Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Sal Santamaura · Aug 17, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
The "ditch it" option is the best...

darkroom said:
NO

Actually, yes. Reality frequently sucks, but it's real. Best to deal with it in a mature fashion.

The primary "reason" being used to press Stephen into processing Kodachrome is some Space Shuttle film. Not exposed frames of a deceased person of whom no other pictures exist. Untold numbers of still images and feet of motion pictures were made of the Shuttle in all phases of its life cycle and are carefully preserved. Ditching is no real loss.

Please note that, except for snapshots and article illustrations, I haven't exposed a frame of color since Kodachrome 25 and reliable Kodak processing for it ceased to be available nearly two decades ago. No one would be more happy than me if a magic wand could be waved and the world returned to happy Kodachrome times. It's not going to happen. Like most realities, that one sucks. But it's real. The healthiest way to deal with it is acceptance. Either embrace Fuji reversal film (while it lasts), color negative film (while it lasts), digital color or, like me, concentrate on black and white.

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2013

darkroom said:
NO

Ok then, do it yourself. You cannot expect others to do it for you!

PE

Nzoomed · Aug 17, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Actually, yes. Reality frequently sucks, but it's real. Best to deal with it in a mature fashion.

The primary "reason" being used to press Stephen into processing Kodachrome is some Space Shuttle film. Not exposed frames of a deceased person of whom no other pictures exist. Untold numbers of still images and feet of motion pictures were made of the Shuttle in all phases of its life cycle and are carefully preserved. Ditching is no real loss.

Please note that, except for snapshots and article illustrations, I haven't exposed a frame of color since Kodachrome 25 and reliable Kodak processing for it ceased to be available nearly two decades ago. No one would be more happy than me if a magic wand could be waved and the world returned to happy Kodachrome times. It's not going to happen. Like most realities, that one sucks. But it's real. The healthiest way to deal with it is acceptance. Either embrace Fuji reversal film (while it lasts), color negative film (while it lasts), digital color or, like me, concentrate on black and white.

the main significance with the shuttle film was that it documented the last shuttle launches in history, the only problem was that kodachrome processing ceased before the last shuttle launches.

Sal Santamaura · Aug 17, 2013

Nzoomed said:
the main significance with the shuttle film was that it documented the last shuttle launches in history, the only problem was that kodachrome processing ceased before the last shuttle launches.

Every one of the shuttle launches, including the "last ones," were massively documented with stills and motion, all of which is well preserved. That "main significance" is, in fact, not significant.

Photo Engineer · Aug 17, 2013

Sal, I would like to point out that a lot of the photographic documentation of the early launches and even the moon landing were destroyed in some sort of effort to make room for new stuff. I have been sending some of my shots to the University of Central Florida in an effort to recover lost documentation. It seems that NASA and the USAF are not as diligent than we thought. So, private documentation may be a saving grace here.

Unfortunately, this puts me on the other side for a change, as I disagree with the entire "save Kodachrome" issue. He should have shot the stuff on E6 film.

PE

ambaker · Aug 18, 2013

I loved Kodachrome. It died for a reason.

To shoot on a film, for which there is no processing, seems fairly odd to me.

If it were really financially practicable, someone would go through the effort to do it. The fact that no one has, speaks volumes. It is one thing to do it, to say it has been done. It is another to spend the time and money on a dead end quest.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Sal Santamaura · Aug 18, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Sal, I would like to point out that a lot of the photographic documentation of the early launches and even the moon landing were destroyed in some sort of effort to make room for new stuff...So, private documentation may be a saving grace here...

Perhaps for early launches, but "the last shuttle launches" were without doubt documented digitally. I think electronic storage has become so compact and inexpensive lately that it's very unlikely NASA is erasing things like those records to enable re-use of the media they're recorded on.

Photo Engineer said:
...He should have shot the stuff on E6 film...

Without question. Shooting Kodachrome after Dwayne's terminated the K-14 line (as claimed in post #127) was, to be charitable, poor planning.

PKM-25 · Aug 18, 2013

I had contacted folks at NASA for a year to be able to shoot the last launch on Kodachrome, just like I shot the last Burning Man on Kodachrome, the last presidential inauguration on Kodachrome, etc. And when I saw the launch date move past December 2010, I scrapped the idea. It would have never dawned on me to risk a lot of time, money and effort on shooting KR-64 once Dwayne's shut down, I feel bad this young man did, the risk will likely never pay off.

I also got rather excited at coming up with $1,000-$2,000 to shoot a few more rolls of Kodachrome on a topic within my project that did not get traction in time, but a few pages back will show that my excitement and "Re-Starting" of that topic was also, ill fated, my fresh-ish last 60 rolls are in vacuum sealed bags in my film freezer and will likely stay there.

Stone asked me not long ago if I would try to come up with my own "Witches Brew" to soup the film in. I said no, because I am not a lab guy, I am the photographer who keeps the lab guy in business. Not one of the famous Kodachrome shooters I know who are still alive would even dream of putting in the time, money and effort to soup a film they would rather pay someone well to do...not ONE folks.

That is because they are photographers.....this is not black and white which is as basic as you can get and the photographer can often benefit greatly in having control of that soup, it is very complex color and not many photographers who made a name for them selves in fully exploiting Kodachrome's virtues would *dream* of tackling it, they have better things to do and so do I.

By the way, speaking of one of the greatest Kodachrome shooters still alive, I am taking his book publishing workshop in reaching the final stages in putting out my own Kodachrome book....that is what my future in Kodachrome is, a nice book.

Kodachrome is gone people...if someone comes up with a process to offer us photographers, some of us will pay for that service. But don't expect actual photographers to waste their time and money on doing what we would rather pay someone to do.

Ron, I will gladly buy your book once I know mine is going to get published...but I hope to never need it because I want to keep companies like Ilford in business for a long time.

In the meantime, I wish Sean would lock up this frustrating thread....it should have never been started in the first place!

falotico · Aug 18, 2013

I don't like to stir up controversy, but I think this thread is very valuable and should continue. I perfectly support the position of the experts who point out the plain fact that there are better color film stocks available and that Kodachrome had lost its popularity long before the last roll was made. I appreciate that there are fewer dye couplers which are soluble in a strongly alkali developer and therefore the palette to Kodachrome is smaller than other films. I realize the inherent problems with positive to positive duplication--the toes overlap and all the rest of it. I concede that there is magenta spillover into the other layers due to stubborn grains which do not develop at the proper time. I am persuaded by all of the scientific arguments; I agree with the reasoning of the engineers--gone are the buffalo!

But Kodachrome is one of the most important photographic films ever made. Probably more than ninety percent of the population of the United States has seen a Kodachrome image: the Zapruder film; the atomic bomb test at Trinity; the Battle of Midway; raising the flag at Iwo Jima; Marilyn Monroe in Korea; millions of pictures of picnics, birthday parties and the Grand Canyon. Who ever wrote a song about Autochromes?

I understand there are faster airplanes, but they say that there will always be an airworthy Spitfire. Should we throw away the recipe to Coca Cola? Here is a joke to illustrate my point: Did you know that Paul McCartney was in a band before "Wings"? The point is that the only band anyone has ever heard of McCartney belonging to was the Beatles--and the only color film most people have ever heard of is Kodachrome. I'm sure that someone will come up with a soup to develop the leftover rolls. Moreover, someone will eventually manufacture a monopack color film which requires dye couplers in the developing fluids.

AgX · Aug 18, 2013

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

The spectral sensitization and the colour filters within a camera film (if there any filters aside of the yellow one) are to split the scene luminance into three overlapping parts representing the primaries. As do the external seperation filters.

In general the sensitization of colour films in the past differed from that of b&w films. As the external filtration did mirror this there should have been a difference between colour films and b&w films exposed in succession through external filters.

But I am speaking in general terms. I can't see any typical Kodachrome look due to this.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 18, 2013

As long as there are online photography forums dedicated to film, there will be discussions about Kodachrome. It was Kodak's high water mark and so much better than anything else in its day that people can't and won't just forget about it on demand. Heck, Kodachrome is probably the only real film that most current day photographers who have been raise solely on digital even know about. At least by name.

It's one big mess of cats that will just continue to refuse to be herded.

Ken

PKM-25 · Aug 18, 2013

I'm not against talking about Kodachrome, I just don't want to continue to see people being treated like crap because they are passionate about using it. I also don't want to get told that as a photographer who would like to use the film I have, that I should essentially do all the work to become a damned chemist or to shut up.

In looking at the entirety of this thread and the outright rudeness of one person in particular when it comes to the response to the more passionate and less chemically inclined Kodachrome user, I would just assume this thread be locked up and a new one started that moves the discussion forward. By all means, keep the discussion going, but lets not ram it down others throats that figuring out a new Kodachrome process will be hard work, no one's images or project is worth the time and that we have to sit here and be brow-beaten into lab tech submission.

That's just ugly and frankly that is what this thread is.

railwayman3 · Aug 18, 2013

falotico and PKM-25 - Two very sensible replies, at last!

Very few of we Kodachrome enthusiasts really believe that a similar film will be revived....but it is a very brave, stupid, or arrogant, man, who says "never".

I can totally understand why it was considered an interesting plan to record the final Shuttle Launch on Kodachrome, but, if this were knowingly done with too little time to get the film processed before Dwayne's cut-off, it is too late now to complain or expect someone to work miracles with an alternative process. (And there was some unexpected leeway as Dwaynes were still processing into January 2011 to clear the last films and until the final chemical supplies were used.)

If I had been at the shuttle launch and wanted a guaranteed record, I would, frankly, have used digital, with more then one camera. Just for fun, I took family pictures over Christmas 2010 with the idea it would be a final "Kodachrome Party". But RL commitments then intervened, I was too late to get the film to Dwaynes.... my fault,I'm not complaining or expecting anyone to rescue them! Other family members used their phones and digital cameras, so I knew we'd have the usual good record of the holiday.

What I really object to is being told what I should or shouldn't do or discuss in my photography hobby (and, for that matter, how I should order my life!), This summer I have been experimenting with the Anthrotype process...enlarged digital "negatives", no darkroom, laboratory or degree in organic chemistry required, no nasty or rare chemicals, and can be done in limited spare time. Of course a totally "dead" process for many years, so I now wait to be told to "move on".......

Rudeofus · Aug 18, 2013

PKM-25 said:
I'm not against talking about Kodachrome, I just don't want to continue to see people being treated like crap because they are passionate about using it. I also don't want to get told that as a photographer who would like to use the film I have, that I should essentially do all the work to become a damned chemist or to shut up.

Processing a whole roll of Kodachrome with what is available today is, if you followed Stephen's comments in this thread, a royal pain in the neck and costs a lot of money, and possession of some of the compounds may get you on someones "drone him if you can" lists.

As it looks today, there will be no more US$10 per roll Kodachrome development service. Whether there will be a US$ 1000 per roll Kodachrome service depends on several things, most importantly sufficient availability of people willing to pay the price and to put in some effort on their own.

Starting such a process takes more than just mixing up a few chemicals, starting a few tempered bathes and running a strip of film through them. It takes people willing to sacrifice some of the last few remaining unexposed rolls in order to get the process fine tunes, it takes people willing to pay for process chemistry long before the first roll is successfully processed, and it will take reliable feedback from people who want their rolls processed, whether the results justify the effort: there is a reasonable chance that colors and hues won't be perfect in home brew setup.

As this thread deteriorated, the crowd split up into a "I don't care about chemistry, I just want my great art processed" camp and a "why should I put in the effort to process someone else's chromes" camp. If we can't bridge this gap, then well, that's it then.

So the question to you, PKM-25, is: how many rolls of Kodachrome are you willing to put into this effort? How much time are you willing to commit for constructive critique? How much money is it worth to get your Kodachrome project moving again?

This is definitely not a "we only need some skilled chemists" situation.

benjiboy · Aug 18, 2013

To be honest I personallty prefer the Fujichrome range of Professional slide films, and haven't used Kodachrome for about 25 years, so I don't miss it

railwayman3 · Aug 18, 2013

Rudeofus said:
Starting such a process takes more than just mixing up a few chemicals, starting a few tempered bathes and running a strip of film through them. It takes people willing to sacrifice some of the last few remaining unexposed rolls in order to get the process fine tunes, it takes people willing to pay for process chemistry long before the first roll is successfully processed, and it will take reliable feedback from people who want their rolls processed, whether the results justify the effort: there is a reasonable chance that colors and hues won't be perfect in home brew setup.

As this thread deteriorated, the crowd split up into a "I don't care about chemistry, I just want my great art processed" camp and a "why should I put in the effort to process someone else's chromes" camp. If we can't bridge this gap, then well, that's it then.

So the question to you, PKM-25, is: how many rolls of Kodachrome are you willing to put into this effort? How much time are you willing to commit for constructive critique? How much money is it worth to get your Kodachrome project moving again?

This is definitely not a "we only need some skilled chemists" situation.

Agreed with your comments about the complexities of starting a viable Kodachrome processing service, over and above the basics of the chemistry ^^^ .....it's not going to happen, and certainly not at a commercial price. Steve has done the work, and his trials prove this if there was ever any doubt.

But I also think that PKM-25 accepts this...I can't see anywhere where he is expecting this, or still requiring such a service for his own Kodachrome project? If you read his website at the time, all his Kodachrome shooting was before 31st Dec 2010 and his project is to complete the publication of a book.

Like me, he has unused film which, if a miracle happened, would be worth paying a few $ to use up, but nothing more.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 18, 2013

I wonder if some one started a thread on the dodo would it reach almost 300 posts. They are both gone, kaput, fine, never to return! It was a nice film but it did have its faults.

From recent articles in scientific journals, the dodo has a better chance of coming back than Kodachrome.

Sal Santamaura · Aug 18, 2013

falotico said:
...I think this thread is very valuable and should continue...

Nothing in your post or any of the posts following it have successfully made the value case for dragging it on. Continuing this thread is a waste of bandwidth. Stephen, the only one here who has actually processed some Kodachrome lately, concludes it's not a "business opportunity" he's interested in pursuing. The business case for him or anyone else establishing a process to develop limited existing stocks of a discontinued film doesn't exist. It's over. Accept reality.

Ron's frustration is both justified and understandable. He has forgotten more about chemical photography than most of us will ever know. After tens of thousands of posts, very few are willing to accept what he has to say in this and related threads. I'm actually shocked at how calm and restrained his responses are. Should he ever reach a breaking point and leave APUG, that "don't know what you've got till it's gone" phrase will be most applicable to the membership here.

falotico said:
...Should we throw away the recipe to Coca Cola?...

That's a separate discussion entirely, but my unequivocal answer is YES!

Photo Engineer · Aug 18, 2013

PKM-25 said:
I'm not against talking about Kodachrome, I just don't want to continue to see people being treated like crap because they are passionate about using it. I also don't want to get told that as a photographer who would like to use the film I have, that I should essentially do all the work to become a damned chemist or to shut up.

In looking at the entirety of this thread and the outright rudeness of one person in particular when it comes to the response to the more passionate and less chemically inclined Kodachrome user, I would just assume this thread be locked up and a new one started that moves the discussion forward. By all means, keep the discussion going, but lets not ram it down others throats that figuring out a new Kodachrome process will be hard work, no one's images or project is worth the time and that we have to sit here and be brow-beaten into lab tech submission.

That's just ugly and frankly that is what this thread is.

Dan, I agree completely. What I am against are the people here that are saying "why doesn't someone do something, or why doesn't Steve do it for us again?" and this attitude is akin to saying "you do it for me". You see, there is a difference between your post and some others here. You are not a chemist but can accept the reality that Kodachrome is gone, and although it could be "revived", it is impractical and will not be done. Others can't accept that POV and want it revived (at least the process) at any cost.

Steve gave a base price for material, not including labor. It also does not include chemical waste due to low throughput. It also does not include the cost of "abandoning" his regular customers to do this job. So, the real cost is going to be pretty high. And people have to understand that.

Steve will probably have to give up a full day of regular work, if not more, just to do one batch of someone's Kodachrome. That batch may consist of one or several rolls, but this will depend on demand, and the payment would probably have to be made up front to finance purchase of these expensive chemicals.

So, sorry if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent. It seems that people did not understand that it is gone, Steve showed how it could be revived and then went on to say it was not viable commercially or even as a "favor" to people.

And BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I did not love Kodachrome. It had too many faults and was too difficult to make and process for it to last forever. But that does not mean that I cannot sympathize with you for your loss.

PE

PKM-25 · Aug 18, 2013

Rudeofus said:
Processing a whole roll of Kodachrome with what is available today is, if you followed Stephen's comments in this thread, a royal pain in the neck and costs a lot of money, and possession of some of the compounds may get you on someones "drone him if you can" lists.

As it looks today, there will be no more US$10 per roll Kodachrome development service. Whether there will be a US$ 1000 per roll Kodachrome service depends on several things, most importantly sufficient availability of people willing to pay the price and to put in some effort on their own.

Starting such a process takes more than just mixing up a few chemicals, starting a few tempered bathes and running a strip of film through them. It takes people willing to sacrifice some of the last few remaining unexposed rolls in order to get the process fine tunes, it takes people willing to pay for process chemistry long before the first roll is successfully processed, and it will take reliable feedback from people who want their rolls processed, whether the results justify the effort: there is a reasonable chance that colors and hues won't be perfect in home brew setup.

As this thread deteriorated, the crowd split up into a "I don't care about chemistry, I just want my great art processed" camp and a "why should I put in the effort to process someone else's chromes" camp. If we can't bridge this gap, then well, that's it then.

So the question to you, PKM-25, is: how many rolls of Kodachrome are you willing to put into this effort? How much time are you willing to commit for constructive critique? How much money is it worth to get your Kodachrome project moving again?

This is definitely not a "we only need some skilled chemists" situation.

The Kodachrome Project has been shot, done, I even went over 100 rolls past the December 30th date right up until the last minute before tossing my roll...the very last roll to be shot into the soup about 45 minutes shy of when the machine was shut down on January 17th 2011. Then I shot Tri-X of the rest of the day and had that processed in dr5.

I have zero expectations for my remaining 60 rolls. But if a more grassroots effort were to be brought forth, of course I would be willing to put in some effort. But the manner in which this thread started and where it has arrived at now...it's ugly. If and when the time comes that someone confidently but *gracefully* comes onto to this site and lays out a game plan for how to soup Kodachrome film and get actual Kodachromes out of it, regardless of cost per roll, I will take a look at it just like anyone would.

I could easily do my own C41 or E6 at home on my CPP2 and would if I decided that were a priority in my life. But it is not, so for those few times I shoot color, I happily send it out to one of my great labs...they are good at what they do and I am good at what I do. If the next K14 maestro requires me to fill out 18 forms, give them my SSN, put up my business equipment as collateral and take a blood test before I have the pleasure of handing over a minimum of $5,000 in order to "maybe" get slides back that look kinda like Kodachome on some 5-10 rolls....I, as a photographer and artist, are very likely to pass on the "Deal".

In my mind and opinion, Kodachrome died on January 17, 2011 and is not coming back. It's not the end of the world, it practically lived the average lifespan of a human being and unlike a human being, we get to enjoy looking at the marvelous film for the rest of our lives. This, I feel....is the full reality of it.

PKM-25 · Aug 18, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Dan, I agree completely. What I am against are the people here that are saying "why doesn't someone do something, or why doesn't Steve do it for us again?" and this attitude is akin to saying "you do it for me". You see, there is a difference between your post and some others here. You are not a chemist but can accept the reality that Kodachrome is gone, and although it could be "revived", it is impractical and will not be done. Others can't accept that POV and want it revived (at least the process) at any cost.

Steve gave a base price for material, not including labor. It also does not include chemical waste due to low throughput. It also does not include the cost of "abandoning" his regular customers to do this job. So, the real cost is going to be pretty high. And people have to understand that.

Steve will probably have to give up a full day of regular work, if not more, just to do one batch of someone's Kodachrome. That batch may consist of one or several rolls, but this will depend on demand, and the payment would probably have to be made up front to finance purchase of these expensive chemicals.

So, sorry if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent. It seems that people did not understand that it is gone, Steve showed how it could be revived and then went on to say it was not viable commercially or even as a "favor" to people.

And BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I did not love Kodachrome. It had too many faults and was too difficult to make and process for it to last forever. But that does not mean that I cannot sympathize with you for your loss.

PE

Ron, for the record, you did not offend me and what you said above is spot on. But given that where this thread started and where it continues to devolve to, this one ought to be closed and a new one started up that takes on a more grassroots approach?

There are just too many new folks coming on here with misguided enthusiasm towards Steven's long gone proposal that are practically getting beaten over the head, it's time to lock the thread.

Photo Engineer · Aug 18, 2013

Dan, again I agree. I think that this tread has devolved so much it should be closed. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about reviving Kodachrome. Especially from people who are all for it as long as someone else does it for them.

And, add to that the complaints and bashing.

Close the thread.

PE

railwayman3 · Aug 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
I wonder if some one started a thread on the dodo would it reach almost 300 posts. They are both gone, kaput, fine, never to return! It was a nice film but it did have its faults.

From recent articles in scientific journals, the dodo has a better chance of coming back than Kodachrome.

Yes, but I'm sure that, in a scientific journal or forum, there would be no ban on discussing the dodo, or correspondents saying "it's dead, move on....".

I never expected Kodachrome or processing to be revived; I thorough enjoyed getting out and shoot many films of Kodachrome in the itslast two years, with dozens of photos which pleased me (at least), and in now scanning and printing them. When that's done, its back to B&W...because E6 will, I'm sure, be gone by then.

What I really object to is this ban which some people seem to want on discussing the film, its history, how it was processed (or even, wash my mouth, out, and say 12 hail Marys), how it might still be processed, or just anything to do with it..."let's wipe out of history everything which doesn't interest me"!

(I don't mean you, Gerald.)

Mods - please close this thread.

PKM-25 · Aug 18, 2013

Just start a new thread with a new attitude, a more grassroots approach? This one was doomed from the start.

Sorry if it seems lazy but...yeah, I will always rather pay someone to soup my color film than doing it my self, this is the way most pros work, we would rather be photographers than lab techs. There is not a thing wrong with that either, it once employed thousands of dedicated and knowledgeable people.

There is nothing wrong with wanting that for Kodachrome either except for the fact that the film is no longer made and the business model is non-existent so the only way is to experiment on your own and many of us would rather use a different film and keep getting consistent quality results, not to mention keep folks who coat and soup C41 and E6 films in business.

So the new thread can and should adopt a more do-it-your self approach, not even tempting people like me with a "Feeler" for an exchange of money for a service rendered.

NB23 · Aug 18, 2013

Dan, threads die when no one responds anymore. You know, just like your Kodachrome website in which you haven't participated in about a year now. As far as many participants are concerned, you've closed it without really closing it.

Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency