Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
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...

This is more than fair and sounds like it is coming from a guy who like me, knows we all only have 24 hours in one day despite what technological marvels lie ahead. I think nailing down a replacement for Ilfochrome would be a great idea, I had a nice exchange of emails with Christopher Burkett recently that was quite eye opening in terms of who ended up with the majority of the last run of that material. I am far more interested in printing a show from my exsisting Kodachromes than shooting and souping new ones.

So where does a thread like this go from here...?....that seems to be the problem. I think while having people asking for a form of home brew K-14 recipe book from the likes of you and Ron is verging on reasonable, it might still take more time than you are willing to part with to break it down and present it.

That seems to be the new rub here, people want your process so they can find the next lab guru who is willing to give it a shot. We all have to be fair and respectful of people's time and individual needs. I would be the last person to complain that someone is not handing me a K-14 cookbook, I don't exactly see a venture capitalist posting on here that they have a few million that they need to spend on a "good cause"...

AgX · Aug 29, 2013

Aside of Kodak many other manufacturers all over the world did manufacture films of the Kodachrome-type.
And even more labs existed.

This whole Kodachrome thing looks to me like searching for a holy grail.

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

Ken, you said "Besides, building on the previous work of others is how science and engineering progresses." earlier. Yes, true, but the purpose is to move on to better things than in the past. So, this statement, in the context of this thread, is wrong.

You also said " We've seen that as a proof-of-concept exercise right here. That was the genesis of this thread.", but we have seen that it is too hard and too expensive. I've said I know how to do it and will not even attempt it.

Clayne, you said: "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*? "

Well, as one of those people, I remind you that the entire sequence is in the patent, and it is also in the Kodak PDFs. They were given earlier in this thread. I think that enough is enough! Does it have to be repeated on every page of this thread or should we make a video of it for youtube?

PE

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Well, as one of those people, I remind you that the entire sequence is in the patent, and it is also in the Kodak PDFs. They were given earlier in this thread. I think that enough is enough! Does it have to be repeated on every page of this thread or should we make a video of it for youtube?

This actually speaks to me of a much larger problem brought on by the internet age. If someone can not easily find an answer, they give up and move on to easier questions. For example, people ask me things like "Can you still buy film for that?" or "Where can you even buy film anymore?" and yet they will stop at nothing to go handle a DSLR in a local camera store and then turn around and order it from Amazon. Well I just want to say..."You can buy FILM on Amazon people, LOOK for it!"

What I am getting at is that people have been generally dumbed down by their own lack of intrepid thinking in terms of deciding upon something and then leaving no stone unturned to get the answer or the result they are looking for. This thread is a great example as Mr. Frizza left no stone unturned to attain his goal of getting a color result from Kodachrome film in a post K-14 era, experimental or otherwise. You have mentioned over and over again that the patents exist and is also in the Kodak PDF. If I wake up tomorrow and have some divine revelation that I am supposed to develop rolls of Kodachrome, I would get those PDF's and all relevant information in hand before sending a PM to you and Mr. Frizza for additional practical info. I would also talk to my friend at Dwayne's to get some background on the process from that standpoint.

All the information to process Kodachrome is out there in the world, it's no secret locked in a Morton salt mine in South Hutchinson Kansas. What is missing now in this thread is the person who is actually going to do more than just talk about it and point fingers of blame that they are not getting some damned hand out from the two people on this thread that have the experience and knowledge to activate the process.

But that is the web for you really, mostly talk and no action...no pictures for that matter either.

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
...No one tried to stop the OP. Why was he allowed to continue, but now others can't give it a try as well?...

Therein lies the crux of why those who cry "enough!" are so frustrated with the perpetuation of this thread and the haranguing of first Steve, then Ron and Gerald. Anyone can "give it a try." Nobody is giving it a try. Unless and until someone does, all the energy and bandwidth dissipated in this thread detracts from potentially useful discussion about areas of chemical imaging that aren't dead.

Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Ken, you said "Besides, building on the previous work of others is how science and engineering progresses." earlier. Yes, true, but the purpose is to move on to better things than in the past. So, this statement, in the context of this thread, is wrong.

Perhaps then what's missing here is an updated frame of reference to help judge a more accurate definition of "the past".

If the current state of the system is such that there is a significant amount of leftover Kodachrome squirreled away in freezers* (both exposed and unexposed) and there is no longer any processing option available for those rolls, then any movement toward creating a new processing option would, in my book, fall under the category of a "move on to better things than in the past."

I mean, right now the most recent "past" is that no available processing options are available at all. Any new follow-on option, even if it's not exactly the same as the original option, is better than no option at all. Maybe not for everyone. But judging by past posts to this thread, definitely for some.

Ken

* I have one roll of K64 myself. But it's not for shooting. It's for smelling...

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."

The point is not that they haven't yet given it a follow-on try. It's that there is a small group here that is actively discouraging anyone from trying at all. And thus far, they seem to be succeeding. Other posters have already mentioned taking their discussions offline from APUG because they are afraid of the reactions they are seeing here. That's just intimidation, plain and simple.

From scientific, engineering, and professional points of view, that's the mindset I don't understand.

And as far as energy and bandwidth goes, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own allotments of those? Their energy belongs to them, not us. I have no right to tell them how they should spend it. Or that they should move on because I don't like what they are discussing.

Do you?

Ken

MartinP · Aug 29, 2013

The simpler, more colour-accurate, cheaper, currently home-achievable alternatives to Kodachrome are E6 transparency films.

This particular wheel was reinvented some time ago - no need to do it again, except from an industrial archaeology perspective.

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Ken, don't you think that there are other people who choose to not rack up post counts on the internet that have tried to soup it? I do and I think that if they arrived at anything even remotely viable in terms of financing it and getting a return on that investment, we would have heard about it by now. The analog world is not fully represented on this site, I am willing to bet over 50% of truly active analog shooters never post here because they choose not to spend every waking moment on a lame-a$$ computer.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to try to get a color result out of Kodachrome, the info is out there and they can ask people on here directly via a PM for info if they choose since threads are often an unnecessary distraction from getting the real work done. And who is really intimidating anyone here? There is not a single person on here that has said they want to really give it a try but feel like that it is impossible based on what has been said so they are not going to.

Once I decide I am going to do something, I damn well do it and not a single person can tell me otherwise. All I see on here is the same old time wasting mission of post after post on the internet instead of living real life. People who do don't talk about it, they do it and then SHOW you what they did. Continually talking about something instead of doing it is a wide spread information age based sickness. I bet if someone comes on here with info about what they have tried, Ron and Stephen would be more than happy to lend a hand, otherwise, WTF is the point?

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
...Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."

Ken Nadvornick said:
The point is not that they haven't yet given it a follow-on try. It's that there is a small group here that is actively discouraging anyone from trying at all...

Incorrect. They're being discouraged from continuing to blather endlessly about it. If/when someone actually tries, I'm confident that every poster in this thread would be very interested in reading about the results. Until then, not so much.

Ken Nadvornick said:
...Other posters have already mentioned taking their discussions offline from APUG because they are afraid of the reactions they are seeing here. That's just intimidation, plain and simple...

Nonsense, Ken. No children are involved in this thread. If the strongly stated opinions of those with decades of organic chemistry and photographic engineering experience convince naive posters to end their repetitious fantasies here and continue them elsewhere, in my opinion that's a successful APUG outcome, not intimidation.

Ken Nadvornick said:
...as far as energy and bandwidth goes, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own allotments of those? Their energy belongs to them, not us. I have no right to tell them how they should spend it. Or that they should move on because I don't like what they are discussing. Do you?

The "right" to "tell" anyone what they can and cannot do on APUG is reserved to this site's owner. Terms of service spell out what members and subscribers are authorized to post.

As long as my posts adhere to APUG's rules, I have the "right" to express my opinion that, in its current form, this thread is nothing more than a distraction from more productive discussions. There are so many other aspects of analog photography which haven't already died -- like Kodachrome has -- that would derive more benefit from exploration and promotion. In my opinion, this thread can actually be considered detrimental. So yes, I have the "right" to post a suggestion that we "move on" from this thread. If I did so as often or insistently as fantasies have been repeated in it, you might have cause to gripe. But I haven't.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

PKM-25 said:
...WTF is the point?

None of us has a right to stop discussion in its tracks just because we don't like the content. Except the moderators, which is a system we all bought into when we accepted the terms of service here. And thus far, none of them has seen sufficient cause to do so in this thread.

If people want to discuss Kodachrome, regardless of where that discussion drifts, they need to be left alone to do that, provided they stay within the bounds of the rules they agreed to when they joined this site.

If more knowledgeable members here choose not to weigh in on those discussion topics, that is their right. But telling others what they can and cannot discuss is not.

That is the point...

Ken

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

I think that Dan has made some excellent points. However, Ken has suggested that some of us have discouraged attempts to try something. Well, if you fully describe the effort to climb Everest, is it discouragement? If you don't tell them what they face, they might die. Things are not that extreme with climbing the Kodachrome "mountain", but it is fair to warn those who might attempt to "climb" it.

That said, I have given the patent references and others have given the Kodak references. I'll state here and now that if anyone is working on the process, I will be glad to help them along the way. I expect them to post their current results and process and I will give advice to them so that they can move along to success. This is regardless of how hard it is for them, or how time consuming for both of us. I will post comments here on their thread.

How is that for you all?

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Well, if you fully describe the effort to climb Everest, is it discouragement?

No, that falls under the category of valuable assistance. Continually calling for the thread to be shut down, which would be a de facto end to the discussions, is another story.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Sal, while I mostly enjoy reading your posts, in this case I think you need to reread your own last one. Most of what you said seems to be only your strongly held opinions which you are trying to unilaterally apply to others. Usually your posts are models of logic. This one is not. And not everyone is so easily intimidated.

Ken

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
None of us has a right to stop discussion in its tracks just because we don't like the content. Except the moderators, which is a system we all bought into when we accepted the terms of service here. And thus far, none of them has seen sufficient cause to do so in this thread.

If people want to discuss Kodachrome, regardless of where that discussion drifts, they need to be left alone to do that, provided they stay within the bounds of the rules they agreed to when they joined this site.

If more knowledgeable members here choose not to weigh in on those discussion topics, that is their right. But telling others what they can and cannot discuss is not.

That is the point...

Fair enough, I'm getting out of here to go shoot, someone PM me if a lab-master pops up that is willing to take my hard earned cash to soup a few rolls of KR...

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

Ken, to combine your last two posts, what I wish is to close this thread and have one opened by actual workers in this area. Then we can talk about problems and solutions. That will be the logical course of action after all of this blather.

And, telling someone about the difficulty of climbing Everest may be seen by some as intimidation and by others as valuable assistance. I have yet to have anyone except Steve come to me telling me that they are going to try. When they do, I will give them "valuable assistance".

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

PKM-25 said:
Fair enough, I'm getting out of here to go shoot...

I envy you. Looking out my window right now, I wish I could as well.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Ken, to combine your last two posts, what I wish is to close this thread and have one opened by actual workers in this area. Then we can talk about problems and solutions. That will be the logical course of action after all of this blather.

I agree it may be the logical course. Desirable, even. But will you still be OK with the status quo even if that doesn't end up happening?

Herds of cats are tough objects to deal with, you know. Occasionally they can be led. But more often they must just be followed...

Ken

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
...Endless naive fantasizing is not "giving it a try."

Ken Nadvornick said:
The point is not that they haven't yet given it a follow-on try. It's that there is a small group here that is actively discouraging anyone from trying at all…

Sal Santamaura said:
Incorrect. They're being discouraged from continuing to blather endlessly about it. If/when someone actually tries, I'm confident that every poster in this thread would be very interested in reading about the results. Until then, not so much.

Ken Nadvornick said:

…Other posters have already mentioned taking their discussions offline from APUG because they are afraid of the reactions they are seeing here. That's just intimidation, plain and simple…

Click to expand...

Nonsense, Ken. No children are involved in this thread. If the strongly stated opinions of those with decades of organic chemistry and photographic engineering experience convince naive posters to end their repetitious fantasies here and continue them elsewhere, in my opinion that's a successful APUG outcome, not intimidation.

Ken Nadvornick said:

…as far as energy and bandwidth goes, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own allotments of those? Their energy belongs to them, not us. I have no right to tell them how they should spend it. Or that they should move on because I don't like what they are discussing. Do you?...

Click to expand...

The "right" to "tell" anyone what they can and cannot do on APUG is reserved to this site's owner. Terms of service spell out what members and subscribers are authorized to post.

As long as my posts adhere to APUG's rules, I have the "right" to express my opinion that, in its current form, this thread is nothing more than a distraction from more productive discussions. There are so many other aspects of analog photography which haven't already died -- like Kodachrome has -- that would derive more benefit from exploration and promotion. In my opinion, this thread can actually be considered detrimental. So yes, I have the "right" to post a suggestion that we "move on" from this thread. If I did so as often or insistently as fantasies have been repeated in it, you might have cause to gripe. But I haven't.

Ken Nadvornick said:
Sal, while I mostly enjoy reading your posts, in this case I think you need to reread your own last one. Most of what you said seems to be only your strongly held opinions which you are trying to unilaterally apply to others...

There's no need for me to reread my post -- I wrote it. All posts in this and every other thread are statements of opinion. On matters of technical information, the opinion of those with relevant background/experience, like Ron and Gerald, deserve great weight. Where specialized knowledge is not involved, everyone's opinion has the potential for equal validity and ought be evaluated based on the poster's "credibility capital" built up over the course of their forum tenure.

Forum opinions and suggestions are posted for the benefit of readers. Whether they "apply" to any individual forum reader can only be decided by that person. There's no "unilaterality" involved in what I wrote. Either it successfully gets through or it doesn't. It apparently hasn't sunk in yet for you.

Ken Nadvornick said:
..not everyone is so easily intimidated...

Repeating invalid accusations is no more useful or productive than repeating fantasies.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
It apparently hasn't sunk in yet for you.

You are correct Sal. Everyone does have a right to hold and express their individual opinions, including you.

However, an implementation problem with that right arises when one's opinion, intentionally or otherwise, drifts to the point of opining my opinion is that everyone else should now hold my opinion. At that point the circular logic begins to fray substantially around the edges. Given the above out-of-character pejorative comment by you, I think you may be at or near that point in this exchange. And I don't think you realize it.

Ken

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
You are correct Sal. Everyone does have a right to hold and express their individual opinions, including you.

However, an implementation problem with that right arises when one's opinion, intentionally or otherwise, drifts to the point of opining my opinion is that everyone else should now hold my opinion. At that point the circular logic begins to fray substantially around the edges. Given the above out-of-character pejorative comment by you, I think you may be at or near that point in this exchange. And I don't think you realize it...

One posts opinions in forums with the intent to convince others that those opinions are correct. Implicit in the process is a desire that, once convinced of the opinions' correctness, others will adopt them as their own. This is normal human behavior, not circular logic.

Adding an invalid accusation characterizing what I've posted as pejorative to previous invalid accusations of intimidation is no more useful or productive than repeating fantasies.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Sal Santamaura said:
One posts opinions in forums with the intent to convince others that those opinions are correct. Implicit in the process is a desire that, once convinced of the opinions' correctness, others will adopt them as their own. This is normal human behavior, not circular logic.

Not always true either, I'm afraid...

On this forum, as well as in my profession, I routinely solicit the opinions of others regarding non-factual matters precisely because I expect them to be different from my own. In that way I help to assure myself that I've not missed something on my side. I am not interested in determining whose opinion is "correct" because I've learned through experience that among many opinions each can carry varying degrees of correctness.

The need to nail down which opinion is 100% correct so that all other opinions at a variance can be characterized as "incorrect" is not only an immature approach, it is dangerous as well. Dangerous in the sense that I run the risk of then surrounding myself only with those who will tell me exactly what I want to hear. Meaning, only opinions that match my interpretation of the "100% correct" answer.

So the best compromise for me is to listen to the opinions of all, offer mine when I feel it might help further illuminate the discussion, and refrain from insisting that others must adopt my opinions. But in order for this to work, others must treat my opinions (that they may disagree with) in the same way.

Since this meta-discussion has itself now drifted off topic, I will end my side of it here.

I hope we can agree that the posters to this thread are now free to discuss Kodachrome, in any of its many facets, for as long as they find it interesting enough to continue typing. If you feel that a new thread is warranted, then by all means start it. But posters are still free to either transition to it, or remain here, as they see fit, and for as long as they see fit, without constantly being told to move on.

I will leave the final word to you, if you feel you must have it.

Ken

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
...I run the risk of then surrounding myself only with those who will tell me exactly what I want to hear. Meaning, only opinions that match my interpretation of the "100% correct" answer...

Red herring. I never suggested doing that.

Ken Nadvornick said:
...I hope we can agree that the posters to this thread are now free to discuss Kodachrome, in any of its many facets, for as long as they find it interesting enough to continue typing...

Your implication that I've suggested they're not free to do so is also invalid. They've had that freedom all along. Just as I've been free to point out that perpetual, fantasy-based discussion, as opposed to action, is an exercise in futility.

Ken Nadvornick said:
...I will leave the final word to you, if you feel you must have it....

An extraordinarily ironic technique. I've encountered few posters more intent on getting in the last word than you are.

OK, now let's see who continues this thread with a report on their own Kodachrome processing attempts.

Prest_400 · Aug 29, 2013

My bad, 46 pages!
I did use Kodachrome a little, I miss it too and liked it.

PKM-25 said:
I think nailing down a replacement for Ilfochrome would be a great idea, I had a nice exchange of emails with Christopher Burkett recently that was quite eye opening in terms of who ended up with the majority of the last run of that material. I am far more interested in printing a show from my exsisting Kodachromes than shooting and souping new ones.

Reviving Ilfochrome (or a similar process) seems rather feasible.
It called my attention reading H.Wilhelm's book on image permanency that if Kodak chose to pursue Dye Bleach instead of Chromogenic printing we would have been much better off when it comes down to permanency. AFAIK; Cibachrome is very long lasting in dark storage and has decent display time too.
I'd have liked to see how it would have been if Ilford (Swiss) promoted its use more. Given digital tech (Lightjet printers) et al for correcting some of the quirks, it could have filled a niche for long lasting fine art printing. Drag down digital shooters in, and there is a big market.
Recall reading it was quite complex to produce; How feasible to manufacture by some small company or endeavor, don't know.

Sorry for the hijack, but Dan put this point and I thought it would be interesting about it.

Roger Cole · Aug 29, 2013

Stephen Frizza said:
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...

Yes, and in your reply to the link to Facebook you said you had no intention of offering it as a service. Then you floated the question of interest, which is fair enough. Then PKM-25 indicated he had a lot of frozen film, you could use some of it for further testing, and he was interested and able to pay the price mentioned. This isn't about the MP film. Then you essentially said, "nah, sorry."

I can understand that you may have toyed with the idea, floated the question of interest, then with only one person interested and willing to pay the price for something you could actually do (that is, not the MP film) you decided it wasn't worth it after all. But I can also understand PKM-25's disappointment with that.

Oh yes, sorry for misspelling your name in my other posts. I shouldn't have been so lazy as not to look up thread.

Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency