• 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 - Totally dead?

Forum statistics

Threads
203,120
Messages
2,850,073
Members
101,679
Latest member
thatguysitanio
Recent bookmarks
1
Look, Kodak couldn't even keep E6 in production profitably and Fuji has canceled all but two E6 films. There is just no demand for it, so what on earth would make anyone think Kodachrome, with its much more involved processing requirements dictating a whole additional infrastructure, could ever be?

It's dead. Remember it well, but use what's available now and try to keep it.
 
Today, even a Kodachrome app wouldn't be profitable.
 
Find one of these awfully rich people that don't even know what to do with so much money, convince one or a few of them; and have them put this spare change they have into film.
With that one could pay all what is needed.
 
Yeah, maybe Warren Buffet will decide to finance a big new Kodachrome facility. You'll know the day that'll happen is the day after you won the powerball lottery, and hit a hole-in-one, and found a 4 leaf clover all in the same day. And your wife made your favorite strawberry shortcake for dessert.
 
Have you noticed that Elvis has not has a new release in years? Neither has Janice Joplin or Jim Morrison. But Jimi Hendrix, bless his soul, is still turning out new albums.

I do not expect Kodachrome to achieve what Jimi has since he passed on.
 
For some reason Monty Python still lives, even though it was produced in 1969. It's been revived many times. Why not Kodachrome? It's merely a matter for the market demand to offer a profit. If people are manufacturing their own black and white emulsions, why is it so unlikely that they will manufacture the three black and white emulsions necessary to produce Kodachrome?

To quote Mark Twain, "The reports of Kodachrome's death are greatly exaggerated."
 
For some reason Monty Python still lives, even though it was produced in 1969. It's been revived many times. Why not Kodachrome? It's merely a matter for the market demand to offer a profit. If people are manufacturing their own black and white emulsions, why is it so unlikely that they will manufacture the three black and white emulsions necessary to produce Kodachrome?

To quote Mark Twain, "The reports of Kodachrome's death are greatly exaggerated."

Ok, so let's say some sadomasochistic lunatic with money to blow decides to waste some time and make Kodachrome again, who is ever going to process it? I would say that for something like that to even to have a remote chance, someone would have to offer reliable, consistently high quality processing and that's just never going to happen either.
And, how many people do you think, in the whole US of A, as an example, manufacture their own black and white emulsions? Twenty, forty? I mean, let's be realistic, really. A few enthusiastic hobbyists don't make a market.
 
Why worry about where to process it? If that millionaire were to step up, I'm sure a little extra cash would be spent to make Kodachrome instant film :smile:

I never had the opportunity to try Kodachrome, and wish I had. However, it's not the type of thing that would easily come back.
 
I suppose if people can develop their film with coffee, and The Impossible Project can manufacture film for Polaroid cameras I suppose anything could be possible (although probably not too likely).

Of course the IP film isn't like the original and is still going thru a process of being redeveloped and new film coming out, but I suppose it would be possible for other films to be recreated. I just don't know how feasible it would be.

Didn't Dwayne's have the last machine to develop it? Even if someone someday was able to recreate the film getting it developed would be the other part of the process to be considered.
 
Ok, so let's say some sadomasochistic lunatic with money to blow decides to waste some time and make Kodachrome again, who is ever going to process it?

PE...

In the barn...

By hand...

In chains...

:eek::eek::eek:

Jim
 
If you would like to get an idea what processing Kodachrome is like, here is an exercise you can try. Reversal process a frame of B/W film using hair dye as the color developer. You need a hair dye that contains p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) and color couplers. These sort of dyes are pretty common - I used the brand "Touch of Gray" for my experiment. Most hair dye works on a similar principle as color film. (Or color film works on the same principle as hair dye.) The PPD will function as your color developer and the oxidized PPD will react with the coupler to form the dye.

I used a hand coated emulsion that I made. IDK if commercial film would work but it might. I was able to get a weak positive dye image. Maybe with tweaking and experimentation a better image would be possible. This worked the one time I tried it. YMMV.

Using one frame of film follow these steps:

1) Expose your frame in camera.
2) First develop the film using any developer you like. I used D-23. Under-developing might be a good idea.
3) Rinse the film
4) Now fog (or re-expose) using white light or a flash. I exposed for 3 minutes and this was likely way too long. If I did this again I'd use a flash. The re-exposure step make the remaining silver halides ready to be developed to metallic silver.
5) Mix your color developer. Fill a small container with DW. If your hair dye was in a tube like mine, put the tip of the tube under the surface of the water to avoid excess exposure to air. Squeeze some of the hair dye into the water. Top up the container if required and stir to mix. Don't worry about mixing too much because this mixture will not keep (sound familiar?). As the solution is exposed to air the PPD will oxidize and the coupler will couple with it and turn into dye, leaving the "developer" useless before long, say 20 minutes. Tightly covering the container will slow down the process.
6) Get the film into the "color developer." Leave the film in the color developer for about 15 minutes, agitating every once in a while. The PPD oxidizes by reducing the re-exposed halides. The oxidized developer reacts with the coupler to form the dye.
7) Pull the film out of the developer and rinse. The film will be totally black at this point.
8) Put the film into a bleach. You can use the C-22 ferricyanide type bleach found posted here on APUG. Let this sit for about 6 minutes or more.
9) Pull the film out of the bleach and rinse.
10) Put the film in a fixer and let all of the silver fix out.
11) After fixing, wash the film thoroughly and dry.

Any more questions on why nobody wants to do Kodachrome type processing? Remember steps 4 to 7 have to be repeated for all 3 colors if you can expose with the proper filters. Steps 4 to 8 have to be repeated if differential bleaching is being used.

After all that you should get a weak positive dye image. One problem is that hair dye often contains extra oxidizing agents and this, of course, causes all the gelatin to stain. I got this,

13-H-J-F-1-Scan-131217-0002.jpg

If you look hard, you can see the positive of the (fake) Macbeth chart I photographed. It has a white border and is on a clipboard. To the right is a box of washing soda, the "Touch of Gray" box, and a plastic bottle of isopropyl alcohol. You can barely make them out if you look really hard. Of course, the actual dye image is the brown that my hair used to be before I gave up on trying to color it.

Maybe someone could experiment and use funky colored cyan, yellow and magenta hair dye to pull off 3 color development. These colors are available. (You would find them in use in any high school.) I'm surely not saying "Kodachrome lovers of the world unite" but after a couple of cases of hair dye maybe it would work. As far as I am concerned, the fellow that managed to color process some K-64 was right on when he said to let the K-14 process rest in peace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's heresy but - it isn't even worth it, even if it could happen. It was actually inferior to modern E6 films anyway. We loved it, and I did too, because of its unique look, but as PE has pointed out that came from problems with the cyan dye among other things. Caucasian skin tones could look ghastly chalky white at times, ok at others, and I was never sure what determined which it would be. Reds were incredible, but not exactly balanced.

Shoot the E6 we have left and enjoy it. Use one of the above heretical methods to mess with the colors from a scan and make it look similar if you really want to.
 
In many ways troubled products are like sputtering cars. Vastly easier to keep running, than restart.

Monte Python, Doctor Who, and other efforts are much easier. The technology is all there, one does not even need to use anyone who has dome much more than seen or read of the former.

Our memories fill in many of the blanks; and close, semi-close, or even different but improved, becomes good enough.

Kodachrome is different. It would be instantly tested, and compared to the original in the most minute of details. Anything short of an identical twin would be unacceptable. And then what? This is a product that could not compete in a relatively healthy film market.

I loved it, used it, and miss it. We were unable to keep it when all that need be done was not to turn the machines off. To believe someone will raise it from the dead, seems a fool's errand to me.
 
YES!!! +1 for closing this thread. Believe me, my post above was to point out what a fools errand the whole thing is today. K-14 rest in peace.
 
As coroner, I must aver
I thoroughly examined her
And she's not only merely dead
She's really, most sincerely dead!
 
Not sure why you wouldn't just want to make the same emulsion with the dye couplers incorporated into the film instead of the developer(s). I don't see any advantage in not doing that.
 
I like Kodachrome. I like reading about Kodachome. It's an interesting historical topic. It's a harmless historical topic. It's a film-related historical topic discussed on a film-related forum. And reading posts about it is a pleasant way to pass the time.

:smile:

This thread will run its course, as have those that preceded it. Then another Kodachrome thread will begin. And another after that. And the process will repeat. That's how it is with a topic that is still of historical interest to many. Especially those who have heard about it, but never got the chance to use it.

I'm still trying to understand why discussion of this discontinued film strikes such unimaginable terror into so many. Especially with an Ignore Thread option readily available.

The film does not scare me at all. So I don't get it.

Please explain...

Ken
 
I'm sure that it could be made again, but you have to ask yourself why? Consider the amount of people shooting film these days, then whittle that amount down by considering how many people shoot not just color film, but color slide film. That is not much of a market. If you're interested in doing something like this for handmade "art", there are a lot of ways you could make an ersatz piece by simpler, one off techniques. Faux Kodachrome sort of deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan, what you propose is called E6! :D

Ken, you should sit down and read the patents then. That would give you hours of amusement.

And this thread serves no useful purpose in the face of the many many others.

PE
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom