KODACHROME Film: Interview with Kodak's President Jeff Clarke 2/20/2017

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Berri said:
E6 film is not coloured by removing dyes, couplers react to colour developer in its oxidized form to generate dyes.

+1

keenmaster486 said:
Maybe PE can shed some light on this.

What is the scientific reason that Kodachrome looks different from any E6 film?

Berri said:
I believe that the colour look of kodachrome could be emulated if the right dyes are used. I don't think that the the reason why kodachrome looks different is because of how dyes are introduced onto the film.

The process is different; the dye couplers are absent on the Kodachrome film (while they are integrated on an E6-type film); each of the three 'color developer' steps on the K14 (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta) introduce the corresponding color couplers.
While on E6 process there is only one color developer which reacts with the color couplers that are already within the film.

This means the chemistry is different, the process is different, and probably there are some advantages and drawbacks that means that the best Kodak could do in terms of color reproduction was different to what was achievable with E6-type films.

Color reproduction in E6 films is better (!), with less color shifts on the shadows, etc. "Better" in the sense of more close to the original thing.

Note that the difference is not only in color, but also because of K14-films being much thinner, sharpness and resolution is potentially greater (it was dramatically good on the Kodachrome 25 film).
However, the current state of the art is Provia 100F which is light years beyond films of the 1990s and 1980s, and I suspect that if Fuji engineers wanted to create a "Provia 25F" or Kodak engineers wanted to create an "Ektachrome 25G" with modern technologies, the grain would be finer than Kodachrome 25 and the resolution would be close.

The other difference, and one that I find more significant, is that the film is much more resilient to ambient conditions and storage, that means, it should last longer when freezed. (PE, correct me if i'm wrong)

This latter feature, in my opinion, is an advantage for a company that has big scale production but wants to sell a product that sells at limited amounts per year. The disadvantage i see for K14 films in year 2017 is the infrastructure required for making sure the customers can develop their film.

... But we already discussed all this on another thread that, since January, got like 30 pages.

Berri · Feb 24, 2017

I wonder if it would be possible to create a colour transparency film with a relatively easy process, like a 2 bath room temperature. That would encourage more people to try film and transparency without having to apply to a lab.

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Berri said:
I wonder if it would be possible to create a colour transparency film with a relatively easy process, like a 2 bath room temperature.

This already existed: Agfa AP-41 process. Many classic films (Agfa CT series, Orwo UT series)

The Orwo process is posted here by our romanian friend, the great George Grosu: @georgegrosu who probably has developed thousands of rolls with this process!

see the picture with the process:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/21121448@N06/25402145045/in/dateposted-public/

As you can see many steps have temperature range allowed from 23°-25°C, so it's supposedly easy. The number of chemicals is very short really.

I think the old Ferraniacolor film used a similar process. I already posted an extract of an old british magazine where it's mentioned that Ferraniacolor was "by far" the most used film by amateurs that develop film at home. Perhaps due to the easiness of the process.

Photo Engineer · Feb 24, 2017

nevintagefilms said:
Hi All,

My points was the way those subtractive layers were created. One is created by adding dye (Kodachrome) and the other is created by removing it (E6). It just results in a different look that they have come far closer to reproducing in Velvia 50, Provia 100F and E100D.... but it's still not the same. It just doesn't have that same silky (albeit not true to life) look and feel of Kodachrome. Kodachrome just always had a "colorized" look to it.

Dave

Image dyes are not removed in any current camera film. Dyes were destroyed in the Ciba/Ilford line of products, now no longer available.

Kodachrome is renowned for its sharpness and particular dye hues along with fine grain. This is accomplished by super thin layers and the fact that as dyes form, they form a relief image that enhances sharpness. Also, using 3 developers, the dyes can be individually customized for stability and hue. My opinion has been that the cyan is detrimental to the image due to its peculiar hue, and I have presented evidence elsewhere.

PE

Photo Engineer · Feb 24, 2017

Berri said:
I wonder if it would be possible to create a colour transparency film with a relatively easy process, like a 2 bath room temperature. That would encourage more people to try film and transparency without having to apply to a lab.

Kodak had a short lived product, sold in Europe in the '70s that was called Direktachrome. It had 2 steps + 1 wash. Develop, Blix, wash, dry.

It was not popular. The emulsions were used later in the PR10 instant product with many changes in them and in the method of image formation.

PE

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Berri: Now, your idea is very good because maybe it would be possible to make a simpler reversal process (with the corresponding film); for example:
- perhaps the first developer can also bleach; that is, it develops and then it destroys the developed (metallic) silver.
- or perhaps the second developer can also fog the film (so no light re-exposure required as well). That is, it 'fogs' the unexposed silver and then develops
- or perhaps the second developer also fixes (that is, a monobath, something already exists)

Any of these would reduce the number of steps. OR the number of steps is mantained but the formulas include agents to make them more tolerant of temperature variations. Your choice!

I guess all this can be possible. The problem when designing such things is that you also want the chemicals to last, to be stable; and sometimes all these objectives can't be met at the same time, i guess.

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Dyes were destroyed in the Ciba/Ilford line of products, now no longer available.

I bet Cibachrome also destroyed account balances and family budgets as well...

Rudeofus · Feb 24, 2017

If you compare the complexity of making even a simple color film product, you would absolutely laugh about the complexity (or lack thereof) of E6 processing. Even K14 processing is trivial compared to making the simple most color film. Making film even more complex in order to accommodate "but processing has to be made easier" will likely lead to film products appearing later, or not at all.

Prof_Pixel · Feb 24, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak had a short lived product, sold in Europe in the '70s that was called Direktachrome. It had 2 steps + 1 wash. Develop, Blix, wash, dry.

It was not popular. The emulsions were used later in the PR10 instant product with many changes in them and in the method of image formation.

PE

And then there was Ektaflex that made it possible to create color prints at room temperature (with little temp control needed) using just an activator fluid (also based on Kodak Instant Film technology)

Rudeofus · Feb 24, 2017

And there is Fuji Instax film for all those who really can't stand film processing but want to go analog nonetheless ...

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Rudeofus said:
If you compare the complexity of making even a simple color film product, you would absolutely laugh about the complexity (or lack thereof) of E6 processing. Even K14 processing is trivial compared to making the simple most color film.

Yes, but the film is made by the factory, which has a big R&D lab and the top engineers,
and then it's developed by the amateur at home or by a small lab.

So the complexity of processing is important.

Rudeofus said:
Making film even more complex in order to accommodate "but processing has to be made easier" will likely lead to film products appearing later, or not at all.

The Agfa CT and Ferraniacolor films i cited earlier were not more complex to make than an E6 film.
Kodachrome had an ultra complex process but the film wasn't easier to make than an E6 film.

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak had a short lived product, sold in Europe in the '70s that was called Direktachrome. It had 2 steps + 1 wash. Develop, Blix, wash, dry.

It was not popular. The emulsions were used later in the PR10 instant product with many changes in them and in the method of image formation.

PE

For everybody, here's more detail on Directachrome, by PE:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Now that i think more on what Berri proposed, i think the problem is not complexity (or simplicity) of the E6 process. The problem is that it is not so easy to buy the chemicals around the world, due to prices, sellers not wanting to ship chemicals (ie: B&H), etc.

Rudeofus · Feb 24, 2017

flavio81 said:
Yes, but the film is made by the factory, which has a big R&D lab and the top engineers,
and then it's developed by the amateur at home or by a small lab.

You're talking about the glorious past here, not about what we have right now:

Kodak Alaris operates on a shoe string budget, with the main aim to get some money out of their assets for this pension fund. I seriously doubt that they have a 'big R&D lab and the top engineers' right now. Apart from that Kodak hasn't had much love for color reversal products (just read PhotoEngineer's postings).
Fuji barely hangs in there, they never had Kodak's R&D budget to begin with, and now, as they discontinue one product after another, it doesn't look like they invest much in R&D either.
Ferrania doesn't even try to hide the fact that they work with the smallest team possible and no absolutely time or cash for risky R&D.

And that's all we have right now in the color department, and Ferrania hasn't even released a working color product yet. We can always dream, but asking either of these outfits to commit major funding to investigate a color reversal product with simpler processing sounds futile at best.

flavio81 said:
So the complexity of processing is important

This is 2017, and having a choice of three vendors and about a dozen products is worth a lot more than having only one or two products to chose from, even if these can be processed in a single bath of plain tap water. And right now the choice is either or, or more likely: there is no choice at all, E6 is here to stay if you want color reversal in the foreseeable future.

flavio81 said:
The Agfa CT and Ferraniacolor films i cited earlier were not more complex to make than an E6 film.
Kodachrome had an ultra complex process but the film wasn't easier to make than an E6 film.

Given that Kodachrome existed decades before E6, we can safely assume that Kodachrome film is a lot easier to make than E6. Just imagine how many extra degrees of freedom you gain by being able to use different color developers for each layer. There's a lot of complexity hidden in these little film rolls, look at this patent (allegedly the Provia 400X patent) if you are sufficiently masochistic.

MattKing · Feb 24, 2017

Rudeofus said:
Kodak Alaris operates on a shoe string budget, with the main aim to get some money out of their assets for this pension fund. I seriously doubt that they have a 'big R&D lab and the top engineers' right now. Apart from that Kodak hasn't had much love for color reversal products (just read PhotoEngineer's postings).

I doubt that Kodak Alaris has any R&D resources with respect to film. After all, they don't make it.
Eastman Kodak probably does, because they make still film and, more important to them, movie film.
Kodak Alaris still makes colour photographic paper. They might have some R&D capacity as a result that could be useful for still film issues.

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Rudeofus said:
You're talking about the glorious past here, not about what we have right now:
Kodak Alaris operates on a shoe string budget, with the main aim to get some money out of their assets for this pension fund. I seriously doubt that they have a 'big R&D lab and the top engineers' right now.

Yes but the film is not made by Kodak Alaris. The film is made by Eastman Kodak and they will resurrect Ektachrome this year, so they do have the budget to release a new film, they do have the lab and they do have the top engineers. Of course, all of this in a MUCH smaller scale than in the glorious past.

Rudeofus said:
Apart from that Kodak hasn't had much love for color reversal products (just read PhotoEngineer's postings).

Agree, but PE speaks from his experience when he was working at EK; today they are resurrecting Ektachrome this year, so it's a change of direction.

Rudeofus said:
Fuji barely hangs in there, they never had Kodak's R&D budget to begin with, and now, as they discontinue one product after another, it doesn't look like they invest much in R&D either

Agree

Rudeofus said:
Ferrania doesn't even try to hide the fact that they work with the smallest team possible and no absolutely time or cash for risky R&D

Ferrania is a different case/situation than EK or Fuji.

Rudeofus said:
And that's all we have right now in the color department, and Ferrania hasn't even released a working color product yet.

I am confident they will do it; they have everything in place to do it. But of course they will not research for a new product.

Rudeofus said:
This is 2017, and having a choice of three vendors and about a dozen products is worth a lot more than having only one or two products to chose from, even if these can be processed in a single bath of plain tap water. And right now the choice is either or, or more likely: there is no choice at all, E6 is here to stay if you want color reversal in the foreseeable future.

Agree.

Rudeofus said:
Given that Kodachrome existed decades before E6, we can safely assume that Kodachrome film is a lot easier to make than E6.

That was what I thought as well, but Photo Engineer has stated that this was not the case. That Kodachrome was harder to coat correctly than the E6 films.

Rudeofus · Feb 24, 2017

flavio81 said:
Agree, but PE speaks from his experience when he was working at EK; today they are resurrecting Ektachrome this year, so it's a change of direction

They will resurrect a product they already had, maybe have to replace a few chems which are no longer available and/or allowed, sort of like what Fuji did when they brought back Velvia 100. They will most likely not, and most likely have neither the work force, nor the funding to bring about a substantially new product category, i.e. a color emulsion which requires a new and substantially different development procedure.

flavio81 said:
That was what I thought as well, but Photo Engineer has stated that this was not the case. That Kodachrome was harder to coat correctly than the E6 films.

It may have been harder to coat, but what about the raw ingredients going into this product? Why were there many decades during which Kodachrome dyes were long term stable, while E4/E6 dyes were not?

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Rudeofus said:
It may have been harder to coat, but what about the raw ingredients going into this product? Why were there many decades during which Kodachrome dyes were long term stable, while E4/E6 dyes were not?

Dye longevity has nothing to do with if the film is more difficult to design/engineer or not.

The reason the Kodachrome dyes were more stable is because they weren't included in the film but added later, so:
1) they were not aging within the film before development
2) different., more fade-resistant dyes could be used.

ME Super · Feb 24, 2017

If they do this, it will be the third product family to bear the name Kodachrome. The first was the two-color Capstaff Kodachrome, invented in 1913 by John Capstaff. The second was the 1935 Kodachrome, invented by Godowski and Mannes (God and Man). If this third process uses something similar to the E-6 process (with integrated color couplers), there are a couple logical names that Kodak could use: New Kodachrome (like "New Coke" back in the 80's?), or my favorite, Kodachrome 3.0 (there are regulations on calling a product "New" for more than a certain period of time in some countries - I think it's 6 months in the US).

Rudeofus · Feb 24, 2017

flavio81 said:
Dye longevity has nothing to do with if the film is more difficult to design/engineer or not

If dye longevity was your only concern, then engineering would have been simple, but there is more to it. Kodachrome has three tailored color development steps, which give a lot more wiggle room to optimize development for each layer. Kodak could have (theoretically) made an E6 film with more or less the same couplers as Kodachrome, just add a large mordanting group to the coupler and they'll stay in the emulsion. But note, that Kodachrome doesn't even use the same color development agent for each color!

flavio81 said:
The reason the Kodachrome dyes were more stable is because they weren't included in the film but added later, so:
1) they were not aging within the film before development
2) different., more fade-resistant dyes could be used.

Film is supposed to be used within very few years after it has been coated, so in light of expected stability time frames of many decades that pre-aging is not really that significant. Just because couplers are added at a later time does not automatically translate into better dyes. Yes, they could create better dyes because they had that extra wiggle room thanks to three separate and independent color development stages, this may well have been the biggest difference.

flavio81 · Feb 24, 2017

Rudeofus said:
But note, that Kodachrome doesn't even use the same color development agent for each color!

True, and food for thought. Thanks Rudeofus!!

Photo Engineer · Feb 24, 2017

The original Kodachromes were coated by a trough coater, one layer at a time. The coating speed was probably about 100 meters / minute. The last iteration of Kodachrome was coated in 1 pass (up to 12+ layers) at about 1000 meters / minute. The old coating machines no longer exist.

I was doubtful about an E6 returning, but it did due to an upswing in the market. Remember that the business model I last saw showed a 30% drop in film sales / year, but the actual drop was 30% / quarter. That is 4x larger than predicted. So, there I was, and I could not make any other call. Obviously, there was some change in the reversal market. Only the future will show us the truth or falsity of any prediction on this subject.

Kodak does have a research budget, but it is tiny. The last I discussed this with Tadeki Tani of Fuji (2006), he said they still did have one and would try to continue for the future. In fact, he had an experimental roll in his camera when I talked with him. Going from 2000+ workers in R&D on analog to about 100 or so (I really don't know the number) has got to hurt.

And, these are mainly new people.

I wish them the best.

PE

mshchem · Feb 25, 2017

I watched Elon Musk land his 1st stage booster near to where it took off from the other day, now that's cool. The world is full of geniuses. If Kodak wants to bring back Kodachrome they could do it. How would it happen, who knows.
I'm very hopeful. People will want something that they can hold on to. Something permanent. Digital is ephemeral.
No one has designed a new film camera in years, what is possible?
Slides could drop into a reader that hooks up wirelessly to your 4000k TV. Something that just punches you with color.
Film is still the best way to save a photograph.
Who would have predicted Instax it's awesome. It's exposed through the back upside down, Kodak had that figured out 40 years back never say never.
Best Mike

Prest_400 · Feb 25, 2017

Rudeofus said:
Y

Fuji barely hangs in there, they never had Kodak's R&D budget to begin with, and now, as they discontinue one product after another, it doesn't look like they invest much in R&D either.

Ferrania doesn't even try to hide the fact that they work with the smallest team possible and no absolutely time or cash for risky R&D.

There's a lot of complexity hidden in these little film rolls, look at this patent (allegedly the Provia 400X patent) if you are sufficiently masochistic.

Fuji did great work with their film portfolio. I don't know if it was a priority during their R&D, but Fuji has just about the best films holding reciprocity at long exposures. Acros and Provia (100 and 400X) specially.
Ferrania has the formulas back from the R&D days of the LRF and some experimental films that didn't make it to market. Could be great product. Anyways the first ferrania just concentrated on the bottom end of the market thus they probably didn't release top technical material.

Photo Engineer said:
I was doubtful about an E6 returning, but it did due to an upswing in the market. Remember that the business model I last saw showed a 30% drop in film sales / year, but the actual drop was 30% / quarter. That is 4x larger than predicted. So, there I was, and I could not make any other call. Obviously, there was some change in the reversal market. Only the future will show us the truth or falsity of any prediction on this subject.

Kodak does have a research budget, but it is tiny. The last I discussed this with Tadeki Tani of Fuji (2006), he said they still did have one and would try to continue for the future. In fact, he had an experimental roll in his camera when I talked with him. Going from 2000+ workers in R&D on analog to about 100 or so (I really don't know the number) has got to hurt.

PE

Indeed it is interesting. Color Negative have been appreciated thanks to their latitude and dynamic range handling, slide seems to have stabilized and the Ektachrome news are great.
Now I recall that you mentioned that Fuji moment with the experimental roll. Could that be 400X? Might make sense bacause it was reintroduced in 2007 or so. It is a pity that they took it out of the market being such a fantastic film.
Fuji is curious though, they did a single run of Pro 400 220 (a different product from 400H) a while ago. 400X is supposedly discontinued but maybe they made another run? We need a Fuji PE to tell us about what is going on in Tokyo!

wahiba · Feb 25, 2017

I visited a motorcycle dealer the other day. There was brand new Triumph Bonnevilled T120. Any resemblance to the original was purely symbolic, even the 'carburettors' were plastic covers over the fuel injectors. It looked a great motorcycle and I covet one.

Kodachrome made today would be the same. A film that has to be returned to a specialist for processing due to colour dyes not being in the film. This would probably be the only resemblance between Kodachrome 2000 and Kodachrome 1900. However, I would expect it to be an all round superior film to the original Kodachrome.

Rudeofus · Feb 25, 2017

Prest_400 said:
Fuji did great work with their film portfolio. I don't know if it was a priority during their R&D, but Fuji has just about the best films holding reciprocity at long exposures. Acros and Provia (100 and 400X) specially.

I did not mean to criticize Fuji's product line, but we all know that the tech in Acros and Provia 400X was based on research that happened during the late high days of analog photography. Fuji's Provia 400X patent was granted in 2004, this should tell you all. I seriously doubt that Fuji has the manpower today to create a completely new photographic product, especially one requiring a new process to get images from. PhotoEngineer pretty much confirms the same for Kodak.

KODACHROME Film: Interview with Kodak's President Jeff Clarke 2/20/2017

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency