From: James Cole (email suppressed)
Date: Sat May 10 2008 - 20:09:30 PDT
Orson Wells said The Trial was his best film. I, for one, don't care
what the patent holder says.
Do you really not see what people see in the stock?
On 5/10/08, Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>
> memo to Kodachrome fans:
>
> The MP stock is no longer being made. Any super 8 K-40 still available is at
> least four years old, and was coated long before that.
>
> If you want to get sentimental about it, go ahead. But it is not a vital
> choice any more. And get with it-- NO ONE is re-introducing it. Whatever
> Wittner has, wherever they are getting it, they are not manufacturing it
> again.
>
> Kodachrome is overrated. Even the patent-holder for K-40 does not understand
> what all the ruckus is about. He's constantly dealing with K-40 fans who
> overrate the film, and all the wild-eyed speculation and hair-pulling that
> surrounded its withdrawal from the market.
>
> And another thing-- these Kodachrome myths are getting annoying. There are
> NOT DYES introduced into the processing stage. Kodachrome is basically a B/W
> stock where the separate color layers are treated individually during
> developing. It's pretty straightforward. There's no mystery to it.
>
> You can even do it at home-- which I've noticed that many people-- always K
> fans-- seem to want to argue about, even with the experts and the guy who
> invented it.
>
> For reversal film, Kodak provides E64 as a replacement.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/10/2008 2:41:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> Jim--
>
> I dont' understand why you are feeling compelled to be a Kodachrome naysayer
> in an obviously pro-Kodachrome thread.
>
> I was giving welcome info for people who actually like the emulsion.
> You don't have to like Kodachrome, or care about its possible
> reintroduction.
> But why the negativity?
>
> I'm not sure that people who shoot Kodachrome care that the
> manufacturing and processing is
> 'idiosyncratic" or not. We're talking about film, and Super8--it's
> all idiosyncratic at this point in the
> digital world.
>
> As for negative stocks being "better" -- that's not really true if
> you're looking for a
> reversal film. I've been shooting the Vision2 stocks recently, but
> they are their own experience.
> And while I can print to S8 positive at Andec in Berlin, that's
> costly. Are you assuming that
> S8 shooters should transfer to video or optically print to 16mm or
> 35mm for a positive?
>
> Regardless, K40 remains my preference for extremely bright outdoor scenes.
>
> There's also the issue of stability. I don't know how the negative
> stocks (or the S8 prints) last over
> time, but Kodachrome tends to retain its color, for the very reasons
> of its idiosyncratic production that
> you cite.
>
> So, I'll take it, thanks very much.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Stephen Kent Jusick
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at
> AOL Food.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.