Re: Seattle Film Works

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> I'd read in Pop Photo a very few years for motion picture 
> stocks (contrary to Bill Carter's current evidence), 50 years 
> for Kodachrome, 15 years for E-6.  I can understand the guy
> saying 30 years for motion picture stocks if he's an SFW
> employee and I can understand 200 years as an exaggeration
> of Kodachrome's longevity, but I can't understand the E-6.

Without expressing an opinion about the absolute truths of the
assertions (due to complete lack of real knowledge -- yes, I
know, it never stopped me before...), I'd like to say that
it seems that the criterion for defining "end of life" for
longevity figures likely could make a HUGE difference in the
resulting numerical result -- in addition to the environmental
criteria, etc.  One source of the numbers is that huge book
documenting someone's efforts (thumbed through it at a local
store).  Is the criterion used by him a "real" standard and 
the resultant slide universally considered unusable and past
it's end of life when the threshold is passed (but okay *just*
before the threshold )?

I seem to recall that sources of life numbers tend to include 
disclaimers that the numbers are not be taken literally but to
be used for relative comparisons between the subjects tested
under particular equalized conditions.

Mike K.

P.S. - A few years ago, I had a roll of Kodachrome processed that
       had been *exposed* about ten or twelve years prior, and only
       one of the three pigments was substantially "down".  Not bad. :-)


------------------------------