KODACHROME Film: Interview with Kodak's President Jeff Clarke 2/20/2017

[Sal Santamaura]

...We didn't have a problem for a century or more, and now we are well on a year trying to "solve" an issue that other manufacturers don't seem to have.

Time to review the APUG database. Kodak is not alone in having to deal with wrapper offset from 120 backing paper. A single supplier for Ilford and Kodak has caused both manufacturers to experience the problem.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You keep forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that there have been posts about Fuji and Ilford films with backing paper problems. All three companies have outsourced the making of this very difficult material and until it is done right there will apparently be problems. This is a very very complex part of the 120 film product lines.

PE

 

[faberryman]

You keep forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that there have been posts about Fuji and Ilford films with backing paper problems. All three companies have outsourced the making of this very difficult material and until it is done right there will apparently be problems. This is a very very complex part of the 120 film product lines.

I do not recall any posts about similar problems with films from other manufacturers, but I have only been hanging around here for a year or so. I have not had any problems personally with 120 film from Ilford.

Do we really need to have the product logos or the exposure numbers on the backing paper except at the ends so we know what we are putting in and processing?

 

[Photo Engineer]

See Sal's post above mine!

 

[MattKing]

Do we really need to have the product logos or the exposure numbers on the backing paper except at the ends so we know what we are putting in and processing?

We should do a poll to find out how many here have and use cameras that rely on the frame numbers on the backing paper.
I expect you would find that there are a significant number who do - including me.
Just about all of the 120 pinhole cameras do.
Much of the resurgence in 120 use is with the Lomo/toy camera crowd use that sort of camera.
The fact that Kodak sees the need (due to high minimum order requirements) to use one single type of backing paper for all black and white and colour emulsions also complicates the problem. Otherwise, I would expect that Kodak might consider removing the numbers on some but not all emulsions.

 

[Helios 1984]

I see a company willing to bring back a

I'm no pro nor prophet but I did predict we'd see an E-6 Kodachrome.

In all honesty, Kodachrome has changed processes in the past and was still Kodachrome. If an E-6 Kodachrome is released and looks like Kodachrome then in my books it is Kodachrome. And if that happens I don't want to hear from nay-sayers that 'It's not reaaaaaaal Kodachrome!' That would be like saying nothing that was ever revised can carry a name and a legacy.

So hurrah for a new film!

+1

One week I hear "Bless you Kodak for bringing back Ektachrome!! Thou have not forsaken film users, you are willing to take risks for us." then the next week "We've been betrayed!! We hoped for Kodachrome but the best they can do is a reformulated version. This is treachery!!"...

All in all though, folks should be happy to feel this new breeze on the film industry. Film manufacturers are still there, still very alive and strong enough to venture.

 

[bvy]

Do we really need to have the product logos or the exposure numbers on the backing paper except at the ends so we know what we are putting in and processing?

I absolutely do. Frame numbers anyway.

 

[flavio81]

One week I hear "Bless you Kodak for bringing back Ektachrome!! Thou have not forsaken film users, you are willing to take risks for us." then the next week "We've been betrayed!! We hoped for Kodachrome but the best they can do is a reformulated version. This is treachery!!"...

All i can say is... Welcome to APUG

 

[Cholentpot]

I see a company willing to bring back a


+1

One week I hear "Bless you Kodak for bringing back Ektachrome!! Thou have not forsaken film users, you are willing to take risks for us." then the next week "We've been betrayed!! We hoped for Kodachrome but the best they can do is a reformulated version. This is treachery!!"...

All in all though, folks should be happy to feel this new breeze on the film industry. Film manufacturers are still there, still very alive and strong enough to venture.

How many versions has Kodachrome gone through in the past? This is just the latest out of them.

Keep the films coming ya'll.

 

[Prest_400]

This is a very very complex part of the 120 film product lines.

PE

Amusingly Ironic, all the difficulty into producing film, organic chemistry and synthesis, keeping B38 running, spooling, etc. The hardest part is paper. Paper! An ancient material. And Kodak has a strong positioning over Industrial printing themselves.
(Note: Drama added above)

It does seem baffling but I understand how hard the situation is. Also, removing the mumbers may not totally remove the issue because in some cases the texture of the paper gets imprinted as well... I have a couple of rolls beside the computer and Fuji's seems slightly glossier.


Back to topic, it does seem interesting that they may consider bringing back Kodachrome in E6, with a similar look. It is quite positive that Clarke mentions that they are happy with Ektachrome implying positive news in the R&D.

 

[Wallendo]

Up until last week I would have yearned for the return of old Kodachrome and its longevity. This weekend, I found a carousel of Kodachrome slides from a college trip to Europe in 1982 that had been missing since 1992. Most of them were underexposed (most likely the fault of my Yashica MG-1 not dealing well with overcast days), and about half of them have multiple fungus spots. The fungus appears to primarily affect the sky and can be easily remedied by hybrid technics, fortunately.

As I actually go back and review my old Kodachromes I realized how many of them were not properly exposed. I have fond memories of the film, but I suspect it is because when Kodachrome worked well, it was spectacular. I'm much older, much more experienced, and have better equipment than I did then and would probably have a much higher success rate with Kodachrome today. But, I assume I would be just as happy with a modern E-6 Kodachrome-like film.

Despite my initial excitement about Kodachrome's possible resurrection, I am now reminded of why I hadn't shot that film since 1982.

 

[nevintagefilms]

I would hope that Kodak wouldn't just play on the name for sentimental purposes like Ford "brought back" the 5.0 in the Mustang... just another modular motor.

Kodachrome is inherently different and that is why it looks and acts so differently. It's an additive process where you put dies in after exposure. It's otherwise essentially just a 3-layer B&W film.

E6 is a subtractive system where all the dye needed is in the film and you take out what you don't need during processing.

E6 will never have the same color, density, contrast or "sharpness" that the Kodachrome processes had and certainly not the image stability/longevity. Just the very nature of the Ektachrome system is susceptible to color shifting and far less density/contrast. I love Velvia 50, Provia 100 and E100... but not like I loved Kodachrome. It was a total B$@%D to get right, but when it was right... it was so right!

 

[Berri]

I would hope that Kodak wouldn't just play on the name for sentimental purposes like Ford "brought back" the 5.0 in the Mustang... just another modular motor.

Kodachrome is inherently different and that is why it looks and acts so differently. It's an additive process where you put dies in after exposure. It's otherwise essentially just a 3-layer B&W film.

E6 is a subtractive system where all the dye needed is in the film and you take out what you don't need during processing.

E6 will never have the same color, density, contrast or "sharpness" that the Kodachrome processes had and certainly not the image stability/longevity. Just the very nature of the Ektachrome system is susceptible to color shifting and far less density/contrast. I love Velvia 50, Provia 100 and E100... but not like I loved Kodachrome. It was a total B$@%D to get right, but when it was right... it was so right!

I'm not sure That is what additive-subtractive means. Infact both E6 film and kodachrome produce a positive image by overlying a cyan, magenta and yellow immage therefore a subtractive process.

 

[Photo Engineer]

All chromogenic color films are subtractive. This includes Kodachrome, Ektachrome and color negative films.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodachrome is inherently different and that is why it looks and acts so differently. It's an additive process where you put dies in after exposure. It's otherwise essentially just a 3-layer B&W film.

E6 is a subtractive system where all the dye needed is in the film and you take out what you don't need during processing.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.

 

[emayoh]

If Kodak introduced "Kodachrome '17" that was E-6 and looked even "kinda" like ol' Kodachrome, I would be delighted. It would likely be the impetus that would bring a few of my retired cameras out into the light again. I would in no way be angry that it was not identical to the original.

 

[railwayman3]

If Kodak introduced "Kodachrome '17" that was E-6 and looked even "kinda" like ol' Kodachrome, I would be delighted. It would likely be the impetus that would bring a few of my retired cameras out into the light again. I would in no way be angry that it was not identical to the original.

I'd love to see "real" Kodachrome back. But if we get an E-6 pseodo-kodachrome, I'll be happy to try it on its own merits. Fuji Astia (E6) was considered by many to be "the nearest to Kodachrome" in general characteristics, so I'd be content if Kodak produced something like that.

 

[dmr]

I'll give it a shot with at least one roll to see what it's like.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.

I think nevintagefilms is using "additive" and "subtractive" in a non-standard way. The reference to Kodachrome as "additive" has some logic in it, because there are things added to create colour during the processing steps, but because "additive" already has a generally accepted use and meaning in colour photography, nevintagefilms needs to find new, unused terms.

 

[Agulliver]

1. I have several cameras which require 8 or 12 on 120 numbers to be printed on the backing paper.

2. There must be millions of old box and folding cameras which require numbers on the backing paper

3. Nope...the backing paper is not easy to make properly. Yes, there have been numerous posts about Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and even Foma films being affected by the issues with backing papers.

4. Kodachrome refers to a specific (patented, I believe) colour process which is not related to E6 or C41. To call a product "Kodachrome" and use the E6 process would be dishonest, in my view...however to rename it "Kodachrome-E6" would be acceptable.

5. Yes, Kodachrome has been through several versions but the essential way in which it functioned and in which the colour was recorded and then processed was not changed....ie a non-subtractive process in which the colour couplers are added during the processing steps. Any deviation from this and the product is not Kodachrome as described in the patents. It is like selling vegetarian meat substitute and calling it "chicken" instead of "chicken style food product".....An E6 Kodachrome style film certainly would have a place but it would need to be named accordingly.

 

[nevintagefilms]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Both are subtractive systems and use CMY dyes to remove RGB light that passes through the film on viewing. Ektachrome uses incorporated couplers, Kodachrome does not.

Hi All,

Obviously you are all correct and I was confusing terms/concepts when explaining my point. As far as generating an image, they are both subtractive.

My points was the way those subtractive layers were created. One is created by adding dye (Kodachrome) and the other is created by removing it (E6). It just results in a different look that they have come far closer to reproducing in Velvia 50, Provia 100F and E100D.... but it's still not the same. It just doesn't have that same silky (albeit not true to life) look and feel of Kodachrome. Kodachrome just always had a "colorized" look to it.

Dave

 

[nevintagefilms]

I think nevintagefilms is using "additive" and "subtractive" in a non-standard way. The reference to Kodachrome as "additive" has some logic in it, because there are things added to create colour during the processing steps, but because "additive" already has a generally accepted use and meaning in colour photography, nevintagefilms needs to find new, unused terms.

Exactly... thank you. I realized when you all started bringing it up that I was using already taken terms. LOL

 

[removed account4]

maybe it is going to be like the re-introduction of the olympus PEN cameras.
it will be an electronic - thing with a pre-set color hue output to mimic kodachrome.
and a plugin or over lens filter for cameras.

 

[Berri]

Hi All,

Obviously you are all correct and I was confusing terms/concepts when explaining my point. As far as generating an image, they are both subtractive.

My points was the way those subtractive layers were created. One is created by adding dye (Kodachrome) and the other is created by removing it (E6). It just results in a different look that they have come far closer to reproducing in Velvia 50, Provia 100F and E100D.... but it's still not the same. It just doesn't have that same silky (albeit not true to life) look and feel of Kodachrome. Kodachrome just always had a "colorized" look to it.

Dave

E6 film is not coloured by removing dyes, couplers react to colour developer in its oxidized form to generate dyes. I believe that the colour look of kodachrome could be emulated if the right dyes are used. I don't think that the the reason why kodachrome looks different is because of how dyes are introduced onto the film.

 

[keenmaster486]

I don't think that the the reason why kodachrome looks different is because of how dyes are introduced onto the film.

Maybe PE can shed some light on this.

What is the scientific reason that Kodachrome looks different from any E6 film? I'm sure you could try to emulate the Kodachrome look with E6, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would never look quite the same.