----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jensen" <jwjensen356@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:28 PM Subject: [rollei_list] 'Kodak, Don't Take My Kodachrome' > Re Super-8 Kodachrome from today's New York Times: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/movies/31koda.html?oref=login > > (I hope the link works) > > John Worked for me but I am a registered user of the NYT site. Others may have to register (free). A curios story. The facts are probably all correct but it contains language such as: "Kodachrome Super 8 became a favorite thanks to the film's complex emulsion, the gelatinous solution that helps capture an image. It requires an elaborate developing process but produces striking, unique colors and unparalleled archival virtues, making it a favorite with Super 8 artists." Written by someone who has no idea how any film works let alone Kodachrome. Actually, Kodachrome has a simpler structure than chromogenic films. The problem for Kodak is the very complex process which also requires the use of some environmentally unfriendly chemicals. The article also refers to Kodachrome as having "lurid" color. Of course it doesn't. That may have been true for 1940's Kodachrome but the current stuff is pretty lifelike. The archival properties are well known. Kodachrome has excellent dark storage life but is inferior to Ektachrome for resisting the fading caused by exposure to the light in projectors. Anyway, perhaps they have shamed Kodak into continuing to make the stuff and process it. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list