Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark Rabiner wrote: > > My Kodachrome have stood up better than my Ektachromes by a long shot. > They have both underwent a lot of projection. My slides date to '65. > Fade wise it will take a lot of convincing to convince me against my > direct experience. Also my wifes dad's slides agree. His predates mine > by a decade or two, his old non Kodachomes look faded, the Kodachomes > are frozen in time. Mark, I recently had a discussion about this with a photographer who has been around shooting since the 50s and still has good-as-the-day-they-were-shot Ektachromes. The secret, he said, was that he had a large company (20 photographers on staff doing commercial/advertising work) and an in-house lab and did only one shot processing, so no contamination. He rambled on for a few minutes discussing all the things they did differently than a commercial lab, including some chemical things. So he has only praise for longevity of Ektachrome. I'll ask him again and take notes and report. He has been all over the world shooting annual reports and still shoots only one film, EPP that he rolls himself. He has 250,000 chromes labeled and filed in cabinets in his living room/office and all Ektachrome, plus images with 7 stock houses and all Ektachrome. Now he uses a lab, but only because he won't live long enough, he says, for the ones he shoots today to ever fade and because Kodak has made strides in longevity. donal - -- Donal Philby San Diego http://www.donalphilby.com