Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

[lxdude]

By now, all the kodachrome rolls left on the market have expired and, obviously, have fogged/shifted colors/lost sensitivity and whatnot.

I wouldn't shoot a single roll even if processing was free.

If they have been frozen they are probably fine.

 

[madgardener]

I was really enjoying the turn the thread made with the imagery of some evil dude hiding out in a ruined photographic factory somewhere in Europe with PE and possibly ProfPixel as minions/prisoners.
Then someone has to go and spoil the fun.

I think we all realize that Kodachrome is not coming back, but a film that lasted almost 75 years, has a hit song, a state park, and has the joke about God and Man to make it, is going to have a bit of a cult following. The last year it was available, I shot all I could afford, and had fun doing it. I personally would love to see someone come up with a way to process it affordably, but that doesn't look like that's going to happen either. I can accept that, but for others to start belittleing someone because they choose to post on this thread isn't really polite. There are a lot of discussions on APUG that sometimes last longer than I think they should, but generally when I get tired of it, I stop reading that thread.

Thank you and I will now adjust my flame proof underwear and hide the wooden soapbox.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I see this thread has reactivated and I will update people. I have been extremely busy running my business and have not had time to tinker further with my K-14 substitute process to develop Kodachrome in colour.

I do face a number of issues with doing this process.

A, As stated earlier, compared to other processes its EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING.

B, Chemistry I have to do this is Limited

C, I have no actual idea of just how archival the process I am doing is compared to the K-14 process.

D, I Would love to be able to help the Shuttle project but I can not process motion picture film! This is due to the length. The longest length of Kodachrome I have developed by hand has been 35cm long. (not even a complete roll) I have serious doubts about maintaining development consistency over longer lengths.

E, Initially I made the post to see if anyone would actually pay such a high price ( $260 being the actual material cost of the process) and was also making people aware of the reality in costing for doing kodachrome in colour post a K-14 line being an active service.

I know Kodachrome has a Cult following, Its nice to know there is still such an interest in it. but the fact is there are so many other materials currently available that we really should support and focus on. I Do foresee myself returning to experiments and trials with Kodachrome processing in colour, but right now it is not high on my list of priorities. All the chemical and processing information, all the patients...everything you could ever want to know about kodachrome from its origins to present day is easily and readily available online. Its no secret or great mystery, Kodak gave the knowledge away for free. It will just require your time and patience to study.

Currently my main focus is working on 2 very large bodies of photographic work which I am already feeling I am running behind on and juggling lab work for my main clients.

Each week I have people email me asking if they can send me their Kodachrome to process. Sorry to be blunt but the Answer is NO. (and I seriously think half these people have more money than sense) My current stance on this subject may change for one or two people in the future but at this point in time my answer is NO.

Steve @ The Lighthouse Lab

 

[Rudeofus]

I may be the last one to dispense business advice, but the sentence "Each week I have people email me" together with "half these people have more money than sense" sounds like a solid foundation for a business plan. All this talk flies in the face of labs shutting down left and right "because there is no demand any more" ...

 

[railwayman3]

Dead and buried, and folk are still rambling on about it. Move on.

If it annoys you that much, you don't have to read the thread or spend time replying.

I think that, realistically, all we "Kodachrome enthusiasts" realise it's not going to come back, but it has been a big part of the photographic scene for 75 years, there are billions of slides in existence, and there is no reason why it should not be discussed, reminissed over, or whatever people wish to do. Or do you think that everything in history is "dead and buried" and should be forgotten?

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I may be the last one to dispense business advice, but the sentence "Each week I have people email me" together with "half these people have more money than sense" sounds like a solid foundation for a business plan. All this talk flies in the face of labs shutting down left and right "because there is no demand any more" ...

It makes no sense from a business aspect because.

A, There is a finite supply of film,
b, None of the film is fresh
C chemistry is limited
D, The labor in this process by hand is HUGE!!!
E, The cost to process the film is ($260) this is not taking into account a fee for my time to do it.

Its not viable when there are so many other far more profitable processes that require far less effort.

These amongst other reasons is why this film and its process is dead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Amen, Steve, Amen.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

I do agree with What Steve has said, and i did wonder how much more difficult it would be to process motion picture film for him.
I really do feel sorry for the Shuttle Film project, and being something of historical significance, i feel that enough money could be raised to process the remaining films, (I know there are Astronauts who are happy to donate to this project if its guaranteed that it can be processed) then i feel that this should be pursued, but i dont feel that Steve necessarily should be made to process it, rather i would like to see a combined effort of people who are serious enough to do so, as of yet, no one else has come forward, nor has anyone else contributed anything significant to the Kodachrome Wiki, so that shows that there is little serious interest for processing this film.
Whatever the outcome, there needs to be enough money raised to make it worthwhile for anyone such as steve to economically do it and cover labour, etc.
However, huge amounts of kodachrome have been stockpiled from ebay buyers who are buying up all they can find, i sold a few rolls on ebay for a reasonable amount of money also.

Either way, i can only thank the demise of kodachrome to get me interested in film photography again, since ive only ever shot c41 films before getting a digital camera 9 years ago.
I love E6 and is the only film i will shoot, ive got a nice stockpile of Ektachrome and love the results im getting. Im sad i never got to shoot kodachrome, but im just glad ive still got some time to enjoy E6 films.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If it annoys you that much, you don't have to read the thread or spend time replying.

I think that, realistically, all we "Kodachrome enthusiasts" realise it's not going to come back, but it has been a big part of the photographic scene for 75 years, there are billions of slides in existence, and there is no reason why it should not be discussed, reminissed over, or whatever people wish to do. Or do you think that everything in history is "dead and buried" and should be forgotten?

I have the right to reply to this thread, having as I do a collection of 20,000 Kodachrome slides from 1968 to 1994. It's not as if it is alien to me.
As Stephen has rightly pointed out in a later post, the process is dead on a cost-basis alone. I, along with anybody else here can see the beauty of Kodachrome slides more than 50 years since they were shot. But all that reminiscing isn't going to bring it back. Now, how about we embrace what we still have of film while that lasts? Or is that opportunity going to be wasted jockeying on keyboards? Sorry, but I've got photography to do.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I have the right to reply to this thread...

Yes you do, but only to the extent that your exercise of that right does not impede or preclude others here from exercising the same right for themselves.

Telling someone that they are somehow engaged in a "rant" because they simply enjoy reading a thread, and the rest of the APUG community as a whole that they must all immediately "move on" from a topic that apparently interests them, but offends you, is not really very fair now, is it?

Do you not, as a matter of course, simply skip over those threads whose topics you dislike? Everyone else here does.

I anxiously await your (civil) response...

Ken

 

[railwayman3]

I have the right to reply to this thread, having as I do a collection of 20,000 Kodachrome slides from 1968 to 1994. It's not as if it is alien to me.
As Stephen has rightly pointed out in a later post, the process is dead on a cost-basis alone. I, along with anybody else here can see the beauty of Kodachrome slides more than 50 years since they were shot. But all that reminiscing isn't going to bring it back. Now, how about we embrace what we still have of film while that lasts? Or is that opportunity going to be wasted jockeying on keyboards? Sorry, but I've got photography to do.

Of course you have the right to reply to the thread, and to hold your own views, but surely not to tell people to "move on" when their interests and ideas don't happen to match your own.

You have photography to do...good, but it does not give you the right to expect that other people must share your enthusiasm, they may think that "jockeying on keyboards" interests them more, and why not?

Just because Kodachrome is "dead", in your opinion. does not mean that it's history and technical processing must no longer be discussed because you think it is a wasted opportunity. I have little interest in many subjects...for example, my wife has studied the history of fashion which is totally outside my interest, but I would not criticise. or dictate that Forums on that subject are a waste of time. I just don't read them.

P.S. What about the many "alternative processes" which have been studied and brought back from the "dead" to produce original and successful results? (Don't start, I am not saying that Kodachrome will be....but are there not toning processes for B&W based on similar principles to the color coupling used in Kodachrome?)

 

[David Lyga]

Could you just imagine if the lab screwed up? (Talk about liablility!) - David Lyga

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Could you just imagine if the lab screwed up? (Talk about liablility!)...

Undoubtedly, just like virtually all labs, it would agree to process the film only if its liability is limited to "an equivalent amount of the same film and processing" if it screwed up, not incidental and/or consequential damages. So many people have unusable (for color) Kodachrome around, the lab would have no problem finding some to purchase and supply as a replacement.

 

[RPC]

Of course you have the right to reply to the thread, and to hold your own views, but surely not to tell people to "move on" when their interests and ideas don't happen to match your own.

Why not? In telling him what he can and cannot say, aren't you being hypocritical? That is his opinion, just like you are giving. You are telling him he can't say it simply because you don't agree with it. If you don't agree with it, you're perfectly welcome to say why, but I say let's let the moderators decide what can or cannot be said here. In this case, I doubt if they would have a problem with it.

 

[lxdude]

Could you just imagine if the lab screwed up? (Talk about liablility!) - David Lyga

It would have to be stated at the outset that the processing is essentially experimental, and no warranty is given for that reason other than return of money paid or credit, if the processing is faulty.

 

[Rudeofus]

It makes no sense from a business aspect because.

A, There is a finite supply of film,
b, None of the film is fresh
C chemistry is limited
D, The labor in this process by hand is HUGE!!!
E, The cost to process the film is ($260) this is not taking into account a fee for my time to do it.

Its not viable when there are so many other far more profitable processes that require far less effort.

These amongst other reasons is why this film and its process is dead.

First of all, let me state quite clearly: I did not mean "you, Steve, have to do this, whether you want or not" with my previous statements. As you mentioned, the process is well documented through Kodak's patents, and as it just so happens, one of the inventors listed on this patent is a very helpful and active member here on APUG. As an engineer I frequently get confronted with "I have this idea and if you do all the work and bear all the risk you get 10% of the proceeds" plans that tend to go nowhere, so I fully understand your position.

What was new here, and you were the one to bring it up, was, that there appears to be a market of people willing to spend considerable dough on getting Kodachrome processed. For some people it's not so much about specific pictorial qualities of Kodachrome, it may well be about being among the few chosen ones to have one of these rolls processed now. People pay outrageous prices for original paintings of great masters whenever they are put up for auction, despite the fact that you can get very exact copies for very little in comparison. I wonder how much money could be raised if one were to get a handful of these Shuttle slides for own use after funding and thereby enabling development of the whole batch.

Steve, your lab may be fully loaded with exciting and profitable work, but too many times I've heard about labs shutting down due to lack of customers. You proved that Kodachrome can be done today, albeit with considerable effort and skill. I wonder whether this level of skill couldn't be found in at least one of these "we have soooooo few customers" labs.

 

[railwayman3]

Why not? In telling him what he can and cannot say, aren't you being hypocritical? That is his opinion, just like you are giving. You are telling him he can't say it simply because you don't agree with it. If you don't agree with it, you're perfectly welcome to say why, but I say let's let the moderators decide what can or cannot be said here. In this case, I doubt if they would have a problem with it.

Not at all....I just don't like being told to "move on" just because this person is reading a thread which doesn't interest him.

He says he "has photography to do". So do I....unfortunately most of my time right now is looking after my wife is recovering from major surgery which involved a seven hour operation. She will not be fully recovered until the New Year and at the moment I am neither able to get out to "do photography" or have enough free time to use the darkroom.

So my photography is currently restricted to time on this group and an occasional half-hour of digital printing on the computer. I will, of course, be asking the Priest for forgiveness of this sin on Sunday.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Why not? In telling him what he can and cannot say, aren't you being hypocritical?

No.

Ken

 

[RPC]

Not at all....I just don't like being told to "move on" just because this person is reading a thread which doesn't interest him.

I don’t recall him saying he wasn’t interested in this thread. Perhaps there is info that is useful to him, and perhaps that is why he reads it. I took his comment about moving on to be simply advice to those all those who persist in thinking Kodachrome may come back and to no one in particular. In telling him directly not to say that you are doing the same to him as you accuse him of. Not hypocritical?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think that we are devolving into squabbles here and at this point the thread should be closed by some long suffering moderator.

PE

 

[RPC]

I agree. We should move on. Oops.

 

[Nzoomed]

I think the most viable option left to process kodachrome is if Kelvin Kittle's K-lab ever gets off the ground and suitable chemistry can be acquired for it.
Havnt heard much from him latley, but he has been rather busy with renovations, but apparently he is building a special room just for the k-lab.
If its possible to modify it to run 16mm film through it, then that may be the only chance for processing the shuttle film.

Either way, i want to see some serious efforts in keeping E6 alive for at least another decade.
I dont see kodachrome ever coming back, unless kodak decided to reintroduce it as a boutique product.

 

[railwayman3]

I don’t recall him saying he wasn’t interested in this thread. Perhaps there is info that is useful to him, and perhaps that is why he reads it. I took his comment about moving on to be simply advice to those all those who persist in thinking Kodachrome may come back and to no one in particular. In telling him directly not to say that you are doing the same to him as you accuse him of. Not hypocritical?

Perhaps, in, say, 20-30 years, there will be similar posting saying "I took his comment about moving on to be simply advice to all those who persist in thinking that any analog photography may come back".

IMHO and being realistic, I would, sadly, not be at all surprised if that were the situation, other than either complicated and time-consuming DIY work (perhaps based on some of the old "alternative processes", if there's anyone who hasn't long-since "moved on" from even mentioning them? ), or expensive bespoke products, both beyond the pocket and interest of most users.

Kodachrome won't come back, of course, (I never thought it would) but the demise of one film will prove to be the least of our problems in the medium term.

 

[railwayman3]

I think the most viable option left to process kodachrome is if Kelvin Kittle's K-lab ever gets off the ground and suitable chemistry can be acquired for it.
Havnt heard much from him latley, but he has been rather busy with renovations, but apparently he is building a special room just for the k-lab.
If its possible to modify it to run 16mm film through it, then that may be the only chance for processing the shuttle film.

Either way, i want to see some serious efforts in keeping E6 alive for at least another decade.

I dont see kodachrome ever coming back, unless kodak decided to reintroduce it as a boutique product.

It would be good hear from Kelvin Kittle at some point, even if it's only that the idea is a no-go, but it's a very long time since his last posting on the Kodachrome Forum. It must have been a couple of years ago that he mentioned that he was busy with the renovations and mentioned the proposed special room, with SFAIK no further news since.

At the time he posted pictures of the K-lab being brought back on a trailer from the scrap-yard, where it had been standing outside, and it looked in a very sad state. Given that it's precision equipment, no supplies of spares or chemicals and needing software from 15-20 years ago.......

 

[Nzoomed]

It would be good hear from Kelvin Kittle at some point, even if it's only that the idea is a no-go, but it's a very long time since his last posting on the Kodachrome Forum. It must have been a couple of years ago that he mentioned that he was busy with the renovations and mentioned the proposed special room, with SFAIK no further news since.

At the time he posted pictures of the K-lab being brought back on a trailer from the scrap-yard, where it had been standing outside, and it looked in a very sad state. Given that it's precision equipment, no supplies of spares or chemicals and needing software from 15-20 years ago.......

yes quite true, he posted last year i think, and he apologised for his absence on the forum, we will just be patient i guess, but i think it will still be a huge effort to get running again, either way, its good someone is looking after it if the need ever arised for its use.