Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Another box has a collection of UK architectural photos
taken on Ilford slide filem and they are very dark.
Either they are badly done slide copies or the camera had
an exposure fault, or maybe Ilford slide film goes darker
blue with age.

Interestingly there are quite a few commercial slides of
USA historical sites, but unlike the classical commercial
slides that turn bright red after a short while, these
still have original colours, possibly Kodachrome though
the slide mount doesn't say so.

On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early
70's that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?


In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to scan
with a slightly blue cast.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges from
1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

On 23/08/2020 17:04, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early
70's that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?

Some of the old Kodachrome slides with card mounts have 1970 and 1974
printed on them, so I guess any without are 1960's.


In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...


I think Kodachrome was only ever sold with a pre-paid development
envelope in Europe, while in the states it was sold without the
cost of development. In the states there were a number of private
labs doing Kodachrome processing. In Europe Kodak did it themselves
(using a 12-stage process involving nasty chemicals and an additional
light exposure stage).


The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to scan
with a slightly blue cast.

On 23/08/2020 17:17, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges from
1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

Where have they been stored ?. If they had been in a deep freeze
in a sealed dry box then they might be ok, else try this place -


https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/127-fi...sing-125-c.asp

On 23/08/2020 17:32, Andrew wrote:
On 23/08/2020 17:17, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges from
1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

Where have they been stored ?. If they had been in a deep freeze
in a sealed dry box then they might be ok, else try this place -


https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/127-fi...sing-125-c.asp
up in lofts so hot and cold for decades...don't think I will
bother...thought 127 was a cartridge??/

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:40:08 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

On 23/08/2020 17:32, Andrew wrote:
On 23/08/2020 17:17, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges from
1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

Where have they been stored ?. If they had been in a deep freeze
in a sealed dry box then they might be ok, else try this place -


https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/127-fi...sing-125-c.asp
up in lofts so hot and cold for decades...don't think I will
bother...thought 127 was a cartridge??/

Give it a go - you might be pleasantly surprised! IME *old* B&W film
once developed comes out very grainy, as if the speed rating were much
higher than it actually was. This can give the old shots a really
atmospheric feel.
Aside from that, if they don't come out at all, the photolab will
normally not print from them or charge you anything, either.

On 23/08/2020 18:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 23 Aug 2020 at 17:04:35 BST, John Rumm
wrote:

On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early
70's that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Perhaps it depended where they were processed. Most of mine were done in
Lausanne, and were dated.

As Kodak slowly shut down its european Kodachrome processing sites
all the films were sent to Lausanne. The UK mailers used to have
a Hemel Hempstead address but may be the films were spliced into
bulk reels and sent to Switzerland for processing. AT the very
end all Kodachrome went to somewhere in Texas, Dwaynes I think.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early 70's
that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?

I've checked my dad's slides. Unfortunately all the ones of their wedding
and their honeymoon in 1962 are in plastic mounts with glass covering both
sides of the film, or else are in Agfa mounts which have always been
undated.

At a quick check (without pulling out *all* the reels of slides) the
earliest dated Kodachrome slides are 1969 and all the ones after that are
dated. I'm not sure that Agfa and Fuji dated their slides. I think Agfa may
have used dark blue / white plastic mounts rather than cardboard ones, which
don't lend themselves to being stamped with a date.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

The earliest slides I can find are some that my mum took in the late 50s or
very early 60s, on a camera that uses film whose frame is fractionally
larger than 35 mm. It still uses the same size mount - only the cut-out for
the film is a different size.


Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to scan
with a slightly blue cast.

My scanner can correct for dirt on the film by shining infra-red through: it
is not absorbed by the emulsion but it is by dirt/dust. That allows dirt to
be identified separate from the image, so interpolation can fill in what
would have been there. Except that Kodachrome emulsion *does* differentially
absorb IR (ie it varies in different parts of the picture), so the results
for dirt removal are not as good as with Agfa, Fuji or Kodak Ektachrome.

I've not had problems with Kodachrome giving blue scans, though it is a
little bit more cold and "clinical" than the other films I've mentioned.

For some reason, Kodachrome emulsion looks a lot coarser in grain when I
scan the slide than it does in real life: not much better that Ektachrome
200. And the "grain removal" algorithm on my scanner seems to produce better
results with Ektachrome 200 or 400 than the results with/without grain
removal on Kodachrome - weird.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
I think Kodachrome was only ever sold with a pre-paid development
envelope in Europe, while in the states it was sold without the
cost of development. In the states there were a number of private
labs doing Kodachrome processing. In Europe Kodak did it themselves
(using a 12-stage process involving nasty chemicals and an additional
light exposure stage).

I never knew that any private labs (in the USA, at least) did processing of
Kodachrome, whereas most places that developed and printed negative film
also processed Ektachrome, Agfachrome and Fujichrome. I only ever had one
bad film or processing and that was with Ektachrome - some photos I took of
one of the school plays that I worked on a a lighting technician. That came
back rather blue, underexposed and muddy. I'm sure I set the film speed
correct on the camera, so it was either a manufacturing fault or a
processing fault. Both Kodak and the processing shop that I used examined
the film and couldn't explain it.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 20:10:53 +0100, "NY" wrote:


I never knew that any private labs (in the USA, at least) did processing of
Kodachrome, whereas most places that developed and printed negative film
also processed Ektachrome, Agfachrome and Fujichrome.

Kodak wasn't allowed to have a monopoly on processing Kodachrome in
the US.

On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Another box has a collection of UK architectural photos
taken on Ilford slide filem and they are very dark.
Either they are badly done slide copies or the camera had
an exposure fault, or maybe Ilford slide film goes darker
blue with age.

Interestingly there are quite a few commercial slides of
USA historical sites, but unlike the classical commercial
slides that turn bright red after a short while, these
still have original colours, possibly Kodachrome though
the slide mount doesn't say so.


Do the pictures themselves give any clues? You can sometimes get an
approximate date based on any cars in the photo, or on what people were
wearing.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 23/08/2020 17:23, Andrew wrote:
On 23/08/2020 17:04, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early
70's that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?

Some of the old Kodachrome slides with card mounts have 1970 and 1974
printed on them, so I guess any without are 1960's.

Actually I take back what I said partially - I noticed I had one sat on
my desk, and it lacked the made in england, and on close inspection its
embossed[1] with Jan 74

[1] Which may mean it was impact printed and the machine lacked ink!

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...


I think Kodachrome was only ever sold with a pre-paid development
envelope in Europe, while in the states it was sold without the
cost of development. In the states there were a number of private
labs doing Kodachrome processing. In Europe Kodak did it themselves
(using a 12-stage process involving nasty chemicals and an additional
light exposure stage).

Yup I have developed my own colour reversal film (E6 process three
stages) but never tried a kodachrome. I think it had benn refined down
to six stages, but as you say, still involved a re-exposure stage.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/08/2020 19:54, NY wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early 70's
that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?

I've checked my dad's slides. Unfortunately all the ones of their wedding
and their honeymoon in 1962 are in plastic mounts with glass covering both
sides of the film, or else are in Agfa mounts which have always been
undated.

At a quick check (without pulling out *all* the reels of slides) the
earliest dated Kodachrome slides are 1969 and all the ones after that
are dated. I'm not sure that Agfa and Fuji dated their slides. I think
Agfa may have used dark blue / white plastic mounts rather than
cardboard ones, which don't lend themselves to being stamped with a date.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

The earliest slides I can find are some that my mum took in the late 50s or
very early 60s, on a camera that uses film whose frame is fractionally
larger than 35 mm. It still uses the same size mount - only the cut-out for
the film is a different size.


Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to scan
with a slightly blue cast.

My scanner can correct for dirt on the film by shining infra-red
through: it
is not absorbed by the emulsion but it is by dirt/dust. That allows dirt to
be identified separate from the image, so interpolation can fill in what
would have been there. Except that Kodachrome emulsion *does*
differentially
absorb IR (ie it varies in different parts of the picture), so the results
for dirt removal are not as good as with Agfa, Fuji or Kodak Ektachrome.

Yup, my scanner (Nikon LS2000) does the same Digital ICE thing with the
IR light. That may be related to the slight cast you get on the scan
that you don't see on the projected version.

I've not had problems with Kodachrome giving blue scans, though it is a
little bit more cold and "clinical" than the other films I've mentioned.

Yup - a "cool" feel rather than blue is possibly a better description.

For some reason, Kodachrome emulsion looks a lot coarser in grain when I
scan the slide than it does in real life: not much better that
Ektachrome 200. And the "grain removal" algorithm on my scanner seems to
produce better results with Ektachrome 200 or 400 than the results
with/without grain removal on Kodachrome - weird.

I have not noticed the grain particularly - slightly more than Velvia -
but then that was 50 ASA.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/08/2020 17:40, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 23/08/2020 17:32, Andrew wrote:
On 23/08/2020 17:17, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges
from 1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

Where have they been stored ?. If they had been in a deep freeze
in a sealed dry box then they might be ok, else try this place -


https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/127-fi...sing-125-c.asp
up in lofts so hot and cold for decades...don't think I will
bother...thought 127 was a cartridge??/

Its is, with a tiny negative inside. Having said that I did manage to
develop one by lacing the film through the slots in the sides of the
spiral that I used for 35mm!

(IIRC the whole film was only about 12" long)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Funny about colour. I remember many years ago seeing some pictures all taken
at the same time,but some on Kodak and some on Agfa. The Kodak ones if
anything seemed to be vibrant, whereas the Agfa ones tended to look low in
saturation. It was a long time ago now and of course I can't see them now,
but you mentioned Ilford. I do remember using Ilford for a trip to Heathrow
when I was a little person and was rather disappointed by the unnatural
colours they seemed to have. A lack of yellows.
Brian

--
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Another box has a collection of UK architectural photos
taken on Ilford slide filem and they are very dark.
Either they are badly done slide copies or the camera had
an exposure fault, or maybe Ilford slide film goes darker
blue with age.

Interestingly there are quite a few commercial slides of
USA historical sites, but unlike the classical commercial
slides that turn bright red after a short while, these
still have original colours, possibly Kodachrome though
the slide mount doesn't say so.

"John Rumm" wrote in message I think
Kodachrome was only ever sold with a pre-paid development
envelope in Europe, while in the states it was sold without the
cost of development. In the states there were a number of private
labs doing Kodachrome processing. In Europe Kodak did it themselves
(using a 12-stage process involving nasty chemicals and an additional
light exposure stage).

Yup I have developed my own colour reversal film (E6 process three stages)
but never tried a kodachrome. I think it had benn refined down to six
stages, but as you say, still involved a re-exposure stage.

Yes, E6 does the reversal by chemical means after first removing the exposed
silver, but Kodachrome exposes the film to a measured about of uniform light
to expose the remaining silver salts to produce the image.

Sad to think that all this has been overtaken by modern technology, and that
future generations will not have the "joys" of working in a darkroom,
fumbling around trying to get the film to catch onto the developing spiral
and to feed in cleanly, having to do that in *complete* darkness and by feel
alone. And then the sweet smell of the developer and the acrid smell of the
fixer. Making test strips to gauge the correct exposure of a print from a
negative - which varies depending on how large you make it (move the
enlarger away to get a bigger print, so the same amount of light is spread
"more thinly" across the paper). I didn't have fancy things like a light
sensor to estimate the correct print exposure, nor even a big clockwork
clock to count the seconds - I counted the seconds by the second hand of my
watch. And my darkroom was up in the loft: there wasn't height for a table
so the enlarger was on the floor and I knelt in front of it with the dishes
of chemicals beside it. It was cold in winter and oppressively hot in
summer.

I tried a couple of reversal films. One was an incredible slow Agfa B&W
film - something like 8 ASA - and the results were a bit muddy: I may have
overdeveloped after the reversal. The other was normal Ilford FP4, developed
with a reversal kit. That gave surprisingly good results.

I steered clear of processing colour (reversal or negative) because of the
much tighter tolerances on temperature which can give a colour cast as well
as just film that is too light/dark, though I did get good results with the
Ilford B&W film that was developed using C41 like colour negs.

On 24/08/2020 09:58, NY wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message I think
Kodachrome was only ever sold with a pre-paid development
envelope in Europe, while in the states it was sold without the
cost of development. In the states there were a number of private
labs doing Kodachrome processing. In Europe Kodak did it themselves
(using a 12-stage process involving nasty chemicals and an additional
light exposure stage).

Yup I have developed my own colour reversal film (E6 process three
stages) but never tried a kodachrome. I think it had benn refined down
to six stages, but as you say, still involved a re-exposure stage.

Yes, E6 does the reversal by chemical means after first removing the
exposed silver, but Kodachrome exposes the film to a measured about of
uniform light to expose the remaining silver salts to produce the image.

Sad to think that all this has been overtaken by modern technology, and
that future generations will not have the "joys" of working in a
darkroom, fumbling around trying to get the film to catch onto the
developing spiral and to feed in cleanly, having to do that in
*complete* darkness and by feel alone. And then the sweet smell of the
developer and the acrid smell of the fixer. Making test strips to gauge
the correct exposure of a print from a negative - which varies depending
on how large you make it (move the enlarger away to get a bigger print,
so the same amount of light is spread "more thinly" across the paper). I
didn't have fancy things like a light sensor to estimate the correct
print exposure, nor even a big clockwork clock to count the seconds - I
counted the seconds by the second hand of my watch. And my darkroom was
up in the loft: there wasn't height for a table so the enlarger was on
the floor and I knelt in front of it with the dishes of chemicals beside
it. It was cold in winter and oppressively hot in summer.

I tried a couple of reversal films. One was an incredible slow Agfa B&W
film - something like 8 ASA - and the results were a bit muddy: I may
have overdeveloped after the reversal. The other was normal Ilford FP4,
developed with a reversal kit. That gave surprisingly good results.

I steered clear of processing colour (reversal or negative) because of
the much tighter tolerances on temperature which can give a colour cast
as well as just film that is too light/dark, though I did get good
results with the Ilford B&W film that was developed using C41 like
colour negs.

Yeah I kind of cheated a bit. Got a second hand Jobo CPE2 (with lift)
rotary processor. That had a temperature controlled water bath so that
you could keep the whole process on the right temp. I transferred films
to spiral and the drum in a changing bag. Processing was done on the
kitchen worktop, next to the sink in daylight :-)

Once I had the film, and then scanned it and printed digitally if I
needed prints.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/08/2020 20:46, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 20:10:53 +0100, "NY" wrote:


I never knew that any private labs (in the USA, at least) did processing of
Kodachrome, whereas most places that developed and printed negative film
also processed Ektachrome, Agfachrome and Fujichrome.

Kodak wasn't allowed to have a monopoly on processing Kodachrome in
the US.


In fact they used to, and refused to sell the chemicals to private
labs. This resulted in an anti-trust legal battle which Kodak lost.
From then on Kodak supplied the chemicals, ?processing equipment,
and expertise to the private labs who did all the processing.

This is why the cost of a 35mm Kodachrome film in the USA did not
include processing, as it carried on so everywhere else in the world.

On 24/08/2020 09:58, NY wrote:
though I did get good results with the Ilford B&W film that was
developed using C41 like colour negs.

It still is, ?XP2 still on sale. Local Boots had a small selection
of 35mm films when I was there a few weeks ago.
Kodak Ektar is also still made. Although a C41 colour negative film
it seems to be sharper than the standard print films. I just
get a minilab to develop them and I scan them myself.

On 23/08/2020 19:54, NY wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early 70's
that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?

I've checked my dad's slides. Unfortunately all the ones of their wedding
and their honeymoon in 1962 are in plastic mounts with glass covering both
sides of the film, or else are in Agfa mounts which have always been
undated.

I have had another look at a box marked 'Canada' full of mostly
KOdachrome slides. Some are marked 'Made in Canada' with card mounts and
dated '63 and '62. Also quite a few marked 'Kodachrome duplicate' and
marked 'made in France' with the name of a French ?processing company.
The colours are as fresh as new.

I knew that Kodak had a special slide film for copying slides (quite
difficult).

My dad had some Kodachrome slides copied by a 'professional
photographer' who clearly didn't know about the contrast problem doing
this, and the copies have a very dark blue tint and are so contrasty
they are useless.

At a quick check (without pulling out *all* the reels of slides) the
earliest dated Kodachrome slides are 1969 and all the ones after that
are dated. I'm not sure that Agfa and Fuji dated their slides. I think
Agfa may have used dark blue / white plastic mounts rather than
cardboard ones, which don't lend themselves to being stamped with a date.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

The earliest slides I can find are some that my mum took in the late 50s or
very early 60s, on a camera that uses film whose frame is fractionally
larger than 35 mm. It still uses the same size mount - only the cut-out for
the film is a different size.


Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to scan
with a slightly blue cast.

My scanner can correct for dirt on the film by shining infra-red
through: it
is not absorbed by the emulsion but it is by dirt/dust. That allows dirt to
be identified separate from the image, so interpolation can fill in what
would have been there. Except that Kodachrome emulsion *does*
differentially
absorb IR (ie it varies in different parts of the picture), so the results
for dirt removal are not as good as with Agfa, Fuji or Kodak Ektachrome.

I've not had problems with Kodachrome giving blue scans, though it is a
little bit more cold and "clinical" than the other films I've mentioned.

For some reason, Kodachrome emulsion looks a lot coarser in grain when I
scan the slide than it does in real life: not much better that
Ektachrome 200. And the "grain removal" algorithm on my scanner seems to
produce better results with Ektachrome 200 or 400 than the results
with/without grain removal on Kodachrome - weird.

I did try a trial copy of Silverfast and that was very good, but it was
(and still is) rather pricy and ties you to one model of scanner.

On 23/08/2020 21:38, Roger Mills wrote:
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Another box has a collection of UK architectural photos
taken on Ilford slide filem and they are very dark.
Either they are badly done slide copies or the camera had
an exposure fault, or maybe Ilford slide film goes darker
blue with age.

Interestingly there are quite a few commercial slides of
USA historical sites, but unlike the classical commercial
slides that turn bright red after a short while, these
still have original colours, possibly Kodachrome though
the slide mount doesn't say so.


Do the pictures themselves give any clues? You can sometimes get an
approximate date based on any cars in the photo, or on what people were
wearing.

Many of them have been marked with a pencil or similar to say
where they were taken. Mostly taken in the 60's where a date
is missing I think. Many taken at a local hospital, possibly
a maternity unit, plus lots of snowy surroundings and the
occasional massive black dog !. These are marked with
'Burgeo NFLD'. A few dated Oct64 and marked 'Made in
Australia' and taken at Southampton. Someone doing a
£10 pom trip maybe ?

I used quite a few rolls of Agfa CT18 about 35 years ago and that seemed
to be better with earthy colours. IN autumn and winter, especially with
snow on the ground it seemed to produce very accurate colours whereas
Kodachrome is best when the sun is out.

Andrew

On 24/08/2020 08:11, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Funny about colour. I remember many years ago seeing some pictures all taken
at the same time,but some on Kodak and some on Agfa. The Kodak ones if
anything seemed to be vibrant, whereas the Agfa ones tended to look low in
saturation. It was a long time ago now and of course I can't see them now,
but you mentioned Ilford. I do remember using Ilford for a trip to Heathrow
when I was a little person and was rather disappointed by the unnatural
colours they seemed to have. A lack of yellows.
Brian

In article , Andrew
wrote:
I used quite a few rolls of Agfa CT18 about 35 years ago and that seemed
to be better with earthy colours. IN autumn and winter, especially with
snow on the ground it seemed to produce very accurate colours whereas
Kodachrome is best when the sun is out.

And there was FerraniaColor(Sp) - very vivid greens

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 24/08/2020 15:06, Andrew wrote:
Many of them have been marked with a pencil or similar to say
where they were taken. Mostly taken in the 60's where a date
is missing I think. Many taken at a local hospital, possibly
a maternity unit, plus lots of snowy surroundings and the
occasional massive black dog !. These are marked with
'Burgeo NFLD'. A few dated Oct64 and marked 'Made in
Australia' and taken at Southampton.Â* Someone doing a
£10 pom trip maybe ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgeo

A bit far from Aus!

Andy

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 17:32:59 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/08/2020 17:17, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
I have some undeveloped colour and black and white 127 cartridges from
1967 wonder if they can be developed ?

Where have they been stored ?. If they had been in a deep freeze
in a sealed dry box then they might be ok, else try this place -


https://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/127-fi...sing-125-c.asp


That is a useful recommendation, thank you. I will save it for later.
It is hard to know which businesses are going to stay in business so
it is good to have a choice.

I generally process all my own B&W stuff and either take or send the
colour to Photohippo in Burnley (photohippo.co.uk). The exception
being when we discovered a couple of rolls of undeveloped B&W which
had been taken, years earlier by the other half's late other half and
we decided to let the professionals tackle that one. They did an
excellent job: other half was well pleased and they turned out to have
been photos he had taken only shortly before he had died so they were
especially meaningful.

Nick

On Sunday, 23 August 2020 at 15:34:21 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have some Kodachrome Slide cardboard processed at their Hemel Hempstead site in the UK.
Made in England date stamped Jun 79 in red text.
Some vintage cars driving past near where I live.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...57715626255322

On Monday, 24 August 2020 at 15:10:24 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
I used quite a few rolls of Agfa CT18 about 35 years ago and that seemed
to be better with earthy colours.

I preferred Agfa too , think it was also cheaper.

..IN autumn and winter, especially with
snow on the ground it seemed to produce very accurate colours whereas
Kodachrome is best when the sun is out.

I remember trying ORWO film it had good browns and I liked it when taking pictures of dirt and mud.
So didn't use it often think it was one or may phases when trying things out.


Andrew
On 24/08/2020 08:11, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Funny about colour. I remember many years ago seeing some pictures all taken
at the same time,but some on Kodak and some on Agfa. The Kodak ones if
anything seemed to be vibrant, whereas the Agfa ones tended to look low in
saturation. It was a long time ago now and of course I can't see them now,
but you mentioned Ilford. I do remember using Ilford for a trip to Heathrow
when I was a little person and was rather disappointed by the unnatural
colours they seemed to have. A lack of yellows.
Brian

On 25/08/2020 02:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 23 August 2020 at 15:34:21 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.

One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have some Kodachrome Slide cardboard processed at their Hemel Hempstead site in the UK.
Made in England date stamped Jun 79 in red text.
Some vintage cars driving past near where I live.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...57715626255322



Aha, a Sunblest delivery van, a brace of ford escorts, an 1100,
a mini, a Zepher 4/6 and one volvo and possibly an audi.

How different from todays road scene

In article , John
Rumm writes
On 23/08/2020 15:34, Andrew wrote:
Just been looking through some boxes of other peoples
old slides that I bought a few years ago in house
clearance shops.
One box has a mix of slides marked 'made in england'
with no obvious date. I thought Kodak always stamped
or printed the processing date ?. Does anyone know
when this became common practice ?.

I have lots of cardboard mounted kodachrome from the late 60's early
70's that my FiL took. Stamped mode in england, but none dated IIRC.

Not sure if that tell you much?


In the same box are some Kodachrome slides marked
'made in usa' and these do have a printed date - Aug 61.

all mine are UK...

The colours are as good as original, by holding them up
to daylight.

Yup same here - I did scan them some years back. Kodachrome tend to
scan with a slightly blue cast.



Yes I found that. I just blamed the cheap scanner I bought.
--
bert