From: Adam Hyman (email suppressed)
Date: Mon May 12 2008 - 18:54:12 PDT
But your comment about it being overrated is the most sanctimonious comment
thus far. Itıs not over rated or underrated it had specific qualities
that people found appropriate to their art. It also has a look that is
different from the more current and ³flexible² stocks. Thatıs all.
On 5/12/08 6:31 PM, "Jim Carlile" <email suppressed> wrote:
> What I'm always struck by is the emotional responses, the sanctimoniousness
> even, when people try to talk some sense into things like the fact that an old
> film stock has been discontinued and that it was pretty overrated in the first
> Who cares if people loved Kodachrome? A lot of people didn't. They're welcome
> to use it, magenta shift and all. But it was never all that to begin with.
> There were a lot of problems with this 40-year old color reversal film-- you
> couldn't get decent prints, for one.
> This thread started with the ridiculous tale that Wittner was going to be
> making Kodachrome again. They're not. That's not cynical, that's the truth.
> Then the gushing began.
> This same thing happens on both the APUG site and photo-net. Whenever the
> topic comes up, and people who know more than I do about Kodachrome try to
> play down the loss of the stock, all hell breaks loose.
> Move on guys-- it's not coming back. There are more flexible stocks out there.
> What I always see when Kodachrome gets discussed is not positive, it's
> In a message dated 5/12/2008 6:11:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
>> I don't know if this is what Fred meant or not but I
>> am always kind of amazed at the vehemence with which
>> arguments like this advance, the amazing rate at which
>> some extremely cynical arguments and negative
>> attitudes are introduced into these discussions which
>> use rationalist arguments to shout down some perfectly
>> innocent, even positive discussions. I mean,
>> Kodachrome film never really hurt anyone, and it had
>> some properties that some people liked a lot. Some
>> (arguably) great films have been created in
>> celebration its qualities. The derisive comparison of
>> Kodachrome to stocks which are objectively and
>> inarguably less grainy, lower contrast, easily
>> replicable, etc. does nothing to change the fact that
>> some have considered Kodachrome beautiful, a joy to
>> look at and work with, and that (arguably) some great
>> films have been made in celebration of its qualities.
>> And it's not the quality of the arguments (the
>> citation of resolution or contrast specs for example),
>> but the cynicism and negativity involved, the eager
>> diminishment of Kodachrome lovers (for example) with
>> facts and rationality that is always surprising.
>> (but it's not really all that surprising)
>> Steve Polta
>> --- Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
>>> In a message dated 5/12/2008 11:11:41 A.M. Pacific
>>> Daylight Time,
>>> email suppressed writes:
>>> Carlile's statements oppose the whole history and
>>> "ideology" of what it
>>> means to make experimental/avant-garde films
>>> I take that as kind of a compliment, actually.
>>> And it's completely false, too. The film world is
>>> full of lots of extreme
>>> orthodoxy-- like how about the folks who completely
>>> scorned color film to begin
>>> with? Or who condemned sound?
>>> Face it guys-- it's time to move on. Kodachrome is
>>> not coming back. No one's
>>> going to be manufacturing it again. It was a decent
>>> little slide film that
>>> Kodak kept porting over to amateur movie making and
>>> it served its purpose. It's
>>> cumbersome to make and even more cumbersome to
>>> The results people are getting nowadays with 64T and
>>> even Ektachrome 100D or
>>> the Velvia reversal is fantastic. And negative
>>> stocks have to be seen to be
>>> believed in the small gauges. There's so much you
>>> can do with it -- and yes--
>>> you can emulate a Kodachrome look if you want,
>>> whatever it is ( magenta, in
>>> my view.)
>>> No one's trying to force people away from
>>> Kodachrome, but it was highly
>>> overrated anyway and there are so many myths
>>> surrounding it that it's getting
>>> annoying hearing them all the time.
>>> That many people surround this film with excess
>>> emotion makes me wonder just
>>> what's going on. The hatred that Kodak had to deal
>>> with when they finally
>>> discontinued this film was pretty incredible to
>>> witness. It's not church, folks.
>>> **************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>.
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>> 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 <http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001> .
> __________________________________________________________________ For info on
> FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.