1. Secure your router or other network device with a new strong password thats not the default password or admin or user.
Failed already. It isn't that your ideas are bad, but any solution that can be enabled, has to rely on the consumer doing absolutely nothing. Because that is what they are going to do. Absolutely nothing.
My favorite developer was D76, which as it turns out is an inferior developer: it has a long toe caused by borax in the formulation, which eats away at the emulsion before the critical regions that receive the least light are fully developed. The result is muddy dark areas.
I used mostly HC-110, which at the time was an ongoing battle between it and D-76. Even some Rodinal.
Based on my limited experience and what I've read, I'd guess it would be possible to make a lab capable of processing Kodachrome (probably not very well) for perhaps $100,000.
Its the maintenance that gets ya.
From the 1950's to the early 1970's there were a number of fly-by-night film and processing companies that did a poor job of making and processing film. I don't look forward to a re-emergence of those conditions.
I'd be surprised if that happened again. Maybe a few regional labs - I'm still asking why they are reviving the stuff to begin with. Even the Super 8 Ektachrome!
Perhaps for some nostalgic purposes, I suppose. But the whole ecosystem under which old-school chemical photography is gone. As well, how much sales and processing is there going to be to support a nostalgia/ post nostalgia item.
Certainly I have my old Nikon bodies sitting around. Maybe some trendy person might want to buy one at the right price. I have an old 8008 that for a prosumer camera was oddly popular with professionals that has very distinguished wear mark personality from all of the use. The F-2 I'll keep for sure.
Just trying to figure out just why I'd want to shoot slide fiml any more.
We did win one with Great Yellow Father with SO115, which they rebranded as Technipan 2415; I've had lots of fun playing with that.
Yeah, I used to use that one for metallurgy photos. exposure was critical, so there was a lot of bracketing. But when you hit the sweet spot, it really worked great with low contrast weld samples to kick the contrast up.
Fuji's T-grain emulsion is superior to kodak.. as someone who has his City and Guilds(yeah.. that old) and who's first job was in photography... fuji t-grain FTW!
But it's color was garish.
one man's garish is another man's vivid.
I wonder if maybe that's why there were different types of film?
What was your field? I was doing mostly industrial work, and set work when we needed publicity stuff.
When I look back on all the crap you wrote in your post, it's a wonder that you think at all.
Maybe your lack of education hasn't hurt you none, but you still can't see the writing on the wall. Kodachrome is coming back!
Oh Hooo! Tell me all about the Kodachrome process.
We must demand it. I want all the world to look like a sunny day again. Right now it looks like a dreary digital apocalypse.
I have seen some old Kodachrome Prints. They were the Kodachrome emulsion on a White plastic base. The ones I had seen were beautiful and jarring. Beautiful because the color reproduction was as close to perfect as any film could be. And jarring because we are so used to seeing color and image fading that it seems odd to see that Grandma and Grandpa looked pretty much just like us when they were young, and the world was bright and vibrant.
Ask a musician whether tube amplifiers are not as good as solid state.
The distortion that a tube amp has, especially in the preamp stage, is a bedrock effect of rock music. It is a desirable feature - to the point that there are tube preamps designed to invoke it. As to "better"? Pretty subjective. I like the tube distortion, kinda warm and mellow feeling, and it can make a guitar sound pretty cool when you overdrive it.
Fact is, human senses respond well to certain types of distortion, no matter the medium. That's why there are still people painting with oils and playing violins and wind instruments. And singing.
Yes. I don't have any issue with someone exploiting an artistic effect of a defect. Which is what most of these effects are. Years ago, I dabbled in the alternative photographic processes like cyanotype and VanDyke, and metal etching printing, and gold toning. If I get back into it, I'd probably deal with digital printed negatives and albumen printing.
Oddly enough, when I was doing that alternative stuff as a hobby/art, Ektachrome was as mainstream as you could get. Now it might be considered alternative. As well, my experience with it has been that it's main characteristic is a tendency towards coolness, and that d log e S curve that tends to flatten the contrast of the highest and lowest parts of the image. It also has a but less dynamic range than it's deceased cousin Kodachrome.
Now, the trick to using it for art will be to exploit those characteristics - no small feat in a film and process that had been engineered forand largely achieved a reality based look. There is a certain interest in slide work. We'll see how people can exploit that today. Personally, I'm not all that interested, having processed a lot of E-6 film. I'll leave that to others who may not have had the experience when Ektachrome was mainstream.
Thank you for your anecdote. I'll file you in with the 0.000001% of internet users who managed to do that. Now if you'll excuse me my colleagues (normal people) are trying to show me a video on their phone.
Note how I said 10% in my above comment? Congratulations on falling into that category. I'm sure many slashdot users will. Most people however do not have adverts as the primary bandwidth user.
Are you having a bad day or something? Pretty testy reply for a simple anecdote on my part. Didn't mean to upset ya.
Fuji's T-grain emulsion is superior to kodak.. as someone who has his City and Guilds(yeah.. that old) and who's first job was in photography... fuji t-grain FTW!
Ektachrome was always a good choice if you had no access to a lab that would do process K-14.
Fixed that for you E-4 was the Ektachrome process used before the superior E-6 process replaced it. K-14 was the process used for Kodachrome. Extremely different processes.
Kodachrome can't come back without an E-4 lab coming back along with it.
Kodak didn't use E-4. E-4 was the predecessor of the E-6 Ektachrome process. Kodachrome used the K-14 process, which was tremendously different from any other process out there.
What would go over quite well though would be a new film with the characteristics of Kodachrome, but using process E-6. I doubt such a thing is easy though, or Kodak would have done it decades ago.
What makes Kodachrome so different was that it's dyes were not incorporated into the emulsion of the film, but introduced during processing. Extremely complex process, and you need a competent staff chemist to watchdog over the machinery. The results were beautiful and sharp, and it was much more archival than any of the other color slide processes. The E-4 you mentioned was terrible - E6 much better.
But there just isn't enough demand for Kodachrome to justify the great expense of setting up new lines to make the film, and re-build the processing lines again. And E-6? Not going to look like Kodachrome.
Digital cannot provide the quality of film even with massive file sizes.
If you define quality as the S shaped D log e curves, that's a film inherent defect, and if for some reason I wanted to emulate that defect, it is about 10 seconds in Photoshop to select the curve, then flatten the top and bottom end to kill the contrast there.
Which is why the demand for Kodachrome will now ring out loud.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Kodachrome is gone, and won't be coming back. A non-substansive process like Kodachrome is seriously complex, and no one, especially Kodak, has any reason to resume manufacturing of a complex and dead process like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What I'm getting at however is that the reason people may wish to go back to regular film is that the one thing that film does that digital phones can not do is soft edges and soft-focus.
That is an artifact of lenses, not film - unless the film camera was so badly designed that the film lay largely outside the plan of focus.
You deny that they missed the boat and then go on to list 100 reasons why they weren't on it when it sailed. Comprehension's not your strong suit, is it?
This is Slashdot ya know. Kodak is widely considered as one of the world leaders in missing the boat. This can all be summed up in that they abandoned the professionals while banking on the people who abandoned film photography first - the bottom end consumers, who ditched their 110 film cameras for phone cameras.
We may be talking at crossed-purposes, but Kodak very much did "miss the boat". Can you buy a "Kodak" brand digital camera today?
Kodak performed some whacky suicidal acts back in the day. They decided to abandon professional photographers for Amateurs, but they also would abandon everyone if they felt like it.
One of the examples was the Ektaflex line. Think of it as a large Polaroid print. You would expose an 8 by 10 or larger negative in the darkroom, then it would go into an alkaline bath, then be laminated onto a receiver. After a time, you peel it off, and there is your print. While originally an amateur product, pros latched onto it for quick printing. Side benefits were it was very archival, and had some of the nicest skin tones I've ever seen. And we bought a lot of it. I had freezers full of the stuff.
Then one day, Kodak gave us the big "fuck you!" and discontinued the stuff. Some gobbldygook about not enough amateurs bought it, and by definition it was an amateur product. We begged, we pleaded, to no avail. This arbitrary decision on their part cost a lot in altered workflow.
They did this with a number of products, and a lot of us Pros over time switched to Fuji. By the time we abandoned chemical photography where I worked, there wasn't a lot of Kodak products that we used left.
You could just ask a professional photographer. And could you stop using the word hipster like you know what it means, dad?
Film has some characteristics, such as it's density versus exposure. In an ideal world, the density would linearly follow the exposure. A graph of it would be a straight line. In reality, at the top and bottom of the exposure scale the film responds less to increasing or decreasing exposure. Plotted on a graph, the scale is like a long lazy "S". Hence the name "S curves'.
This does give film a characteristic look, in addition to a few other characteristics like grain, and the individual color response of the color layers.
It is a defect.
Digital sensors tend to have more of a straight line response, which allow the resulting images to look different. If I wanted to, I can go into Photoshop and emulate a chemical based photograph by using Curves, and throwing some grain into the image. I have done just that when a digital image among a a group of chemical images has stood out detrimentally.
I spent many years processing and printing negs and slides, it is a little hard to imagine that some would want to go back to that, but I suppose if someone hasn't experienced it, it would seem magic. But maybe it is like tube amplifiers, and some people enjoy the inherent distortion in slide photos or tube audio. Regardless, either can be beautiful.
But there are people who actually coat their own photo emulsions on glass, or metal, and recreate processes from the early days of photography. They aren't hipsters, they are artists.
With the most popular smartphone plans being several gigs, ads don't even come close being a bandwidth problem.
I blew my 4 gig cap once by visiting two web pages. I dont know if you keep track of ads and all, but they constitute the majority of the data winging into my phone.
I get dumping documents from government agencies. Though, their motives are a bit bizarre at times. Disclosing hundreds of thousands of addresses of private citizens? What does that help?
The part that surprises me is that anyone is surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever use the unsharp masking technique on those?
I've used it a couple times, although not on those weld samples.
1. Secure your router or other network device with a new strong password thats not the default password or admin or user.
Failed already. It isn't that your ideas are bad, but any solution that can be enabled, has to rely on the consumer doing absolutely nothing. Because that is what they are going to do. Absolutely nothing.
Don't use IoT devices. Don't put WiFi and a webcam on my refrigerator or my water bottle.
My favorite developer was D76, which as it turns out is an inferior developer: it has a long toe caused by borax in the formulation, which eats away at the emulsion before the critical regions that receive the least light are fully developed. The result is muddy dark areas.
I used mostly HC-110, which at the time was an ongoing battle between it and D-76. Even some Rodinal.
Based on my limited experience and what I've read, I'd guess it would be possible to make a lab capable of processing Kodachrome (probably not very well) for perhaps $100,000.
Its the maintenance that gets ya.
From the 1950's to the early 1970's there were a number of fly-by-night film and processing companies that did a poor job of making and processing film. I don't look forward to a re-emergence of those conditions.
I'd be surprised if that happened again. Maybe a few regional labs - I'm still asking why they are reviving the stuff to begin with. Even the Super 8 Ektachrome!
Perhaps for some nostalgic purposes, I suppose. But the whole ecosystem under which old-school chemical photography is gone. As well, how much sales and processing is there going to be to support a nostalgia/ post nostalgia item.
Certainly I have my old Nikon bodies sitting around. Maybe some trendy person might want to buy one at the right price. I have an old 8008 that for a prosumer camera was oddly popular with professionals that has very distinguished wear mark personality from all of the use. The F-2 I'll keep for sure. Just trying to figure out just why I'd want to shoot slide fiml any more.
The decision wasn't arbitrary: it was economic. Too costly to produce in small volumes, insufficient demand for large.
This is rational for a business' perspective--wait until it happens to desktop computers.
Funny, the pros were keeping sales of Ektaflex pretty brisk.
We did win one with Great Yellow Father with SO115, which they rebranded as Technipan 2415; I've had lots of fun playing with that.
Yeah, I used to use that one for metallurgy photos. exposure was critical, so there was a lot of bracketing. But when you hit the sweet spot, it really worked great with low contrast weld samples to kick the contrast up.
Fuji's T-grain emulsion is superior to kodak.. as someone who has his City and Guilds(yeah.. that old) and who's first job was in photography... fuji t-grain FTW!
But it's color was garish.
one man's garish is another man's vivid.
I wonder if maybe that's why there were different types of film?
What was your field? I was doing mostly industrial work, and set work when we needed publicity stuff.
When I look back on all the crap you wrote in your post, it's a wonder that you think at all. Maybe your lack of education hasn't hurt you none, but you still can't see the writing on the wall. Kodachrome is coming back!
Oh Hooo! Tell me all about the Kodachrome process.
We must demand it. I want all the world to look like a sunny day again. Right now it looks like a dreary digital apocalypse.
I have seen some old Kodachrome Prints. They were the Kodachrome emulsion on a White plastic base. The ones I had seen were beautiful and jarring. Beautiful because the color reproduction was as close to perfect as any film could be. And jarring because we are so used to seeing color and image fading that it seems odd to see that Grandma and Grandpa looked pretty much just like us when they were young, and the world was bright and vibrant.
> And singing.
No that is wrongthink and illegal, computer singing is better, just listen to Autotune (I forget his first name).
That's what Beats by Dr. Dre is for.
Ask a musician whether tube amplifiers are not as good as solid state.
The distortion that a tube amp has, especially in the preamp stage, is a bedrock effect of rock music. It is a desirable feature - to the point that there are tube preamps designed to invoke it. As to "better"? Pretty subjective. I like the tube distortion, kinda warm and mellow feeling, and it can make a guitar sound pretty cool when you overdrive it.
Fact is, human senses respond well to certain types of distortion, no matter the medium. That's why there are still people painting with oils and playing violins and wind instruments. And singing.
Yes. I don't have any issue with someone exploiting an artistic effect of a defect. Which is what most of these effects are. Years ago, I dabbled in the alternative photographic processes like cyanotype and VanDyke, and metal etching printing, and gold toning. If I get back into it, I'd probably deal with digital printed negatives and albumen printing.
Oddly enough, when I was doing that alternative stuff as a hobby/art, Ektachrome was as mainstream as you could get. Now it might be considered alternative. As well, my experience with it has been that it's main characteristic is a tendency towards coolness, and that d log e S curve that tends to flatten the contrast of the highest and lowest parts of the image. It also has a but less dynamic range than it's deceased cousin Kodachrome.
Now, the trick to using it for art will be to exploit those characteristics - no small feat in a film and process that had been engineered forand largely achieved a reality based look. There is a certain interest in slide work. We'll see how people can exploit that today. Personally, I'm not all that interested, having processed a lot of E-6 film. I'll leave that to others who may not have had the experience when Ektachrome was mainstream.
Thank you for your anecdote. I'll file you in with the 0.000001% of internet users who managed to do that. Now if you'll excuse me my colleagues (normal people) are trying to show me a video on their phone.
Note how I said 10% in my above comment? Congratulations on falling into that category. I'm sure many slashdot users will. Most people however do not have adverts as the primary bandwidth user.
Are you having a bad day or something? Pretty testy reply for a simple anecdote on my part. Didn't mean to upset ya.
Fuji's T-grain emulsion is superior to kodak.. as someone who has his City and Guilds(yeah.. that old) and who's first job was in photography... fuji t-grain FTW!
But it's color was garish.
Ektachrome was always a good choice if you had no access to a lab that would do process K-14.
Fixed that for you E-4 was the Ektachrome process used before the superior E-6 process replaced it. K-14 was the process used for Kodachrome. Extremely different processes.
Kodachrome can't come back without an E-4 lab coming back along with it.
Kodak didn't use E-4. E-4 was the predecessor of the E-6 Ektachrome process. Kodachrome used the K-14 process, which was tremendously different from any other process out there.
What would go over quite well though would be a new film with the characteristics of Kodachrome, but using process E-6. I doubt such a thing is easy though, or Kodak would have done it decades ago.
What makes Kodachrome so different was that it's dyes were not incorporated into the emulsion of the film, but introduced during processing. Extremely complex process, and you need a competent staff chemist to watchdog over the machinery. The results were beautiful and sharp, and it was much more archival than any of the other color slide processes. The E-4 you mentioned was terrible - E6 much better.
But there just isn't enough demand for Kodachrome to justify the great expense of setting up new lines to make the film, and re-build the processing lines again. And E-6? Not going to look like Kodachrome.
Digital cannot provide the quality of film even with massive file sizes.
If you define quality as the S shaped D log e curves, that's a film inherent defect, and if for some reason I wanted to emulate that defect, it is about 10 seconds in Photoshop to select the curve, then flatten the top and bottom end to kill the contrast there.
Which is why the demand for Kodachrome will now ring out loud.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Kodachrome is gone, and won't be coming back. A non-substansive process like Kodachrome is seriously complex, and no one, especially Kodak, has any reason to resume manufacturing of a complex and dead process like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What I'm getting at however is that the reason people may wish to go back to regular film is that the one thing that film does that digital phones can not do is soft edges and soft-focus.
That is an artifact of lenses, not film - unless the film camera was so badly designed that the film lay largely outside the plan of focus.
You deny that they missed the boat and then go on to list 100 reasons why they weren't on it when it sailed. Comprehension's not your strong suit, is it?
This is Slashdot ya know. Kodak is widely considered as one of the world leaders in missing the boat. This can all be summed up in that they abandoned the professionals while banking on the people who abandoned film photography first - the bottom end consumers, who ditched their 110 film cameras for phone cameras.
"Kodak did not miss photo boat"
We may be talking at crossed-purposes, but Kodak very much did "miss the boat". Can you buy a "Kodak" brand digital camera today?
Kodak performed some whacky suicidal acts back in the day. They decided to abandon professional photographers for Amateurs, but they also would abandon everyone if they felt like it.
One of the examples was the Ektaflex line. Think of it as a large Polaroid print. You would expose an 8 by 10 or larger negative in the darkroom, then it would go into an alkaline bath, then be laminated onto a receiver. After a time, you peel it off, and there is your print. While originally an amateur product, pros latched onto it for quick printing. Side benefits were it was very archival, and had some of the nicest skin tones I've ever seen. And we bought a lot of it. I had freezers full of the stuff.
Then one day, Kodak gave us the big "fuck you!" and discontinued the stuff. Some gobbldygook about not enough amateurs bought it, and by definition it was an amateur product. We begged, we pleaded, to no avail. This arbitrary decision on their part cost a lot in altered workflow.
They did this with a number of products, and a lot of us Pros over time switched to Fuji. By the time we abandoned chemical photography where I worked, there wasn't a lot of Kodak products that we used left.
You could just ask a professional photographer. And could you stop using the word hipster like you know what it means, dad?
Film has some characteristics, such as it's density versus exposure. In an ideal world, the density would linearly follow the exposure. A graph of it would be a straight line. In reality, at the top and bottom of the exposure scale the film responds less to increasing or decreasing exposure. Plotted on a graph, the scale is like a long lazy "S". Hence the name "S curves'.
This does give film a characteristic look, in addition to a few other characteristics like grain, and the individual color response of the color layers.
It is a defect.
Digital sensors tend to have more of a straight line response, which allow the resulting images to look different. If I wanted to, I can go into Photoshop and emulate a chemical based photograph by using Curves, and throwing some grain into the image. I have done just that when a digital image among a a group of chemical images has stood out detrimentally.
I spent many years processing and printing negs and slides, it is a little hard to imagine that some would want to go back to that, but I suppose if someone hasn't experienced it, it would seem magic. But maybe it is like tube amplifiers, and some people enjoy the inherent distortion in slide photos or tube audio. Regardless, either can be beautiful.
But there are people who actually coat their own photo emulsions on glass, or metal, and recreate processes from the early days of photography. They aren't hipsters, they are artists.
Why are they even keeping their doors open? They are based solely off of fraud.
Fraud is the next big thing.
With the most popular smartphone plans being several gigs, ads don't even come close being a bandwidth problem.
I blew my 4 gig cap once by visiting two web pages. I dont know if you keep track of ads and all, but they constitute the majority of the data winging into my phone.
Nonsense - plain html with no layout is far smaller.
This must be what you are looking for - this is number 1! http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/...
I get dumping documents from government agencies. Though, their motives are a bit bizarre at times. Disclosing hundreds of thousands of addresses of private citizens? What does that help?
The part that surprises me is that anyone is surprised.