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