Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Rescans and archiving

Not to be too picky, but Ektachrome is a Kodak trademark, and Fuji 
therefore doesn't make any Ektachrome films.  You probably would be more 
accurate by saying all "E-6" processed films if you wish to include 
Fujichrome, although even the E-6 process is owned by Kodak, and Fuji 
calls their process CR-56 or something like that.


Rob Geraghty wrote:

> Roger wrote:
>>At 11:26 PM +1000 12/12/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>>>The archival nature of Kodachrome is awesome.  It's a shame that the
>>>technology is being displaced by ektachrome in that respect.  However
> I
>>>believe the modern Ektachrome films are much more archival than earlier
>>Yes, that is true, but they still don't match the Fujichromes 
>>for longevity, at least according to Henry Wilhelm.
> Hi Roger - when I spoke of Ektachrome, I meant *all* ektachrome films, which
> includes Fuji and all other brands which use the ektachrome process.  It's
> reassuring to know that Wilhelm says Fuji films have good longevity since
> almost my entire collection is fuji film.  However, Fuji film simply wasn't
> around just post WWII, but I've seen Kodachromes that still look brilliant
> from QEII's coronation.  I really hope that Fuji films do turn out to last
> a long time, but at the moment the only one we can be sure of is Kodachrome.
> But note I'm shooting Fuji because I like the colour and other aspects of
> the films. :)  If I was really paranoid about longevity, I'd probably shoot
> kodachrome.
> As was mentioned before, all this depends on how well they're stored etc.
> Rob


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.