Speaking of multi projector shows. Back in the 74-75 school year when I was teaching basic photography as an emergency replacement for the photo teacher who had become an administrator a large camera shop near the school (they gave me a lot of help) sponsored the traveling Kodak show at a local college's performance hall. They had an 18 wheeler full of gear, if I remember right it was 8 projectors (two man crew on each swapping out slide trays etc) on a four part super wide screen, sound gear out the kazoo and a couple of large studio control/editing boards with several operators all working in sync, fade in fade out swips etc and at one point all eight projectors (one on the top half, one on the bottom half of the 4 sections of the screen. Synced music and narration for the whole show which I seem to remember was about 1 hour. It basically just blew the audience away. One guy who had also seen the early traveling show of "Fantasia" compared the Kodak show to that.

Sorry, but this is my Only Rant for 2018... I just have to get it out there or burst.

I was recently invited to help judge a Close-up &/or Macro Flower Photography Competition. I was delighted to be asked... until I started looking through the photographs themselves. Nearly 50% of the images were of flowers arbitrarily sprayed with water droplets. So, I started disqualifying every photograph that I believed was “artificially enhanced” by photographers with a camera in one hand, and a spray bottle in the other.

I realize that “water droplets on flowers” is a common exercise for those being taught photography, but it seems that some of the guidance might be a bit hit and miss? My perspective (and I freely apologize in advance, as I’m often wrong):

1. If you really must spray a flower for a photograph, PLEASE gently & lightly spray the whole flower and surrounding leaves from one direction only, preferably above? It looks SO phony when the flower has lots of droplets all over every petal... but projections on the stem, and surrounding leaves are dry as a bone in a desert. FAKE!

2. In the art of photographing flowers, less is so often more. True of water droplets as well. Consider dripping a few drops from above, rather than spraying using the “flower under a shower head approach”. FAKE!

3. Lastly, Lighting that shot. If your intention is to depict a flower (a) at Dawn, with the dew still upon it, or (b) after a Summer Shower, then make sure your lighting is NATURAL and appropriate. Low angle for Dawn shots, diffused for Summer Showers, or a beam from the Sun peaking through clouds... think about your concept and initiate, plan, and execute accordingly. Ideally, be outside (shock, horror, yes, in Natural Light!) at Dawn or directly after the rain, to capture the shot. Think of your sense of achievement in capturing the moment. Anything else when artificially lighting a flower, can tend to make the subject look a bit fake, even when it isn’t.

Apologies again, Rant over for 2018. I awarded the prizes to some wonderful photographs... none of which had a fake raindrop / dewdrop anywhere in shot.

Yes, virtually everyone loved Kodachrome, but it really is gone. So is Plus-X, and Panatomic-X. It only lives as processed film, or if you have any unprocessed
Kodachrome it can still be processed to black & white images. And it "lives" in that Paul Simon song, "Kodachrome".

Kodacolor Negative film or its modern updates can be processed easily with C-41 Chemistry. I'm not sure all labs remember the processing details for actual Kodacolor film as its been replaced by similar films several times.

You might like to know that several models of digital cameras have JPEG file internal processing that duplicates the look of many types of film. I know Fuji cameras may "produce" fujifilm film-like images for favorite fuji films. I would image there are digital cameras that will give you Kodak looking images, including Kodachrome and Kodacolor. It can certainly be done with Photoshop CS or CC software.