Kodachrome

[Steve Roberts]

Back in the days when I developed slide-tape training programs (if you don't know what I'm talking about you are probably under 40 ) .

Indeed, I'm closer to 50 than to 40 and used to have a lot of fun with synchronised slide/tape shows. I used a Philips synchroniser and Sony TC105 quarter inch tape recorder (still got both). It was a good way of "upmarketing" the run-of-the-mill endless succession of slides with a commentary and music. Once everything was on tape, all that was needed was to turn up at a venue (usually a camera club, WI meeting, school, etc.,) set up the kit, hit play and then focus each slide as it appeared. The trick was in not forgetting when it was time to change Carousel magazines (which all had the zero tab removed for seamless changes). Antiquated technology now, but an interesting half-way stage between cine and a straightforward, potentially dull slide show. Audiences were a lot more receptive to something of a fixed length (usually 45mins to an hour) than to something where someone had the potential to be droning on into the small hours. Ah - happy days!

Steve

 

[Bromo33333]

Back in the days when I developed slide-tape training programs (if you don't know what I'm talking about you are probably under 40 ) we found Kodachrome to be more durable in terms of colorfastness under frequently used and prolonged projection situations. But sometimes we would just use Ektachrome slides because they were cheaper to repro in quantity; we'd just replace the slides more often.

Hey - I am under 40 (well, just, I like to think of it is "upper mid-30's" ) and I remember both the slide-tape shows (with the announcer, with a tone where you had to advance the tape in the projector), AND the warbley motion picture films at school. Most were pretty badly faded so they were kind of red and orange mostly, but this was in Missouri and school budgets weren't as high as in the coastal areas (though we didn't know any better!).

(Picked up a CD of a electronic group called "Boards of Canada" and they had a piece that used a warble that was similar to many of the nature films I saw as a kid with the atonal sythesizer music matching the atonial synthesizer music of the films! Ah memories!)

 

[Uncle Bill]

Well, after my last visit to Henry's to pick up some processed slides, I noticed that they had nice supply of Kodachrome 64. So you know what, I am going to keep shooting with it from time to time (in between the E100VS and Velvia 100) until Big Yellow decides to stop.

Put simple, don't bury it just yet. Kodachrome 64 in 35mm is still going strong, so go out and use some. When the shelves stopped being stocked that is the sign to change slide film.

Bill

PS I am under 40 too and I remember the movies and slide shows in school and thanks on the heads up on the Boards of Canada.

 

[Matt5791]

the other day I doug out some of my mother's slides from the 1950's - Kodachrome.

I put them in the projector and showed them to some non-photographer friends. They could not believe they were almost 50 years old - they look, literally, like they were taken yesterday. There is one photo of a group of friends standing next to a 1950's car - it looks like a still from a recent film production.

It is actually very strange seeing images from this period that look "modern" in terms of colour, grain and general quality.

Incidentally, there are also a lot of slides in the same box which are Ektachrome - sadly these have not weathered the years like the Kodachrome. They have lost a lot of their blue-green.

It is also worth mentioning that these slides (the Kodachrome and Ektachrome) have been stored in very poor conditions indeed - years in cold, damp and then hot and dry attics.


I love Kodachome and have shot a lot in Super8 until recently when I have started using some of the negative emulsions now offered by Kodak Super8 - the problem with K40T is that it is of course ASA25 in daylight with the 85 filter, and that is just a really frustratingly slow speed when you can't change the shutter speed!

I still shoot it in 35mm still occasionally.

Matt

 

[tjaded]

I've decided to buy a roll of Kodachrome every two weeks. Maybe that will force me to dig out my 35mm stuff and use it...either that or I will have TONS of stereo slides around! They say use it or lose it, so I will buy as often as I can just so I am not part of the problem (don't know if there is a solution to be a part of...) Heck, I was planning on doing some night photos in large format soon, maybe I'll take a 35mm along and do some night stuff in Kodachrome. Haven't tried that yet.

 

[Bromo33333]

the other day I doug out some of my mother's slides from the 1950's - Kodachrome.
[...]
It is actually very strange seeing images from this period that look "modern" in terms of colour, grain and general quality.
[...]

Yeah, it is great when you can do that!

From PhotoEngineer it looks like the "archival" nature of Ektachromes made today may just hold up just as well as Kodachrome. But from the past - who knows! [Though I am mistrustful of Dye-based anything, Ekta-, Koda-, or any of the myriad dye based color films from other companies!]

I wonder how well C-41 negatives will hold up? Anyone know? [I assume not very well]

The writing is on the wall, though, with only a couple of labs in the world that can process it, so it is just as well if E-6 films can hold up for 50 years if stored in the dark.

 

[dmr]

I wonder how well C-41 negatives will hold up? Anyone know? [I assume not very well]

Here's a link to a scan from a 35yo Kodacolor-X (I think) negative. I've found that some negatives I have from that vintage produce amazingly good results. (Yes, I know it was a precursor to C41.)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26402&cat=500&ppuser=1182

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have color negatives from the 50s and 60s that are holding up quite well. I also have C41 negatives from the 70s and 80s that are doing well also. I think that my negatives from that era are holding up better than my slides, but the slides are E1, E2, E3 and E4. I think that the E6 are doing well, but are too new to really judge.

PE

 

[MattKing]

I have color negatives from the 50s and 60s that are holding up quite well. I also have C41 negatives from the 70s and 80s that are doing well also. I think that my negatives from that era are holding up better than my slides, but the slides are E1, E2, E3 and E4. I think that the E6 are doing well, but are too new to really judge.

PE

PE:

Just a curiousity question here.

When was K12 replaced with K14, and when was E4 replaced with E6.

If anyone else has the dates, please feel free to chime in.

Matt

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE:

Just a curiousity question here.

When was K12 replaced with K14, and when was E4 replaced with E6.

If anyone else has the dates, please feel free to chime in.

Matt

Matt, I cannot remember either date exactly. The patent for K14 issued April 25th, 1972 (3,658,525), so the process came out shortly thereafter, say 1975. E6 was a little later than that, so I would put it about 1980. C41 was about 1970. Ektaprint 3 was about 1969. Sorry I can't do better than that.

Kodak tried to keep major product introductions from falling within the same year. That is one thing I do remember. We were told that we could come out a year on either side of another product, so that introduction and hype didn't overlap and tax production and marketing.

There was a very big push on to eliminate cadmium, mercury and ferricyanide and that was the object of all of these projects.

In an edit, I add this afterthought. That patent contains the entire process sequence and chemistry for Kodachrome. Have fun.

PE

 

[MattKing]

PE:

Thanks, that helps me remember when I stopped using Kodachrome II, and started using Kodachrome 25.

Matt

 

[copake_ham]

Having now burned off the last of my Kodachrome (although there may be one last roll stashed in Tucson?) I am trying our K's Elite Chrome Extra Color. I guess a "saturated" Ekta?

PE, any thoughts on this stuff as a "quasai-Kodachrome"?

 

[3Dfan]

Is it true that the original Kodachrome was invented by a pair of chamber musicians in their Rochester apartment?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I cannot say anything regarding Elite Chrome Extra Color I. I have not tried it.

Mannes and Godowsky were NYC musicians that were working on Kodachrome and attracted the attention of George Eastman. They moved to Rochester and completed the development.

This is a true story.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

I cannot say anything regarding Elite Chrome Extra Color I. I have not tried it.

Mannes and Godowsky were NYC musicians that were working on Kodachrome and attracted the attention of George Eastman. They moved to Rochester and completed the development.

This is a true story.

PE

Was Mannes the same one who started the Mannes School of Music in NYC? Sounds logical....

 

[Photo Engineer]

Was Mannes the same one who started the Mannes School of Music in NYC? Sounds logical....

IDK, sounds logical. I think Spock would agree.

PE

 

[Petzi]

Kodachrome dyes were at the leading edge of technology when the current process was developed in the 70s. Since then, no new advances have been made, but E6 film technology has advanced considerably and so has dye stability.

Why was no effort made to improve the Kodachrome products?

 

[Bromo33333]

Why was no effort made to improve the Kodachrome products?

If I were to hazard a guess - Kodak saw a better future and revenue stream from Ektachrome (simple processing) than Kodachrome (complex processing). :confused:

 

[Photo Engineer]

Why was no effort made to improve the Kodachrome products?

Kodak undertook a big development program for a 400 speed t-grain Kodachrome, but when samples were given out in the late 80s, the reception in the trade was ho-hum. The last ad for Kodachrome was in about 1990, and it shared the spotlight with Ektachrome.

I really understand how much devoted fans love the product, but the sales are next to nothing right now and have been for nearly 20 years.

PE

 

[dmr]

I'm not a darkroom guru by any means, but I found this item to be very interesting as it explains quite a bit of how Kodachrome actually works, and the steps required to process it. It's out of a manual set for the K-Lab Kodachrome processing machine.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf

The thing I found interesting is that I have always been told that actual dyes were physically added during processing (kind of like pouring Rit into a washing machine) and this document explains that the dyes are actually a byproduct of the oxidized developers and formed during processing, although one at a time, not all at once as with the Ektachrome type films.

 

[wirehead]

I'm not a darkroom guru by any means, but I found this item to be very interesting as it explains quite a bit of how Kodachrome actually works, and the steps required to process it. It's out of a manual set for the K-Lab Kodachrome processing machine.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf

The thing I found interesting is that I have always been told that actual dyes were physically added during processing (kind of like pouring Rit into a washing machine) and this document explains that the dyes are actually a byproduct of the oxidized developers and formed during processing, although one at a time, not all at once as with the Ektachrome type films.

Ever since I read the K-lab manual and how it really explained the process, I've always wondered what sort of deviant developer formulations based on the chemistry would be.

Like, controlling the contrast and range of individual layers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you use something like TriX and make 3 color exposures, it is possible to use a very simple developer similar to D76 or the like, but using a color developer and a coupler as the two imaging materials.

Then, the developer does not need to be complicated.

The complicated process, as seen in the patent, is due to the fact that the film is a multilayer and diffusion and interimage effects come into play.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

Couldn't let it go without resolution!

Mannes (with Gadowsky) was indeed the inventor of Kodachrome.

It was his parents actually founded the Mannes School of Music - which he later took charge of after selling the concept to Kodak.

Although I "cringe" to say it - and checked other sources too - this Wikepedia post does seem to explain it all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mannes

 

[dmr]

Although I "cringe" to say it - and checked other sources too - this Wikepedia post does seem to explain it all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mannes

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

One thing that caught my eye is the article refers to Kodachrome as a "chromogenic" process.

I've always been told that Kodachrome was non-chromogenic, but after studying the Kodak literature, and learning that the dyes are indeed a product of the oxidized developers, I might agree that the term "chromogenic" might be correct here.

I looked at the Wiki article on Kodachrome, and it uses the term "non-substantive" to differentiate it from the more familiar Kodacolor and Ektachrome type films we all know. (The term "chromogenic" either by itself or prefixed with "non" does not appear to be anywhere within the Wiki Kodachrome article.)

Maybe PE would care to comment about the semantics of those terms?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Chromogenic refers to films in which dyes are formed in the coating. The only non-chromogenic process today is Ilfochrome.

Substantive, means the couplers are in the film and the developing agent is in the developer, but non-substantive means that both agents are in the developer solution.

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

And, BTW, it is Godowsky not Gadowsky.

PE