Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

falotico · Aug 28, 2013

Regarding the organic chemistry graduate student who is interested in Kodachrome: your friend should look at J.S. Friedman's "History of Color Photography" chapter 23. The book is available online for free at:

http://archive.org/stream/ost-art-hi...ge/n9/mode/2up

Friedman was an organic chemist himself who worked for Technicolor and other color film companies in the 1930's. He also wrote the monthly column in "American Photography" on color photography. He was an expert in dye chemistry and his discussion on dye couplers is the most thorough that I have seen. He also reviews principles which are specific to photography, such as development, bleach, fixing etc.

Chemical reactions don't become obsolete--if they worked in 1938 they will work today. All Kodachrome relied on silver halide emulsions which, of course, were mixtures of AgBr, AgI and AgCl in gelatin emulsions. So any developer, dye-coupler combination which Friedman suggests would still work in the same way today. It would produce the same color dye when it developed a silver halide grain. The sensitizing dyes and other additives might complicate the chemistry but, as Frizza
mentioned, he substituted a different coupler for the yellow dye and he still produced a passable full color image.

I think it is possible to hack out some kind of hybrid process simply to preserve the latent color images which are out there. I agree that there is probably not much profit in it, but I think it is possible to approach donors and put together a fund for the purpose of providing a hybrid process so that this technology does not go the way of the dodo. Do you know that people are willing to pay ten thousand dollars for a single Kodachrome slide of Marilyn Monroe in Korea? This is one of the most important color films in history. I don't think we've tapped all our resources.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 28, 2013

falotico said:
Chemical reactions don't become obsolete--

No, but technology certainly does. Hasn't this horse been flogged enough or should this thread continue on for another meaningless 400 posts? I'm really tired of people with no technical knowledge saying we should bring Kodachrome back. If you really understood the film and the process you would know why it's not coming back. Enough already!

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 28, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Hasn't this horse been flogged enough or should this thread continue on for another meaningless 400 posts? I'm really tired of people with no technical knowledge saying we should bring Kodachrome back. If you really understood the film and the process you would know why it's not coming back. Enough already!

Perhaps then the option 'Thread Tools > Ignore this thread' would be the best solution for you?

Just trying to be helpful...

Ken

Photo Engineer · Aug 28, 2013

The fault of Kodachrome lies in the very narrow absorption spectrum of the cyan dye. It thus requires more cyan contrast which leads to some colors becoming chalky looking and others being exaggerated. The high contrast also leads to heavy doses of color. Basically, Kodachrome gives an unreal color rendition to everything, but it is one which can make a garbage dump look pretty.

Also, Friedman's book is so old, it predates K14 and thus is not really representative of the technology in use at the end of Kodachrome's life. But then, K14 is not representative of what could have been done if there was a K16... etc...

PE

Gerald C Koch · Aug 28, 2013

Ken, perhaps this puts things in a better light.

Customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Customer: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Substitute FILM for PARROT and you have Kodachrome.

Apologies to Monty Python.

madgardener · Aug 28, 2013

I told her about the book. She seemed interested. She told me she might try to turn this project into her Dissertation project. Since she is a student at the local State U, she has access to all kinds of chemicals and processes, and I don't doubt she could talk to some engineering students since she is dating one.

Just so I don't annoy someone by continuing to post here, those that want to be kept up to date on her progress if she decides to do this, send me a PM and I will point you to her blog.

falotico · Aug 28, 2013

These comments saying that Kodachrome is so obsolete that we should just forget about reviving it would have a lot more credibility if they weren't coming from one of the last of the Mohicans. Last time I checked not everybody in the world is taking photographs with silver halide film. Not only are there people in APUG talking about dye transfer, palladium printing, carbon prints, and trying to reproduce Autochromes (first marketed in 1905)--but some people are actually making ambrotypes and TINTYPES. There is a tintype photograph of Abraham Lincoln taken BEFORE he was president. If these processes are not obsolete, why is Kodachrome obsolete?

I realize that the organic chemistry behind Kodachrome is obscure and inconvenient, but it is not unobtainable. Frankly I think those chemicals are a lot safer than handling collodion which is EXTREMELY flammable.

Kodachrome was basically a black and white film which produced three layers of separation positives. These could be selectively developed to produce a full color image, albeit the cyan was somewhat lacking. But besides the sensitizing dyes the film was as robust as a black and white film, which is a considerable advantage. Also, since the larger grains were typically developed in the first development, the grains which produced the color image were smaller so you got a final image of incredible resolution. Kodachrome 25 was famous for being the highest resolution color film. I don't know if this is still true, but it made 8mm home movies possible.

As a design I think it is still valid. If we could get the shuttle footage developed in a normal manner we could have some incredibly fine images which are otherwise irreplaceable. There might be space enthusiasts as well as photography enthusiasts who would contribute to such an effort. We should beat the bushes and not the enthusiasts.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 28, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Ken, perhaps this puts things in a better light.

Customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
Customer: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Substitute FILM for PARROT and you have Kodachrome.

Apologies to Monty Python.

Thanks for that. It's been years and years...

Yes, I do get the point. But simply discussing the history and background of this particular film is no different from threads that ask the question, how did those damn color Autochrome* glass plates work? Or those damn wet collodian plates? Or those damn daguerreotypes? Kodachrome as a film now sleeps with that group of extinct** fishes.

But it's probably still interesting stuff for those who don't already know about it. And probably very, very boring stuff for those who already do. Hence, the Ignore this thread option is provided to help out with that.

Probably also worth noting is that this thread currently has over 18,000 views. So there must be some level of interest in the topic.

Ken

* I see that 'falotico' already beat me to this particular reference.

** But not totally extinct on the processing side, as Mr. Frizza has already demonstrated.

lxdude · Aug 28, 2013

Nobody's expecting Kodachrome to come back. The discussion has been about processing the stock which remains.

Stephen Frizza has accomplished the proof of concept- that it can be done. As PE says, someone will have to step up big time to make it happen.
I think the best hope for it is whether Kevin Kittle can get his K-lab going, or if there's another one somewhere that someone can make work. That of course includes acquiring the chemicals, etc., and that it not be prohibitively expensive.

As for whether this thread should continue--why not? If someone finds it meaningless, pointless, useless, or annoying, they should IMO just not read it.

Roger Cole · Aug 28, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
Perhaps then the option 'Thread Tools > Ignore this thread' would be the best solution for you?

Just trying to be helpful...

Ken

Exactly. People want to talk about Kodachrome, fine. No one in their right mind thinks there's much chance of it coming back. If you don't like it, it's easy to ignore and you won't see it anymore.

RPC · Aug 28, 2013

"Just trying to be helpful"

On the other hand, one could say that it is the naysayers who are trying to be helpful.

lxdude · Aug 28, 2013

RPC said:
"Just trying to be helpful"

On the other hand, one could say that it is the naysayers who are trying to be helpful.

Well, there's helpful and then there's "helpful".

Gerald C Koch · Aug 28, 2013

lxdude said:
Nobody's expecting Kodachrome to come back. The discussion has been about processing the stock which remains.

That is not what a few people seem to be saying. But let's leave it there.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 28, 2013

RPC said:
On the other hand, one could say...

One could say anything...

Ken

Photo Engineer · Aug 28, 2013

falotico said:
These comments saying that Kodachrome is so obsolete that we should just forget about reviving it would have a lot more credibility if they weren't coming from one of the last of the Mohicans. Last time I checked not everybody in the world is taking photographs with silver halide film. Not only are there people in APUG talking about dye transfer, palladium printing, carbon prints, and trying to reproduce Autochromes (first marketed in 1905)--but some people are actually making ambrotypes and TINTYPES. There is a tintype photograph of Abraham Lincoln taken BEFORE he was president. If these processes are not obsolete, why is Kodachrome obsolete?

I realize that the organic chemistry behind Kodachrome is obscure and inconvenient, but it is not unobtainable. Frankly I think those chemicals are a lot safer than handling collodion which is EXTREMELY flammable.

Kodachrome was basically a black and white film which produced three layers of separation positives. These could be selectively developed to produce a full color image, albeit the cyan was somewhat lacking. But besides the sensitizing dyes the film was as robust as a black and white film, which is a considerable advantage. Also, since the larger grains were typically developed in the first development, the grains which produced the color image were smaller so you got a final image of incredible resolution. Kodachrome 25 was famous for being the highest resolution color film. I don't know if this is still true, but it made 8mm home movies possible.

As a design I think it is still valid. If we could get the shuttle footage developed in a normal manner we could have some incredibly fine images which are otherwise irreplaceable. There might be space enthusiasts as well as photography enthusiasts who would contribute to such an effort. We should beat the bushes and not the enthusiasts.

This is a long quote but it deserves a complete copy here.

As one of the genuine Mohicans who has a real Mohican name in Lene Lenape (Weuksowagan - One who has knowledge), I can say that you are off base. In fact I can say a lot more in the language but the bottom line is that Kodachrome is dead! It is too hard to make, too hard to process and in spite of a large viewing audience, it is too hard to reproduce in any way.

We should be a wemakendink wingelawsic witahemue.

PE

Tom1956 · Aug 29, 2013

Before Kodachrome came along, there was Technicolor. Amazing what productions people went through in days past, that was accepted as just the way it's done. Now Kodachrome has faded into the days when "that's just the way it's done". At the same time, nothing can really replace it. With that, it's just plain sad. Whether it is old technology now, it was still about as perfect as perfect gets. The majority of Kodachrome slides look now just about the same as when they were taken 60 years ago. That's pretty amazing. I don't think any other color process outside of Technicolor can say that.And strictly speaking, Technicolor really wasn't color, not like single-base color. Kodachrome outshines them all.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
It is... too hard to process...

But not impossible. We've seen that as a proof-of-concept exercise right here. That was the genesis of this thread.

Rather, the question now becomes one of trade-offs. And what isn't worthwhile to one person, may very well be worthwhile to another. The OP has done his part. Now he wants no more of it. Fair enough. He did an amazing job and deserves all of the public recognition he has received for his accomplishments.

But now maybe someone else wants to take a shot at building on that original effort. Who are we to stop them from trying? No one tried to stop the OP. Why was he allowed to continue, but now others can't give it a try as well?

Everyone knows that success is not guaranteed, and that failure is the likely outcome. But there are some people who live for precisely those kinds of challenges. And if their background and skill sets lead them to believe they might be able to do it, who are we to tell them no?

Besides, building on the previous work of others is how science and engineering progresses.

Right?

Ken

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Mmmmmm, I don't know about that Ken.....no, the above was not the genesis of this thread, that was another thread. All this one accomplished was to put "feelers" out and get some reaction. Most said hell no and I was the very first person to be seriously interested and took it serious. Well we all know how that ended up, a big fat repetitive no.

And what was accomplished in the other thread is that some test rolls were made and developed to the satisfaction of Mr. Frizza. No poignant imagery was made, no talent filled narrative so basically, a test strip. The public recognition some on here seem to want for him is kind of like wanting the front page of the New York Times after successfully flying a Wright Brother's replica for a couple hundred feet...in 2013. Yay for Mr. Frizza, he souped a test strip and now wants nothing more to do with it....who really gives a flying film canister, I sure as hell don't, at least not anymore.

Give me a lab scenario in that I give you 20-30 of my precious fresh rolls in deep freeze to nail your process down so that I can pay said lab $250-$300 a roll for maybe 5-10 rolls to shoot actual *photographs* on and then we will talk. I will even put in some hours on site to help, you know, teamwork? Otherwise, what a load of BS this has become.

My 60 rolls are in deep freeze and will likely be great to shoot even 5 years from now, if a *real* operation comes to the scene, out those rolls will come....but I bet they don't, I bet no matter what mad science takes place outside of "Speculation.org" Ron is dead right and Kodachrome is dead and gone.

RPC · Aug 29, 2013

As has been noted several times in this thread, there continues to be all talk and no action. Until there is, you will likely keep hearing from the naysayers.
No one has been found who is willing and able to do any processing. So far, the naysayers are being vindicated.

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

I don't think any of us know who is supposed to take the action. I can't, I am already super tight in running a full blown fine art black and white darkroom in a 880 square foot 2 bedroom, one bathroom apartment. I'm not the guy who will soup the film but I am the guy who could find the cash to pay the soup guy. When the day comes that I hear someone has cracked both the chemistry code and financials of it, I'll take this discussion seriously again. Otherwise it is just one more thread to prevent photography from occurring.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

PKM-25 said:
...no, the above was not the genesis of this thread, that was another thread. All this one accomplished was to put "feelers" out and get some reaction.

Well, I guess I meant "genesis" in its literal sense. Without the successful test strip in the first place, there would have been no follow-up feeler threads.

I understand your frustration, Dan. But I suspect that if anyone does come along and build on the OP's original effort it will be someone to whom the academic challenge comes first and foremost. Someone who wants to do it just because everyone tells him it can't be done. (A rather strange assertion we keep hearing, given a successful proof-of-concept experiment already.) As I said, some people live for that sort of thing.

But no, I wouldn't expect or count on any sort of dialed-in professional lab-grade process with low enough risk to justify $250-$300 a roll.

In a larger sense, I guess what puzzles me most in this whole thing is that on one hand we have several extraordinarily competent chemists here who often complain that no one is interested in chemistry anymore. At least photo chemistry. Yet here we have people seemingly itching to give something difficult in the photo chemistry arena a try, and the only response and encouragement they receive is, don't even think about that because it's impossible, we need to close this thread, and don't ever mention the name of Kodachrome again.

Organic photochemistry is not my field of expertise. But if it were, I would be the first in line to lend a hand in any way I could to someone who expressed an interest in that field. I know this because I've already done it more times than I can count within my own field of expertise. I personally consider the rendering of assistance to juniors to be an absolute professional responsibility on my part. You just do it. Period.*

I guess I just don't understand the mindset here...

Ken

* OK, here's a real-world example so you don't just think I'm just BSing. I once trained (or began the training) from scratch of a software developer who eventually ended up working on the Windows 2000 operating system development team. You don't think I wasn't proud of her? You don't think I didn't follow her career for years? Why did I do that for her? Because she showed interest and asked for help within my field of expertise. And when that happens, you don't create obstacles. You just do it. Period.

clayne · Aug 29, 2013

So we basically have 2 people on here who *could* just brain-dump all they know about this process into this thread, regardless of the fact that it may never pan out into anything suitable, a boatload of Kodachrome still sitting around out there, and we're not even going to get it out there so others can *try*? That's what's getting people riled up here. It's the complete antithesis of how progress is made. We don't know what we don't even know - and even if others were to try and experiment, we may find that the process can be successful via different methods or augmented regiments. We can't get there because of an information black hole.

Roger Cole · Aug 29, 2013

Does someone have a link to the other thread where Steven posted his results with his test film? I remember reading it and went looking for it but couldn't find it.

I can understand the frustration of someone offering up the money after Steven made the inquiry and still being told essentially "um no, sorry, didn't really mean it." I would be sorely peeved if I had the film and the money and made the offer only to be told, "well, after all, no."

bvy · Aug 29, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Does someone have a link to the other thread where Steven posted his results with his test film? I remember reading it and went looking for it but couldn't find it.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Post #9

Stephen Frizza · Aug 29, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Does someone have a link to the other thread where Steven posted his results with his test film? I remember reading it and went looking for it but couldn't find it.

I can understand the frustration of someone offering up the money after Steven made the inquiry and still being told essentially "um no, sorry, didn't really mean it." I would be sorely peeved if I had the film and the money and made the offer only to be told, "well, after all, no."

To Clarify this was my very first post which sparked this thread....

"Just throwing it out there would anyone here be willing to pay $260 dollars per roll for Colour Kodachrome processing with a minimum of 5 rolls per order and payment before processing?"

It was an expression of interest...an open ended question... an exploration of if anyone would pay such an amount. It was also a way of letting people know realistically how much at bare minimum it would cost to be feasible with not making a financial loss for materials.

I feel people took this and ran with it as though i was launching this as a service....

Enthusiastic that I had at least gotten a color result from experimenting, with further engineering it might be possible for me to do it as a service for small lengths of 35mm. Certainly not for motion film.

If I ever do run Kodachrome as a colour service (which I certainly don't foresee any time soon) I will release a statement clearly and specifically stating as such.

I don't mean to be rude to anyone here but there are many other photographic pursuits I have which I feel deserve far more of my time. Both for financial reasons and personal photographic enrichment. My biggest interest at this point in time (apart from running my lab) is developing a replacement pos to pos analog process to replace Ilfochrome. I'm also interested in exploring colour processes both in camera and in darkroom which are not dependent on materials or technology from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc...

Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency