• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodachrome: K12 vs K14 process

Young He

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
77
Location
Houston
Format
35mm
Hello all,

This is not another "kodachrome revival" thread; I am just wondering.

I have a question about the earlier Kodachrome II film; specifically the process and how it differed from K-14. I believe the K12 process was used for Kodachrome II, but there is limited information. How did the K-14 and K-12 processes differ? Also, if someone could tell me the date when Kodachrome II was discontinued in favor of a newer one? Thanks in advance.

A second thought: Could K12 films be processed in K14? Were they mostly interchangeable (As in would there be decent results)?
 
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
"In 1961 Kodak released Kodachrome II with sharper images and faster ASA speeds at 25 ASA.[20] In 1962, Kodachrome-X at ASA 64 was introduced. In 1974, with the transition to the K-14 process, Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X were replaced by Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64.[21]"
The Kodak lab where my father worked was opened in 1961, which coincides with the introduction of the K-12 process.
I vaguely remember that they had to run both processes for a while when K-14 was introduced, but as I was 17 at the time ...
Early Kodachrome (my Dad in 1950):

Kodachrome II (our family in 1962)

and Kodachrome 25 (I think) from the last rolls I shot in 2010:

 
Temperature, dye forming agents (couplers, color developers) and film hardener. Those are just a few of the changes that led to better color, sharpness and grain.

PE
 
1952 Kodachrome, ASA 10? My Sister, in my Uncle's corn, picked with his almost new, 1949 1 row corn picker. Pure magic. I've made high resolution scans, this stuff is as close to grainless as I have seen. Great time capsule. Having said this, I stopped using Kodachrome before it disappeared. I sure am glad my Dad kept all this organized. It took me several dozen hours to put these all in Carousel trays. Kodak, IMHO, were the only people that could process Kodachrome. When Kodak spun off their processing labs things went south. I always sent my Kodachrome to Kodak in Chicago.
I remember shooting Ektacolor-S in the '70s and sending it to Chicago for REAL Kodak processing. The prints were just perfect.
 
A second thought: Could K12 films be processed in K14? Were they mostly interchangeable (As in would there be decent results)?
I think, they could, cause the main problem wil be the age fog, not the differences in coupler colors and stability.

You can compare by youself processing solution from the original Kodachrome (1937)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US2252718.pdf
and the Photo Engineer's K-14 version (1972):
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3658525.pdf
For K-12 you have to search some other process patents. I have book from late 195x, with recipes based on american patents, but I not sure of the exact version of the process and don't think than it will be useful for you,cause its in russian.
 
Matt: Is photo #2 at Jericho beach?
I believe it is.
I think I was 5 1/2 at the time, so I don't have a memory of the event.
That is actually a Kodachrome II 828 slide, and it would have been taken with my Dad's Bantam RF camera.
And as it was his department that handled all the incoming Kodachrome, it wasn't inconvenient at all getting it processed and mounted .
 
With the volumes they did I always wondered how they kept the film matched up with the owner; especially with sheet Kodachrome, but they always seemed to. I've never heard of anyone getting the wrong film back from a Kodak plant in Canada.
 

Looking from the UK perspective, and SFAIK in more recent years, all 35, 8 and 16mm Kodachrome in the UK was process paid and mailed to Kodak, Hemel Hempstead (the short-lived 120 went to a lab in Wimbledon, London).
The quality of this and their other processing work was generally OK, other than a period (around the 1970's/80's) when there were a spate of blue spots and scratches on Kodachromes. This was around the time that Fuji, etc., were starting to push their products seriously, and I know of quite a few photo enthusiasts who abandoned Kodachrome for that reason and never returned.
I did so myself, and only returned in the last few months of 2009/10, when, at least in my experience, the quality of Dwayne's work was excellent.
IMHO (and that of my late Father, who's slides I still have), the quality of original Kodachrome and Kodachrome II was never surpassed. Kodachrome-X was grim, K64 was a definite improvement, and Kodachrome 200 (with good lighting and careful exposure) didn't seem nearly as bad as some suggested.
 
I mentioned temperature and hardener above. This is critical. If a K12 film is processed in K14 chemistry, the hardening is not sufficient for the higher temperature and at best the film would reticulate. At worst, the emulsion would begin to wash away from the film. This is an educated guess because I have never done this nor heard of it being done. But, the new hardener has prepared the new film for the new process temperature which is a lot higher than the old one.

OTOH, gelatin can harden with age and this might - just might, give you an edge.

PE
 
PE, didn't trying to belittle the meaning of hardener, I think that will be the least of the problems, compared with synthesis correct K-14 couplers.
 
With the volumes they did I always wondered how they kept the film matched up with the owner; especially with sheet Kodachrome, but they always seemed to. I've never heard of anyone getting the wrong film back from a Kodak plant in Canada.
The films stayed in their envelopes all the way to the pre-splice room. As the Kodachrome was added to the large reel, each roll had attached to it one half of a numbered twin-tab, while the envelope received the other. The envelopes traveled with the films as they moved through the processing and mounting or being placed on the movie reel. Either a piece of the envelope with the full return address (in the case of the mailed films) or the envelope that the film came in (in the case of film from dealers) was used to return the film. In each case, the matching halves of the twin-tabs were together.
One of the things that my Dad's staff had to deal with was the small but not meaningless amount of film that came to them without a return address, or with an unreadable return address. Dad considered those stick on return address labels to be a scourge, because of the number of times that they would get separated from the film envelopes before the film ever got to the lab.
Of course, in addition to the un-addressed films, and in some cases films that didn't have the owner's names on them, Dad's staff also got to deal with the letters and calls from people whose films appeared to have gone missing.
Dad discovered a company selling an interesting, highly analogue "computer" response to the problem. It was a mechanical "matrix" that resulted in cards with holes punched in them. Dad's staff would laboriously go through unlabeled films and try to categorize their contents. Those categories would result in holes being punched in cards at appropriate locations. There would be a particular spot on the matrix for something like a Christmas tree. If there was a Christmas tree on the roll, there would be a hole punched on that space of the matrix.
Then Dad's staff would communicate with the people whose films were missing and learn what was on the films. A matrix card would be punched appropriately, and Dad's staff would start comparing cards to see which two cards had holes that lined up. Sometimes it worked really well, and people got their film. In other cases, especially when people's memory of what was on the film was poor, it didn't work as well. And of course, categorization was at best inexact. But a fair number of those orphan films reached their owners.
As for sheet Kodachrome, I don't know - the North Vancouver lab didn't have machinery to process it. I don't know that the volumes were ever that high for it. I would assume that they would have used the same systems as any commercial lab that developed sheets of any kind for customers.
 
Matt, over the years, I lost only one roll and no one could find any record of it entering the system after receipt. It just vanished.

As for making K14 couplers and developers, the K12 stuff would work (to an extent). It is the total composition, time, temperature and other factors that will be the killer.

PE
 
...
Dad discovered a company selling an interesting, highly analogue "computer" response to the problem. It was a mechanical "matrix" that resulted in cards with holes punched in them. ...

Very clever. I've about 20 8mm K II movies (still in good shape) dating from 1964 to the mid-1970's.
 
Matt, over the years, I lost only one roll and no one could find any record of it entering the system after receipt. It just vanished.

That's not a bad loss rate...
In 1984 I lost a whole slab of the professional version of Kodachrome 200 when, after purchasing it at the dealer, I absent-mindely sat it down on my bike's pannier rack, gloved up and pedalled off. Suffice to say 35km later at home, the expensive slab of red and yellow was nowhere to be seen...
 
We had a family friend who owned a wedding and portrait studio who lost all the shots from a wedding reception when he went out to the car afterwards, started unloading and organizing the exposed films by putting them in order on the car's bumper .....
You can guess the rest.
 
As for sheet Kodachrome, I don't know - the North Vancouver lab didn't have machinery to process it.

Thanks for the insight into the inner working of the processing lab, very informative! Sheet Kodachrome was discontinued in 1952, which I believe was before the opening of the North Vancouver lab? The Kodak booklets I have on "Professional" Kodachrome (as the sheet films were called then) say there was only two labs that processed it, as of 1941: Rochester and Hollywood.
 
Title updated. Obviously, a site like this has many threads about Kodachrome, so try to make the title more specific than "Kodachrome."
 
Does anybody know what the yellow coupler used in the K12 process was? With how similar K12 and K14 are, I'm hoping the K12 yellow coupler will work well enough on K14 film.