Kodachrome
-
A
- Thread starter Sarath
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Status
I've got a couple Kodachrome prints, from the 40's on the white (acetate?) medium. Direct print from a slide. Nice stuff.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
Isn't that what EKCO did with all consumer 35 mm film? And why did they add so much leader and trailer? Was the film path in the processor ~ 5000 feet long?
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 503
MattKing is referring to the fact that the Kodachrome processing machinery was of the "continuous" type, which requires that the entire machine be threaded up in order to run. Thus the large amount of leader/trailer. Seems odd to someone used to home processing, but it was/is standard practice in high-volume applications. Things are done differently- when on an industrial scale.
MattKing
Moderator
The very long leader and trailer were there because of the method used to ensure that the continuous roll of film (travelling at high speeds) spent different amounts of time in the different chemical baths.
The K-14 machine that I was able to see operating used large amounts of power, and made an absolutely tremendous amount of noise.
As for other machines and other processes, I know that the Ektachrome line in the same lab was definitely smaller capacity. No negative materials were processed at that lab, nor were there any prints made there, so I didn't have any direct knowledge of what sort of capacity the Kodak Canada labs had for those.
The largest non-Kodak negative processing or print processing machines I ever saw were much, much smaller than the Kodachrome machines.
I don't know what sort of machines were used for sheet film Kodachrome, but there might have been only one of them. There were specialty materials taken in at my Dad's lab that had to be forwarded to Rochester, Palo Alto or possibly other labs with special capacities.
The K-14 machine that I was able to see operating used large amounts of power, and made an absolutely tremendous amount of noise.
As for other machines and other processes, I know that the Ektachrome line in the same lab was definitely smaller capacity. No negative materials were processed at that lab, nor were there any prints made there, so I didn't have any direct knowledge of what sort of capacity the Kodak Canada labs had for those.
The largest non-Kodak negative processing or print processing machines I ever saw were much, much smaller than the Kodachrome machines.
I don't know what sort of machines were used for sheet film Kodachrome, but there might have been only one of them. There were specialty materials taken in at my Dad's lab that had to be forwarded to Rochester, Palo Alto or possibly other labs with special capacities.
When Kodachrome sheet film was available I always wondered how they processed it. From the marks I have seen, it looks like typical cleat holders in a dip and dunk machine, like used for C41 and E6. I suspect anyone who would know is long dead.
From literature at the time, the only sheet processing facilities were at Rochester and Hollywood.
Is that what somebody like Horst P Horst would have shot his fashion color photos with.?
Things are still threaded the same way. Thus this is no argument on leader length.
Furthermore, if a camera has no auto-stop, the end piece cannot be lengthened for sure by the film manufacturer.
If you refer to a leader/trailer used at a photofinisher to start resp. stop his processing machine, such need is obvious. Unless such machine is self-threading. And not worth discussing. This procedure has been already been applied at manufacturing the film.
Last edited:
Kodachrome was used to make 35mm films, however that was the original Kodachrom based on John Thornton's Colour Film Patentand lecenced by Eastman Kodak. John Thornton 's Film Pack Patent was also icenced by Kpdak, his original company had become Tornton Pickard but he lost control to the Pickard family and was ousted.
GEK Mees had a habit of re-using older brand names Verichrome (originally a pre WWI Wratten and Wainwright emulsion) and Kodachrome are two examples. The original Kodachrome was a two colour emulsion, the name was revived for the newer 3 colour emulsion using entirely different technology..
Commercially modern Kodachrome wasn't suitable for 35mm film production, film companies required fast turnaround on processing, as Matt mentioned outside the US all film had to go to a Kodak lab for processing and there weren't many around the world, Most films are shot on Negative stock, Kodachrome is a reversal film. Exposure and processing is tightly controlled with a degree of pushing and pulling to ensure matches, that requires fast tests to achieve consistency, that rules out slow & inflexible processing, instead the labs would be close to the film studios,
Ian
Both Kodak and Agfa started early designing a negative-positive process. Though seemingly at different times.
Agfa started already long before releasing their reversal film.One should not overlook that designing a feasible neg/pos system is more complicated than just skipping the reversal stage and instead coating just a second stage intended to be the final one.
During this process Kodak left the Kodachrome principle and turned to Agfa's approach of couplers embedded in the emulsion. Here they chose a different way of keeping the couplers within the resp. layer than Agfa. Seemingly after in vain having knocked at Agfa's door.
Agfa already in 1939 presented the first movie made on the neg/pos process. But due to ongoing R&D the first full-feature movie reached the cinemas only in 1942
The same year Agfa also offered neg/pos materials for paper prints. Due to the war effort and reduced free production capacity only to chosen photographers.
Kodak offered in 1941 their first paper prints process. Not yet based on a neg/pos process but on a reversal/reversal system, thus twice the Kodachrome process. The base of prints actually was white TAC and not paper.
Agfa Ansco offered similar reversal/reversal process, also on plastic base. But with embedded couplers as in Agfacolor. But it took them until 1943 to start series production and only for the US milittary.
Kodak needed two more years than Agfa to present a neg/pos system. But then it was ready for mass production at once. It was for making paper prints.
And for Kodak to release a neg/pos system for moviemaking took them 8 years(!) longer than Agfa.
Agfa started already long before releasing their reversal film.One should not overlook that designing a feasible neg/pos system is more complicated than just skipping the reversal stage and instead coating just a second stage intended to be the final one.
During this process Kodak left the Kodachrome principle and turned to Agfa's approach of couplers embedded in the emulsion. Here they chose a different way of keeping the couplers within the resp. layer than Agfa. Seemingly after in vain having knocked at Agfa's door.
Agfa already in 1939 presented the first movie made on the neg/pos process. But due to ongoing R&D the first full-feature movie reached the cinemas only in 1942
The same year Agfa also offered neg/pos materials for paper prints. Due to the war effort and reduced free production capacity only to chosen photographers.
Kodak offered in 1941 their first paper prints process. Not yet based on a neg/pos process but on a reversal/reversal system, thus twice the Kodachrome process. The base of prints actually was white TAC and not paper.
Agfa Ansco offered similar reversal/reversal process, also on plastic base. But with embedded couplers as in Agfacolor. But it took them until 1943 to start series production and only for the US milittary.
Kodak needed two more years than Agfa to present a neg/pos system. But then it was ready for mass production at once. It was for making paper prints.
And for Kodak to release a neg/pos system for moviemaking took them 8 years(!) longer than Agfa.
One may argue that Kodak long time did not see a relevant market for them for a neg/pos cine system. The US market was big enough for true printed copies, and after the war the home film industry in Europe lay down. Only when a serious and financially sound movie industry arose it made sense for Kodak to offer them a neg/pos system.
The US had Technicolor which was incredibly complex but resulted in some of the most beautiful color films ever made. George Eastman Museum website has a brief video that explains the Technicolor process, amazing!
MattKing
Moderator
The only movie I ever made was shot on Super 8 Kodachrome. It was edited using a cutter and film cement. I was 15 at the time, and I vaguely remember it being awful!
A cinematographer, I'm not!
A cinematographer, I'm not!
For those intrepid tinkerers out there still trying to revive K-14, a thought. One of the trickiest parts of this process is the necessity for controlled flashing with colored lights, first from the front, then from the rear as part of the reversal step. This more than anything else makes the process awkward/unsuitable for tank-and-reel processing, tough it is no particular obstacle to machine processing. Suppose one did away with the reversal step altogether and processed it as a color negative? Several steps would be eliminated and color images would still be recoverable from old rolls, with the bonus that the film (save for remjet removal) could remain on the reel.
No the initial development was B&W the colour flashing exposure wasthe reversal stage. the best explanation of Kodacrome was written by Viscount D.A Soencer in Colour Photography in Practice, I think Pitmans,. Spencer was actually a Director of Kodak Ltd here in the UK and worked with Kodak's Harrow Research facility, my copy is early but the book was updated and reprinted many times.
Some B&W eversal processes like Pathescope used variable 2nd exposure as a control. it's often forgotten that many of Kodaks vin technology came from the AHarrow research facility, T-grain films for example. But lets not forget that both Kodaks Rochester and Harrow Research facilities were for decades run by former Wraten and Wainwright emplyees who had been employed by GEK Mees.
Ian
Amazing work! Your post finally forced me to make an account after years of lurking around A̶P̶U̶G̶ Phorio.
I've got a hot tip you might be interested in since you seem to be based in the UK, mainly: The Kodak Historical Archive at the British Library (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS032-002405150)
The archive was transferred over from Kodak Ltd. in 2009 and contains a treasure trove of technical, business, process, and historical documents, unfortunately it isn't digitized but the documents are avaliable in the library's Asian and African Studies Reading Room.
I initially learned about it while looking into the feasibility of a similar DIY Kodachrome processing project a while back (that never ended up materializing). And while I never managed to make it over to London to access any of the files, I did undertake a basic non-exhaustive search of the finding aid/catalog and identified a few key documents relevant to Kodachrome that you might be interested in:
"Manual for the Processing of 8mm and 16mm Kodachrome film, with supplements, 1961-1968.An extensive manual detailing the method for processing Kodachrome II.Subject(s): D. and P.; Kodachrome II" (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002405975)
"Technical Information Approval, dated 27 February 1969, Kodachrome Film process K-12F.Describes the detailed process steps.Subject(s): Products; Film; Processing" (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002406715)
"Reminiscences on Kodachrome Film Pre-1935 to 1977, containing contributions from T. H. Miller, L. Godowsky, J. Wechsburg, H. W. Staubach and W. T. Hanson, Jr, magazine cuttings and advertisements, compiled by Peter Sutherst, September 1983.Corporate;" (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002407948)
"A file of correspondence dealing with the German patents of Mannes and Godowsky for colour photography.The majority of the documents are in German.Subject(s): IP; Patents; Colour; Kodachrome" [note: content note indicates that most of this file is in German] (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002406865)
"A. J. Beckinsale, Kodachrome. Some questions and the answers, 30 March 1936, 9pp.; I. A. Hookham, Research Laboratory, dated 5 February, report on C. E. K. Mees' lecture to the British Kinematographic Society, 29 January 1936, on Kodachrome; Kodak" (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002406799)
And for those interested in highly compartmentalized and secret processing volumes:
"Film processing schedules, charts and statistics showing the volume of film processed by film type, c.1950–1968.Includes motion picture and Kodachrome film.Subject(s): Charts; Film; Processing" (http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS040-002406260)
The first two documents seem most relevant to your research and hopefully you (or someone else in the community) can make the trip down to the Archives and finally access them. If anyone does manage to access the archive/make some copies please post about it as I'm sure it'd be of interest to many on the forum.
Hope you find this helpful,
Peter C
P.S. The archive additionally notes that "The main Kodak research library was transferred to De Montfort University." so they might have some additional documents (but I haven't done much research into their archival finding aids).
Also already in the early stages of colour photography there was research on such matters, including selective exposure during processing, by others than Kodak, or even Agfa.
But this all is typically overlooked in an obsession with Kodachrome.
But to be fair this is partly also due to manufacturers having lost interest in their own history.
A pointless post because it isn't going to happen. This has been chewed over time and time again and is frankly getting boring
Sorry AG It was meant to be the very first one. Pointless because every time (and there have been many) this has been raised the end result is always more or less the same.
Yet you clicked on the title regardless. Your statement fails to hold water.
It doesn't fail to hold water because it is completely pointless question and a waste of bandwidth, 'cos it ain't going to happen. Just to highlight that it is a resurgence of well chewed topic from the recent past and totally pointless . Ever heard of the phrase 'Let sleeping dogs lie'.
- Status
| 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:  |