[ARC5] WW II Aircraft factory pictures

[Bob Macklin]

"What about radio?  Will SDR replace analog?"

Not at my house!

I also used to do my own E-6 and C-41 processing.
I have not used any real film in the past 12 years.

Save your photos on a CD. They can be screwed up but not as easily as with a 
HDD.

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.
"Real Radios Glow In The Dark"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Gottlieb" <nerd at verizon.net>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] WW II Aircraft factory pictures


> From someone with a high level connection to Kodak I heard it came down to 
> economics.  Sure, environmental regulations plays a part of that, but I 
> suspect the collapsing consumer demand was the key driver.
>
> I used to do E6 upstairs in the student center darkroom.  Kodachrome 
> processing chemicals were available but it was something like a 14 step 
> process with very tight temperature and pH demands so not at all practical 
> for manual use.
>
> On a consumer scale the immediacy of digital, the cost savings, the 
> ability to more easily share have made film processing a niche service. 
> The problems with digital that you mention will be solved (and to some 
> extent are with cloud storage).
>
> What about radio?  Will SDR replace analog?
>
>
> On 2/17/2013 12:52 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>> My understanding is the rise of the EPA was a big part of the issue. They
>> all but killed E-4 and E-6. Probably Kodachrome also.
>>
>> I do not think that 'going digital' will eventually be seen as a 'good
>> thing'. You can still get something from even a faded picture, but not
>> from an ureadable HD or Flash card..
>>
>> -John
>>
>> ====================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quikus.com>
>>> To: "Christopher Bowne" <aj1g at sbcglobal.net>
>>> Cc: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>; "Clare Owens"
>>> <clare.owens at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:57 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARC5] WW II Aircraft factory pictures
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's why the demise of Kodachrome was so lamented. It
>>>> was a far more
>>>> stable process than the Kodacolor (C-41) process, used in
>>>> the 'drug store'
>>>> labs for 30 odd years.
>>>>
>>>> -John
>>>       There was  more: Partly it was the color rendition of
>>> Kodachrome and partly the nearly grainless images.
>>>       All multiple layer color films are very complex but
>>> Kodacrome got around a problem by putting some of the
>>> complexity into the processing steps.  Kodacrhome requires
>>> four development steps while color negative film requires
>>> only one and modern color reversal film requires two.  At
>>> about the same time as Kodachrome was released to the public
>>> as 16mm motion picture film (1935) AGFA in Germany was able
>>> to produce a "modern" type of color film. However it was
>>> never made available to the American market.  Quite a lot of
>>> this film has survived. This is all rather off topic here
>>> but those interested in the history of color films can find
>>> quite a lot on the web.
>>>       The demise of Kodachrome was only partly due to the
>>> general swing from chemical photography to digital or
>>> electronic photography; Kodak had been trying to kill it off
>>> for years due to its difficult processing.  Photographers
>>> who shoot stock photos particularly miss it due to its
>>> excellent archival properties.
>>>       There was a difference in the method AGFA and Kodak
>>> used in "sequestering" the dye intermediates used in
>>> Agfacolor and Kodacolor (not needed in Kodachrome). Both
>>> methods were used for decades but it appears that the AGFA
>>> method is the one currently used.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> Los Angeles
>>> WB6KBL
>>> dickburk at ix.netcom.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ARC5 mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2639/5610 - Release Date: 02/17/13
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>