Kodachrome interview

[tim_walls]

So to the folks on here who put the film down in several threads....and you know who you are: Brush up on your skills man, because if you think there is a better film, you might just be high as a kite.

This film behind a good lens with great craftsmanship is simply uncontested.

Meh. Choosing to overlook the non-sequitur that is "I took some photos I like so it's the bestest bestest film ever," I'm going to wear my poor craftsmanship badge with pride.

When Kodachrome finally turns up its toes I'll be sad. When Ektachrome E100VS does, I'll be gutted. So sue me.

 

[wogster]

I will still maintain that the main reason Kodachrome fell from grace is that, for a consumer's perspective, you didn't get "picture in hand" like you did with negative film. And today, all the consumer cares about - still - is that physically manifest picture. Ergo, the difference between scans on a CD of the negatives with digitally printed pictures and scans on a CD of the slides with digitally printed pictures is that the negatives are in a little envelope they don't open and the slides are in a little box they don't open.

If monkeys can be trained to fly a rocket, Grandma can be trained to write "K-14 and scan" on the envelope.

This doesn't address Ian's point that clients won't wait two weeks to get results, but honestly the pros in almost any field are not the driving factor. After all, GM, BMW, and Toyota may have a few cars for Le Mans and NASCAR, but what Grandma wants determines that market, too.

In fact, the types of markets where the pros drive the choices are astronomically expensive. Witness medical operating room equipment. Not much home use for that stuff, and a good scalpel is more expensive than a whole set of regular kitchen knives.

If you want it to show up on the shelf at Walmart, get Grandma interested in buying it. So, from this twisted perspective, the reason Kodachrome is dying is because the digital scanner revolution happened to *LATE* to make it the market leader.

MB

Grandma now uses the auto-everything tiny camera that does all the thinking built into her cell phone. Yeah the pictures all look the same, and the quality is crappy, but then so were the results 40 years ago when she shot slides on her Instamatic using K25.

The consumer market largely has gone digital, which isn't entirely a bad thing, because crappy, low quality consumer films have gone with them. Crappy consumer labs at drugstores are switching to simply printing grandmas cell phone pictures from her computer.

This means that serious amateurs and professional photographers ARE driving the film market, which means that new films are going to be oriented toward that market. Film is going to be good stuff, more expensive, and the good quality labs left, will be more expensive. The photographer will be a seasoned photographer who doesn't need 50 shots to get a keeper.

It's why when a person wants to train to be a photographer, (s)he should start the same place that photographers did, when I started 30 years ago, a good quality manual camera with B&W film.

 

[michaelbsc]

... because crappy, low quality consumer films have gone with them.

Nah, while some of the Chinese film is pretty good, you can still buy crappy Chinese film.

MB

 

[wogster]

Nah, while some of the Chinese film is pretty good, you can still buy crappy Chinese film.

MB

Personally I have not seen the crappy Chinese film, but then I tend to stick with Fuji for colour and Ilford for black and white.

 

[michaelbsc]

Personally I have not seen the crappy Chinese film, but then I tend to stick with Fuji for colour and Ilford for black and white.

Variable is probably a better description than crappy. If I'm trying to test a transport mechanism or a sticking shutter, I don't waste a $4 roll of Ilford on that.

I may not be a great photographic artist, but I don't throw money away on testing when a cheap roll of film will tell me the same thing. I do note, however, that the Shanghai film is OK, but not spectacular. But having said that, I'm sure they're working their butts off to improve it and capture market share. I'll bet that in 5 years, they will be a contender. I don't think they're going away like some of the other small players have in the past few years.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's perhaps very unfair to take a serious topic so far away from the OP's original post.

Kodachrome is or was however you see it a superb and unique film. Very different to E2, 3. 4 6 . . . It's qualities & uniqueness come from the way the film and it's processing work & interact. That's ultimately also it's downfall. The best film K25 went out of production for environmental issues which were never properly explained.

Kodak's market withdrawal of Kodachrome, from most of the world markets, is what is really frustrating users, and perhaps also giving false hope to some US users.

If the processing had been easier then it might have been E6 we were on the point of losing. But it isn't and volumes will dictate the cessation of processing.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

Kodachrome 25 did not go out of production for environmental reasons. It went out of production for quality reasons. The film was very hard, almost impossible, to coat at low production levels and get good consistant quality. The market was not there to support R&D effort to fix the problem, and it was shrinking rapidly.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

You may well be right, but various sources say environmental reasons. No-one from Koadk will ever comment.

Ian

 

[nickrapak]

IIf monkeys can be trained to fly a rocket, Grandma can be trained to write "K-14 and scan" on the envelope.

True, but would Grandma really care about the unique color palette offered by Kodachrome, or the longevity of K-14 process films? Odds are, no. Grandma would only see that it costs $8 a roll, instead of the $2-3 she usually pays.

 

[PKM-25]

I guess all this talk about "Grandma" and other mainstream users of Kodachrome has me a bit confused in nearly 2009. There should be no question that Kodachrome will see it's last days soon. So personally, I don't see how it is possible to make it a mainstream resurgence, it is simply not a realistic proposition.

There are far better and easier films for the rank amateur to use if they choose to go the film route in the first place. I just find all this debate and speculation a bit out of place when the writing is on the wall.

If you like the film, use it. If you don't, why come here and put it down? Why complain about lack of global distribution and support when we are incredibly lucky to using it in any country at this point in history?

And I keep hearing this K25 versus K64 over and over again. I have a good supply of both. Yes, K25 is better, tighter and smoother grain, but the color is only slightly different, and this is with premium K25 stock.

So I don't think the pining for K25 is as well placed as some may think, K64 really is that good, honestly, it is sharp, great color and only a bit more grain than 25. This is not just what I found years ago, it is what I am finding right this moment in looking at hundreds of KR and KM slides right now, today.

I guess this site is a lot less about shooting and much more about technical talk. When I get a chance, I am going to scan my best 40 images, but as some are panoramic, it will take the better part of a day. Once I do that, I am going to get the gallery up on the "other" site and provide a link.

I am not trying to save Kodachrome. I am not trying to say everything that is not Kodachrome is a lesser film. I am just trying to get people to shoot it while it is still around if they want to and share my experience with it *today*.

These discussions will persist, so there is that. But the film is still here, today and it still looks incredible, to me at least.

 

[nickandre]

People say P&S film cameras "have trouble" with slide film. This is backwards. They were designed not to shoot slides. Their only method of exposure compensation is the latitude of the filmstock combined with literaly changing films depending on conditions. In many cases it is only the former. Ergo, the only way we could convince "grandma" to start shooting slides and getting decent results is to invest at least $30 in an SLR or camera with any exposure compensation, which is heavier and costs money.

Plus in terms of kodachrome and or any slide film, at least for my grandma, she shoots film indoors and with flash most of the time. Those are the two areas where kodachrome does not shine (as does any film, but that's beside the point.) However, I do have some perfectly exposed very nice looking kodachrome slides of my parent's wedding in 1990.

I think the main issue is that those "large" cameras were "heavy" and the plastic cheap ones no longer accept slide film. It's an irreversible problem as people transferred to print film. Quality versus convenience. Hence that consumer market is mostly gone, and is unlikely to return. Plus it is a slower film and especially with the zooms common on many cheap SLRS you can't get flash range indoors nor good performance in low light.

If it was made in 120, I would shoot it more.

 

[PKM-25]

You may well be right, but various sources say environmental reasons. No-one from Koadk will ever comment.

Ian

Isn't it the processing, not the coating that is toxic?

 

[Photo Engineer]

There was nothing environmentally "odd" about K25 that was different than any of the other B&W films produced at the time or currently. It was and is, the most critical film to manufacture that Kodak ever produced and was very temperamental during all phases of making. As size scaled down, it became more and more "cranky". From an environmental (double speak) position, piling up waste was an "environmental" problem. Kodak certainly had a lot of K25 waste. The other film that was hard to coat from the very start was Ektar 25. I can remember the startup pains of that one, as I was working on and off at the end of my stint on Gold 400 and met with some of the guys on the project. These sharp films required very precise application of many many layers that were very thin. Change conditions in coating or chemical balance and product defects go up!

If the process were the toxic item then all of the films would have been under indictment, but that is not so. The processing is no more toxic than any other color film except for the use of 3 color developer solutions. They are pretty much like inkjet toner when exhausted.

I hope that this answers both Ian and PKM.

PE

 

[wogster]

I guess all this talk about "Grandma" and other mainstream users of Kodachrome has me a bit confused in nearly 2009. There should be no question that Kodachrome will see it's last days soon. So personally, I don't see how it is possible to make it a mainstream resurgence, it is simply not a realistic proposition.

There are far better and easier films for the rank amateur to use if they choose to go the film route in the first place. I just find all this debate and speculation a bit out of place when the writing is on the wall.

If you like the film, use it. If you don't, why come here and put it down? Why complain about lack of global distribution and support when we are incredibly lucky to using it in any country at this point in history?

And I keep hearing this K25 versus K64 over and over again. I have a good supply of both. Yes, K25 is better, tighter and smoother grain, but the color is only slightly different, and this is with premium K25 stock.

So I don't think the pining for K25 is as well placed as some may think, K64 really is that good, honestly, it is sharp, great color and only a bit more grain than 25. This is not just what I found years ago, it is what I am finding right this moment in looking at hundreds of KR and KM slides right now, today.

I guess this site is a lot less about shooting and much more about technical talk. When I get a chance, I am going to scan my best 40 images, but as some are panoramic, it will take the better part of a day. Once I do that, I am going to get the gallery up on the "other" site and provide a link.

I am not trying to save Kodachrome. I am not trying to say everything that is not Kodachrome is a lesser film. I am just trying to get people to shoot it while it is still around if they want to and share my experience with it *today*.

These discussions will persist, so there is that. But the film is still here, today and it still looks incredible, to me at least.

Forget Grandma, she's using that*fancy auto everything Chinese made digital, she takes the card out and drops it at the drug store where they make prints, just like with the APS camera she had before and the 110 she had before that and the 126 Instamatic before that. Hasn't thought of Kodachrome since they quit making it in 126 size.

 

[michaelbsc]

I guess all this talk about "Grandma" and other mainstream users of Kodachrome has me a bit confused in nearly 2009. There should be no question that Kodachrome will see it's last days soon. So personally, I don't see how it is possible to make it a mainstream resurgence, it is simply not a realistic proposition.

Forget Grandma, she's using that*fancy auto everything Chinese made digital, she takes the card out and drops it at the drug store where they make prints...

Well, I think I'm the one who initially brought up Grandma in this thread some time ago, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) . That whole discussion started just after the AP article on Kodachrome.

I do agree that the handwriting is on the wall for both production and processing of Kodachrome. And the truth is, Grandma's digital P&S works very well for her, and that's all that counts.

And Kodak, as I've pointed out along with others, must make a profit even if they don't make Kodachrome. If Kodachrome was easier to make in small batches, it would probably become a thriving niche medium like cyanotype or gum bichromate or a dozen others.

It's true that you *COULD* theoretically do Kodachrome small batch processing by hand (if you've got enough money and skill you *COULD* build a rocket and fly to the moon), but it's unlikely enough to be practical for a hobbiest without substantial capital resources and significant technical knowledge. (Anyone just won the lottery recently?) Both are possible, but even if a Kodak genie magically appeared at my door and stayed until I was as well versed in Kodachrome as God and Man I don't have the capital to push around like that. Some of you others might, but most probably don't. And so far I haven't seen Bill Gates post anything here.

And this fails to take into consideration what to do when available stocks run out. As PE has pointed out, making Kodachrome emulsion isn't quite the same as mixing up a little nitric acid and a silver dollar. While it *COULD* be done, see the arguments for processing in the preceding paragraph.

So, out of this tangent. But the referenced thread above is where the Grandma example started.

MB

 

[uwphotoer]

The grandma I know still shoots color print film in her olympus point and shoot...... and never gets off her but to take a picture if she is sitting..... lol

 

[MattKing]

There was nothing environmentally "odd" about K25 that was different than any of the other B&W films produced at the time or currently. It was and is, the most critical film to manufacture that Kodak ever produced and was very temperamental during all phases of making. As size scaled down, it became more and more "cranky". From an environmental (double speak) position, piling up waste was an "environmental" problem. Kodak certainly had a lot of K25 waste. The other film that was hard to coat from the very start was Ektar 25. I can remember the startup pains of that one, as I was working on and off at the end of my stint on Gold 400 and met with some of the guys on the project. These sharp films required very precise application of many many layers that were very thin. Change conditions in coating or chemical balance and product defects go up!

If the process were the toxic item then all of the films would have been under indictment, but that is not so. The processing is no more toxic than any other color film except for the use of 3 color developer solutions. They are pretty much like inkjet toner when exhausted.

I hope that this answers both Ian and PKM.

PE

This is just a bit of conjecture, but...

I would think that some of the environmental impacts of slide film manufacture and processing would just be moved down the chain with Kodachrome, due to the fact that with E6, the dies are incorporated at the time of manufacture, but with Kodachrome, the dies are incorporated later, at the time of processing.

In addition, with the older process lines, the volumes were very very large for Kodachrome, whereas the E4 and E6 processing lines would very often be much smaller. For that reason, the large capacity Kodachrome machines might have a single, localized impact that was larger than a single smaller E4/6 line, while cumulatively several of the smaller E4/6 lines might together have a larger impact.

Matt

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt;

This is certainly true to an extent. Especially, I would say for the time 10 - 20 years ago. But addresing the situation today when K25 was cancelled, it is a different matter entirely as the K14 process is so efficient nowdays. Also, the by products, as stated above by me, are about as toxic as a big bag of discarded inkjet printer cartridges, as the dyes are rather similar. One is an azo dye and the other is azomethine. Azomethines are like aniline dyes which are used in hair dyes. So, the problem is not severe, just there to be concerned about.

PE

 

[nickandre]

There's a wide held belief with people I've asked that k14 is an especially "toxic" process. Is the belief that color film processing "causes cancer" left over from the formaldehyde days or what? I know some of the old bleaches were bad, but then again they weren't all that bad.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is one of those "myths" that grows in the telling as chemistry and chemicals become ever more unpopular. We are graduating fewer and fewer chemists as a result, according to recent statistics that I saw about 6 months ago or so. You can't even get a simple chemistry set anymore. I had one when I was about 8. Now, they are considered too toxic.

So, from the example I just gave, that a child's chemistry set from the 40s or 50s is "too toxic", you can make your benchmark against any photo process today including B&W.

Several years ago, I had been to a shooting range with friends. I idly picked up a spent 9mm casing and put it in my pocket. About 2 months later, I was taking that jacket off at a class I was teaching and the shell casing, which I had forgotten about entirely, fell out. A woman in the class began screaming and said watch out, it might explode. I pointed out that it was expended, empty and harmless and she still kept up her rant that it was a dangerous toxic item. I apologized and explained how it had happened, and nothing came of the incident, but this is how people react based on the current "hype".

What is the cancer rate amongst morticians? They use formalin all the time, as do forensic specialists who do autopsies. That would tell us how carcinogenic formalin is. It was used for years to make bakelite plastic. What was the cancer rate in bakelite manufacturing plants? IDK. It is toxic, and causes respiratory problems and skin problems simply because it reacts with protein.

OTOH, Sodium Nitrite is a known carcinogen, but is still used to pickle meats. There is no substitute as far as I know, so they use NaNO2 and say nothing. Thiourea is banned in some states as a suspected carcinogen, but is found as a natural product in many common plants and flowers.

PE

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

table salt kills lots of people, no?

 

[uwphotoer]

There's a wide held belief with people I've asked that k14 is an especially "toxic" process. Is the belief that color film processing "causes cancer" left over from the formaldehyde days or what? I know some of the old bleaches were bad, but then again they weren't all that bad.

Try the bleach in the cibachrome/ilfochrome process..... lots of sulfuric acid, so much so that you now need to neutralize it after use with baking soda. But it's not bad for you..... lol

 

[Photo Engineer]

Those neutralizer tablets go back to the very start of commercial dye bleach processing.

The catalyst originally used was suspected of causing cancer. IDK about the current one.

And salt water is very toxic. If you drink it, it can kill.

PE

 

[wogster]

Those neutralizer tablets go back to the very start of commercial dye bleach processing.

The catalyst originally used was suspected of causing cancer. IDK about the current one.

And salt water is very toxic. If you drink it, it can kill.

PE

So is fresh water, it can kill you if you inhale it, according to the MSDS.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

Yeah, it is unfortunate as to how some people believe that they are the absolute authority on everything these days. I have issues with crooked scientist/lobbyists who get the government to do stupid things...like banning the incandescent bulb and replace it with mercury-containing CFL bulbs but mercury is bad in everything else (I happen to think that it is a very useful element, for the record). Also, people think that CN compounds are always bad, which is obviously untrue (it depends on what it is). Ugh...society...you try to advance it, but there are always people taking away from it.

PE, is it possible that the mordant in the Kodachrome process dyes are dangerous looking? I know that Pb is a popular mordant in some dye compounds.

Yeah, formalin is not too bad, although I have to say that it is the worst tasting compound that I know of (do not ask how I know...there was an incident with a pair of bone cutting forceps...ugh). The nastiest stuff that I have had the pleasure of using would be NaCN mixed with conc. HCl and ultra pure acrylamide. In your home you have water, the deadliest of all chemicals, cyano-glycocides in your fruit/seeds, and acrylamide in your food that was cooked (besides things that were boiled). So eating wild almonds can kill you, or eating enough of bread and drinking coffee can give you cancer, which in turn, can kill you. People are afraid of spent bullet casings, but not cancer causing baked goods...mmm, delicious. ; D