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
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
This does bring up the question of whether small processing runs periodically would be practical. I think someone said you really needed a chemist on staff to tweak the solutions daily, but that's to keep it running. Set up one lab in the world that processes it one month a year, save up all your K-14 and send it in.
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.
This does bring up the question of whether small processing runs periodically would be practical. I think someone said you really needed a chemist on staff to tweak the solutions daily, but that's to keep it running. Set up one lab in the world that processes it one month a year, save up all your K-14 and send it in.
All we have to do is get the large numbers of individuals needed to petition and support the return of Kodachrome. Easy enough!
All we have to do is get the large numbers of individuals needed to petition and support the return of Kodachrome. Easy enough!
I think APUG needs a Kodachrome sub-forum, that is blocked from internet search engines, and is easily excluded from the "New Posts" search.
That way, those who wanted to discuss Kodachrome could, and those that didn't want to see others discuss Kodachrome, could more easily avoid those discussions.
We could put the "is photography art" discussions there as well.
I'm assuming it would be easier, faster and cheaper just to make a new film that gave us those "nice bight colors" and "greens of Summer"
Do you, or any of the other folks asking for this, realize the economies involved? You'd need to find 10,000 people willing to commit to shooting 1000 rolls a year for thirty years at probably $30-$40/roll to get Kodak (or anyone else) to commit to reviving such a product. And that would just cover the costs of making it. You'd have to have millions of amateurs shooting <10 rolls a year to give it a profit margin. And that ain't happenin'. If it had happened 2 years ago, the product would still be in production. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was the R&D and tooling costs were paid for decades ago.
I do remember this and it being posted on the mythical 200+ pages original thread.Ahh... Here it is, Roger. From March 21, 2012. You posted only two replies after this one.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
The quotes below are attributed to Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Pasterczyk was a chemist with film R&D at Eastman Kodak. At the time of this presentation Ms. Pasterczyk was also a Member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was currently serving SMPTE as a Manager of the Hollywood Section, and National Membership Chair.
From the above link:
"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.
To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".
[Above emphasis is mine. Ken]
[Edit1: According to Linked-In, Beverly Pasterczyk is currently a Regional Technical Director at Eastman Kodak. I don't know what that title means.]
[Edit2: For the record, I have no way to verify the above quotes as being true or even accurate. Perhaps she could be emailed directly to either confirm or refute that she ever actually said these things?]
[Edit3: Digging further, it looks like the meeting itself, with Ms. Pasterczyk as the featured speaker, did in fact take place on March 20, 2012. Click here for the official SMPTE announcement. And it seems she did also discuss Kodachrome to some extent, although none of the above q&a quotes are recorded in this summary of her remarks. (Search for her name on the linked page. The meeting summary is further down that page.)]
So, I believe the original question was "Kodachrome - Totally dead?"
I dunno'. Maybe. Probably. Or perhaps if Ms. Pasterczyk really did answer the audience questions as indicated above, maybe not?
Ken
Ahh... Here it is, Roger. From March 21, 2012. You posted only two replies after this one.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
The quotes below are attributed to Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Pasterczyk was a chemist with film R&D at Eastman Kodak. At the time of this presentation Ms. Pasterczyk was also a Member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was currently serving SMPTE as a Manager of the Hollywood Section, and National Membership Chair.
From the above link:
"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.
To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".
[Above emphasis is mine. Ken]
[Edit1: According to Linked-In, Beverly Pasterczyk is currently a Regional Technical Director at Eastman Kodak. I don't know what that title means.]
[Edit2: For the record, I have no way to verify the above quotes as being true or even accurate. Perhaps she could be emailed directly to either confirm or refute that she ever actually said these things?]
[Edit3: Digging further, it looks like the meeting itself, with Ms. Pasterczyk as the featured speaker, did in fact take place on March 20, 2012. Click here for the official SMPTE announcement. And it seems she did also discuss Kodachrome to some extent, although none of the above q&a quotes are recorded in this summary of her remarks. (Search for her name on the linked page. The meeting summary is further down that page.)]
So, I believe the original question was "Kodachrome - Totally dead?"
I dunno'. Maybe. Probably. Or perhaps if Ms. Pasterczyk really did answer the audience questions as indicated above, maybe not?
Ken
If it's just high pH values, couldn't it just be brought down by adding a suitable acid before disposal/removal or whatever? If it's inherently toxic that's one thing, if it's just pH that's pretty easily adjusted, I'd think.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?