Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

[kb3lms]

Dignan Photographic Report, 1975, Volume 3, p.91?

Not having to do with K-14 at all, but is there a place to find the Dignan Photographic Report online or at least purchase something like a CD or DVD with copies?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Since we do not know what Steve actually used, it is presumptuous of us to assume that he used the basic chemicals. For all we know, he used the real stuff.

Also, Pat and I used to correspond and talk on the phone way back when. I know for a fact that he did not always get everything right, so check the formulas out. I never saw that particular publication so I cannot say, one way or another.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

At one time you could get the whole collection on microfiche, remember this was before personal computers. Perhaps inter library loan from a big library.

 

[frobozz]

If someone really wants to go on a treasure hunt, I have a clue for you. Remember that Kodachrome was also sold as a movie film, and movie film gets processed by big labs that needs lots of detailed info, not just idiotproof instructions for operating a K-Lab. For instance, in documents readily available on their website Kodak spells out every possible detail, including chemicals, needed for processing the current ECN-2 film. So you have to figure they did that back in the days of Kodachrome movie film processing too, right? Well, go look at a Kodachrome movie film data sheet still available on Kodak's site:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/H-1-7268KODACHROME40.pdf

Right there on the first page it says:

PROCESSING
Process K-14; see TI0780 for Mechanical Specifications and
TI0836 for Chemical Solution Formulas.

Anyone got a copy of TI0836 handy??

And this is no secret, but in case anyone here didn't know, the K-Lab instructions, which include a very thorough discussion of the processing theory, are still up on Kodak's site, you just have to get all 10 sections one by one. Number 3 is the really interesting one!

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_01.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_02.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_04.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_05.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_06.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_07.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_08.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_09.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_10.pdf

Duncan

 

[madgardener]

It is encouraging to see all the interest in developing Kodachrome film. Of course this is a classic case of reinventing the wheel. People interested in the process should look at J.S. Friedman's "History of Color Photography" chapters 10 and 23. The book is available online for free at:

http://archive.org/stream/ost-art-h...h/historyofcolorph00frierich#page/n9/mode/2up


<snip....snip.....snip>

Time was when Kodak would go out of its way to help the consumer. George Eastman made his reputation by replacing all of the film plates he sold which were contaminated with bad gelatin. The cows from which the gelatin was made had eaten mustard plants and this material caused the photographic plates to fog. Eastman replaced the plates at no charge and hired chemists to get to the root of the problem. Bradford Washburn used Kodachrome to photograph Alaska when the sheet film first came out. But he was given tungsten film and did not use a filter to correct for daylight. Dr. Wesley Hanson worked out a process to correct for the wrong exposure in the lab and many of the images were saved. Can't we recover that helpful spirit? Just saying....

Judging from some of the replies on this thread, the answer would be no. Some of the comments on here are getting downright mean. Yes, we are well aware Kodachrome is not being produced. Yes, we are well aware that Kodachrome will never be produced again. Yes we are also more than aware that the processing has also ended. But does that mean that you have to keep hammering us over the head with it? There are obviously people who want to discuss Kodachrome. Where is the harm? If you are getting so steamed up, just stop reading the thread. Belittling someone because they want to talk about developing Kodachrome is not going to end things any faster, we are all adults, lets start acting that way and not like the US Congress has recently.

 

[Roger Cole]

Absolutely. It's silly to call for closing a thread just because you don't like it. Don't like it, don't play. As long as its respectful and more or less on topic, and Kodachrome will always be on topic in an analog forum if only as history, people should talk about it if they want to.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Friedman's book was published long before K14.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Since we do not know what Steve actually used, it is presumptuous of us to assume that he used the basic chemicals. For all we know, he used the real stuff.

PE

Im sure i remember reading one of his posts here that said the chemistry was not the same as Kodaks, so would not work in the K-lab.

PROCESSING
Process K-14; see TI0780 for Mechanical Specifications and
TI0836 for Chemical Solution Formulas.

Anyone got a copy of TI0836 handy??

And this is no secret, but in case anyone here didn't know, the K-Lab instructions, which include a very thorough discussion of the processing theory, are still up on Kodak's site, you just have to get all 10 sections one by one. Number 3 is the really interesting one!
Duncan

If anyone has a copy of "TI0836" it would have to be Dwaynes.
Im actually surprised no one has approached Dwaynes in regards to this earlier, since their staff would have the best knowledge and experience in processing the stuff!

Yes those instructions for the K-lab have been online for some time!
They should be grabbed now before Kodak remove that old part of the site!
Very interesting in regards to how the process runs. There is another datasheet ive seen with microscopic cut away images of the layers of processed Kodachrome, very interesting.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dwayne's probably bought prepared "kits" from Kodak. They would not have hand mixed IMHO.

MP labs typically hand mix.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Dwayne's probably bought prepared "kits" from Kodak. They would not have hand mixed IMHO.

MP labs typically hand mix.

PE

Kodak supplied Dwaynes with all the chemicals in their crystalline form, they did not have to synthesise the end product of course, but they had to prepare all the mixtures to the right dilution etc.
Thats why a trained chemist was required to run the large scale K-14 machines, in addition to mixing them correctly, they needed to constantly monitor the chemicals and regularly replenish them.
As far as im aware with the K-labs, the chemicals were already mixed to the correct strength and sealed in bags flushed with nitrogen, so that the mixed chemicals did not oxidise.

 

[Truzi]

Although we have a lot of old family slides, I've never had the opportunity to use Kodachrome myself.

I have never really felt the urge to seek out information on Kodachrome, but do find this thread interesting, so have followed along. In the process I've learned more than I would have sought otherwise, so I do find some value in this thread. How the process was accomplished is very interesting (and seems a bit insane).

 

[Roger Cole]

It WAS a cool film. While there were problems with color accuracy (see my comments above and Ron's confirmation about Caucasian skin tones for example) overall it looked rich and vibrant and had a look that is hard to explain but easy to see. I can just about always identify a projected Kodachrome amongst a show of other slide types. Nothing else looks quite like it. And in the days before E6 and the improvements in it, nothing else looked quite as good either.

 

[hoffy]

What an utterly fascinating battle of wills going on here...

:munch:

Ken

Shuffle over....got any beer?

A very interesting thread on many levels

 

[Nzoomed]

It WAS a cool film. While there were problems with color accuracy (see my comments above and Ron's confirmation about Caucasian skin tones for example) overall it looked rich and vibrant and had a look that is hard to explain but easy to see. I can just about always identify a projected Kodachrome amongst a show of other slide types. Nothing else looks quite like it. And in the days before E6 and the improvements in it, nothing else looked quite as good either.

The biggest difference with Kodachrome was the Reds IMO, i cant really see much difference at all between e100g and K64, but im not an experienced photographer.
From what ive seen from sample shots, Fuji provia seems to be rather close to kodachrome, although it does not have very dark shadows compared to kodachrome.
I actually prefer the look of vintage kodachrome, although it was darker, i liked the effect that the original kodachrome gave compared to Kodachrome II or the more modern K-14 kodachrome.

 

[Roger Cole]

The reds really pop, that's very true.

I have some Kodachrome from my year of "farewell to Kodachrome" on my Flickr page but they're from the scans returned straight from Dwayne's so not the best Kodachrome could be by any means. Some are also on K200 which was rather grainy for a 200 film. Most are K64 though. I don't think I ever shot a roll of K25. That's just too darned slow.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, Kodak had a cubitainer version of K14 chemistry that they sold for processing. A chemist was used in the lab to run controls, analyses and make corrections. IDK if they mixed anything. At one time only MP labs mixed from scratch and they didn't like mixing Kodachrome solutions. Just too hard.

So, if you think that they mixed from scratch, are you sure?

PE

 

[lxdude]

Well, Kodak had a cubitainer version

Did it measure a cubit on each side?

 

[MartinP]

As no more Kodachrome film will be produced, yet we still have a supply of E6 products, would it be much more practical to quantify precisely differences in appearance between the different Kodachromes and some current E6 materials?

If this can be done successfully and completely, by someone with the necessary densitometer (etc.) and brainpower, then perhaps we can come up with a way to reproduce the look of Kodachrome. Now that very few people are giving slideshows, I mean reproducing the look on paper, and in turn this means on RA4 paper not a pos-pos paper.

Assuming that an inter-neg is used, there would be two possible points at which the results could be filtered in some way. Of course, reversal of RA4 paper is possible, but probably(?) not applicable for the results required. Besides filtration, would there be options to modify the chemicals and/or processing of the interneg and/or the RA4 paper in order to adjust the results from 'standard', if required.

As the old style dupe interneg materials are no longer made(?), what would be the most effective C41 material, and why? What would be the most appropriate RA4 paper, and why?

If anyone really wants to achieve a Kodachrome appearance in their finished work (I do not), I think efforts in the direction of imitation rather than recreation would be a more effective use of time and other resources - especially as there is no un-expired Kodachrome material in existence.

 

[madgardener]

I really liked the post about the developing process. All I was reading before is that it was too complicated, why? Now after reading the post about the K-14 process...WOW...

The different baths, bleaches, then shining colored lights on the film, yes, I can see where Mr. Frizza can say that $250 a roll might be necessary. That's a lot more than I can afford for my one roll that I would like to get developed that I found in my now deceased father-in-law's car though. It's been suggested that it be developed as black and white, and I would be willing, but I'm not comfortable with my skill set yet for something that important to me.

At work, we have a DVD of the Tacoma Bridge Collapse that was shot on Kodachrome. I wonder if today's E-6/ECN-2/C-41 stuff will look as good 75(ish) years from now...

Speaking of work, yesterday I was talking to one of our volunteers, who happens to be an organic chemist graduate student, and she expressed an interest in the chemistry/process involved. Let me nip the "It's on the kodak website" in the bud right now. I would like to just be able to give her as few links as possible, or someone she can talk to who isn't going to judge or belittle her for being interested. She's a film photography enthusiast and a friend of mine.

Any takers?

 

[frobozz]

Kodak supplied Dwaynes with all the chemicals in their crystalline form, they did not have to synthesise the end product of course, but they had to prepare all the mixtures to the right dilution etc.
Thats why a trained chemist was required to run the large scale K-14 machines, in addition to mixing them correctly, they needed to constantly monitor the chemicals and regularly replenish them.
As far as im aware with the K-labs, the chemicals were already mixed to the correct strength and sealed in bags flushed with nitrogen, so that the mixed chemicals did not oxidise.

This makes sense if Dwayne's had a Kodachrome processor capable of running movie film, instead of a K-lab (which I believe only ran 35mm in still camera lengths?) And it would make sense that Dwayne's would have a processor capable of running move film, because there was a lot of it about at one point, in the consumer sizes.

Duncan

 

[Rudeofus]

As no more Kodachrome film will be produced, yet we still have a supply of E6 products, would it be much more practical to quantify precisely differences in appearance between the different Kodachromes and some current E6 materials?

I guess the biggest difference is that certain rolls of Kodachrome film were exposed in locations where no E6 film was present, take the shuttle films for instance which restarted this very thread. You may be able to reproduce Kodachromes appearance with other media or hybrid processing, but this won't bring those shots to life that have already been taken.

 

[PKM-25]

This makes sense if Dwayne's had a Kodachrome processor capable of running movie film, instead of a K-lab (which I believe only ran 35mm in still camera lengths?) And it would make sense that Dwayne's would have a processor capable of running move film, because there was a lot of it about at one point, in the consumer sizes.

They ran 8mm and 16mm K-14, even on the very last day.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The Kodachrome chemistry is exceedingly unstable and goes bad fast. The cyan developer turns cyan with keeping as it auto couples during air oxidation. Therefore the process must be kept running or it goes bad. That is why we kept our color developers as "blanks" with no color developing agent present. The developing agent was added at the time of use.

The cubitainer was a standard Kodak product which they solld empty for us to store our chemicals in. I used to have a row of them in my home darkroom for B&W chemistry. The commercial products were supplied with a spigot, but the industrial version had to be punctured with a special tool/spigot. That was always fun if you missed the center of the bullseye. It was like opening an artery as the flabby bladder began its collapse spewing chemicals all over the place (and you if you were not fast enough - dont ask me how I know).

Anyhow, premixed chemistry was often shipped this way, and IIRC, so were the Kodachrome chemicals.

As for duplicating the look of Kodachrome, I noted above that it is possible. But, its look is due to its faults. That can easily be shown, and I have done so several times here.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Dwayne's probably bought prepared "kits" from Kodak. They would not have hand mixed IMHO.

MP labs typically hand mix.

PE

Trust me, this is true... the staff at Dwayne's is .... wonderful, very nice people, but NONE are chemists... at some point, there was a real chemist, and he left, but first taught the girl who runs the machines, and she teaches various people, and they follow controls and rules, but only because they have instructions, if they had to start from scratch, they would be totally lost...

 

[Nzoomed]

The Kodachrome chemistry is exceedingly unstable and goes bad fast. The cyan developer turns cyan with keeping as it auto couples during air oxidation. Therefore the process must be kept running or it goes bad. That is why we kept our color developers as "blanks" with no color developing agent present. The developing agent was added at the time of use.

The cubitainer was a standard Kodak product which they solld empty for us to store our chemicals in. I used to have a row of them in my home darkroom for B&W chemistry. The commercial products were supplied with a spigot, but the industrial version had to be punctured with a special tool/spigot. That was always fun if you missed the center of the bullseye. It was like opening an artery as the flabby bladder began its collapse spewing chemicals all over the place (and you if you were not fast enough - dont ask me how I know).

Anyhow, premixed chemistry was often shipped this way, and IIRC, so were the Kodachrome chemicals.

As for duplicating the look of Kodachrome, I noted above that it is possible. But, its look is due to its faults. That can easily be shown, and I have done so several times here.

PE

That explains why the tanks looked quite stained from looking at the photos of Dwaynes lab, you can see the stained parts of the machine, the magenta tank from memory looked very stained.

Anyway, there was a news clip on youtube that showed them mixing the chemicals at Dwaynes, ill see if i can dig it up, since it showed the actual containers that Kodak shipped it in.

Anyway speaking of E6 films, ive been shooting a couple of rolls of the new Wittner chrome 200 stock from AGFA. This is supposed to be the closest E6 film to Kodachrome, i dont know if i can actually see any real resemblence to kodachrome or not, i really need to shoot more reds. But its a great film, although more grainy than ektachrome.

I was always wondering what gave kodachrome its unique colours, i thought it may have been because the film was processed in a strong bath of dye couplers, rather than a small amount incorporated into the films emulsion itself, but i feel this is probably wrong.