Text 49635, 60 rader
Skriven 2008-10-04 05:53:32 av Jeff Guerdat (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av JAY EMRIE
Ärende: Re: Nice sharp pixes.
=============================
JAY EMRIE wrote:

> JG>A big reason for Kodachrome disappearing is that it's a NASTY process 
> JG>(don't stick you hands in the chemicals and certainly don't dump them 
> JG>down the sink).  Ektachrome, or, at least, the E6 process, will probably 
> JG>be around for quite some time, just as the C41 color negative process 
> JG>will exist.
> 
> No, the big reason for Kodachrome disappearing is the dramatic drop in
> the usage of Kodachrome. I would bet that E6 has, or will very soon,
> follow the same route.

There was never a large number of labs (comparatively speaking) that 
handled Kodachrome because of the proprietary nature, the difficulty of 
the process and the issues of the chemistry.  When the first E4 (and 
then E6) Ektachrome films and processes hit, the writing was on the 
wall.  Kodachrome is deemed superior in image quality by many but, when 
given the option, many chose otherwise.  Whether any film process will 
have an enduring fate remains to be seen.  Certainly on the amateur 
level, digital is replacing it and pros are at least making use of it, 
even many of th ehard-core film advocates.

> Regards to Kodachrome - why would professional photo stay with chrome
> when they can get the same - maybe better - results from digital? They
> can, also if they desire, bypass using a professional photo lab except
> for the printing process when they want to use their time otherwise or
> even do that themselves.

It's not true that digital represents the same quality as film, at 
least, not if you're after ultimate quality.  The dynamic (contrast) 
range of many/most/all(?) sensors is lacking compared to what can be 
done with film.  The pixel count has finally gotten to the point of 
matching film's resolution but that's not the whole picture (get it? ;) 
).  Yes, the immediate gratification of digital is unique but there's 
still a lot of manipulation that may need to be done that now requires 
time, effort, expertise and money spent on the computer and software. 
It's shifted the process and not all photographers have the desire or 
ability to do this.  So, while the digital camera is getting better, 
quality-wise, it still has a way to go as does the professional 
photographer's use and desire.

> Now lets look at it from a logical view point. In my Camera Club only a
> very few (5-6 or so) still use film (all types). Virtually all have
> switched to digital. The ones going to digital FIRST were the members
> that were doing professional work also.

Some people see the future and embrace it immediately.  Others wait 
until it's actually a viable alternative.  I've found digital 
photography to be a blessing (and a curse on occasion).  Others have 
found that digital doesn't serve their needs well and are still waiting. 
  Does that put them behind the 8 ball?  They're still making a living 
and doing well...

-- 
Jeff Guerdat

Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they afraid someone will
clean them? - George Carlin
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)