I realised some time ago that I really wouldn't have fitted in with the contemporary ways, with monitor-watchers adding their several tuppences all the time
I spent 8 years sitting on the research ethics committee of a large hospital, and so I became interested in the psychology of reviewers. There are several studies that show that as you improve the quality of submissions, the reviewers will become more fastidious, down to debating the use of commas in the patient information sheet.
It seems this happens because the reviewers want to feel useful, and to feel they have contributed something, even though we weren't paid. So if you create a paid position called, eg "Art Director", which has nominal authority over another position called "photographer"... the AD will feel a need to contribute and to, well, direct, no matter how good the material being produced by the photographer. It's actually a major achievement in self confidence to say "no, this is fine, there is nothing useful I can add." In particular, it demands confidence in the security of one's position, which is something modern management tries to avoid: keep the employees insecure so they'll work
harder... although probably not
better.
All of which means that the major attraction of Kodachrome, of being a definitive an unalterable product, disappears as soon as it is scanned and available for import to Photoshop
