Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: Kodachrome vs. Ektachrome Message-ID: <2624@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Jun-84 16:01:47 EDT Article-I.D.: ncsu.2624 Posted: Wed Jun 20 16:01:47 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 10:26:23 EDT References: <259@uvm-cs.UUCP> Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 28 It's not that nobody but Kodak CAN develop Kodachrome, it's just that hardly anybody else does. Almost all color positive materials use the same basic process (Cibachrome is an exception). First the image is developed into a black and white negative (in three layers, corresponding to the three colors). Then the image is reversed, yielding a positive, the color dyes are formed, the negative is bleached out, the image is fixed, and voila! a picture results. In the Ektachrome process, there are only a handful of steps, simple enough for home darkrooms and shopping center photo processors. But Kodachrome (an older process) develops and reverses each layer separately, resulting in a very large and complicated processing line that not everybody is willing to mess with. Hence the relative (but not total) lack of independent Kodachrome processing labs. As for which is better, that's a matter of taste; the two films are indisputably different. Kodachrome slides will last much longer than Ektachrome, and Kodachrome is regarded by many as the finest color material available. On the other hand, if you want 200 ASA film or next-day processing in many cities, Ektachrome has a certain appeal. And then there's Fuji ... -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University