Kodachrome - Totally dead?

removed account4 · Dec 23, 2013

Athiril said:
IMHO, the processing is a bigger problem than the film itself.

naaah
alaris dhould make a run, and let the end user figure out how to process it.
just like they do with other films

falotico · Dec 23, 2013

Whoa! I haven't seen this much controversy since I told my East Coast relatives that lasagna tastes better when made with cottage cheese instead of ricotta. A few unpopular cousins died in that one. Hopefully the argument about the "K" film will pass without bloodshed.

Speaking as an attorney and someone who otherwise doesn't know a damn thing, it seems to me that the only reason to ban a particular photographic subject from APUG is that it places an undue burden on some members. This web site has attracted the participation of a group of the world's leading authorities on silver halide film. The public takes advantage of them and sends them private correspondence--PMs--full of curiosity and ideas. The mere mention of the "K" film starts a torrent of questions; BUT NINETY PER CENT OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED!

I sympathize with PE's dilemma. Now he knows how John Lennon felt when people asked him if the Beatles would ever get back together.

I suggest that the editors of APUG collate all of the posts concerning the "K" film and put them in a single data file. An ad should be placed on the APUG page saying, "All of your questions about Kodachrome answered here. (Note: individual members such as X, Y and Z will not respond to private inquiries concerning the "K" film)." I personally will donate money for such an ad if this is done. It is important that the experts who are willing to share their knowledge are appreciated and not inconvenienced.

But let us recognize that the "K" film generates a lot of interest--probably more than any other brand and model of silver halide film. The knowledgeable understand that it hasn't been profitable for many years; the public is willing to pay two dollars, but not two hundred. Nonetheless there is still a demand out there. Companies can fail when they do not give the public what it wants.

PKM-25 · Dec 23, 2013

falotico said:
Companies can fail when they do not give the public what it wants.

Or in the case of this topic, a type of film will fail if not enough people buy it and hundreds if not thousands of rolls of it become short dated like the run in 2006 that saw 2007 expiration dates flooding ebay as retailers tried to mitigate losses.

There is a great deal of knowledge on this site but not a lot of understanding of economics, there is no demand for Kodachrome at the quality level we once had and what it took to mass produce that. Maybe people who are more interested in photo technology would use a home grown Kodachrome, but no actual photographer who wants quality they can depend would be, that's for sure.

The only thing worth discussing about Kodachrome is the era and the photographs, hence my posting TWO of them now...

A super talented photographer who just *lives* light could take some Ektar 100, have it cross processed and then have the Lab Ciba do a nice optically printed Ilfochrome from it that would make people realize how utterly asinine and counterproductive it is to keep on and on about Kodachrome when Kodak-alaris makes Ektar from 35mm to large format.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 23, 2013

falotico said:
I sympathize with PE's dilemma.

It is important that the experts who are willing to share their knowledge are appreciated and not inconvenienced.

As do we all. Thus my suggestions on possible ways to prevent this from happening again without the need to censor the community as a whole. On-topic subjects should remain accessible to all who wish to discuss them.

falotico said:
But let us recognize that the "K" film generates a lot of interest--probably more than any other brand and model of silver halide film.

Some have suggested a Kodachrome-specific forum. To the extent that those who loath the topic could be successfully encouraged to stay out of that forum, I think this might be a workable solution. Of course, if they later then seek it out and start complaining again, we would be back at square one.

Another solution could be for APUG to simply declare Kodachrome as an exception to the film discussion rules and reclassify it as officially off-topic to all. That would also prevent this from happening again. Not my preferred solution, but a possible solution nevertheless.

Ken

Gerald C Koch · Dec 23, 2013

What a waste this thread is. There is not a single post that says anything that has not already been said before. No matter how many posts or threads Kodachrome is NOT coming back. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger have a better chance of being re-incarnated.

Photo Engineer · Dec 23, 2013

First, thanks Poisson du Jour for the understanding.

Second, let me note here that I don't remember the EPA reasoning on Kodachrome at all. It may have been the coupler synthesis or the waste coupler from the process.

Third, and just for Ken's benefit, Among those messages, there were phone calls which were threats and we (my wife and I) suffered through nearly 2 years of these threatening phone calls related to my posts on APUG. I have not mentioned this for years, but I did post it here to let people know that all was not well in the APUG family. And, before you say "why didn't you trace them?", we tried through the local police and the guy(s) sending them could not be traced. I now have a good idea who it was because they used a certain phrase in a PM that was used on the phone.

This affects me how? Not at all, but to lower my expectations for potential friends on APUG as I don't know the people well enough.

In any event Ken, you certainly don't seem to understand what is going on here. If I prioritized any notes I might miss some important ones, and I cannot prioritize until I read. Got that? Simple.

My expectations for you as a potential friend have taken a step downward. Especially since I am locked in a remotely located barn and my keeper has lost the key and any interest in Kodachrome. So, I eat Cream of Mush for 3 meals a day. At least he remembers that I am still here, but I worry when the snow gets too deep. He just might tire of the daily trek to the barn. At least I have an internet connection!

PE

ambaker · Dec 23, 2013

I say we get Bill Gates all drunked up, and get him to fund the return of Kodachrome. I think the odds of that, are as good or better than anything else.

It's dead Jim, dead... You get its phaser, I'll get its wallet...

BrianShaw · Dec 23, 2013

Some folks had said that many of the Kodachrome processing sites became SuperFund sites and may have extrapolated from there. I don't know if that is true or not but APUG is not the first place I have read that.

Photo Engineer · Dec 23, 2013

ambaker said:
I say we get Bill Gates all drunked up, and get him to fund the return of Kodachrome. I think the odds of that, are as good or better than anything else.

It's dead Jim, dead... You get its phaser, I'll get its wallet...

A post very similar to this was made in at least one other thread on Kodachrome.

Did you know that it was so dead that Kodak offered use of the patent to any takers way back when and no one took it up. In fact, Konica and Fuji both stopped making their K-12 products and did not move into K-14. Instead they both moved to E6.

PE

semi-ambivalent · Dec 23, 2013

falotico said:
Speaking as an attorney

Ya lost me right there buddy.

s-a

falotico · Dec 23, 2013

If the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger did come back people would complain that the cyan gives unflattering flesh tones.

BrianShaw · Dec 23, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
...Second, let me note here that I don't remember the EPA reasoning on Kodachrome at all. It may have been the coupler synthesis or the waste coupler from the process.
...

So, my apologies... I may have err'd in repeating internet "wisdom". I went hunting around and found plenty of mention of EPA and Kodachrome and Superfund but not sure much of it is authoritative. I did find a 1998 or 99 EPA report on photo processing that mentions Kodachrome as having corrosive byproduct of processing... but it was an example of a waste that needs to be properly handled and not any indictment of Kodachrome or a rationale for its discontinuance. My apologies to all.

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
What a waste this thread is. There is not a single post that says anything that has not already been said before. No matter how many posts or threads Kodachrome is NOT coming back. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger have a better chance of being re-incarnated.

Hence my comment in post #7:

Sirius Glass said:
...
Save the bandwidth for useful and possible technologies.

PKM-25 · Dec 23, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Third, and just for Ken's benefit, Among those messages, there were phone calls which were threats and we (my wife and I) suffered through nearly 2 years of these threatening phone calls related to my posts on APUG. I have not mentioned this for years, but I did post it here to let people know that all was not well in the APUG family. And, before you say "why didn't you trace them?", we tried through the local police and the guy(s) sending them could not be traced. I now have a good idea who it was because they used a certain phrase in a PM that was used on the phone.

.....................Seriously?
That's just too much, I'm speechless...

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2013

Those who were here will remember the infamous dastardly two letter troll who constantly argued with PE in post after post on the Dreaded Kodachrome has been Deleted thread that magenta is not a color and called PE some especially nasty names. All of that past crap is why some of us jumped in to direct posters to use the search engine rather than posted more of fodder that lead to the vitriol in the Dreaded Kodachrome has been Deleted thread.

Toffle · Dec 23, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Those who were here will remember the infamous dastardly two letter troll who constantly argued with PE in post after post on the Dreaded Kodachrome has been Deleted thread that magenta is not a color and called PE some especially nasty names.

WHAT????
Magenta is a colour?!?!?!

Oh, wait...
Never mind.

:munch:

Prof_Pixel · Dec 23, 2013

Rather than waste more time on Kodachrome, perhaps we can do something useful like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The answer, BTW, is at http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2576

Roger Cole · Dec 23, 2013

BrianShaw said:
Some folks had said that many of the Kodachrome processing sites became SuperFund sites and may have extrapolated from there. I don't know if that is true or not but APUG is not the first place I have read that.

I've read that WRT Ciba/Ilfochrome, but not Kodachrome.

And in the case of Ilfochrome, it's due to the corrosiveness and PH of the bleach, which I can see as a problem in large amounts but is easily neutralized in small amounts.

Truzi · Dec 23, 2013

I cannot help but notice the bulk of these posts are about whether this thread should exist.
If it weren't for the debate, I think this thread may have petered out on it's own.

I'd like to re-iterate my earlier suggestion: when a new Kodachrome post appears, we can refer the poster to the other threads by posting links (we all know the search function may not be helpful to a newer user). I'm quite sure the question will be answered by reading through those old threads.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 23, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Third, and just for Ken's benefit...

While I certainly sympathize with that unfortunate situation, if it involved the individual that I think it did it only confirms my suspicions at the time that something more was going on. That said, let me ask you this.

Is that past situation the reason that you now continue to insist on closing down and locking all Kodachrome threads on APUG?

If so, then perhaps my suggestion to have APUG formally declare the topic of Kodachrome to be off limits for all threads and posters is the way to go. As well, perhaps all past threads mentioning Kodachrome should also be purged from memory. And should a poster violate that rule, perhaps they should be instantly banned.

Would this be acceptable to you?

Regarding your criteria for choosing friends, far be it from me to ever tell someone else how they should do it. That responsibility is way beyond my pay grade.

All I can do is to relate that my own criteria does not preclude others who sometimes disagree with me. In fact, I actually prefer people around me who are willing to think for themselves, and are not afraid to make independent and alternative views known. My respect for such friends is unbounded.

What I do NOT want is to be surrounded by fawning supplicants. Sadly, lots of those live here. Some even in this thread.

This preference goes back to a very influential professor I had in college who impressed upon all of his students the overriding need to learn how to think, as opposed to learning only to memorize facts. Because of his input, I consider the questioning of conventional wisdom to be an asset in an individual, and mute rote acceptance of whatever one is told as a liability.

Of course, YMMV...

Ken

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 23, 2013

I looked into the possibility of merging this with some other Kodachrome threads, but actually, the others are all on different topics--with some overlap of course, but actually different in the way that 10 points of magenta can be different.

So what to do with this? It's not off topic for APUG, though it may be futile and repetitious, kind of like discussions of how to clear the magenta dye from TMX and other films that have it (I don't know how many of those threads we've merged by now, but it's lots).

First, let me ask that everyone avoid metadiscussion of the thread's existence within the thread. We don't want to have to go through 15 pages of responses and delete all the off-topic and metadiscussion, but if we did, I suspect we'd be down to around 5 pages. If everyone who had a genuine interest in the topic just limited themselves to the topic itself and avoided all kinds of expressions of exasperation, then there wouldn't be so much to complain about.

And please, folks, don't take on-topic discussion to PM/e-mail/or heaven forbid, the phone. If something is relevant to the thread, then post it in the thread, and don't go badgering Ron or anyone else off-forum because they didn't answer your question personally in the forum. Trust that if someone has something relevant to say, they'll say it, and it's not as if they have some private information that they will only share over e-mail with someone they don't know personally. If you do track down someone's home phone number and call them unsolicited, realize that their immediate assumption is going to be that you're mentally imbalanced, because that's just not normal internet behavior on forums like APUG.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 23, 2013

Thanks David.

If Kodachrome threads are indeed considered to be on-topic here and not subject to being shut down simply because they exist, then the entire reason for meta-discussion instantly vanishes.

And given that, my only contribution going forward is that I would absolutely love it if Kodak Alaris could at some point down the road resurrect periodic runs of Kodachrome, along with some sort of in-house or other processing solution.

Do I think that will ever happen? Nope. Never going to happen.

But I do wish it could happen. I personally would trade new Kodachrome runs for all of the current E-6 offerings out there.

Just my Kodachrome opinion. Thanks for listening...

Ken

Photo Engineer · Dec 23, 2013

To clarify, the phone threats were regarding emulsion making and not Kodachrome or Magenta. They ceased several years back after the caller claimed that his motive was that I had destroyed his life work by publishing emulsion related topics here. I guess he was saving up to do it himself. IDK. But yes Dan, they did happen, usually around 7 or 11 PM and about once per week or so. There are old posts on this here as I was pretty upset.

As for the EPA and Kodachrome, the Kodachrome process uses 3 developers with three couplers in them and uses a very high pH value. So, in terms of usage, Kodachrome can produce around 2x more pollution per unit area than E6 and much more than C41. So, even though I know no details, I do know that there were potential issues.

And, it will continue to get worse for all of us as tighter restrictions are placed on chemicals.

PE

PaulDK · Dec 23, 2013

Thanks David.

Photo Engineer · Dec 23, 2013

David, I don't mind answering questions in PMs. I didn't want to give that impression. But with Kodachrome topics it has become like Chinese water torture to me. Constant pecking away!

PE

Kodachrome - Totally dead?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency