kodachrome 120 expression of intrest?

[braxus]

I sold the only rolls of this stuff I had a few years ago, giving up it would ever be usabe. If Kodak could make a run of new film I would be interested. I recently got a roll of K25 processed and it was one of the last batch made. It had a magenta cast to it, so I would assume any Kodachrome 64 in 120 still around would not turn out very well to merit spending the kind of money needed to do a run.

 

[reddskii]

hi

it's so interested. i have a lot of kodachrome 64 120 format (over 100 rolls expired in 1989, but still live in my fridge). if possible, i will be your first customer.

ed

 

[2F/2F]

Might be interested if Kodachrome was still made in medium format.

Also would probably not be interested having heard you make the statement that you had not extensively researched the process. I would venture to guess that you cannot do it even if you have the interest.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

I would most certainly use it. I would have also loved to use Kodachrome 400. I really wish that Kodak had put out just a few advertisements in a couple of magazines in the later 1990s. I found out about Kodachrome as a kid from seeing it in old National Geographic magazine ads. If some advertisement from 40 or 50 years ago sold me on a product, imagine what new advertising would do to stir up interest in young people that never heard of Kodachrome. I am shocked to meet photographers in their 30s from different parts of the world who never heard of Kodachrome. I remember all of those advertisements for that horrible APS film and system...if only a fraction of the money spent on that was spent on Kodachrome ads...well, I would have most likely started to use Kodachrome at a younger age.

Haha, everyone remembers Joe Camel...why was not there a Kodachrome Kid? Ingraining a product into a child's mind before they are old enough to make their own decisions can be an effective form of advertising.

Anyway, 120 Kodachrome 64 for my RB67 would make me extremely happy.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak trade trialed a 200 and 400 ISO fine grained improved Kodachrome film in about 1990 and the films were rejected by the recipients of the samples. I have said this over and over. They said that E6 is better or it has more potential. So..... What can I say but you cannot sell what no one will buy and what the magazine editors panned in their evaluations. That is who you must discuss this with.

As for hand processing, it can be done. We did the re-exposure by draping the film in a "U" loop with clips at the top and a weight at the bottom. A light was used in the center of the "U" to re-expose the film. The problem came about in calibrating the light. That is the most difficult step of all other than mixing the developers and getting the couplers and CD-6.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

^^^^
This thread caught my eye as a K64 enthusiast, then I noticed that it's been dead for over a year
So I guess it came to nothing...and in any event the 120 K64 films now remaining will have continued to deteriorate for another 12 months or even been binned as unusable.

 

[tjaded]

Here we go!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodachrome-64-P...14&_trkparms=72:1205|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

 

[tjaded]

The lab that I work for is in the process of moving--so all kinds of weird stuff is being unearthed. One thing that I found that I might post is a 4x5 trans (E-6) of the old Kodachrome machine we used to run (120 and 35mm.) It is an old advertising photo and has all the crazy color lighting that was hip at the time. The other thing I found was a binder full of 35mm slides of the install of that machine from beginning to end. Stupid passage of time....

 

[MattKing]

Here we go!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodachrome-64-P...14&_trkparms=72:1205|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

I'm so tempted

Matt

 

[tjaded]

Here is the machine that does 35mm & 120 Kodachrome:

http://www.mattosbornephotography.com/newlab_kodachrome.jpg

 

[Matt5791]

Here is the machine that does 35mm & 120 Kodachrome:

http://www.mattosbornephotography.com/newlab_kodachrome.jpg

I love that sort of commercial photography - you just dont see it that good any more - at least I don't think you do - and neither does Bob Krist who used to do amazing corporate and commercial stuff - get his book "Secrets of lighting on location"

http://www.bobkrist.com/

 

[tjaded]

Yeah, that was a shot for advertising our old Kodachrome line. I guess I should figure out who did the shot and at least credit them! Oooppss...

 

[nickandre]

I'm working out a process for Kodachrome to use on the remaining 120. In a month or so I'll probably have the first images.

If anyone's interested PM me and I'll get back to you when it's all worked out. This is not guaranteed at all in any way by me or anyone else; it's an at your own risk sort of thing. Prices will be determined by the final chemistry costs and how much of a PITA the final process works out to be. Estimated $30-50 a roll, less in quantity.

FYI it was discontinued in 1996, which would put final expiration dates in 1998 but I doubt there is much around from that late; velvia was working quite well by that point in time, and after all it was discontinued due to low demand. I bought a few rolls from 1989 from that auction on the bay and the guy said he'll sell me more if all goes well. It would not be relatively easy to get fresh film in this format from kodak, save that there's no demand for it.

 

[wogster]

I'm working out a process for Kodachrome to use on the remaining 120. In a month or so I'll probably have the first images.

If anyone's interested PM me and I'll get back to you when it's all worked out. This is not guaranteed at all in any way by me or anyone else; it's an at your own risk sort of thing. Prices will be determined by the final chemistry costs and how much of a PITA the final process works out to be. Estimated $30-50 a roll, less in quantity.

FYI it was discontinued in 1996, which would put final expiration dates in 1998 but I doubt there is much around from that late; velvia was working quite well by that point in time, and after all it was discontinued due to low demand. I bought a few rolls from 1989 from that auction on the bay and the guy said he'll sell me more if all goes well. It would not be relatively easy to get fresh film in this format from kodak, save that there's no demand for it.

It's a perfect example of a Catch-22, there isn't demand because there is no film, there is no film because of lack of demand. I don't know about processing though, if all of the film stock around has been expired for at least a decade, then it would probably be a short lived adventure.

 

[nickandre]

Duh. Once it's gone it's gone.

Some people have a few rolls they're dieing to get processed. I'll run them for them, and then I can say I've done it and move on with my life. And for once I won't be losing buckets of money on my experimentations. I'll use the extra chemistry to develop my color separations which have been sitting around since last year sometime. The kit looked cool.

 

[ed110220]

I know the process used to develop Kodachrome is different from E-6 and C-41 films, but I don't understand why it is not possible to develop 120 in the same machine as 135. I work in a photo lab and the basic principle is that the films are drawn through a series of tanks behind a leader card. The only limit is the width of the lane, so you can do any film up to 120 size; 110, APS, 126, 135, 127, 120... I've done them all the same (to the bemusement of colleagues for the more obscure formats).

By the way, I have an even more obscure wish: Kodachrome in 126 format to load into my Kodak Instamatic 500.

 

[nickandre]

The kodachrome process is best run on a "film chain" processor, like that used to process movie film where the film is infinitely long, because of the characteristics of the process and the need to control everything. It is possible to run it in a sink, as I plan to do, but not for large quantities or easily. Most of the processors were designed to process 35mm film, so the machine (ok, the reel like things) is only 35mm wide. You would need twice that width for 120 (70mm) film. You can process super 8 on a 35mm processor, as dwaynes does, but unless you cut it in half you can't process 70mm film on a 35mm processor. The 120 processors all bit the dust when the film was canceled because nobody wanted it.

E6 film can be processed in a dip and dunk style processor because of two reasons:
1. It does not need to remove the "rem-jet" anti-halation layer
2. The film process does not include "re-exposure" whereby the film is exposed to a uniformly controlled light source before each of the color developments.

 

[tjaded]

I know the process used to develop Kodachrome is different from E-6 and C-41 films, but I don't understand why it is not possible to develop 120 in the same machine as 135. I work in a photo lab and the basic principle is that the films are drawn through a series of tanks behind a leader card. The only limit is the width of the lane, so you can do any film up to 120 size; 110, APS, 126, 135, 127, 120... I've done them all the same (to the bemusement of colleagues for the more obscure formats).

Take a look at this pic:

http://www.mattosbornephotography.com/newlab_kodachrome.jpg

You can see the rollers on the bottom are smaller, for 35mm, and the ones at the top of the image are the 120 ones. I wonder if any of those machines got mothballed and are still physically intact? Probably not....

 

[donbga]

The kodachrome process is best run on a "film chain" processor, .

I think you mean continous strand processing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In some machines it is called "roller transport" as the machine is self feeding. The rollers are undercut in 4 widths and depths. The 120 bridged the outer cut, the 35mm the next smaller, 16mm the next, and super 8 ran in the bottom undercut. Thus, at one time, a single machine could run 4 sizes of film. IDK if this was ever used outside of Kodak or if it was ever even popular. It was mainly intended as an E6 processor as use in Kodachrome was much more difficult due to the agitation/uniformity problem mentioned earlier.

PE

 

[AgX]

Here is something on Kodak's `Kodachrome Minilab´, the K-Lab.

To my knowledge these had been installed around 1990. That very page is seemingly somehow left over on the Kodak server:

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

 

[Venchka]

Photo Engineer,

Kodachrome was produced in sheet sizes once upon a time. I know the original suggestion was to cut current production into sheets. Apples and oranges maybe.

Dwayne's in Kansas is the last K-14 lab in the world. 35mm only. They NEVER processed 120 Kodachrome. Ever. They told me when I called to ask if they could process my 1 roll of 120 Kodachrome.

For the life of me, I do not understand why Kodak couldn't do once a year special order runs like 120 and/or 4x5 Kodachrome. Panatomic-X in 35mm, 120 & 4x5 would be nice too. Kodak wouldn't need to worry about processing Panatomic-X. People would be required to place an order with a deposit. Kodak could set a certain minimum lot size. If the minimum were met, they would produce the film. Kodak could also have a monopoly on the processing. Sell Kodachrome with pre-paid processing. While were at it, they should get the Polaroid Type 55 P/N equipment from the Bankruptcy court overseeing Poloaroid's Chapter 11 restructuring. That way Kodak could make Type 55 P/N and make their own Readyload products again.

In my heart, I know this could work. If we got the Bean Counters out of the way, we the consumers could make it work. Look at the Bean Counters track record at Polaroid: They shut down the only part of the company that was worth having. The inventory disappeared in weeks. They could have sold all they could make. 6 months later they are Chapter 11. Go figure.

Daydream over. We now return you to your regulary scheduled programming.

Happy New Year!

Wayne

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wayne;

Sheet film and roll film are coated on different supports. I have tried to explain this many many times. Sheet film must have about 30% greater thickness to lie flat in sheet film holders without buckling. This takes a totally different coating procedure and processing procedure (not counting the fact that sheet film will not go through the roller transport Kodachrome machine).

As for the current Kodachrome processing machine being able to process 120, of course it cannot. I never said it did. But, at one time there were machines that did 120, 35mm, 16mm and super 8 all by means of properly designed rollers. These machines now exist only as memories or scrap.

To do any of this, it has to provide a profit. I would guess that at this time some films are going out of date before being sold from the Kodak factory and a lot of film is being returned from photo stores due to being expired. Why make more film than can be sold? Film is like produce in a market or meat in a market. When it goes bad, it is scrap!

PE

 

[nickandre]

4x5 kodachrome was the original ASA 10 kodachrome. it was discontinued in 1953 (ish). I haven't seen any nor heard of anybody seeing any since about then. It doesn't work in the modern K14 kodachrome process, the K12 included a pre-hardener.

Have you ever used sheet film? It doesn't curl when you dry it, it stays flat. Imagine using sheet film that curled and was really flimsy which you couldn't process.

Try meeting the minimum order. It's not going to happen.

Why do I feel like lots of people say the exact same thing as wayne...

 

[dmr]

Here is something on Kodak's `Kodachrome Minilab´, the K-Lab.

To my knowledge these had been installed around 1990. That very page is seemingly somehow left over on the Kodak server:

Very interesting, thanks.