Slashdot Mirror
Kodachrome Takes Its Final Bow Today
Ellis D. Tripp writes "Today marks the end of an era for photo geeks, with the shutdown of the world's last Kodachrome film processing line. Dwayne's Photo, of Parson, KS will pull the plug on their K-14 processing equipment at the end of business today."
I hope they are just "selling" the processing equipment, not specifically "selling for scrap", as the article mentions. I would hope that SOMEONE would buy it to send to the Smithsonian or similar.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I really liked it!
When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall
Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match
My sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white
Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
(Leave your boy so far from home)
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Here's the original story from the New York Times.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Didn't they launch chrome just a few years ago? I haven't read the summary yet, but this sure is a shame.
Well, it's like records and tube amps. They have a certain "warmth" you don't get with digital and solid state :-)
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
On that topic, I still say only the original Edison wax cylinders had true audio fidelity. Vinyl is just a cheap knockoff, trading convenience for quality.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
It pisses me off that the majority of people crying about this (and the demise of colour films in general) are mostly the ones who scour eBay for expired rolls with which to stock their fridges, instead of buying fresh packs of film, demonstrating to the manufacturers that there is actual demand for it.
You have provided us with more memories of good and bad times than the discovery-channel. You will be missed. Well not really, but that's only because I have the kodachrome plugins for ps. :')
Do you actually need to process this a certain way, or can you just like scan the negatives(??) in and fix the colors?
I know absolutely nothing about photography.
Kodachrome is hard film to use; I gave up trying to take indoor photos with it years ago. I have continued to use it (about 25 rolls in the last two years), mostly because the quality of the images is obviously different from modern film or digital, and evokes nostalgia in older viewers. And I liked the bragging rights. It's no surprise that Kodachrome is gone; Kodak had been phasing it out for years -- first killing the larger format versions, then the iso25 and iso200 variants, and the motion picture film. The economics just weren't there; virtually every other color film uses identical (C41 or E6) processing chemicals, and Kodachrome used a different and apparently more toxic set. Without scale, it was more expensive to buy and process than other color films, and the emulsion can't even be scanned by most slide scanners. You're left with only nostalgia and archival properties to drive sales, enough for a small specialty chemical company perhaps, but not for Kodak.
WTF is going on with links?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I know that most photography has gone digital, but there are enough 35mm cameras still having shutters snap that I wonder if there would be a market for a new type of color film in various ISOs. Something designed for modern use, using as non-toxic chemicals as possible (probably not likely), and perhaps with as small a grain as possible, so one wouldn't have to go with a Hasselblad or medium format to make a 11x17 with ISO 800 film.
This might be impossible, but film has a number of things over even the best digital cameras. From color gradients (256 levels of RGB versus infinite), to the fact that it is quite difficult to doctor film without that being detected (at least easier than firing up Photoshop.)
I will sorely miss Kodachrome. It has no equal.
I just went to the refrigerator and removed 25 rolls of Kodachrome 64 36 exp. -- paid $8.20 per roll ($205 total). They've been in there since 2002. I've been meaning to shoot them ever since Kodak made their announcement last year but alas work prevented me from taking two scheduled vacations this year to do so. Sigh. I suppose now there's nothing left to do with it except throw it away.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Well, it is pretty orgasmic...
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
First, you have to develop the film to get any kind of image at all.
Well, okay, theoretically, you could scan the film, but not with any ordinary scanner. The light from the scanner, you see, would wash the image right out.
You have to develop film to bring the image out into a form that is visible to the unaided/untrained eye. Developing also stabilizes the image so that further exposure to light doesn't wash it out.
Places to educate yourself even further (regards negative and positive process film, etc.):
kodachrome
slide filme
Oh, and search Google for kodachrome and, more interesting, perhaps, kodachrome negative. (Why interesting? It brought up, among other things, this.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Find those rolls in the back of the closet and send them in!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Cue some 'romantic' shit about how Kodachrome has some unmeasurable orgasmic quality over anything else...
It doesn't have to be "romantic shit." Kodachrome does have qualities that are different from anything else. Irreplaceable qualities? Unreproducible qualities? Maybe not. But until you've tried to shoot actual creative photographs (as opposed to "I wanna see this later" snapshots), you don't understand what a complex and highly analog process it is -- even for digital cameras.
Between shutter speeds, apertures, film ISO, lenses, flash timings, and just plain holding the camera in the right place at the right time, there are a lot of variables. In film stock there are variables also, much like how two different digital SLR cameras will produce different-looking pictures of the same thing under the same lighting conditions.
Can you fiddle with an exposure in Photoshop until most film snobs would swear it's a Kodachrome image? Sure. Is that a worthwhile way to spend your time? You tell me.
Bottom line: No, if you hand a roll of Kodachrome to an inexperienced photographer, he's not going to be able to take any better pictures than he would with any other film. On the other hand, in the hands of an experience photographer who understands Kodachrome and knows how to get what he wants from it, the film stock can make the difference between an OK photograph and a great one. It's kind of like playing an electric guitar: Whether your amp is tube or solid-state, your guitar and your amp -- in your hands -- is going to sound different from the guy down the street's. You play what works for you.
Kodachrome "worked" for a lot of photographers for many years. That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
Breakfast served all day!
Hmm. The process is known, but it is complicated (tricky, it sounds like, since you have to re-expose the film several times to different colors of light (which may be part of the reason for the vivid colors?)) and use chemicals even more poisonous than those used in the more common processes.
But I'm going to guess that there will be amateurs/independents who try to reproduce the process for those people whose rolls didn't make it to Dwayne's in time for the last cans of the official chemicals.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I can still develop it but in black and white, or some other funky colours. It is a positive image I suck at developing those by hand.
I think you mean durability, not convenience.
I'm amused at the apparently clueless people on eBay bidding against each other for film that can no longer be processed. There are several examples of multiple bids on auctions for unexposed film ending tomorrow.
Shut up, dad.
Another hit for the analog world. In a few more years, real quality will just be a distant memory and all we will have are 'samples'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The end of the decade is 2011! There was no Year 0! Or something. I think.
Wait, I've gone and confused myself now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPvF1MOU2kE
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
The name of the town is Parsons, not Parson.
Yeah, I too remember Kodachrome 25 from my 35mm film SLR days. I loved that film—if you had enough light, a fast lens, and the right kind of subject, you could get some astonishing shots. As someone remarked, it's probably all in the dyes and process...it just seemed like magic to me. The colors were intense, but they looked right, somehow.
FYI, the Afghan girl's eyes look grey when I look at the picture on this crappy LCD monitor I'm using.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
That picture from National Geographic of the Afghan girl with the crazy green eyes that you've seen a million times? That's Kodachrome.
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Kodachrome is just a medium through which create works of art. There's nothing wrong with lamenting its loss, but it's now a dead technology. There are countless other uninvented film types, and now there is just one more.
Digital, on the other hand, is virtually infinite in its variability. It can emulate any type of film you'd like, including not just Kodachrome, but also any of those other countless uninvented film types. With a properly color-calibrated photo workflow, it's trivial with a Kodachrome color profile to get the same colors.
That photo the way you saw it on the cover of National Geographic, and on the link you provided? That's digital.
Pretty sure National Geographic wasn't doing digital publishing in 1984, but I get your point. But so what?
Chances are, you've never seen the "Mona Lisa." I've seen it. But unless you've been to Paris, France and stood in line at the Louvre, you probably haven't. You've only ever seen it in print or in digital, and either way that was probably transferred from a second intermediate step, film.
So could a modern-day Leonardo create the "Mona Lisa" entirely using digital tools? Sure. Didn't I say that in my original post? But I'll wager most artists would still want to and use oil paints to produce an image like that.
Likewise, I don't know many photographers who think it's "trivial" to produce images that look like Kodachrome using a purely digital process. YMMV of course.
Breakfast served all day!
I have 70-year-old Kodachrome slides shot by my grandparents of their parents, which still look good. I also have 30-year-old E-6 film from Agfa, Fuji, and other people which is already hopelessly discolored. In comparison, I won't be taking any bets on how many of my own digital photographs will still be accessible in 30 years, much less 70.
I live about twenty miles from this studio. One of about two people that do.
Probably the last time my home town, Parsons, KS will make the national news.
Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
Spelled correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
Well, then now you're not so anonymous anymore, are you?
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
[url=http://www.yfballmill.com/jaw-crusher.html]jaw crusher[/url] Alter Relationship Well, then now you're not so anonymous anymore
No offense, but I'm guessing your photos aren't exactly the Magna Carta. Will anyone even care about your vacation photos 70 years from now?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Sure, whatever. There is still plenty of analog film available. Both slide film and negative film. Sure, Fuji Velvia (which uses ordinary E-6 process) may not keep for 80 years, but these days it is mostly scanned to digital within days of processing.
And frankly, there isn't an old Kodachrome slide in existence that doesn't have a blue or magenta color cast.
It was great while it lasted, but photography has moved on. Analog has turned into a niche product, so there isn't a sane reason to keep yet another process alive for the handful of enthusiasts that still use it.
Greetings from the photo lab.
Learned about photography in boy scouts on a Canon AT-1...boy I feel old, all these youngsters running around today with their robot cameras built into their phones!
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
With a properly color-calibrated photo workflow, it's trivial with a Kodachrome color profile to get the same colors.
Assuming this is true, the key word becomes properly. That means "you have to be an expert", since not even most photographers know how to do colour profiles.
I'm a digital photographer who started out with a bad digicam in 2005, so I don't have film nostalgia. However, each time I hear that you can just select any colour you want in software to make things great I think it's pretty much a fantasy. You probably can, but digital pictures still look like shit on average compared to film pictures. Why is that?
There are probably several reasons, but I think it comes down to this: if you're doing the colours yourself in photo software, then you have to have a good eye to get it right. If on the other hand you're relying on the film to get colours (like most back in the day) then the team of experts at the film manufacturer have optimized the colours. It becomes a matter of any random person vs. a team of probably highly paid experts. Knowing what's in any particular photo helps the random boob, but in my experience it doesn't help enough.
Colour is notoriously difficult and I could be completely wrong. But in the meantime I'm pleased to notice that some of the nicest digital colours come from Fuji digital cameras set to default settings. Presumably some of the same technologies or even people are involved as with their films. My Olympus SLR has a reputation for good JPEG colours for that matter, and given correct white balance and exposure I cannot improve on the colours in processing something like 90% of the time.
It sounds like that's probably easier than shooting actual Kodachrome. I'd imagine it'd be scriptable, such that you'd only ever have to do it once (heck, I'll bet there's already a "Kodachrome filter" out there you can just apply). And if you decide later on that you actually didn't want it to be Kodachrome after all, you still have the original.
I am trolling
k25? hah! i remember kII;-) and color-coded aluminum screwtop film can, not that cheap black plastic;-)
Somebody might care. We call it "history".
Look at museums around the world - many of the items are pretty ordinary items that have become extraordinary because of the passage of time.
and that's the main diff between digital & analog media: analog storage technology is the same as display: a human-viewable image (or text).
digital media require 2 separate technologies, a bifurcation that marks the beginning of a new epoch, 4better or worse:-}
They might -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trachtenburg_Family_Slideshow_Players
.
Is this really the end of processing Kodachrome, or just the end of that particular kind of machine? Is there another way to develop and print Kodachrome?
I expect that for quite some time after the "deadline" people will come up with undeveloped rolls of pictures they want to see. Is there really no other way, however exotic? Looks like maybe not.
--
make install -not war
Didn't they launch chrome just a few years ago? I haven't read the summary yet, but this sure is a shame.
Yeah, I remember that...
But really, this was inevitable. As soon as that black Megadeus showed up and fired its chrome-buster - I mean, of course that's going to be the end of chrome.
Bow-ties are cool.
The first decade of 2010 ended one year ago.
{ Face palm }
You're right, he made a slight error there. Actually the first decade of 2010 ends tonight.
See, we're dealing with two conflicting ideas of when a {decade, century, millennium} begins and ends. Some say the new decade began at the beginning of 2010, some say the new decade begins at the beginning of 2011 (and, thus, the previous decade ends today, at the end of 2010.)
Therefore there are two (widely-recognized) decades to which 2010 belongs: 2001-2010 and 2010-2019. So the first decade of 2010 ends at the end of 2010, while the last decade of 2010 ends ten years after the start of 2010...
Bow-ties are cool.
Or would you consider 1990 part of the 80s?
Judging from the clothes and music? Yeah. :)
Bow-ties are cool.
So do I. Unfortunately, it's on Kodachrome.
So assuming you've already had it processed, it should last quite a long time then? Excellent... don't see how that's unfortunate at all!
BTW, in a sense Kodachrome ended 18 months ago when they discontinued it. This story is like an epilogue following the "proper" ending. It's a sort of.... Coda-chrome.
Ba-dum tssht! Thank you, I'll be here all week, waitress, tip, etc......
Alternative follow-on line..... YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Er, sorry.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Except that there are films with a color gamut broader than that of most digital cameras (ignoring >10k studio equipment). It is impossible to emulate such a film in digital, as you simply have not captured the necessary information.
Digital is pretty damn good, but it is far from "virtually infinite".
Yeah, I think that is an excellent point. Interesting to note that trash heaps are information gold mines: newspapers are still readable literally a hundred years later (or more) but I doubt that any digital storage media would be... even if the method to retrieve the information was known.
Information is retrievable and can be interpreted (the meaning made known) after millenia.
Hmmmmm..... ;->
Progress.
But we can't assign historic value to *everything*, or the signal-to-noise ratio will be too great to find anything worthwhile.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
PC Gamers tend to be older due to the greater investment.
Older people tend to cooperate more and be more reliable.
The test was one of cooperation and reliability.
On the other hand, I play on consoles. The people I team with are always my friends, and near my age (sadly, older than I'd like) or maturity level (happily, lower than most my age). I always receive the cooperation I expect. Well, not always you *$#$%#%#.
The message is, if you are a lone user looking for cooperation, go for a PC. Little else.
You probably mean the first decade of this millenium. but you're wrong.
The first decade ends today/tonight (depending on your time-zone).
Was the first year zero? or one?
I look at that the same way I look at the Kai's Power Tools "Drop Shadow" filters that were so popular in the late 90s. You don't see much of that effect anymore. These days it's the "I see a slight mirror image below the object, as if it was sitting on a flawless white counter top" filter. And that one will get old soon, too. In general, automated digital processes do a fundamentally poor job of mimicking processes that are highly "analog" (read: variable and subject to myriad physical conditions) in the real world. Once your eye starts to detect the "I clicked on a menu and made it happen" effect, you start to tire of it. IMHO, of course.
Breakfast served all day!
Huh... you are bitching about colors not being vibrant and contrasty (like certain films...) and yet you are using the jpeg engine of your slr. You want raw. And you want lightroom with your own profiles. Then you can indeed make the colors like anything you want and can certainly improve them. A lot of the digital stuff is pretty heavily baked anymore with lots of contrast and strong blacks. The colors tend to be oversaturated too. Of course this is nothing like reality, and of course if your are just using your camera to process the images its going to come out in an underwhelming way. Jpegs are 8-bit vs the 14-bit raw your sensor is capable of. You are cutting your dynamic range in half by using jpeg and cutting down considerably on your color reproduction due to the limited gamut of 8-bit jpeg. The fujis give good color, because their default settings are to add all kinds of contrast and saturation. You can easily do this in lightroom and create the look you are going for and just apply it to all your raw files on import. Don't bitch about the medium or the tools if you don't want to use them to their maximum potential.
zosxavius photography
Yeah, and the dynamic range of digital totally eclipses film too. It is approaching films resolution finally with the latest round of SLRs as well. A 35mm slide yields about 20 megapixels. About the same as a full frame sensor, and increasingly APS-C sized sensors. Also the lens is going to certainly become the limiting factor in resolving power in the near future. Its going to take some breakthroughs in lens technology for current lens sizes to resolve much greater than 20mp as it is. Your arguments are nearly moot. Digital has for all intensive purposes trumped film as the ideal medium and the hordes of people that have given up medium format for Canon 5d Mark IIs are a testament for that.
zosxavius photography
Well, if they really are 70-year-old slides, there may will be interest in them. 1940 was before color photography was mainstream - it was expensive enough that most people still shot B&W, and if they used Kodachrome they generally used it pretty sparingly. If they took their camera to something like a county fair or took pictures of something newsworthy like a parade they may very well have the only existing color photographs of that event. Someone might be interested.
Now, 60-year old Kodachrome vacation slides would be a lot less significant as lots of people were using the film by 1950.
And this coming from poor wittle APK, also know as "Petey, the idiot HOPES file guy"? As in you HOPES that one of the 300,000+ constantly changing array of websites that are infected doesn't happen to be the one you visit today? Or that you HOPES that nobody notices after repeatedly being asked you have FAILED to show even the tiniest shred of mathematical proof that your magical woobie can scale? That you HOPES nobody notices your only "proof" is anecdotes, often by your own sock puppets like Kingsjester?
If there is ANYONE that should be LOLing it is me, for pointing out there are still morons that believe 16Mb HOPES files can do anything but block ads since ad servers are...what do you call it...oh yeah STATIC, just like your HOPES file, but really you are just kinda pathetic. You're like the idiot that just keeps hanging onto that three years out of date copy of Norton, because he is just so damned sure it still works, only the Norton guy is actually better protected than you are, since it did used to work in the past 5 years.
So please, keep posting APK, I do so enjoy pointing out the total uber fail of your magical woobie so. I also personally consider it a public service to point people to solutions that actually work instead of relying on magical woobies and anecdotes. And of course bitch slapping your around is also quite fun!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What's your proof of it? Is it 100% exact?? I doubt it. Nobody can know exactly how many websites are bad out online because they're always changing, in either making more, or ones being shutdown. You don't have any "mathematical proof" yourself that's exact, so your foaming at the mouth name calling on this page? A waste of time. You don't have a pot to piss in yourself.
I'm quite satisfied with the JPEGs from my camera. They have great colour for being digital, so I feel no need to post process despite always saving the RAWs too.
I have no need for "realistic" colour. I see that every second I'm awake. I prefer photos that look good over photos that look realistic. It's of course fine if someone else wants to copy their in-brain processing, but I don't.
I don't use Lightroom because I don't have the money and it doesn't exist on my operating system anyway. As for the "easily" part...
I get this "it's easy to make the colours right in [software]" all the time. I disagree, it requires skill. Skill I don't have. I can tell when colour is good, but I can't always get good colour - just like I know what music I like despite not knowing how to play a single instrument.
The JPEG engine of my SLR has been optimized by people who are better at colour than I am. As I said, me messing with the pictures in software will just make things worse. Telling any stranger that he can get colours right with his own taste seems like a pretty big gamble to me - it could be someone who thinks pink and dark green are a winning combination!
FROM YOUR POINTS HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34734160 quoted & disproved, "point-by-quoted-point" as is my style in blowing away undereducated trolls like yourself, on the value of HOSTS files as an added layered security measure:
"I also personally consider it a public service to point people to solutions [superantispyware.com] that actually [comodo.com] work [malwarebytes.org]" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
Yea, they work alright (about as well as you say HOSTS files do) - NOT: Nothing alone is 100% effective:
---
MULTIPLE EVIDENCES OF ANTIVIRUS &/or ANTISPYWARE PROGRAM FAILURES + SHORTCOMINGS:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/win_2000_virus_tests/
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/11/07/1545238.shtml
---
(Want more?)
There is NO WAY THEY CAN KEEP UP WITH NEW MALWARES BEING MADE either... and you say they "work"? See above!
(They're "better than nothing", & I use them myself, for added LAYERED SECURITY - but, I don't put my entire FAITH ON THEM, as you appear to do!)
---
"You have 190,000 to 340,000 infected websites at this very moment and that list will change by the thousands per minute as sites are cleaned, new sites are infected, new vulnerabilities found, etc." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
So would "your solutions", see above, on the SAME NOTE!
(Which aren't really "your tools" - you only use the tools of others like a trained chimpanzee, except that I am kept "up-to-date", by the minute, by these reputable sources for HOSTS file data!)
AND, AGAIN? I don't only "just use hosts" - I use this for my "layered security" setup:
---
HOW TO SECURE WINDOWS 2000/XP/SERVER 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun to do" using CIS TOOL & beyond:
www.bing.com/search?q="HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP"&go=&form=QBRE
---
It works, and practices the current trend of "layered security", which HOSTS are a part of!
In fact, that guide of MINE?
On 15 forums it's featured on since 2008, w/ over 750,000 views on how to secure a modern Windows setup (making it the MOST viewed in fact, & I stopped checking counts in 2008 + 1 forum it was on went down & lost 1 example of it having over 100,000 views) & has been made a:
---
1.) Sticky/Pinned Thread
2.) Essential Guide
3.) 5/5 star rated
4.) Most Viewed in forums sections its in
Wherever it is featured! Have YOU done the same? No.
---
It even got me PAID for it, @ PCPitstop -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/
See Jan. 2008 (completely unexpected, but in January 2008 it won me a $100 prize there for its content)... That's the "total gamut" of "layered security" I use in addition to the HOSTS file (though I consider IT my "arc reactor core" of that security guide).
etc./et al...
---
"That is the nice thing about math, it doesn't lie or believe in anecdotes." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
RIGHT - then, it's a pity that you rely on your 1.3 million ESTIMATED # of "bad sites" out there as you did from SOFTPEDIA.COM -> http://news.softpedia.com
"I don't have to be exact because I'm not the one making outrageous claims" by hairyfeet (841228)
on Saturday January 01, @07:33AM (#34729460)
Yes you do. I read the reply to you from him and it contained your words quoted. Since you suggested things like antivirus or antispyware programs, you do have to be exact since those types of programs are subject to the same catch up ball phenomenon against malwares out online that you are stating hosts files incur. Unfortunately the ac respondent has a lot of data showing that trying to stay on top of that is not doing all that well from the perspective of users still being infected despite their usage of antivirus, antispyware, and even firewall programs.
I would be happy to give you the figures, feel free to check. Comodo AV = 98% hit rate and ZERO infections, Malwarebytes? 97% and ZERO infections. Type both names + Test into Youtube and feel free to watch Petey. I have also shown repeatedly, again feel free to choose ANY figures from ANY reputable site you like, you are talking on average 180,000 PER DAY of infected websites PLUS 1.8 million current PLUS 15,000 pieces of malware PLUS anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 websites revolving from the list. You see the difference between actual solutions and Petey's magical woobie is a little thing known as heuristics, along with a nice word known as sandboxing, neither of which his magical .txt file can do.
But if Petey wasn't completely batshit insane I wouldn't have to explain this, because this is why everyone makes fun of him. it is so obvious it is like someone arguing gravity is actually invisible pants gnomes trying to steal your underwear. It is the classic "default allow" which has NEVER EVER worked. Because if a piece of malware isn't in Petey's magical HOPES file he is royally fucked, and yet again I have shown that it is simply a roll of the dice whether he gets creamed or not, simply because he will always be behind
. So it is all on Petey and his magical HOPES woobie now. He made the extravagant claims, back them up with the math. If he can't? Well then he is full of shit, case closed. Notice how ALL PETEY CAN DO is throw insults and trollbomb? Why is that? I'll tell you why, because math doesn't lie and he just can't show the math He just can't, it would be like trying to mathematically prove PETEY is not an idiot. It just can't be done.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"I would be happy to give you the figures, feel free to check. Comodo AV = 98% hit rate and ZERO infections, Malwarebytes? 97% and ZERO infections." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Sunday January 02, @09:44AM (#34737154)
See subject-line above... It destroys your "bitch" about HOSTS files, because the SAME APPLIES TO "YOUR SOLUTIONS" in that they are NOT 100% perfect, & also have to play "catch up ball" vs. malware out there, which is also a "moving target" as much as bad websites are...!
(I say, "your solutions" but, they're not really yours, as again: You merely just "use" them, user - you create NOTHING yourself in the way of programs, because it's beyond the scope of your "so-called 'SkiLLz', such as they are, lol!)
AGAIN: Nobody knows the EXACT # of malwares out there, the same as nobody knows the EXACT # of bad websites either!
(So, your argument? Debunked, easily!)
Now - considering I am literally protected against 920,000 KNOWN BAD SITES and you are not (because you do not use the method I do in HOSTS files of blocking them off)? Who is BETTER PROTECTED vs. known bad websites - myself, or yourself??
(I have an extra layer of protection that you clearly, do not, in a custom HOSTS file!)
So those "anecdotal evidences" others are seeing (5++ yrs. of NO MALWARE INFESTATIONS since applying hosts files added layered protections), which are the same results as myself for over 15++ yrs. now no less here?
---
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
---
They're more "solid evidence" than you've produced based on your "approximation math" (inexact & the same ideas you noted about hosts files (in having to play "catchup ball" applies to antivirus &/or antispyware - & their "success rates"? FAR FROM PERFECT!))
---
You also use less "layered security" than I do, per the guide of mine I posted as evidence thereof... you seem to also be under the impression that "ALL I DO" is use the hosts file for security... that's FAR from the case!
APK
P.S.=> Using YOUR OWN "ARGUMENTS' LOGIC" against you, making you look the fool? Rather easy, hairyfeet... too easy in fact! apk
"Petey's magical woobie is a little thing known as heuristics, along with a nice word known as sandboxing, neither of which his magical .txt file can do" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Sunday January 02, @09:44AM (#34737154)
ANTIVIRUS HEURISTICS EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCES (i.e. - NOT 100% EFFECTIVE AND GETS FALSE POSITIVES):
---
The sorry state of Avira anti-virus heuristics:
http://grack.com/blog/2010/03/17/the-sorry-state-of-avira-anti-virus-heuristics/
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:
"Considering that the risk of false positives is so high (and users might be trained to ignore other, potentially valid virus warnings), I'd say that users are worse off with this virus definition than they are without."
---
(As "1 example thereof", because the very word "HEURISTICS" equates basically to hairyfeet's very bitch here - guesstimation technology really, in that it uses "does it smell/taste/look like a duck" type tech, & it makes mistakes... period, see above!)
You're "shot down in flames", yet again, hairyfeet... TOO easily!
Oh, lastly: One thing my HOSTS file does, is protect me, FOR SURE, vs. 920,259 KNOWN BAD WEBSITES (because if I cannot reach them? I cannot get infected by them - period!) , so who is better layered security protected here? Myself, using such layered security measures, OR YOU, w/out them?
APK
P.S.=> Heuristics can't save you here either, as it's NOT 100% perfect, and it also causes hassles in & of itself, @ times, also... apk
My DSLR seems to distort colors a little bit. Exposures tend to come out very much on the warm side. And you know what? I kind of like that look. I use a fast lens (the Canon 50mm f1.4) to shoot a lot of pictures under natural lighting, which often means strange lighting. To go in and play with it too much after the fact seems like it defeats the purpose. I like what I get out of it. The one exception, though, is that my Canon does seem to introduce a lot of chromatic and luminance distortion at high ISOs. Lightroom seems to do a good job of correcting for that.
Breakfast served all day!