Kodachrome Sheet film processing

Craig · Dec 4, 2013

Back when Kodachrome was made in sheet film ( 1938-51) where was it processed? Only in Rochester, or where there other Kodak labs around the world that could process it? If only Rochester, I'm assuming photographers would have had to mail in their film and have it returned by mail?

(No, this isn't intended to be another "bring Kodachrome back" thread, just historical curosity)

AgX · Dec 5, 2013

Sheet films were also processed outside Rochester including overseas. At least in one case even in a country were sheet films were not even on offer.
But I do not know whether each Kodak Lab could process sheet film.

railwayman3 · Dec 5, 2013

Was sheet Kodachrome only processed by Kodak themselves? Or could independent labs or users do it? (I'm thinking that part of the advantage of Ektachrome, when it was introduced later, would have been independent labs or user-processing with some consequent time-saving for commercial uses?)

AgX · Dec 5, 2013

Up to the end of 1954 Kodak held in the USA the right to solely process Kodachrome.

MattKing · Dec 5, 2013

In Canada, no-one else was in the market, so all Kodachrome processing was done by Kodak.

There were 3 labs open in Canada over the years. The western lab would not have been able to develop 120 or sheet film, as it was set up for still and movie film 135/126/828 and smaller. I'll ask my Dad if he remembers if the Toronto lab ever did sheet or 120 Kodachrome. I'm sure Brampton was too recent to have done it.

Tom1956 · Dec 5, 2013

Can you just imagine the beauty of an 8x10 piece of Kodachrome?

Clay2 · Dec 5, 2013

I believe these are 8x10 shots:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2013/nov/17/hollywood-in-kodachrome-in-pictures

/Clay

Clay2 · Dec 5, 2013

Also these:

http://www.junipergallery.com/large_format_kodachromes

/Clay

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 5, 2013

Clay2 said:
Also these:

http://www.junipergallery.com/large_format_kodachromes

/Clay

I've used the expression "The nation took its portrait on Kodachrome." This collection I exactly what I meant. Without Kodachrome we would all have a far less colorfully realistic sense of who we really are, and where we came from.

Ken

Craig · Dec 5, 2013

Tom1956 said:
Can you just imagine the beauty of an 8x10 piece of Kodachrome?

I've not seen 8x10, but I have printed 5x7 Kodachrome onto Ilfochrome. They are beautiful.

Ian Grant · Dec 5, 2013

Kodak processed all the Kodachrome themselves at a handful of labs outside the US.

In the US as AgX stated there was a court case to break Kodak's monopoly and Kodak lost. I just looked in a 1940 Kodak Ltd Catalogue, it states that Kodak had suspended sending Kodachrome to Rochester for processing but were arranging for processing to be carried out in this country (the UK). This would be the Harrow processing facility. Sheet films sizes were listed up to 10x8.

So Harrow must have been able to process sheet film.

Ian

Craig · Dec 5, 2013

Ian Grant said:
In the US as AgX stated there was a court case to break Kodak's monopoly and Kodak lost.

True, but that was 1954 and sheet film was discontinued before then. I suspect Kodak setting up a processing facility in the UK after 1940 was probably due to the war and the problems of transatlantic shipping.

Ian Grant · Dec 5, 2013

Craig said:
True, but that was 1954 and sheet film was discontinued before then. I suspect Kodak setting up a processing facility in the UK after 1940 was probably due to the war and the problems of transatlantic shipping.

The 1954 date means only Eastman Kodak was processing sheet film it's unlikely it was process anywhere other than Rochester. The setting up of the UK Kodachrome processing plant was definitely due to the high number of merchant ships being lost. The 1940 Catalogue came with a special Wartime terms & conditions of sales - marked Confidential, almost all the Kodak products were British made bar Kodak (Nagel) name cameras which would have been pre-War stock and probably the Kodachrome films.

Ian

AgX · Dec 5, 2013

Sheet films were cancelled in 1951.

Ian Grant · Dec 5, 2013

AgX said:
Sheet films were cancelled in 1951.

Yes, but as Kodak only let others process Kodachrome in 1954 it means they processed all the sheet films made until they were discontinued

Ian

AgX · Dec 5, 2013

railwayman3 said:
Was sheet Kodachrome only processed by Kodak themselves? Or could independent labs or users do it? (I'm thinking that part of the advantage of Ektachrome, when it was introduced later, would have been independent labs or user-processing with some consequent time-saving for commercial uses?)

Kodak could (and did) protect them in two ways: by bundling the sale of the film and of a processing voucher, and by patents on the processing.

As you indicate that cuts bot ways. (Another means (applied in consumer films) was to sell special film that needed special processing, most probably notworth while for general photo finishers, and by that being able to ask high prices for the proprietory processing.)

But the ability for local-, even self-processing as with the Agfacolor process had shown its merits even for the manufacturers.

railwayman3 · Dec 6, 2013

AgX said:
(Another means (applied in consumer films) was to sell special film that needed special processing, most probably not worth while for general photo finishers, and by that being able to ask high prices for the proprietory processing.)

Disc and APS films would be an example of this. But (at least in the UK) disc films didn't seem to be widely used ; APS seemed to be accepted more by consumers, but that size was introduced only shortly before small digital cameras began to be available.

In both cases the formats were advertised as being simple in use and easy to load the films, but even non-technical consumers seemed to manage perfectly well with the easy-loading small 35mm cameras which were available, with cheaper prices for films and processing.

Instamatic 126 was probably the most successful of the "proprietory" formats, probably because the drop-in cartridges really were simple to use, and the 35mm width film was easily processed in standard machines with just a small adaptation of printing masks.

AgX · Dec 6, 2013

But Disc and APS films were not propriatory in processing (and at that I refered at), all photo-finishers accepted them.

Kodachrome Sheet film processing

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency