Re: [photo-3d] Vision Redux

[Ron Beck <rbeck@xxxxxxxx>]

Rory,
>From personal experiences, the 5247 slides I shot in college have
degraded to a bluish cast with virtually no color left.  Now, I don't
know if this is due to my means of storage (a box) or how I had them
developed (tungsten vs fluorescent vs daylight) but they have not stood
the test of time over the 21 years I've been out of college.

The stereo slides my grandfather took in 1956, '57 and '58 on
Kodachrome, however, still have good color contrast and are quite
pleasant to view even after storage in a hot Texas attic for those same
21 years plus storage in a hot Ohio attic for approximately 12 years
before that.

Anyway, that's my experience with the motion picture films.  And, it's
been a while since I've looked through _ALL_ my slides.  It could be I'm
remembering something that was shot under fluorescent and processed as
tungsten or vice versa.

Just a "heads up" from someone who's been there.

Ron

Rory Hinnen wrote:
> 
> Herbert C Maxey wrote:
> >
> > I want to thank you very much, for saving me lots of money. With the
> > money I will now save, I plan to purchase another motorcycle and take a
> > long trip. I will now forget Kodachrome film, that most inferior of films
> > and do all my photography using re-spooled motion picture film.
> 
> So, call me a fool, but what is the problem using movie film stock? If
> other people are bored with this, I invite you to respond personally.
> 
> Little background, I work with movie film stock every day. I understand
> it, and haven't really seen a problem using it for still work (half my
> day is spent looking at stills from movie stock on a light box - okay, a
> little hyperbole there, maybe a quarter). I'm personally planning on
> using 5245 in my realist, not because I'm looking for a cheaper
> solution, but I want more experience with that particular stock (it is
> sort of my stock in trade, so to speak).
> 
> .r.