[photo-3d] Re: LONG REPLY TO: Gave up on Kodachrome long ago

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

>>I believe this person is saying that they are using the Kodak lab only
>>because it is hard to find other labs that process Kodachrome, and that
>>they would otherwise not have to put up with the scratches and dust
that
>>Kodak is reputed to have more problems with than many other labs.
>>Admittedly this is not a fault of Kodachrome but of the lab that most
>>people use for Kodachrome.>>

I guess I am lucky, as I have NEVER had the problems with Kodachrome,
processed by Kodak, that others claim they are having. And I have
probably seen more than 10,000 rolls of the stuff come through our studio
over 15 years or so, taken by friends, myself and other professionals, 
Stereo and Non-Stereo. I have looked at and mounted thousands of stereo
slides - mostly in Realist Masks, and about 1/3rd of those in Glass. Then
there is all the stuff family shot that we still look at today, and still
in perfect condition. Admittedly stored in less than ideal ways, still as
great as the day the slides were made.

At the height of my usage of the material, I could drop off the weekends
work Monday morning and it would, without fail, be back in my hands ready
to mount on Tuesday. It was one day processing in Palo Alto California. I
realize that this is not the way it is these days. Kodak has indeed
changed. I had absolutely no problem promising a customer that their
slides would be back the next day. So what if it takes longer to get
Kodachrome back from the lab - are some of you really in such a hurry? I
understand deadlines, but I am sorry, I do not think most of you actually
need film back as fast as you might think. I put up with longer
processing times because I want what Kodachrome offers me and I am not
willing to settle and trade speed for quality. NO OFFENCE TO YOU. I
realize that I do not know your specific situation.

In the good old days, there were never any problems with Kodachrome.
Occasionally, yes, a roll would get lost and eventually found and routed
back in the next Route Bag. Yes, occasionally a scratch, but easily
forgiven if one remembers that wet film is delicate and occasionally gets
damaged. NEVER embedded dirt, however.... this was never acceptable by
the customer or by Eastman Kodak. Simply stated, this never occurred
except in extremely rare cases; none of which I ever encountered. Out of
the literally thousands of boxes of slides I delivered to a customer,
never were any complaints for scratches made.

I never let anyone other than Kodak process my slides, because they knew
the most about the product and offered processing I know I could trust.
This was long before the age of one-hour labs and other people could
afford the investment in the required equipment to process this film. The
only problems I did have were from Technicolor processed Kodachrome film.
I send stuff to them because I got a deal of their prepaid mailers, and
all of them have faded.

If I sound a little pushy and not willing to listen to some of you extoll
the virtues of Ektachrome over Kodachrome, it is because I am a stubborn
man when it comes to my film choices. Some of you  might get the idea
that I am not willing to try some of the other films out there. I might
have to some day, and certainly, I want to compare the stuff to
Kodachrome. But from everything I know, I might still be nonplused. But
that's just me. I will be the first to admit that today's new Ektachromes
are superior to the Ektachrome of the past, which were clearly inferior
to Kodachrome film, by any measuring stick you would use.

One exception is my occasional use of Illfochrome Color Micrographics
film. Zero grain, sharpness that will exceed resolution of any lens,
absolute sharpness, and true archival qualities. Problem is its ISO; .002
or so.

I might also point out that over the comming years, hidden issues with
Ektachrome could arise. Some of the same experts that are claiming
Ektachrome of today will last, made those same claims years ago, and they
have been proven wrong. Heck, for all I know, Ektachrome might indeed
last for the next couple of hundred years or so, but I still do not buy
it and will stick with Kodachrome as long as I can. After all, there is
president for fade and color shift with Ektachrome. With Kodachrome, we
can easily see that it is not a concern. I have slides from the earliest
days of Kodachrome and all are perfect. Wonderful color, fine grain and
sharpness for the period. The reasons are very simple and stem from the
physical makeup of the emulsion and how it is processed. Kodachrome, for
all intents and purposes is a black and white film. Kodachrome has a long
track record.

I use Kodachrome exclusively for all 35mm work, only using Ektachrome for
large format. Yes, if Kodak still offered Kodachrome in sheet form, I
would most definitely use that, too. I just shot some 8 x 10 stuff and I
can only imagine how much better it would look if done in Kodachrome.
Sadly, no longer made and I can understand why: There would be little
demand for Kodachrome sheet film compared to Ektachrome Sheet Films.
"Pros" would not tolerate the longer processing times, even though the
sheet stuff traveled by train to Rochester and was back in a week or so.

So, please do not try to convince me that there are problems that exist
with Kodachrome to the extent many are suggesting, because I absolutely
do not agree. I have never seen it, and those issues I do hear about stem
from a variety of sources, NOT that there is any inherent problem with
Kodachrome. I think the color issues people mention stem from improper
exposure or other factors. The scratches and dirt from crappy lab work,
Longer times for processing because some labs drag their heels. I think
that if you shoot Kodachrome and get damaged film from the lab, there is
every reason to believe that you will see these problems with any other
film you send to that lab, eventually. Dirt and scratches are caused by
poorly maintained equipment or handling, but some of you use Ektachrome
over Kodachrome for these reasons. To me, this "Logic" is just plain
silly. Common sense would indicate this. I think the majority of problems
can be traced back to non-Kodak processed film. 

I ran our Black and White Lab; actually, I was the only person in the
lab. I can tell you that film damage was caused by improperly maintained
equipment or me not paying attention. I processed many a roll of
Panatomic-X and it was more susceptible to damage due to the thin
emulsion. It did indeed scratch easier than Plus-X or Tri-X. I knew this
and was aware of potential disaster, so I treated this emulsion with
great care. Some would apply the same logic (and have) to Kodachrome and
Ektachrome. I did not stop using Panatomic-X because it would scratch
easier, I simply maintained my equipment, thus ending potential problems.

Simply stated, if a lab scratches your Kodachrome, if dirt is embedded in
the emulsion, do not blame Kodachrome, change your lab, because this
indicates poor quality workers and equipment maintenance and if it
happens to your Kodachrome, it will eventually happen to your Ektachrome.
Does anyone disagree with this?

So, fellow P3D List Members, I hope my ramblings about the virtues of
Kodachrome over that other still do not upset you all too much, but I
can't help it. For longevity, great contrast, accuracy of color, grain
structure, sharpness - I will put up with not being able to get my slides
back the same day, and will continue to use my only choice for color
slide film - Kodachrome.

I do think that perhaps I need to update my thinking about the past vs
today's modern advancements in everything, but I am becoming an old Fart,
stubborn to the end, only willing to change if something better comes
along and I can see it for myself. I prefer tubes to solid state, old
houses to modern ones, Indians and Harleys made before many of you were
born, My old Bessa Rangefinder to most roll film cameras, my Eastman
Field Camera to any other Field Camera I have ever used, and the list
continues, but I will stop short at the risk of angering some list
members.

I will practice toleration in my comments about Kodachrome and my lack of
enthusiasm for other films and be a tad more tolerable. I only hope those
of you who have never used Kodachrome, do so and see for yourselves. You
will be amazed. Do not worry about the slow speed of Kodachrome 25, as
faster films are seldom needed, regardless of what you might hear from
"Professional Photographers".  Kodachrome 25 and 64 is all you need for
most types of stereo photography. Lots of comments about the "need" for
speed. Why is this so? Do you really think you need fast film in bright
sunlight? Do you really think you need fast film for night photography or
interiors? Nope, you really don't.

I used to use a photograph taken inside the Saltaire Resort here in Utah
as a training aid. The photograph showed an empty room, and that was the
goal of the photographer. What many do not realize when looking at the
image is the room was full of people dancing at the time. The people
disappeared because there was no chance to register on the film. In this
case, slow plates were used, not high speed materials or tons of flash.

I do the same thing yearly at the LDS Temple. I use long exposure times
and a tripod so the people will disappear from my stereo images. How many
these days would approach this photograph by using fast films? Many I
suspect. 

You need to remember that there was Kodachrome II and Kodachrome X, and
Kodachrome 40, Type "A" for artificial light, and Kodachrome Type "B" for
tungsten light, where the ASA (ISO) Rating was 10, or 8 or 12, depending
upon the Kodachrome Type and if you used a GE Meter or Weston. I used
lots of Type "A" indoors where you would think high speed, or push
processing was required, but millions of users were very successful using
this material without a hitch or need for anything faster. Remember when
the only film National; Geographic used was Kodachrome - even when higher
speed Ektachromes were available.

To sum up: If anyone here believes that Ektachrome is vastly superior to
Kodachrome, I guess I will stop trying to convince you that you might be
wrong. Use whatever you want to use. However, do not forget Kodachrome
and write it off completely. If you have never used it, do so and see for
yourself. I know, by doing this, some of you will come over to "Camp
Kodachrome".

FREE KODACHROME TIPS FOR TODAY:

Here is a tip for those of you who have old Kodachromes that have fine
scratches. At one time, Eastman Kodak Lacquer Coated all Kodachrome
Slides. Quite often, the scratches are in the coating, not the base or
emulsion. This lacquer can often be removed (I will try to locate the
formula for thinner Kodak recommenced using if there is interest).

Bob