Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I suppose that this depends on how you define "a lot". I too have heard that Kodachromes do not hold up to projection as well as Ektachromes, along with the advice to use dupes for projection. I have never done that myself, since my slides are projected quite infrequently. I wish I could use Kodachrome again, but I am not willing to endure the turnaround time here in Belgium, and I also hate the cardboard mounts. I eagerly await the new mini-processors (or whatever they are called) that will allow local labs to process Kodachrome. There is an excellent book I just picked up which is relevant to this whole discussion of permanence. It is called "Post Exposure: Advanced Techniques for the Photographic Printer", by Ctein. He is very knowledgeable and used to frequent the Compuserve Photo Forum (maybe he still does). The book was published in 1997 by Focal Press. It has a whole chapter on permanence, including some very interesting testing he has done. Nathan 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 Rabiner - -- Nathan Wajsman Overijse, Belgium General photo site: http://members.tripod.com/belgiangator/ Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/ Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/