4 ms·
Glad to see they're bringing Ektachrome back. Years ago, I took a photography class that was B&W, except for the week we did color with Ektachrome. The instruct
by justinph 8y ago
Glad to see they're bringing Ektachrome back. Years ago, I took a photography class that was B&W, except for the week we did color with Ektachrome. The instructor selected a few slides from everyone and we watched it together. It was mesmerizing in a way I've never seen photography before. Part of that was the large-scale, projected images, with exquisite detail that you just can't get (yet) from digital.
- hevi_jos 8y agoProbably you are referring to "Kodakchrome", which was actually amazing quality. Ektachrome was the cheaper, simpler to develop positive film.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- patrickg_zill 8y agoThere is something unique about projected slides onto a good screen. The shadow details combined with just the size of the image can be quite impressive.
- ams6110 8y agoKodakchrome produced great color images, but the chemistry to process it was fairly complex as well as toxic.
- howard941 8y agoWhen next day processing was really taking off (the 80s?) Kodachrome was AFAIR the only media that had to be sent off to Kodak for processing. Complexity and toxicity explains that. Its wiki page is a sort of black hole to lose time in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome
- ghaff 8y agoLater Ektachromes were pretty good. By the time Kodachrome went away, there wasn't really a Kodachrome 25 replacement but the 100 ISO Ektachromes were very high quality.