Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

[Diapositivo]

I agree with PE that it's gone. I just still like talking about it.

I think the only path - unlikely but not impossible for the true film believer, as I am - is that film photography, and slide film in particular, begins a come back that will lead it, let's say in 10 years, to the levels of sales which existed during the first years of the digital revolution, when film sales were shrinking but not yet really in danger. For Europe that might mean something like 2006. For the US maybe something like 2003.

If and when film sales go back to that level, Kodak (or whoever purchased the technology using it with whichever brand name) might easily think about producing Kodachrome again. In 2006 Kodachrome was still a viable product and it would be some sort of a "flagship" product for Kodak, a bit like Porsche continues to sell their 911-family cars: even though they are not the latest in technology, there still is a market for "retro" technology provided it is well realized. Values like "tradition" and "history" do have a meaning, and Kodachrome might be the 911 (or the Morgan) of the future slide market.

The first condition to become true is that the market bounces back to where it was some 6 years ago. Not easy for sure, but not impossible either.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As it now stands, Kodachrome was the first reversal film to go, process and all, and E6 may follow in its footsteps. Kodak has already discontinued their E6 line of films. Fuji now has the full market, but digital is replacing reversal film rapidly. So, the full E6 line will be the next to go.

As for the other suggestions, you cannot turn just any color material into Kodachrome. You cannot take reflection print materials and coat them on film support. I've done that, and it looks crappy. It would take a major revamping effort and lots of money to come up with something, and to do that someone must put up the money at the very start!

The Ilfochrome materials have ISO values of about 10 or thereabout while the grain looks like an ISO 800 film. That is the nature of dye bleach. It is good for films, but not for in-camera use.

All of these suggestions are pipe dreams, and I can guess what you are smoking. Even the Kodak rep had no idea of what he was saying. There is no market for Kodachrome and it will not come back. I wish that i was wrong, but that is the state of the market!!!!

PE

 

[wblynch]

Keep E-6 alive. It is possible and it is in your hands.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...and I can guess what you are smoking.

And legally in the state of Washington, as of four days ago...

:devil:

Ken

 

[wogster]

Ilford makes the Ilfoflex material, as well.

So we already have the materials, if E6 does go, there is a way of producing slides from negatives.

 

[wogster]

I think the only path - unlikely but not impossible for the true film believer, as I am - is that film photography, and slide film in particular, begins a come back that will lead it, let's say in 10 years, to the levels of sales which existed during the first years of the digital revolution, when film sales were shrinking but not yet really in danger. For Europe that might mean something like 2006. For the US maybe something like 2003.

If and when film sales go back to that level, Kodak (or whoever purchased the technology using it with whichever brand name) might easily think about producing Kodachrome again. In 2006 Kodachrome was still a viable product and it would be some sort of a "flagship" product for Kodak, a bit like Porsche continues to sell their 911-family cars: even though they are not the latest in technology, there still is a market for "retro" technology provided it is well realized. Values like "tradition" and "history" do have a meaning, and Kodachrome might be the 911 (or the Morgan) of the future slide market.

The first condition to become true is that the market bounces back to where it was some 6 years ago. Not easy for sure, but not impossible either.

I think it would be easier to modify an E6 emulsion to give a Kodachrome like colour response and grain then to start making true Kodachrome film again. Would probably still cost millions to produce the first roll though.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The patents, yes but not the formulas. If Kodak really wants to say Kodachrome is dead, they should make the formulas available through something like a creative commons licence, with the only condition being that anyone who decides to use them must credit Eastman Kodak with the process design.

The formulas were published decades ago in the Dignan Newsletter. At one time all the newletters were available on microfiche.

 

[Photo Engineer]

So we already have the materials, if E6 does go, there is a way of producing slides from negatives.

IIRC, Ilfoflex makes slides from slides!

PE

 

[Brian C. Miller]

And legally in the state of Washington, as of four days ago...

Not until December, but the district prosecutor dismissed charges for all outstanding violations that would fall under this law.

And now back on topic...

The current price of Kodachrome developing has been set. I went and bought all of the Kodak E100G and E100VS I could, and those few boxes are in my freezer. Yeah, I'm going to miss E6. The limited range allows me to accentuate things, while C41 gives me too much in the background.

 

[AgX]

IIRC, Ilfoflex makes slides from slides!

Ilfoflex from Ilford has an emulsion for processing in RA-4. In the standard neg/neg process it forms a positive. However it has an opaque white base.

The material which seemingly is refered in a post above is Ilfoclear the one-pass version of this material and coated on transparent base.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I stand corrected. I do know that there is a pos-pos version and that is what I was thinking of. I have forgotten its name.

Sorry.

PE

 

[Stephen Frizza]

ILFOFLEX is an Ra-4 print material its Ilfords product similar to Fujiflex it is not like duraclear, fuji clear, ilfoclear. slides can not be made from this or from the other metioned display materials. they are not designed for projecting. Agfa however does make products that work like kodak 4111 print film which is process c-41. The colour and contrast of Ilfoflex is amazing and the paper Ra-4 reverses wonderfully. I have found no material to reverse as well as ilfoflex. I should also note when printing ilfochromes for exhibitions if there are also images form colour negative the Ilfoflex was the best choice for continuity.

 

[AgX]

As the issue of print film used as camera film has come up a few posts ago, I was asked to comment on it:


Display films (and print films) in general have to 2 shortcomings concernig use as camera films:

-) very slow speed

-) their sensitization is optimised for the three dyes of the original film, not for the wide spectrum as in our environment


Something similar comes true for negative camera films. They are not necessarily good slide films. (Aside of the mask and Dmax issues.)
Here the problem may be that their dyes are to fit the sensitivity of the print material and vice-versa.


In the whole reproduction line we got the colour scope of the object world at the beginning and the viewers eyes at the end. What happens inbetween may be a total different story.

 

[wblynch]

I have 8 rolls of some old Kodak SO-somethingorother that makes slides from color negatives. If you shoot it in a camera you get very blue results.

You are to develop it with standard C-41 process.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I have 8 rolls of some old Kodak SO-somethingorother that makes slides from color negatives. If you shoot it in a camera you get very blue results.

You are to develop it with standard C-41 process.

I wonder if it's a motion picture print film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

ECP is not processed in the C41 process.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

ECP is not processed in the C41 process.

PE

Right, but he said it was a SO film. Ever hear of such a transparency print film?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, but I forget the designation. I believe that they were in the 411X product range, and all took C41 processing. They came in 35 mm and 4x5.

PE

 

[jm94]

Why doesn't anyone who is willing to shoot a roll each all put the money on the table for their own roll, reaching the minimum order of 5? Would be an idea!

The passing around a single camera and using 2 frames each sounds cool as well I would be in!

 

[Roger Cole]

Why doesn't anyone who is willing to shoot a roll each all put the money on the table for their own roll, reaching the minimum order of 5? Would be an idea!

The passing around a single camera and using 2 frames each sounds cool as well I would be in!

For the first, because that's still $250 per roll, plus finding a roll, though the latter shouldn't be expensive with processing gone. More than I'm willing to pay just to shoot Kodachrome one last time.

Less than $10 per frame for 2-3 frames might be, though.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Why doesn't anyone who is willing to shoot a roll each all put the money on the table for their own roll, reaching the minimum order of 5? Would be an idea!

The passing around a single camera and using 2 frames each sounds cool as well I would be in!

If you go back and reread the 96 posts before this one, I think you'll find there are already several willing—or who at this stage of the game say they are willing—to take the OP up on his potential offer. Together they seemed to account for perhaps 8 to maybe 12 rolls, depending on whether the idea of passing around shared Kodachrome cameras got organized.

Some wanted to use their last unexposed rolls from their freezers. Some wanted to do their first (and presumably last) roll. Some wanted the chance to process meaningful rolls that somehow missed the final Dwayne's deadline, and now sit exposed and orphaned in cold storage. One poster was even possibly willing to pay for 4 rolls himself.

I'm guessing that this trial balloon was floated precisely to gauge the potential size of this "market" and potential interest in this unique "service" that may at some point be available to offer? And while the trial balloon price is expensive, it's apparently not prohibitively expensive for everyone.

It's an awfully big world out there...



Ken

 

[wogster]

If you go back and reread the 96 posts before this one, I think you'll find there are already several willing—or who at this stage of the game say they are willing—to take the OP up on his potential offer. Together they seemed to account for perhaps 8 to maybe 12 rolls, depending on whether the idea of passing around shared Kodachrome cameras got organized.

Some wanted to use their last unexposed rolls from their freezers. Some wanted to do their first (and presumably last) roll. Some wanted the chance to process meaningful rolls that somehow missed the final Dwayne's deadline, and now sit exposed and orphaned in cold storage. One poster was even possibly willing to pay for 4 rolls himself.

I'm guessing that this trial balloon was floated precisely to gauge the potential size of this "market" and potential interest in this unique "service" that may at some point be available to offer? And while the trial balloon price is expensive, it's apparently not prohibitively expensive for everyone.

It's an awfully big world out there...



Ken

A lot of people that could afford it, look at the minimum price, $250. Now you could go out and buy 13 rolls (maybe more) of fresh E6 film and get them processed for the same money. If everybody who thought about a roll of Kodachrome, went out and bought, shot and processed 13 rolls of E6, we might be able to keep E6 from following K14 into the netherworld. The Kodachrome horse is dead, so lets just quit beating on it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

A lot of people that could afford it, look at the minimum price, $250. Now you could go out and buy 13 rolls (maybe more) of fresh E6 film and get them processed for the same money. If everybody who thought about a roll of Kodachrome, went out and bought, shot and processed 13 rolls of E6, we might be able to keep E6 from following K14 into the netherworld. The Kodachrome horse is dead, so lets just quit beating on it.

Please don't tell others what they can and can't do. Their decisions about what is of value to them are not your call to make.

What if someone out there had pictures of a loved one on a roll of undeveloped Kodachrome? And that person had passed unexpectedly? And during the crisis they missed the Dwayne's deadline? It wouldn't be your place to tell them to skip a possible second chance at processing that now precious final roll because you thought they were beating a dead horse. Your agenda may not be their agenda. That often happens in life.

And why are you trying to rain on the OPs parade? He's obviously gone to great lengths to research and implement a possible recovery option for those kinds of situations. He's generously shared some of his proof-of-concept results with those on APUG. And those preliminary results were good enough that there may be as many as 8-12 rolls who owners may be willing to pay the price. And he says only 5 rolls are required for a minimum run.

More fundamentally, if the OP thinks he may see a business opportunity as a result of his speculative R&D work, who are we to tell him he's beating a dead horse? That he has no right to test the market with an eye toward possibly providing a professional Kodachrome recovery service. No right to make a return on his investment. No right to make a little money. That's not our call to make. His agenda may not be our agenda. That often happens in life.

Ken

[Edit: Read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) beginning on page 12 at post #116. Wouldn't it have been great if Bob Carnie could have told his customer that YES! there was one place left on Earth that could still process Kodachrome into color transparencies? Would you have told his customer to stop beating the dead Kodachrome horse? That processing her late father's last roll just wasn't important enough to you?]

 

[Roger Cole]

A lot of people that could afford it, look at the minimum price, $250. Now you could go out and buy 13 rolls (maybe more) of fresh E6 film and get them processed for the same money. If everybody who thought about a roll of Kodachrome, went out and bought, shot and processed 13 rolls of E6, we might be able to keep E6 from following K14 into the netherworld. The Kodachrome horse is dead, so lets just quit beating on it.

Plenty of people could afford to shoot way more film than they have time to shoot or process or mail off for processing or sort and file.

It's not personally worth $250 to me to use the last roll of Kodachrome I have that I didn't get shot in time to get to Dwayne's, even presuming I could find it again. I haven't cold stored it, figuring it would never be able to be processed. Nor is it worth buying a roll for that. But if I had important photos of a loved one, maybe someone now gone, on an exposed roll I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd probably do it if I'd never shot Kodachrome, just to get the chance to shoot a roll. But I shot a few rolls in the old days and 17 rolls during 2009-2010 so I needn't do that.

None of these would reduce my usage of E6 or C41 or black and white one bit if I did do them.

 

[wogster]

Please don't tell others what they can and can't do. Their decisions about what is of value to them are not your call to make.

What if someone out there had pictures of a loved one on a roll of undeveloped Kodachrome? And that person had passed unexpectedly? And during the crisis they missed the Dwayne's deadline? It wouldn't be your place to tell them to skip a possible second chance at processing that now precious final roll because you thought they were beating a dead horse. Your agenda may not be their agenda. That often happens in life.

And why are you trying to rain on the OPs parade? He's obviously gone to great lengths to research and implement a possible recovery option for those kinds of situations. He's generously shared some of his proof-of-concept results with those on APUG. And those preliminary results were good enough that there may be as many as 8-12 rolls who owners may be willing to pay the price. And he says only 5 rolls are required for a minimum run.

More fundamentally, if the OP thinks he may see a business opportunity as a result of his speculative R&D work, who are we to tell him he's beating a dead horse? That he has no right to test the market with an eye toward possibly providing a professional Kodachrome recovery service. No right to make a return on his investment. No right to make a little money. That's not our call to make. His agenda may not be our agenda. That often happens in life.

Ken

[Edit: Read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) beginning on page 12 at post #116. Wouldn't it have been great if Bob Carnie could have told his customer that YES! there was one place left on Earth that could still process Kodachrome into color transparencies? Would you have told his customer to stop beating the dead Kodachrome horse? That processing her late father's last roll just wasn't important enough to you?]

First of all, I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or should not do, with their own money, they are free to spend it whatever way they like. There is a reality though, no start-up business based on requiring a product no longer manufactured, is going to live long, especially when that product is perishable and all remaining stocks are past their use before date. Those 8-12 rolls are not a done deal, they may be interested, but there is a long way between interested and willing to part with cash. Meanwhile, while we are futzing around and spending gobs of R&D and money on getting elderly Kodachrome processed, we might lose E6, because the market for it isn't exactly growing either. If I had a roll of Kodachrome at this point, I doubt I would use it knowing that it costs $250 to get it processed. If it was already exposed, it would have been processed into B&W by now, if it missed the last run.

W