Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

lxdude · Aug 29, 2013

Man, if the discussion of processing seemed tedious, the discussion on closing the thread was 10 times worse.

IMO, if people continue their "fantasies" after others tell them it's unrealistic or that talk without action is useless, then let those people keep on and go do something else.

Roger Cole · Aug 29, 2013

Prest_400 said:
My bad, 46 pages!
I did use Kodachrome a little, I miss it too and liked it.

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.

I guess my interest in a revived analog pos-pos process just hinges on its availability to the general darkroom worker (as well as things like price, quality of results and ease of use of course.) If it's something one guy with one lab makes himself for his clients, that's interesting but unless the results are really far different than what I can get by having my transparencies scanned and printed via Lightjet in many other places then it's of fairly limited interest to me personally. And, even if the results are far better or different than what I can get elsewhere, then the news still consists for practical purposes of an additional new venue to get my transparencies printed by someone else.

Now if a materials maker can actually make and market the printing material (paper or Ilfochrome style plastic stuff or whatever) and chemicals for processing, for a process that I can do in my own darkroom as easily as I could Ilfochrome or Type R, with results at least as good, for a price no more, at the top end, than the already-rather-high price of Ilfochrome just before it went away, I'm VERY interested in that. But that seems pretty unlikely.

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

The results of a little sleuthing on my part:

The person with the eBay handle "jel8080" continues to spend not hundreds but now what amounts to thousands of dollars on expired Kodachrome film of all kinds, even 126....now why would anyone do that?

The person from my site who posted a few times with photos of a K-Lab who has not been heard from in awhile still has it safely stored, I talked to his partner on the phone a moment ago. I will use my contacts at Kodak to try to get both a user and a repair manual for it once I talk to him and find out it's specifics.

That's my good deed for the day....

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

PKM-25 said:
The person with the eBay handle "jel8080" continues to spend not hundreds but now what amounts to thousands of dollars on expired Kodachrome film of all kinds, even 126....now why would anyone do that?

I've wondered exactly the same thing. And a common sense guess isn't difficult...

[Edit: Ooow... I just had an evil thought pop into my head... You don't think... Naw... Hmm...]

:devil:

Ken

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

Well, I have tried to get the Kodak data sheet with process and formula details. It seems that Kodak took it down. Using wayback.com, I am informed that there is a block on that information. It is apparently unavailable. Therefore, unless someone has the PDF for us, the patent is the only source of information.

And if no one is interested in trying to process Kodachrome, my offer of help still stands. I'm here. I'm not trying to herd cats.. I'm saying if you are hungry, there is food in the bowl.

PE

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
I've wondered exactly the same thing. And a common sense guess isn't difficult...

[Edit: Ooow... I just had an evil thought pop into my head... You don't think... Naw... Hmm...]

:devil:

Nah, the buyer is in the U.S.....

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

On the topic of dye bleach.......

Henry Wilhelm knows nothing about DB vs Chromogenic materials. The DB process is much more dangerous to use than any chromogenic prcess. DB materials were never possible to prepare with real camera speeds. It would take a family of shiftable dyes to make this possible. And finally, the grain in DB is at its maximum in medium to low density areas making the images you do get rather unpleasant. Kodak had a DB print process ready to go and its introduction date was 8 Dec 1941. It was called Azochrome.

PE

PKM-25 · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Well, I have tried to get the Kodak data sheet with process and formula details. It seems that Kodak took it down. Using wayback.com, I am informed that there is a block on that information. It is apparently unavailable. Therefore, unless someone has the PDF for us, the patent is the only source of information.

And if no one is interested in trying to process Kodachrome, my offer of help still stands. I'm here. I'm not trying to herd cats.. I'm saying if you are hungry, there is food in the bowl.

I'm willing to be a liaison for this, do you know anyone at EK that has either an operator's manual or maintenance manual for a K-Lab? I assume programing is windows based....

You can PM me the info if need be...

Some additional resources:

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

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/klabs/index.shtml

I also just wrote Richard Mackson who invented the K-Lab and was senior business and technology associate for Kodak from 1996-2009 to see if he has a line on manuals and any other info on his baby....I'm trying folks, that's best any of us can do.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
I'm not trying to herd cats.. I'm saying if you are hungry, there is food in the bowl.

(Compliments! Great phrase reversal!)

:w00t:

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 29, 2013

PKM-25 said:
I assume programing is windows based....

Now there's a non-organic chemistry angle that, if the timing were right and there was a need, I might be able to help out with...

Ken

Prest_400 · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
On the topic of dye bleach.......

Henry Wilhelm knows nothing about DB vs Chromogenic materials. The DB process is much more dangerous to use than any chromogenic prcess. DB materials were never possible to prepare with real camera speeds. It would take a family of shiftable dyes to make this possible. And finally, the grain in DB is at its maximum in medium to low density areas making the images you do get rather unpleasant. Kodak had a DB print process ready to go and its introduction date was 8 Dec 1941. It was called Azochrome.

PE

THanks for clarifying PE.
So DB was more inconvenient and dangerous (the bleach). And I can imagine that the commonality of Chromogenic between film and print materials were more economic on R&D and production due to commonality.
Also, as of quality of image and longevity; Current Chromogenic material must be quite advanced. I wonder if much R&D is put into it, even if RA4 paper the most used and produced of the family of photographic processes. Many claims of inkjet (pigment inks) being better, but that is out of this forum and photographic process scopes...

Back to topic. As of retrieving the PDF data, isn't there any contact at Kodak, ex-Kodak, labs, that have the information?
The OZ EK retiree of the coating machine was trying to do some color, words about kodachrome were spread and nothing since.
Probably there is a few people interested in it but out of internet's reach (thinking of the latter). I do recall PE saying that many of his colleagues weren't interested anymore but perhaps there are a few around who could be with a little push.

AgX · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak had a DB print process ready to go and its introduction date was 8 Dec 1941. It was called Azochrome.

Agfa did the same decades later and failed commercially too.

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

I have to scream this from the rooftops I guess.

POS-POS print systems have an inherent flaw. You are basically multiplying the slope of one curve by the slope of the other curve, (original slide x print material) to get the final dupe image. If your original has a perfect capture and a slope of 0.3, and if the print material also has the same slope, the result is a slope of 0.09, which is a reduction in contrast. This is why you must use masks to adjust contrast and masks to adjust color.

No pos-pos system without these masks has ever been a big success. Thus, high end labs or printers use masks and get superb prints but at a high cost in time and materials. So, most simple pos-pos printers have failed. Or, they had commercial difficulties.

I know Henry personally and we talked for about 3 hours on his last visit to Rochester. He is avid about what he does, but just like me, neither of us is always right.

PE

Sal Santamaura · Aug 29, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
...Henry Wilhelm knows nothing about DB vs Chromogenic materials. The DB process is much more dangerous to use than any chromogenic prcess. DB materials were never possible to prepare with real camera speeds...Kodak had a DB print process ready to go and its introduction date was 8 Dec 1941. It was called Azochrome...

Henry does know about how the permanence of dye bleach compares to chromogenic's, but not necessarily about use safety or designing a process. He also knows about Azochrome. See pages 25 through 29 of his book:

Dead Link Removed

He never proposed, to my knowledge, a camera-speed dye bleach material. Mostly he opined (to use a recently popular word) that Cibacolor should have been introduced to print from chromogenic negatives.

AgX said:
Agfa did the same decades later and failed commercially too.

Yes, that's in the same book pages too.

Photo Engineer said:
...POS-POS print systems have an inherent flaw. You are basically multiplying the slope of one curve by the slope of the other curve, (original slide x print material) to get the final dupe image. If your original has a perfect capture and a slope of 0.3, and if the print material also has the same slope, the result is a slope of 0.09, which is a reduction in contrast. This is why you must use masks to adjust contrast and masks to adjust color.

No pos-pos system without these masks has ever been a big success. Thus, high end labs or printers use masks and get superb prints but at a high cost in time and materials. So, most simple pos-pos printers have failed. Or, they had commercial difficulties.

I know Henry personally and we talked for about 3 hours on his last visit to Rochester. He is avid about what he does, but just like me, neither of us is always right...

I'm not so sure he was wrong that a dye bleach negative paper like Cibacolor would have been much better than the Ektacolor/Fujicolor versions we've had to live with. Especially versions sold in the decades between when Ciba-Geigy decided against marketing it and 1993 when the book was released.

My long-term use of and love for Kodachrome was entirely centered around projecting it, both stills and motion pictures. Direct prints from reversal films, whether Kodachrome or other transparencies, were never capable of duplicating that viewing experience. I didn't try forcing them to.

Photo Engineer · Aug 29, 2013

There are many schools of thought on the method for testing color products. You will note that the GEH sample was kept in the dark in their facility at optimum temperature and humidity, so this proves nothing. Real world samples are what count. I have color negs prints from the '50s and they survived just fine.

Color reproduction from a pos-pos system is different than the same work from neg-pos. The latter will win hands down.

PE

Nzoomed · Aug 30, 2013

Lets just forget about trying to process the film and work on the Wiki instead.
Documentation is the key

lxdude · Aug 30, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
I have to scream this from the rooftops I guess.

POS-POS print systems have an inherent flaw. You are basically multiplying the slope of one curve by the slope of the other curve, (original slide x print material) to get the final dupe image. If your original has a perfect capture and a slope of 0.3, and if the print material also has the same slope, the result is a slope of 0.09, which is a reduction in contrast. This is why you must use masks to adjust contrast and masks to adjust color.

I thought contrast increase is the problem in a pos-pos process. Now I'm confused.

railwayman3 · Aug 30, 2013

lxdude said:
I thought contrast increase is the problem in a pos-pos process. Now I'm confused.

I have a few of my Dad's (shop made) prints-from-transparencies from the 1960's to 70's which are very soft and "milky" in colors and contrast.....I remember he was never really satisfied with them.

MartinP · Aug 30, 2013

So, what we really could do with is a list of tips for using Portra (sheet, roll or 135, as appropriate) as an interneg or dupe film, in order to print from transparencies on to RA4.

Several decades ago this was a standard part of our lab work, but there was/were specialist interneg film(s) from Kodak for exactly this purpose - they were discontinued years ago of course.

Rudeofus · Aug 30, 2013

MartinP said:
So, what we really could do with is a list of tips for using Portra (sheet, roll or 135, as appropriate) as an interneg or dupe film, in order to print from transparencies on to RA4.

Supposedly you can cook up a special developer which turns RA4 paper into pos-pos material.

Still, neither Ilfochrome, nor pos-pos RA4, nor inter negatives will develop those outstanding Kodachrome rolls ...

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2013

lxdude said:
I thought contrast increase is the problem in a pos-pos process. Now I'm confused.

Ok, a reversal (1.5 gamma) printed onto the same stock is 1.5 x 1.5 or a final mid scale gamma of 2.25, a gamma increase in the mid scale, but in the toe it might be 0.3 so 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09 which is a decrease. The scales are all out of whack.

A true print material is gamma 1.0 so that the mid scale stays the same, but still, the toe suffers. Whichever way, the dupe gets what we in the trade call a "dupey" look.

PE

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2013

MartinP said:
So, what we really could do with is a list of tips for using Portra (sheet, roll or 135, as appropriate) as an interneg or dupe film, in order to print from transparencies on to RA4.

Several decades ago this was a standard part of our lab work, but there was/were specialist interneg film(s) from Kodak for exactly this purpose - they were discontinued years ago of course.

Use about a 100C and 50 M in your enlarger to simulate daylight and use about a 1/2" exposure at F22. This should make a nice 3x4 onto Portra 4x5 from a 35mm.

For process, pull using a 3' development time or a 2' 45" development time to reduce contrast.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 30, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Ok, a reversal (1.5 gamma) printed onto the same stock is 1.5 x 1.5 or a final mid scale gamma of 2.25, a gamma increase in the mid scale, but in the toe it might be 0.3 so 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09 which is a decrease. The scales are all out of whack.

A true print material is gamma 1.0 so that the mid scale stays the same, but still, the toe suffers. Whichever way, the dupe gets what we in the trade call a "dupey" look.

PE

So then dedicated duplication films would have been designed to counterbalance these "out of whack" realities? Or at least attempt to lessen them?

Ken

MattKing · Aug 30, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
So then dedicated duplication films would have been designed to counterbalance these "out of whack" realities? Or at least attempt to lessen them?

Ken

And probably slower and very fine grained as well.

Photo Engineer · Aug 30, 2013

A dedicated color internegative film did have an upswept shoulder that fixed the toe problem evening it out, and the mid scale was the standard 0.6 of negative films. And thus, it made an excellent positive. In fact, since the neg-pos system could produce Dmax values of 4.0 or hither, the transparencies produced were brilliant. No E6 (or any reversal film) can produce a Dmax higher than about 3.0.

For evidence, look at any E6 film and then look at the Vision Print Film for Dmax comparisons.

PE

Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency