Re: Freight Victoria Black

[fjones@pipeline.com.au (Frank Jones)]

On 25 Jul 1999 14:38:34 GMT, Your name <mk@netstra.com.au> wrote:

>I personally use the Sensia 100, and have found it to be an excellent
>film. Found that the Kodak Ektachrome films turned a lot of the darker
>areas of the photo blue. 
>
>Kodachrome i found, made a lot of the colours appear kind of brown.
>Kodachrome 200 on the other hand, is shocking as far as grain is
>concerned. 
>

One thing in Kodachrome's favour despite its relatively less
'exciting' colour, is that it is excellent in terms of its archival
quality. I read somewhere that it has a *minimum* life of 50 years.

This is because, unlike all other films, the colour dyes are not
actually in the film as purchased - Kodachrome is initially basically
several layers of colour-sensitive B/W film. The colour dyes are added
to the appropriate layers at the colour processing stage. Kodachrome
processing is quite different and considerably more complex than other
processing, which is why only Kodak do it in Australia.

Certainly all of my Kodachromes of the early 70s have retained their
colour admirably, whereas other brands of film (Agfa in particular)
have deteriorated considerably.

I also wonder about the longevity of colour prints - sometimes you
will get them back reeking of chemicals and you have to wonder whether
they have been washed properly. Have you ever been to a 21st and seen
the usual collection of baby photos, and noted how often many of them
are badly faded?