Kodachrome

[MattKing]

In Canada and several other parts of the world, the film price included processing by Kodak. So while you could put your film in the mail (in the convenience envelope packaged with the film), you could also go to your local camera store/Kodak dealer, drop off the film, and then go back the next day or so and pick up the developed movies or slides, with no extra charge.

Toward the end, some of the dealers tried to institute a small handling charge, but I think Kodak squashed that.

In my case, I just handied the film to my Dad, he took it to work with him and returned at the end of the day or, in a few cases, the next day, with my processed film. Good service, eh?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In Canada and several other parts of the world, the film price included processing by Kodak. So while you could put your film in the mail (in the convenience envelope packaged with the film), you could also go to your local camera store/Kodak dealer, drop off the film, and then go back the next day or so and pick up the developed movies or slides, with no extra charge.

Toward the end, some of the dealers tried to institute a small handling charge, but I think Kodak squashed that.

The Australian experience
For a great many years the mailers were all that was needed to get the film processed by posting it to a Kodak lab or dropping in at a Kodak Kiosk (there were quite a few in the 80s to mid-1990s). There wasn't even a postage charge. There was a $12 charge for processing of Kodachrome here in Australia from about 1995 because it was processed at Vision Graphics/Sydney under contract to Kodak, and the mailers were not valid. Turn around time was 2 weeks. It was just the ticket to well and truly turn people away from the red and gold box.

 

[nolanr66]

I think it could generate sales for Kodak if they sold Kodachrome in 3 roll packs which included a mailer back to Kodak for processing. Just mail it in with a check and wait. However it's not going to happen and if they did I would not buy any. I'm finished with color film of any type.

 

[cooltouch]

I like B&W well enough, but I can't live in a monochrome world. Long live chrome!

 

[Agulliver]

I'm pretty new around APUG.....but not new to photography. If Kodachrome were to miraculously come back, I would hope for super 8 to be among the formats. In 35mm I'd buy the occasional roll. I am not big on slide photography but there was nothing else like Kodachrome. I probably only shot about 4 rolls of K64 and K200 in my life but it was amazing stuff.

Here in the UK it was always sold with processing included. Even in the latter days when it went to Swizerland or more later to Dwaynes.

 

[Punker]

So this happened today in a Facebook group..

I blurred the name so as not to violate any privacy rules but the group is open for anyone to join. He says it's a very difficult process but basically identical to Kodak's; just using alternate chemicals.

 

[mehguy]

So this happened today in a Facebook group..
View attachment 157527

I blurred the name so as not to violate any privacy rules but the group is open for anyone to join. He says it's a very difficult process but basically identical to Kodak's; just using alternate chemicals.

This is a surprise 0_O. What chemicals were exactly used in the k14 process?

 

[twelvetone12]

If you search this forum PE has posted extensive documentation, a link to the patent and even info on how to use c41 color Dev mixed with the color dyes as the developer.
Impossible no, very complex yes. The colors on the above image seem quite off, but nice work.

 

[Punker]

True. The colors may be due to the age of the film or the fact that the process hasn't been honed 100% yet. He says he'll be writing up documentation on it soon.

 

[twelvetone12]

Nice! I'm curious to see how he did it, in particular the two re-exposures if he did a whole film.
EDIT: He is actually using the Rockland toner kit!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

As I said earlier I love Kodachrome but that's a waste of time and money.

 

[flavio81]

I, as many others, are bored of the "bring back Kodachrome" threads, but this is different. If a guy is able to successfully develop Kodachrome in color and publish a workable 'recipe', then it would be rescued as an "alternate process", and that's good, considering that there are many many rolls of unused Kodachrome out there and such stock is more or less resilient to ageing.

So yay! Well done!

Of course, we're talking of a process that is not easy at all, requiring the controlled re-exposures to colored light (or "coloured light" if you're in the UK).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

True. The colors may be due to the age of the film or the fact that the process hasn't been honed 100% yet. He says he'll be writing up documentation on it soon.

For those of us who will never be on FaceHook, I hope he describes his equipment and procedure on a web site.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Without the original couplers the image stability will be bad.

They were optimized for a property called "glass transition temperature" which imparts a lot of the reported Kodachrome stability. The other part is due to the color developing agents. They are CD3, CD3 and CD6.

PE

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

"(or "coloured light" if you're in the UK)."

Or in any Commonwealth country, such as Canada!

 

[mehguy]

"(or "coloured light" if you're in the UK)."

Or in any Commonwealth country, such as Canada!

I was about to say the same thing

 

[Arctic amateur]

As I said earlier I love Kodachrome but that's a waste of time and money.

All hobbies are.

 

[ransel]

In 1985 I bought a roll of 35mm Kodachrome (II or 25, can't remember) at a yard sale for $.25. It had expired in 1964. I shot it and sent it off for processing. The mounted slides came back just as beautiful and full of vibrant colors as a fresh roll.

 

[Punker]

Looks like the gentleman that developed the Kodachrome has written a blog post about it. Apparently it's a two-tone process which now explains the colors. What's strange is that the image he posted on FB shows processed slides and in the article he uses sheet film.

Dead Link Removed

 

[Prof_Pixel]

He keeps referring to his images as 'slides'. They are more accurately large color transparencies.

 

[falotico]

There were two completely different color processes called "Kodachrome" developed at Kodak. The OP deals with the second process which used a 35mm or 16mm film that the company processed using dye couplers in the developing baths. This "Kodachrome" was put on the market in 1935. It is largely the result of two inventors, Godowsky and Mannes.

Punker is talking about an earlier process also called "Kodachrome" invented by John Capstaff around 1914. Capstaff created a beam-splitting camera that exposed a 8" x 10" glass plate to blue/green light and another similar plate to red light. The two plates were developed as negatives and then bleached with dichromate making both plates appear transparent. Then the blue light plate was dipped in a blue/green dye bath, and the red light plate was dipped in an orange dye bath. The dye would not be absorbed where there were strong silver densities, meaning that the plate was lighter where there had been greater exposure to actinic light. This differential dying due to the effects of dichromate bleach on the silver negative image used to be called the "Kodachrome effect"--that term referred to Capstaff Kodachromes only. Once dyed, the two plates were assembled in register and presented a very appealing two-color image.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Kodak book from the 40s called How to Take Good Pictures, it lists Kodachrome in MF and 4X5, was this the second process?

 

[falotico]

I have a Kodak book from the 40s called How to Take Good Pictures, it lists Kodachrome in MF and 4X5, was this the second process?

Yes. There were sheet films of various sizes for the 1935-style Kodachrome.

 

[Photo Engineer]

None of this appears to be related to modern Kodachrome.

But, you can even do 3 color "slides" up to 11x14" if you use the right process and 3 sheets of B&W film.

PE

 

[piratelogy]

Hey guys, I know this thread is a bit old but someone mentioned that it was here. I'm the person who was mentioned earlier who has developed Kodachrome. I've refined my process a LOT since the image that was posted farther up the thread, I'm now getting good color balance and pretty consistent results. The process is an absolute PITA, as many people have mentioned before but I'm pulling it off without any sort of special equipment. It's also somewhat expensive, as you can't really source the chemistry in small quantities.

I'm using couplers I'm sourcing from Sigma Aldrich, and instead of filters I'm using narrow band LED flashlights for re-exposures. I'm happy to answer any questions on my process, and I've attached two NEWER images, one shot and processed yesterday, and another from a studio session a couple weeks ago.

Both images are 35mm Kodachrome 64.

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed