Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

clayne · Aug 22, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Astia was the closest E-6 film to Kodachrome I ever found, but it wasn't that close. Besides, in my opinion, E-6 is a "dead process walking," Ferrania notwithstanding. Those who enjoy color film would be advised to embrace C-41, which will probably last a few years longer. Or just make the leap directly to digital. Or, like I have, concentrate on black and white film/paper.

Or just shoot E6 instead to help readjust the bias? Digital isn't an option. Sorry I like non linear mediums that can compress input. Black white or color it doesn't matter.

Nzoomed · Aug 22, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Astia was the closest E-6 film to Kodachrome I ever found, but it wasn't that close. Besides, in my opinion, E-6 is a "dead process walking," Ferrania notwithstanding. Those who enjoy color film would be advised to embrace C-41, which will probably last a few years longer. Or just make the leap directly to digital. Or, like I have, concentrate on black and white film/paper.

Screw C41!
I dont want to shoot any crappy negative films!
Thats why i went digital in the first place! Since i never shot E6 beforehand, i didnt know alot about it. I love E6, and i can only thank the demise of Kodachrome for that, as annoyed as i am that i never shot any kodachrome, at least ive got an interest back again in film photography, and i love it!
The photos im getting with E6 are far superior to anything ive ever shot in C41.
Would be pretty cool though if it was possible to produce a reversal film that could be processed in C41 chemistry with the same results as E6, i assume this would require some very special dye couplers.

Anyway, its good to see the uptake of Lomography, since this may one day be the only thing left eventually that keeps colour film alive.

Photo Engineer · Aug 22, 2013

In fact, a film that could give E6 quality images in a C41 process is entirely possible. The problem is that all reversal processes give worse images than C41 NEGATIVE films. If you don't get the same quality, then you are doing something wrong somewhere. After all, the motion picture industry looked at negative and positive systems and chose negative. It was much better.

PE

clayne · Aug 22, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
In fact, a film that could give E6 quality images in a C41 process is entirely possible. The problem is that all reversal processes give worse images than C41 NEGATIVE films. If you don't get the same quality, then you are doing something wrong somewhere. After all, the motion picture industry looked at negative and positive systems and chose negative. It was much better.

PE

PE, are you sure there wasn't some process economy considered here?

RPC · Aug 22, 2013

Color negative film, due to masking, supports much better color quality when printed than reversal film. Also, due to its lower contrast it has better dynamic range.

Photo Engineer · Aug 22, 2013

Clayne, there was no process economy considered. E6 and Kodachrome both wowed editors because they gave a visible image, but no one knew how to view a negative and so in magazine work and other similar types of work, reversal held sway but with real production, C41 or ECN (Eastman Color Negative) dominated and it was due to QUALITY. As RPC says, there were the factors that dominated the industries that mattered.

PE

lxdude · Aug 22, 2013

All I know is, back in the 70's and 80's any prints of mine from 35mm color negative film looked grainier than prints from slides, especially in shadows.

Modern color negative is pretty awesome though, no doubt. But I still just love looking at transparencies.

Nzoomed · Aug 23, 2013

I still love the look of transparencies too.
I always thought the main advantage of negative film was for making prints, duplicates etc.

I would be quite interested though in trying negative motion picture film in a film camera, has anyone experimented using vision3 stocks in a film camera?
I guess processing it would be a pain, but ECN2 films have far finer grain than C41 dont they?

David Grenet · Aug 23, 2013

Several people have shot ECN films in still cameras, and have posted results on apug. I recommend the search function.

shuttlelaunchfilm · Aug 23, 2013

but he knew it was happening and was doing this space shuttle launch thing and hasn't finished it in time, yet expects someone to process it anyway...

STONENYC-

Just fyi- when I started this project and began shooting the launches in Kodachrome, the shuttle program was scheduled to be finished before Dwayne's was to end development. I have three launches covered in Kodachrome. But because of delays well out of my hands, the launches were delayed and so three launches of film is in the freezer.

I had an idea I loved, it seemed interesting and fascinating so I moved forward. I hope this isn't offensive to people.

I'm not a chemist so I hope it isn't arrogant to hope that someone who is a chemist might be able to process the film that I cannot.

Stephen Frizza · Aug 23, 2013

shuttlelaunchfilm said:
I'm not a chemist so I hope it isn't arrogant to hope that someone who is a chemist might be able to process the film that I cannot.

The limits in this project are not just chemistry, the chemistry is one thing but the other is engineering. Once the chemistry is dealt with one would need to figure out how to actually process your lengths of film safely and accurately.

railwayman3 · Aug 23, 2013

shuttlelaunchfilm said:
but he knew it was happening and was doing this space shuttle launch thing and hasn't finished it in time, yet expects someone to process it anyway...

STONENYC-

Just fyi- when I started this project and began shooting the launches in Kodachrome, the shuttle program was scheduled to be finished before Dwayne's was to end development. I have three launches covered in Kodachrome. But because of delays well out of my hands, the launches were delayed and so three launches of film is in the freezer.

I had an idea I loved, it seemed interesting and fascinating so I moved forward. I hope this isn't offensive to people.....

I'm not a chemist so I hope it isn't arrogant to hope that someone who is a chemist might be able to process the film that I cannot.

I don't think that anyone was trying to be deliberately offensive....your idea sounded great and I feel for you that it didn't work out.

However, the final development date for processing (31st Dec 2010) was publicised extensively in every possible source for some 18 months, on the internet and in photographic and general publications, and not least by Kodak and by Dwaynes themselves by inserts in film cartons and with processed slides and films; I think people are puzzled that you still filmed such important events as the launches (if my dates are correct) in the following February, May and July? :confused:

Roger Cole · Aug 23, 2013

Yeah, once the launch dates got rescheduled past the cut off date for processing, I'd have sold that film, at a loss if necessary, to someone who could still use it in time (if at all possible) and shot them on something that could be processed after that date. Good idea, schedule didn't work. I can understand hoping someone, somewhere, would find a way, but I know enough about Kodachrome to have realized that would be highly unlikely. Not everyone does or did, though.

railwayman3 · Aug 23, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
In fact, a film that could give E6 quality images in a C41 process is entirely possible. The problem is that all reversal processes give worse images than C41 NEGATIVE films. If you don't get the same quality, then you are doing something wrong somewhere. After all, the motion picture industry looked at negative and positive systems and chose negative. It was much better.

PE

IMHO, almost all disappointments with C41 results is due to poor processing and printing. Even cheap consumer film with machine printing can give excellent results with a properly trained and interested operator.

OTOH, I've had few totally satisfying results from lab optical printing from transparencies, even expensive Cibachromes from so-called professional labs.

shuttlelaunchfilm · Aug 23, 2013

I took some risks and I had faith in people more skilled and knowledgeable than I am.

Mr. Frizza has proven that ingenuity is alive and I continue to put faith in that mindset.

Its also my intention to assist through what means I can- I have some great fundraising strategies I'm eager to move forward with AND I might be able to help with some of the tech challenges that still exist. I'm also interested in making it worthwhile- I don't expect anyone to break even, I expect people to be rewarded for their work. I'm not rich, but I think between the science/space community and the AP community we can raise the money to not feel like we're doing it in our garage, on our own. I don't want anyone to take a month off of their life to help, I want to pay for that month.

I still hope to marry the great achievements in photography and space travel together in their last hurrah.

madgardener · Aug 23, 2013

I wonder if anyone in the various "maker communities" scattered throughout the US/Canada/Europe would be interested in taking on this challenge. I know a couple people at the local group here in Allentown, I think I'll ask,

As we've seen though, it won't be cheap.

PKM-25 · Aug 23, 2013

SLF, do you have enough non-shuttle launch Kodachrome, unexposed or not and in motion and still stock to possibly run tests? It could take up to double the amount of critical film in test film to get the chemistry dialed in.

Also, seeing how you might be able to get funding, did you ever contact Grant at Dwayne's to see what happened to his K-14 machine? The lady who's name is escaping me who was the chemist for his K14 line is *super* nice and knowledgeable, for what that is worth.

And last but not least, you may have to go well beyond the ranks of APUG in order to get passed a lot of the arm chair quarter backing not to mention the lovely "False Alarms"....but you probably already know this...

ambaker · Aug 23, 2013

SLF, I see your point, and logic.

Who doesn't want a last hurrah for their hero? I remember Nolan Ryan pitching a wonderful game near the end of his career. So many fans of so many things and people, have wanted "just one more".

Today, the sentimental side of me is cheering you on. The practical side can wait till tomorrow....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Nzoomed · Aug 26, 2013

I do feel if the kodachromes for the shuttle launch film ever get processed, it certainly will give the film great exposure and get people talking in the news, media, etc.
Imagine a news story saying how the impossible was achieved in getting the kodachrome developed, it would generate so much curiosity, that people would want to watch it.
The biggest issue with fundraising i see is that there needs to be solid evidence that the project can be acheived, or else people will be reluctant to dontate, especially the big players.

So lets do our homework first, find people that are confident they can help, providing they have the funds, and go from there.

madgardener · Aug 26, 2013

If there is any place in the world that has even a shot at developing this film, it would be the George Eastman House. The only other place would be the National Archives/Library of Congress.

Stephen Frizza · Aug 26, 2013

I don't want to open a can of worms in what I'm next about to say but the fact is this....if anyone has a shot at processing Kodachrome again on a commercial scale they are going to need a processor. Without a finely tuned highly calibrated (precise and automated) Kodachrome processing machine
it will never be done commercially. Weather this be a K-14 processor like the K-lab or something custom built by proper engineers.

The only way I foresee it being done without the physical infrastructure to commercially process it will be in small tank lines by hand for historical demonstration purposes only and this would occur at extremely high cost.

I doubt George Eastman House or The National Archives/Library of congress have the physical machines to accommodate this and of the three k-14 processors I've heard mentioned in the world none of them are in a working condition.

Rudeofus · Aug 26, 2013

Since Kodachrome is no longer produced, and since Kodak is unlikely to ever start another production run for it, we need to focus on a process that involves plenty of manual labour and little upfront capital investment. The target group of this process will not be Joe Schmoe holiday shootist but someone who really really wants his/her rolls processed, even if this means less than ideal colors, risk of losing a few rolls and high cost of processing. If I look at Mr. Shuttlelaunch with his three launches, it sounds like one shuttle launch will be processed b&w (this is farly low risk, so he has one launch for sure), one launch will go to whoever goes through the process, and one launch will go to him, hopefully with proper colors.

Photo Engineer · Aug 26, 2013

Neither GEH nor any other existing facility have the space, staff or equipment to process Kodachrome. As Steve says above, everything is "kaput". No one (AFAIK) except Steve and myself know first hand the complexity of mixing and processing Kodachrome by hand. And machine processing is not much easier.

If an individual wants something badly enough, they will find a way. That is what should happen here. However, I see no sign of that happening. As I said, just talk. I'm not going to do it, I know that because I know how hard it would be. No one could pay me enough to do it. Sorry.

PE

kb3lms · Aug 26, 2013

If an individual wants something badly enough, they will find a way.

Agreed. Like all things in this vein, someone who really wants to will figure it out, just like Steve did. And accordingly, he seems to have said BTDT, and no thanks, once was enough.

Somewhere, once, I saw a listing of the chemicals someone (Steve, I believe) used. I may have even saved a copy. And, I have also read the patent. You don't just go out and buy this stuff off the shelf, so obviously you have to "manufacture" it yourself to obtain small quantities. Maybe that is what Steve did, IDK. Nowhere have I seen it said where he got his chemistry. Gathering and making the necessary chemicals, couplers for example, is one thing that doesn't seem to be getting it's due in this discussion.

To be clear, I have no intention of trying process K-14, so the question I have is just general curiosity but, where, oh where, does one even start looking for how to make up the necessary chemistry? Google-ing "making color couplers in your basement" doesn't get you vary far! PE, any suggestions? How the heck do you make a color coupler? It sounds complicated. I suppose if you are a real chemist it might be obvious how it is done, and maybe it isn't even hard, but to most of us laymen it is about as clear as mud.

I've got a feeling that once folks get the gist of the process involved to make up the chemistry, many might be "cured" of this fascination with hand processing Kodachrome!

Seriously, though, best of luck to anyone who wants to try!

-- Jason

railwayman3 · Aug 26, 2013

If someone did conjure up a way to process Kodachrome without using an original machine, original chemicals and original process timing and quality controls, would the substitute result really be "Kodachrome"?

It really would be a miracle if the image quality, color pallette and archival qualities equalled correctly-factory-processed fresh K-14 film.

Which begs the question whether any substitute process would be anymore a "Kodachrome original" than recovering important Kodachrome images by processing as B&W?

Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency