From: owen (email suppressed)
Date: Mon May 12 2008 - 19:49:21 PDT
I love Kodachrome s8. Even the films I made as a child still look great.
And the 16mm Kodachrome prints from the 1960's that I've screened in
recent years such as OFFON by Scott Bartlett and Colorfilm by Ben Van
Meter are pure color JOY !
All hail and three cheers for pure color JOY !
On May 10, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Stephen Kent Jusick wrote:
> Jim--
>
> I dont' understand why you are feeling compelled to be a Kodachrome
> naysayer
> in an obviously pro-Kodachrome thread.
>
> I was giving welcome info for people who actually like the emulsion.
> You don't have to like Kodachrome, or care about its possible
> reintroduction.
> But why the negativity?
>
> I'm not sure that people who shoot Kodachrome care that the
> manufacturing and processing is
> 'idiosyncratic" or not. We're talking about film, and Super8--it's
> all idiosyncratic at this point in the
> digital world.
>
> As for negative stocks being "better" -- that's not really true if
> you're looking for a
> reversal film. I've been shooting the Vision2 stocks recently, but
> they are their own experience.
> And while I can print to S8 positive at Andec in Berlin, that's
> costly. Are you assuming that
> S8 shooters should transfer to video or optically print to 16mm or
> 35mm for a positive?
>
> Regardless, K40 remains my preference for extremely bright outdoor
> scenes.
>
> There's also the issue of stability. I don't know how the negative
> stocks (or the S8 prints) last over
> time, but Kodachrome tends to retain its color, for the very
> reasons of its idiosyncratic production that
> you cite.
>
> So, I'll take it, thanks very much.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Stephen Kent Jusick
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.