fuck

<center><img

src="http://mineisnodisgrace.com/archives/images/ggcwine.jpg"><p><i>Ch

icago, 2004</i></center>

<center><img

src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/biguns/red_room_b

log.jpg"></center>

<i>Where you aware of this at the moment of exposure?</i><p>

Sure. Really, I just have a big ego.

Kodachrome II<P>

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/jtd.jpg"><P><I>Jimbo & Thelma in Japan, 1948</i></center>

For what it's worth and not that anyone cares, I picked up my K200 tonight from Wal-Mart and everything is A-OK, no need to panic. $4.88. And Dwayne's put it in Polyguard for me, which means that I don't have to do it myself and also the 50' roll I have in my closet may well now go unused forever.<P>

I got my scans back, too. Is this any better?<P>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/weed003.jpg"><P>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/weed002.jpg"><P>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/weed01.jpg"><P>

Auto levels and USM only. I don't think I like the green as much, but the skin tones are probably better than they are on my own scan. Whatever. I am not so into being absolutely correct all the time anyway.<P>

Either way, I still am failing to see what the big problem with this film is, shooting, scanning, printing or otherwise, but maybe that's just because I like it. Again: whatever.

Scott,

None taken, and I'm not in a mental fugue. I just like it. I'll allow that the scan could probably be better, but I don't think it's a complete disaster. It looks pretty much like the slide on my monitor (which is calibrated). What are you seeing that I'm not? I don't ask that in jest.

<I>I was done after it happened, and I'm still done, even though I liked the film a lot.</I><P>

I can understand the frustration. The roll I pick up tomorrow will be the first of mine that has gone to Dwayne's. I'm hoping everything goes well, because I am just not ready to switch to something else yet.<P>

I went by the A&I tonight on my way home, and the Sigma scans weren't done yet. Probably tomorrow. I'll still try to post them, if they're any good.

Scanning:<P>

The shot below was scanned on a Minolta Dimage IV. All I did was set the black point. I don't see any problems, but maybe I'm blind. I'm giving the Sigma scans from <a href="http://aandi.com">A&I</a> a shot, but only because they're only $4 for low resolution (4X6s, web) and I hate scanning and sitting in front of a computer. I'll try to post one tomorrow.<P>

I have also not once had any trouble getting the stuff processed, whether at A&I when they did it, or at the Fairlawn lab. I dropped off a roll at Wal-Mart exactly one week ago. I called today and it will be ready tomorrow. Maybe Jeff is just unlucky.<P>

I take it back. One time, Qualex cut and mounted a roll when I had asked them not to. Big frikkin' deal. They gave me a roll of film and free processing for it anyway.<P>

I dunno. I guess it's a foregone conclusion that Kodachrome will not be available at some point in the future. At what point that point occurs has got to be somewhat dependant on how many rolls get bought and processed between now and then. Until such time, I will unapologetically (that's for Scott) continue to shoot only K64 and 200, and I'll find a replacement when I really have no other choice. To whoever (or whomever or whatever) else wants Kodak to keep it around, I suggest you do the same. Talking about it on the internet is not likely to do any good at all.<P>

I picked up some 8X12 Ilfochromes from this and two others last Saturday. They look pretty good to me. But do what you like.<div></div>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2591325">taken with an $8.00 disposable camera</a><P>

It was $7.00. Not that I'm counting.

Expired in 1984. Exposed in 2004.<P>

<center><img src="http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/biguns/up_blog.jpg"><P><i>Cottage Grove, 2004</i><P>

<img src="http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/biguns/folded_blog.jpg"><P><i>Cottage Grove, 2004</i></center><P>

Kodachrome 25.

Sorry. Here's your other "l".<P>

<B>l</b>

Randal:

You mean this one? This is downsized from a drum scan, and I have had it printed via Lightjet on Crytal Archive. You can get it printed. It is not that big a deal.<div></div>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008le9">Expired in 1984.</a><P>

(Kodachrome 25.)<P>

(About half way down the page.)

I don't know how old the film was. I found a camera in the Goodwill with some neg. film in it and I finished off the roll. There were only a couple of pictures from the previous owner, and while they creeped me out a little, there were no dismembered bodies or whathaveyou in any sort of sensational way. So here is one I took prior to getting the film out and not buying the camera.<P>

<center><img src="http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v245/mmaatttt/joeyjesus.jpg"><P><i>Cottage Grove, 2004</i></center><P>

Who's to say that you can't perform this little experiment in parallel to normal shooting? Like every third roll or whatever. Maybe it's against the rules. You could just get the stuff processed and printed and not look at it. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you open up the envelope with the prints in it. <P>

And if for some reason they are, then I suggest you look for another lab. <P>

Now.

<I>200 film is just a void that I have no need for (for me that is).</i><P>

Sure, but especially this part:<P>

<B><I>(for me that is)</i></B><P>

The best way to answer these sort of questions is probably not to ask them in the first place. Film is cheap. Try some.

<I>Moderator's Note: I never saw the "weird but now it is gone" thing that you alluded to. I deleted a "weird but now it is gone post" since it alluded to nothing and was just a bit confusing.</i><P>

The title of the post had changed to "<B>Ricky-Poo</b>" for a little bit there. That's what I was referring to. And it was a term of affection, to be sure.

I don't know if that was a term of affection or not, but I'm going to assume that it was.

I know that Scott knows his stuff. He's just not very gracious about it, and that makes it difficult to listen to him sometimes. Beginner question or no, not everyone looks for the same thing in a film. Nevertheless, it seems sometimes that this is the assumption that is made around here. Tim gets what he wants from Gold 200 (well, he used to; he's switched to digital), so to call it worthless is making a sweeping statement from one perspective, which - in my experience - is not the best use of diverse and extensive empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, it is also not - in my experience - an uncommon use of diverse and extensive emperical knowledge.