availability and email transportation to the publisher.
Thus the billions of research will go into digital and not into making
of a next generation film or improving its durability. This is not a
speculation, that's what the numbers of revenue say. It's an economic
reality.
DM
> Kodachrome claims near archival durability. How do other slide films compare?
Depends on use. A bunch of us get together every couple of weeks
and have a quiet evening slide show. I hear Kodachromes don't do
well if projected. With big guys like Fuji constantly improving
their emulsions it's quite possible the latest generation E6 films
would do as well as (or outlast) Kodachrome. Can't tell since no
one seems to agree on tests done so far.
Goodby Kodak
Much the same claims were made in the 50s by both manufactures and
"independent testing". BUT...
Of my 1000s of 30s, 40s and 50s slides, only Kodachrome remains
reasonably true to the original colors. Most others are horrible and
WAY off. Ektachromes are red, commercial Panaviews are brown and Anscos
are green.
Perhaps in another 50 years I'll be able to believe the latest claims.
--
Joe Foto
Well, to bypass all the mish mash by the other responses, based on my
own experience, Kodachrome lasts the longest. Period.
I have E6 (Kodak Lumiere & 100VSW) from the 90s that are already
shifting. All stored the same, in darkness, cool, dry, etc.
For the most important shots, that I want to be able to see years down
the road, I go with Kodachrome.
Joe
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2002 4:05 PM
>Message-id: <53e0ce9b.02010...@posting.google.com>
>
>hugyo...@aol.com (HugYourPug) wrote in message
news:<20011227065623...@mb-fo.aol.com>...
>> Kodachrome claims near archival durability. How do other slide films
compare?
>
>Well, to bypass all the mish mash by the other responses,
Not mish mash, truth, quoted tables from Henry Wilhelm whose tests I trust more
than many's opinions...
based on my
>own experience, Kodachrome lasts the longest. Period.
>
Kodachrome lasts the longest based on most experiences/tests, however I've seen
Kodachrome start fading (from the 80's? - not mine but another fashion
photographer I believe). This could be the result of faulty processing, unkown
outgasing, etc. though, and not the film...
>I have E6 (Kodak Lumiere & 100VSW) from the 90s that are already
>shifting. All stored the same, in darkness, cool, dry, etc.
>
Do you store it next to any wood, mothballs, other sources of out gassing? Like
the Kodachrome example above, significant fading this soon is atypical of both
Kodachrome and E-6 films. I have been viewing some Fujichrome 50 from September
of 1983 and the colors look brand spanking new and their saturation is
fantastic - it makes me long for the "toned down" contrast of this discontinued
film verses Velvia which can be over the top. I expect to get atl east another
20 years out of that Fujichrome slide though I might copy/scan to digital
before then if I do see any significant fading.
>For the most important shots, that I want to be able to see years down
>the road, I go with Kodachrome.
>
>Joe
I go with Fujichrome, who wants a blah colored slide that wont fade for a
century or two?, I'd rather have a fantastic looking slide for 50-100 years and
scan to CD/DVD/etc. for both longevity and ease of printing. Though I do have
to say I'm sad to see Kodachrome 25 go, at least I know there areplenty of 100
speed films which for all intents and purposes have nearly as fine grain (if
not finer, in the case of provia F100) w/ much better color...
What I've been saying for years is that Kodak really needed to come out w/ a
T-grained higher saturation faster version of Kodachrome, Kodachrome 100 or
Kodachrome 125 (and improve their processing quality and number of K-14
machines). Like Ektar and Elite (the original stuff, not the pale imitation we
have now w/ not a fine grain) before it, Kodak makes a great product and then
they kill it off. Quaal(ux) du' mage!/What a shame! I used to shoot the stuff
constantly in the eighties and early nineties but the last time I shot a roll
was in either '97 or '99 (Kodachrome 64), its got great acutance (edge
sharpness), the colors are natural, but my eye yearns for something natural yet
more saturated than Kodachrome but less blown out than Velvia - currently that
means either one of the Provias/Sensias or Astia whose lusciously smooth
rendition of skin tones may be even more favorable to me than the Kodachromes.
Fujichrome 50 was a great film for colors but the skin tones tended to go a bit
orangey to me. Some progress is really regress...