Kodachrome

Photo Engineer said:

The current Kodachrome process is very very different from what Mannes and Godowsky devised.

Click to expand...

Was there ever a Kodachrome process that was more conducive to processing on a smaller scale (like a well equiped home darkroom)? One would think if a musician invented it on his own, the process would not be entirely out of amateur reach.

dmr said:

Why would you cringe? That's a very good article.

...

Click to expand...

dmr,

Wikipedia has earned a well-deserved reputation for bogus listings because it is totally open-source with no fact-checking whatsoever.

While there is much good stuff to be had, if I were a teacher/professor of any integrity I would fail any student who used Wikepedia as their only research source.

That's why I said I also "fact checked" on other sites.

Wikepedia is the "Fox News" version of encyclopedias!

3Dfan said:

Was there ever a Kodachrome process that was more conducive to processing on a smaller scale (like a well equiped home darkroom)? One would think if a musician invented it on his own, the process would not be entirely out of amateur reach.

Click to expand...

Kodachrome has always been processable in a home darkroom. No one that I know of is willing to endure the long hours and great expense to do it though. After all, a 2.5 hour process with lots of chemicals is rather tedious.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Kodachrome has always been processable in a home darkroom. No one that I know of is willing to endure the long hours and great expense to do it though. After all, a 2.5 hour process with lots of chemicals is rather tedious.

Click to expand...

You make a good point - though it is, as you said, highly unlikely to be done in a home darkroom when simpler processes, such as E-6 are available, or a professional lab.

Given that I have barely the time to shoot, I turn over my processing needs to a "pro" - as well as contact sheet/prints - so this is less of a concern (yet ).

copake_ham said:

Wikepedia is the "Fox News" version of encyclopedias!

Click to expand...

Fair and balanced?

dmr said:

Fair and balanced?

Click to expand...

Ummm...yes. And neither allows little things like the "facts" get in the way of a good story.

Kodachrome has always been processable in a home darkroom. No one that I know of is willing to endure the long hours and great expense to do it though. After all, a 2.5 hour process with lots of chemicals is rather tedious.

Click to expand...

When I was in high school in the 70's my friends and I dreamed of this. If I had only known and could have got the chemicals and instructions I would have done it. We started with E4 and then E6, buying 100ft rolls and bulk loading. Our parent's water bills were cause for grief! Oh for the good ole' days!

While we are on the topic of kodachrome, is there any substantial difference between the consumer and professional versions?

3Dfan said:

While we are on the topic of kodachrome, is there any substantial difference between the consumer and professional versions?

Click to expand...

Different latent image keeping qualities and slightly different tolerance on color balance variations IIRC.

I might add that Fuji has different criteria for their consumer and professional films than EK. Theirs are posted on their web site.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Different latent image keeping qualities...

Click to expand...

Now that's interesting Ron. Everything I ever read about the professional Kodachrome versions said they were simply the normal product aged until reaching a much tighter color balance aim point, then put in cold storage for distribution, and they carried expiration dates calculated to ensure staying in balance assuming continued cold storage. Your comment about different latent image keeping qualities implies actual emulsion differences.

There are differences in formula between the two. AFAIK, Kodak does not age the film, but this may have changed. It is kept at the factory after manufacture, just due to shipping schedules. However, the professional product is made to tighter color balance tolerance, and the pro is expected to keep his film under better circumstances (and for less time) than the amateur.

PE

Pro vs Consumer

I've had the distinct impression that there are differant recommendations for push processing Kodachrome 200 Pro and consumer versions. Maybe this language is soley to target proffesionals (more likely to push-process) for the promotion of the more expensive Pro version. My gut is that the supposed aging, better "Pro film" storage in stores, and shorter expiration date make for a less pronounced color shift when pushed and in general-for this magenta happy film.

I just got about 1700 Kodachrome slides in the mail...all from the 1950's and early 1960's. First thing first, as with every other Kodachrome I have, they are BEAUTIFUL. Not faded--looks like they were taken yesterday. As I was going through them, all I could think about was how much I want to shoot some medium or large format Kodachrome! It's so unfair!!! Maybe when the patent runs out on it someone somewhere will make it again...yeah. Right.

tjaded said:

I just got about 1700 Kodachrome slides in the mail...all from the 1950's and early 1960's. First thing first, as with every other Kodachrome I have, they are BEAUTIFUL. Not faded--looks like they were taken yesterday. As I was going through them, all I could think about was how much I want to shoot some medium or large format Kodachrome! It's so unfair!!! Maybe when the patent runs out on it someone somewhere will make it again...yeah. Right.

Click to expand...

I've said it before and here it is again.

The patents have run out. In fact, Kodak has 'released' the patent for the process. I'm not sure of the technical term, I forget, but if you look it up you will see that message appended to the last page of the official document from the USPO. Anyone is free to use the process or AFAIK make the film.

The problem is multifold:

1. It is an expensive and hard to make film.

2. It is a very expensive process to mix and maintain.

3. The market is very very tiny and has been shrinking steadily since the introduction of E6.

No one, but a very tiny dedicated minority wants it.

PE

I'm just dreaming. I don't really expect anyone (Kodak or otherwise) to do anything about Kodachrome other than let it die a slow death. The real world hasn't given me much hope lately, so I just hang out in the lala world in my head!

MMfoto said:

I've had the distinct impression that there are differant recommendations for push processing Kodachrome 200 Pro and consumer versions. Maybe this language is soley to target proffesionals (more likely to push-process) for the promotion of the more expensive Pro version. My gut is that the supposed aging, better "Pro film" storage in stores, and shorter expiration date make for a less pronounced color shift when pushed and in general-for this magenta happy film.

Click to expand...

Kodak mentions on its web site that pro films are more pushable than consumer films.

PE

I just read thru the Kodak processing steps for k-chrome, and boy howdy, there is a lot to go wrong. It also seems to me that the frequent photographer complaint of 'over-magenta' might be due to some slight development 'deviation', for it seems that the magenta processing step seems the most difficult. No matter, I've still got plenty of K200 and some K25 stashed in the freezer to shoot.

Photo Engineer said:

Kodak mentions on its web site that pro films are more pushable than consumer films.

PE

Click to expand...

If pro and consumer films responds differantly to push processing than wouldn't the two versions necessarily have at least slightly differant "normal" charactoristics?

BTW, I've only tried a couple of times, but I've never had much luck pushing "Select" Kodachrome 200, though I really like this film otherwise. Never tried the now extinct Pro version, too expensive, too late.

Does Kodak publish production figures? I'd love to know just how many rolls of Kodachrome are actually sold each year.

MMfoto said:

If pro and consumer films responds differantly to push processing than wouldn't the two versions necessarily have at least slightly differant "normal" charactoristics?

Click to expand...

Yes, I listed some of them above.

PE

MMfoto said:

Does Kodak publish production figures? I'd love to know just how many rolls of Kodachrome are actually sold each year.

Click to expand...

No they don't publish these figures.

This product used to be produced 24/7/365 and now it is only made in very small quantity.

PE

The original film the Leopolds invented was a two-color system (two-color schemes had a long and varied history, starting prior to the Leopolds' work, and continuing long after; even in the '50s or '60s Polaroid did two-color experiments before finally coming out with three-color Polacolor).

By the time Kodak released it, it was a three-color system, but the process bore little resemblance to everything used since the short lifespan of that initial version.

The processing consisted of successive bleach/develop/dry cycles, with each bleach stage being precisely timed. The stories of the Leopolds using a metronome to time the process most likely had to do with the extremely critical bleach stage timing.

For the first stage, aimed at processing the deepest layer (the layer next to the film base), the film -- all three layers -- was bleached, re-exposed to white light, and then developed with a developer that contained a silver developer, a color developing agent, and a color coupler for that layer's intended color (Yellow, I believe).

After the development (of that stage) was complete all three layers were processed -- and, they were all colored with the same color dye!

The film was then dried (after a wash, and possibly a stop bath prior to the wash).

After it was dry, it was given a very precisely timed bleach bath. The timing was critical, because the bleach would not only rehalogenate the silver image, but it would also destroy the dye image (shades of Cibachrome!)

After the exactly right amount of bleaching, the top two color layers (Cyan and Magenta, IIRC) were bleached, leaving ONLY the bottom layer developed and dye-colored.

The process was then repeated (this time, the top two layers were developed and dyed the same color (Magenta, I believe).

The third (final) step required a shorter bleach time, since only the topmost layer was to be bleached and redeveloped.

The whole thing sounds a bit Rube Goldberg, and as you can imagine everything was extremely critical. If anything was the least bit "off" (time, temperature, agitation), the critical bleaching steps would either penetrate the film too deeply, and affect the already-completed layer(s) beneath, or, not penetrate deeply enough. Either case would wreak havoc with color balance, density, etc.

This process was what comprised Kodachrome from the time it was released in the late 1930s, until the second incarnation which followed a few short years later, which used the selective-reexposure system that is still in use today. Gone was the need to repeatedly bleach and dry the film. In the place of that incredibly complex and demanding system, a fairly "simple" system with much higher reliability and color purity was released.

When you look at very old Kodachromes, you'll find that some of them look pretty awful, but others, just a year or two less-ancient, will look like they were shot yesterday. That's the cutoff point between the two processing systems.

tjaded said:

I'm just dreaming. I don't really expect anyone (Kodak or otherwise) to do anything about Kodachrome other than let it die a slow death. The real world hasn't given me much hope lately, so I just hang out in the lala world in my head!

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in the real world, there is a photographer who has dedicated all his resources to seeing that not only does it not die a quiet, slow death, but goes out with a bang. He shoots it every day in his Hasselblad XPan and Leica M6 with the very sharpest lenses made. He has some 1,300 rolls of it in deep freeze and even has close to 200 rolls of the last batch of 25. He is gaining the interest and support of those who would give large grants, is in constant communication with National Geographic photographers and has spent tens of thousands making sure that this stuff gets the tribute it well deserves.

For this photographer believes in it. He believes that in his 30+ years of shooting, nothing, and I mean N*O*T*H*I*N*G looks as good as perfectly shot Kodachrome......

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=646266

Don't be retarded folks, it is not gone, it is great and it IS better than anything out there if you are passionate and dedicated enough to reveal that.

I was dropping off film at a local lab Friday when a woman came in to have prints made from some snapshots of her parent's wedding, as a gift for their 50th anniversary. The Kodachromes looked like they were developed yesterday. I told her what I tell everyone, which is that people should shoot more of it to make sure that their family photos look just as good in 50 years.

PKM: Amen.