Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

[railwayman3]

yes quite true, he posted last year i think, and he apologised for his absence on the forum, we will just be patient i guess, but i think it will still be a huge effort to get running again, either way, its good someone is looking after it if the need ever arised for its use.

Agreed...at the very least it should be properly preserved even if it can never be used again, ideally in a museum. IIRC, Dwaynes asked various museums if they wanted their machine, but, with no interest, it was scrapped.

(Many things only get preserved because of the interest, money and work of private individuals....numerous cars, steam engines, buses, even buildings, come to mind.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

IF this and IF that. Gee guys, why don't one of you do that work.

So far, in my basement lab I have recreated an Azo/Lupex type paper in 3 grades, a Kodabromide/Brovira type paper in 2 grades, and an ortho ISO 40 camera emulsion. I have also mad a single color magenta Ilford/Ciba material.

I don't see people rushing to buy the book or come to the workshops in great number. Yes, the books sell and yes the workshops go, but there is so much more that can be taught and written up. But, all people do is talk.

My boss in the Emulsion Research Div. at EK had a poster that said "When all is said and done, more is said than done". Get together, scrape up the $$, and get yourselves going!

PE

 

[railwayman3]

IF this and IF that. Gee guys, why don't one of you do that work.

So far, in my basement lab I have recreated an Azo/Lupex type paper in 3 grades, a Kodabromide/Brovira type paper in 2 grades, and an ortho ISO 40 camera emulsion. I have also mad a single color magenta Ilford/Ciba material.

I don't see people rushing to buy the book or come to the workshops in great number. Yes, the books sell and yes the workshops go, but there is so much more that can be taught and written up. But, all people do is talk.

My boss in the Emulsion Research Div. at EK had a poster that said "When all is said and done, more is said than done". Get together, scrape up the $$, and get yourselves going!

PE

IF I were retired rather than running my own business, IF had unlimited time, IF I had the money to travel 8,000 miles, IF I wasn't nursing my wife after major surgery, IF I had the space to build a basement lab, IF I had no other interests or commitments, I would love to be at your workshops and to recreate whatever I could. Unfortunately RL doesn't always co-operate with what one wishes or hopes for.

In the meantime, I read, enjoy and learn what I can from here and other sources, and hope that, in "moving on" from "dead" processes (as we are told we must do in this very thread), all the accumulated knowledge, information and experience is built upon and not lost for ever. If that happens, we shall have little choice but to "move on" to the digital world, and sooner than we might think.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Except for the sick wife, for which you have my sympathy (BTDT), Steve Frizza fits all of your other conditionals. So, once your wife is better, you will be in a good situation to do something. But, OTOH, there are a lot of others out there.

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't think anyone who is even slightly realistic believes that Kodachrome will ever be back. Even if there were a big film renaissance and Kodak-whatever-sells-film in the future got a lot of demand for it and wanted to do so, re-creating the processing and infrastructure now that the last Kodachrome lab has ditched their machine almost certainly still would not be cost effective. Clearly there are still some photos out there of historical interest (the shuttle shots) that people would like to process, and there's film that people have, frozen if the chance is to be even tiny versus nill, that they'd like to be able to use, but the latter isn't that important. I think I still have a roll or two I wasn't able to shoot up in time, but I didn't freeze it because I knew there was no realistic hope of ever using it for color. Oh sure it CAN be shot and processed as black and white, but why on earth would you do that? The only reason to me would be if it was already shot, and the photos were of such interest that getting them in black and white was better than not getting them at all. With all the excellent (and some mediocre) black and white films on the market, why on earth would one deliberately shoot Kodachrome and develop as black and white now? The only reason would be just for the "fun" of doing it, and with the backing removal it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

I do think about Kodachrome from time to time though when the subject of the decline of E6 and eventually C41 comes up. This film was created by a couple of guys, obviously very knowledgeable but with only early 1930s technology and resources, and they processed it in a bathtub. On the surface it sounds like something similar would be easier for a small right-sized film manufacturer to do than a modern chromogenic film. But in the 1930s there was huge pent up demand and a major, HUGE in fact, company to support it and create the processing infrastructure for the demanding process. So I suppose there's no chance whatsoever of anything even LIKE Kodachrome being produced commercially ever again. That's sad, but seems to me the inescapable conclusion, and we've had four years to come to terms with that.

I agree that if you want to preserve color transparency film as long as possible the best approach is to shoot lots and lots of E6.

 

[railwayman3]

Except for the sick wife, for which you have my sympathy (BTDT), Steve Frizza fits all of your other conditionals. So, once your wife is better, you will be in a good situation to do something. But, OTOH, there are a lot of others out there.

PE

Sorry, but I can't let that pass, you're not in the real world. Try running your own business in the current UK economic climate, when you're on call 7 days a week.....anyone (I don't say you) who's spent their whole life in employment, with a salary guaranteed at the end of the month, benefits paid for by the employer, and a company pension scheme hasn't a clue. And, if you get it wrong, there's one person who has to accept responsibility...there's no Perez who you can try to blame.

I'm sure that Steve Frizza doesn't have an employer to pay for his lab, equipment, business vehicle, paid holidays, etc., and that every cent of necessary capital expenditure comes from his own pocket, or the profit (hopefully) generated from his work and business. I also hope that he doesn't have the find the equivalent of $30,000+ from taxed income as I have for the cost of my wife's recent surgery.

Don't worry, I'm off this website now, at least for a while; there's plenty of other photography and digital forums which have a much better atmosphere.

 

[StoneNYC]

The irony in all this is that Dwayne's literally couldn't GIVE AWAY for FREE the Kodachrome processing machine, it was so large no one would come take it away, not even the smithsonian or national museum of science or any other place. So to expect a single person to do it by hand when no one could even take the machine and they had to tear it apart and send it to the trash...it's amazing anyone even tried...






Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

For small quantities, as hard as doing it by hand may be, it's probably easier than running the big machine.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sorry, but I can't let that pass, you're not in the real world. Try running your own business in the current UK economic climate, when you're on call 7 days a week.....anyone (I don't say you) who's spent their whole life in employment, with a salary guaranteed at the end of the month, benefits paid for by the employer, and a company pension scheme hasn't a clue. And, if you get it wrong, there's one person who has to accept responsibility...there's no Perez who you can try to blame.

I'm sure that Steve Frizza doesn't have an employer to pay for his lab, equipment, business vehicle, paid holidays, etc., and that every cent of necessary capital expenditure comes from his own pocket, or the profit (hopefully) generated from his work and business. I also hope that he doesn't have the find the equivalent of $30,000+ from taxed income as I have for the cost of my wife's recent surgery.

Don't worry, I'm off this website now, at least for a while; there's plenty of other photography and digital forums which have a much better atmosphere.

A reasonable answer, but one that misunderstands my point.

1. Steve does run his own business and has many problems with taxes and income, but in spite of that he was able to do what he did.

2. I am retired and on a fixed income and I have lost my health care benefits. I have invested heavily in coating blades and books as well as lots of Silver Nitrate and many other things such as printing the books and duplicating the DVDs. I have taxes on that income to deal with and lots of late hours were spent in my tiny lab (7'x14')/ I am now working on 2 more books and am working with 2 interns at GEH.

Point is, that I did it and took it pretty far in my lab but I still will not attempt Kodachrome or any other chrome except possibly Cibachrome.

And many groan and moan here, but do nothing at all!

If you cannot, you cannot, but if you can or could and are posting here, why just talk? Start to work.

Now, I'm sorry that my comments have driven you away. I h ope that your wife is better soon. My wife had 2 major surgeries while writing the book and she needed one year for recovery for the second. I hope your wife does better.

PE

 

[removed account4]

SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP

And many groan and moan here, but do nothing at all!

If you cannot, you cannot, but if you can or could and are posting here, why just talk? Start to work.

PE

right on ron !

it is much easier to talk and do the whole wishful-thinking thing than it is to do something constructive with one's time
in the area of photochemical tinkering. there are always people who do the heavy lifting and others who enjoy the results ..
if you like doing the heavy lifting enjoy it, i know i like playing and learning too ...

 

[Stephen Frizza]

Thanks Ron! you have written exactly what I feel....too many talk and too few get to work on experiments. I also get annoyed by people who claim to desperately want to do Kodachrome but haven't read any of the information / publications and patents given away by kodak.

I also get annoyed by people whom I give good insight into methodologies and then get told no no there are better ways. Take for example my RGB screens for doing an autochrome like process. I expressed in that thread a perfect simple solution for pairing the screen with the film emulsion and yet for 20 pagers after announcing a simple method people were still over complicating it with other ideas that simply dont work.

It makes me not want to share the all details on my experiments. I work hard for what I learn. why should I simply serve it to others on a silver platter?

when people ask me whats the difference between Tri-x and Neopan i dont tell them anymore. I simply say buy ten rolls of each test them and you tell me! thats how i learned!!!

sorry to complain but you are spot on Ron people need to stop talking and start doing!

 

[Nzoomed]

Thanks Ron! you have written exactly what I feel....too many talk and too few get to work on experiments. I also get annoyed by people who claim to desperately want to do Kodachrome but haven't read any of the information / publications and patents given away by kodak.

I also get annoyed by people whom I give good insight into methodologies and then get told no no there are better ways. Take for example my RGB screens for doing an autochrome like process. I expressed in that thread a perfect simple solution for pairing the screen with the film emulsion and yet for 20 pagers after announcing a simple method people were still over complicating it with other ideas that simply dont work.

It makes me not want to share the all details on my experiments. I work hard for what I learn. why should I simply serve it to others on a silver platter?

when people ask me whats the difference between Tri-x and Neopan i dont tell them anymore. I simply say buy ten rolls of each test them and you tell me! thats how i learned!!!

sorry to complain but you are spot on Ron people need to stop talking and start doing!

Yes i agree too.
Lots of talk but no action.
If i had the skill, experience and knowledge, and was not living on the other side of the earth, i would love to help in some way, but ive had absolutely nothing to do with hand processing of any film whatsoever. And since im dedicated to many other hobbies interests, i dont have time for everything.
However, ironically the demise of kodachrome has for me personally sparked an interest in film (E6) photography.
Ive learned greatly about how films work with dye couplers etc, but i have a hell of a lot more to learn.

Ive created a wiki with the intention of documenting everything there is to know about processing kodachrome right down to the chemistry of the film itself and the chemicals/couplers to process it.
I feel this should be done regardless of whether Kodachrome ever gets processed again or not, since its a record of history.

If people are serious enough to want their kodachromes processed, i would expect them to do their hardest to gather whatever information they find from the relative patent documents etc and put it on the wiki. Its completley pointless why people are buying up the stuff if it cant be processed and paying ridiculous prices for it and storing it in their freezer. If they want to shoot it, they can expect to do the hard yards to develop it.
Yes it would be awesome if it could be easily processed, but i dont think its worthwhile doing unless some historically significant footage comes to light such as the shuttle film, which is even a much more harder challenge than processing a short strip of 35mm film.

I dont have much knowledge on the film or chemistry myself, but will contribute what little i can to the wiki.

All i ask, is if we want to keep film alive (E6 in particular), we all need to work together, keep shooting it and promote and share our photos as much as possible.
Already people look at me all stupid when i pull out my XA3 and turn the winder!
Its crazy how film has declined so fast in less than a decade, now us as analog photographers look the odd ones out.
Keep shooting guys, im putting all my hard efforts into E6 for the time being, at least that has some future, Kodachrome does not and C41 films do not really interest me much. So E6 is all im shooting.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Steve, I was glad to contribute to your "dilemma" on Kodachrome processing. Remember, more is said than done. I seem to remember that I owe you something. PM me please to refresh my aging memory.

Ron

 

[retro film]

I recall reading about a guy who tried a trick to get Kodachrome film "developed"(in color). What he did was he would use a red filter and take a shot of the scene, then advance the film to the next slide, and shoot the same scene with a green filter, then advance to the next slide and shoot the same scene with a blue filter. Then he developed the film as black and white and scanned the film. And in photoshop he converted each BW slide into the color channel of the filter used and superimposed them and the end result was a color image of kodachrome. Though the cost was that it takes 3 slides to get one picture and objects cant be moving in the scene. But hey it worked.

 

[Rudeofus]

Ron, there are two types of home brew activity: one, which tries to replace existing commercial products with self made stuff. Typical examples for this are my feeble attempts at home brewing, or the emulsions that you brew in your dark room shed. This form of home brew is relatively easy in so far as one can replace one component with self mixed version, fine tune self mixed version, then move on to next component of the whole process. Raw materials and lots of public knowledge are available, that's why this form of home brew activity is quite popular here.

The second form, and this is was what Stephen did, is to replace a whole product or process that is no longer commercially available. In the case of Kodachrome a whole product line went belly up, first the coated emulsion, then the process. Stephen could not use bath 1-5 from a kit, then use and fine tune a self made bath 6, then continue with the rest of the commercial kit, nope, he had to mix the whole shebang. At once. And he could not sneak into a K14 processing lab and measure pH or specific gravity of individual bathes because there is no K14 lab today. But that last bit makes Stephens efforts very valuable to some: either convince Stephen, or someone who picks up his work, to process your Kodachrome, or use your stock as aged low ISO b&w emulsion, or toss it.

So the question is, and as it looks only Stephen can answer this: how many serious inquiries for K14 processing did you really get and how much were these people willing to spend? Would the owner of these Shuttle films give some of them to whoever gets these processed successfully, or would this require too much red tape?

Personally I have never shot a single roll of Kodachrome in my whole life, but if you tell me there is a potential market of say US$ 100000, then I could easily see myself putting in a serious effort into starting up such an operation.

 

[frobozz]

I recall reading about a guy who tried a trick to get Kodachrome film "developed"(in color). What he did was he would use a red filter and take a shot of the scene, then advance the film to the next slide, and shoot the same scene with a green filter, then advance to the next slide and shoot the same scene with a blue filter. Then he developed the film as black and white and scanned the film. And in photoshop he converted each BW slide into the color channel of the filter used and superimposed them and the end result was a color image of kodachrome. Though the cost was that it takes 3 slides to get one picture and objects cant be moving in the scene. But hey it worked.

I'm not sure why he didn't just use a B&W film for that... Part of the wonder of Kodachrome was its unique color responses, which are totally lost using that method.

Duncan

 

[Photo Engineer]

You can replicate Kodachrome very well using 3 color shots on B&W and then using a reversal C/M/Y development scheme. This has been often published. At the end, you bind all 3 together to get a finished slide. There are no tricks and no need to compound special formulas, you just make up what works. Leadly and Stegmeyer published this in the '40s.

And Rudi, I am aware of these two types of endeavor but what I am saying that there is a LOT of talk here and across APUG but little action among those able to do it. They talk, but they don't do.

PE

 

[AgX]

I recall reading about a guy who tried a trick to get Kodachrome film "developed"(in color). What he did was he would use a red filter and take a shot of the scene, then advance the film to the next slide, and shoot the same scene with a green filter, then advance to the next slide and shoot the same scene with a blue filter. Then he developed the film as black and white and scanned the film. And in photoshop he converted each BW slide into the color channel of the filter used and superimposed them and the end result was a color image of kodachrome. Though the cost was that it takes 3 slides to get one picture and objects cant be moving in the scene. But hey it worked.

This has nothing to do with with Kodachrome film.

What you refer to is colour photography by means of taking colour seperations in succession. This is a process going back to the beginning of colour photography and was a important process back then. Look for the work of Adolf Miethe.

 

[Trask]

The Library of Congress' website is down until Monday, it seems, but if you Google "LOC color photos of Russia" you'll find several links to color photographs of Russia made in the late 1800's using a tri-color process. Digital technology (which can be useful, after all) allowed the Library to scan all three single-color images then very accurately combine the three layers. (I read all this long ago, so I hope I'm remembering correctly.) It's wonderful to see a world that we normally only see in b/w images as being as fully of color as our own.

 

[lxdude]

This has nothing to do with with Kodachrome film.

What you refer to is colour photography by means of taking colour seperations in succession. This is a process going back to the beginning of colour photography and was a important process back then. Look for the work of Adolf Miethe.

That's what I was thinking, but I wonder, might the color filter layers in the film influence the result in some way?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Color filters can influence the quality of the result. The details are very complex and would require an hour or so of typing and pasting graphs and charts to show the details.

PE

 

[lxdude]

Yes, I was just thinking that maybe the filtration layers would create a different look in the end product compared to a color separation using regular B&W film, and that maybe that would preserve a "Kodachrome look".

 

[Rudeofus]

You can replicate Kodachrome very well using 3 color shots on B&W and then using a reversal C/M/Y development scheme. This has been often published. At the end, you bind all 3 together to get a finished slide. There are no tricks and no need to compound special formulas, you just make up what works. Leadly and Stegmeyer published this in the '40s.

None of this will get the Shuttle film rolls developed. There is no need (in my humble opinion) to bring back Kodachrome film, but I would find it quite interesting to bring those few exciting rolls of film to life that have already been exposed. If some wealthy folks want to get some additional Kodachrome developed and thereby help fund the whole process, more power to them I'd say.

And Rudi, I am aware of these two types of endeavor but what I am saying that there is a LOT of talk here and across APUG but little action among those able to do it. They talk, but they don't do.

Feel free to add me to the list of those who talk more than they do, and I shall save you from my usual "I have a family and a job and rah rah rah". The question remains whether "developing Kodachrome" can be a job description, i.e. whether it would pay the bills for one or two years. If yes, and Stephen still holds the key to the answer, then this could be a great opportunity to get some of us talkers going. If this turns into a "two rolls per quarter, and half of the customers won't pay, because their ten year old slides came out a bit fogged" operation, then ok, ditch it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The "ditch it" option is the best.

PE

 

[darkroom]

NO