Kodak ‘Investigating What it Would Take’ to Bring Back Kodachrome

removed account4 · Jan 18, 2017

farmersteve said:
Never say never!

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/

i think their investigation should include market research, and eventually they will realize
there are people that will use it a few times, some people that will hoard it and post on the internet
that they have 1000 rolls of it, and they would need to re-establish the processing infrastructure they dismantled
10+years ago. sounds like a wonderful dream for some, but unfortunately the reality is unless it is
kodachrome™ brand batteries, or cigarette lighter charger adapters or baby-wipes i don't think it will be worth the effort.
just ask polaroid ...

Fredrik Sandstrom · Jan 18, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
My post was less than clear. Rem jet is needed but it must be removed before the red exposure. That's about it.

A typical AH layer or anti static layer would not work here.

PE

Hmm? I thought a typical antihalation layer is normally dissolved by the developer. So why would that not work with Kodachrome? The first developer happens before the red re-exposure.

bdial · Jan 18, 2017

Fredrik Sandstrom said:
Hmm? I thought a typical antihalation layer is normally dissolved by the developer. So why would that not work with Kodachrome? The first developer happens before the red re-exposure.

Remjet doesn't dissolve, it must be removed mechanically. There are a number of threads about dealing with it for developing Kodachrome in B&W chemistry, and when working with cine films which also use it.

removed account4 · Jan 18, 2017

Fredrik Sandstrom said:
Hmm? I thought a typical antihalation layer is normally dissolved by the developer. So why would that not work with Kodachrome? The first developer happens before the red re-exposure.

that's where the dingo urine and walaby tears comes in handy, it dissolves remote rickety-split, or so i have heard.

Fredrik Sandstrom · Jan 18, 2017

bdial said:
Remjet doesn't dissolve, it must be removed mechanically. There are a number of threads about dealing with it for developing Kodachrome in B&W chemistry, and when working with cine films which also use it.

I know that. I'm not talking about remjet. Read the thread. It was suggested that Kodak ditch the remjet from the hypothetical "new" Kodachrome (that will not happen, so this is all academic). PE stated that the remjet is needed, that a "normal" antihalation layer would not work with Kodachrome. And I don't understand why.

kruiwagen · Jan 18, 2017

jnanian said:
i think their investigation should include market research, and eventually they will realize
there are people that will use it a few times, some people that will hoard it and post on the internet
that they have 1000 rolls of it, and they would need to re-establish the processing infrastructure they dismantled
10+years ago. sounds like a wonderful dream for some, but unfortunately the reality is unless it is
kodachrome™ brand batteries, or cigarette lighter charger adapters or baby-wipes i don't think it will be worth the effort.
just ask polaroid ...

So what was the result of your market research?

removed account4 · Jan 18, 2017

the result of my research is that it would be an utter waste of time to make kodachrome emulsion again
unless it was some sort of e6 process they just called kodachrome ™ for nostalgia sake, or knickknacks
as i mentioned. everyone needs a dc adapter for their "electronic device" and what would be better than a cheap one that sells for 2$
made for 10¢, made in the far east, sold at the "the dollar store" branded kodachrome™ if it was high-class gold and black plastic
it might even get to be lisenced by kodak and someone really famous ...
maybe i'll go on "shark tank" and pitch my idea, sound like a real winner !

Photo Engineer · Jan 18, 2017

Fredrik Sandstrom said:
I know that. I'm not talking about remjet. Read the thread. It was suggested that Kodak ditch the remjet from the hypothetical "new" Kodachrome (that will not happen, so this is all academic). PE stated that the remjet is needed, that a "normal" antihalation layer would not work with Kodachrome. And I don't understand why.

It acts as a lubricant, anti static layer, anti light piping and anti halation layer. All of this in one gelatin + carbon layer. Amazing! It takes what amounts to 4 layers in other films to do this. The light piping and anti static properties remain in some films, but none of this can remain in Kodachrome. One film is used for both motion picture and still and other films are not. That is the purpose of this powerful antistatic layer which is present during high speed runs in mp cameras.

This is a complex and technical problem which is rather lengthy in description, but to sum it up, the AH layer in many films is not removed until the fix step.

PE

LAG · Jan 18, 2017

jnanian said:
the result of my research is that it would be an utter waste of time to make kodachrome emulsion again
unless it was some sort of e6 process they just called kodachrome ™ for nostalgia sake, or knickknacks
as i mentioned...

Excuse me John

Any idea that implies bringing more film to the market sounds perfect to me, and if it also means heating more blood in the hearts of the young people, even better! But not because of the film to continue with us with them, but because of the film Photography to keep on demonstrating the huge potential of the medium that remains to be shown (except for those who believe that everything is already done with it).

We all know that in the History of Photography there were (are) processes, chemicals & films that have been stopped in time and others that have progressed (...), it's up to the individual to decide which one to use.

We can look back to repeat any aspect, but it is vital to look forward, to see the future to twist our heads with something new in which the film takes an essential part. We can still help film photography to renew its blood. And the immediate future I do not think that will bring Kodachrome to be part of our passion again, but if it arrives at some point and my hands still are able to move in the dark by then, my attitude will be just as positive as when it was with us. Which means not having complete happiness

Happiness:

It would be very nice that on this hypothetical opportunity of reappearance, each of us had the opportunity to work with it but in a complete way, with the full K-? chemical process properly marketed and at our reach (I am not talking about adaptations to E-6, nor homemade K's DIY...). That would be - for me - the best news.

These words come from a person who still has the fridge full of hopes.

Best of luck

LAG · Jan 18, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
This is a complex and technical problem ...

PE

I'm beginning to understand why you have so many messages (Your constant effort of repeating things should be more appreciated) I do not want to be rude with them nor you, but ... if only people would read more books or spent more time thinking or studying for themselves! ...

Regards!

removed account4 · Jan 18, 2017

LAG said:
Excuse me John

Any idea that implies bringing more film to the market sounds perfect to me, and if it also means heating more blood in the hearts of the young people, even better! But not because of the film to continue with us with them, but because of the film Photography to keep on demonstrating the huge potential of the medium that remains to be shown (except for those who believe that everything is already done with it).

We all know that in the History of Photography there were (are) processes, chemicals & films that have been stopped in time and others that have progressed (...), it's up to the individual to decide which one to use.

We can look back to repeat any aspect, but it is vital to look forward, to see the future to twist our heads with something new in which the film takes an essential part. We can still help film photography to renew its blood. And the immediate future I do not think that will bring Kodachrome to be part of our passion again, but if it arrives at some point and my hands still are able to move in the dark by then, my attitude will be just as positive as when it was with us. Which means not having complete happiness

Happiness:

It would be very nice that on this hypothetical opportunity of reappearance, each of us had the opportunity to work with it but in a complete way, with the full K-? chemical process properly marketed and at our reach (I am not talking about adaptations to E-6, nor homemade K's DIY...). That would be - for me - the best news.

These words come from a person who still has the fridge full of hopes.

Best of luck

it is fine by me too, but unfortunately i have a feeling it isn't feasible seeing they
would probably would have to sell massive amounts of film and processing together
( seeing the k14 process doesn't exist anymore ) like the old days of george eastman
"you push the shutter we do the rest " and all that ... to break even ... and
it seems alaris probably doesn't want a if or maybe but a sure thing, seeing they are responsible
for the pension plans of people, and reinventing kodachrome is risky business.

Nzoomed · Jan 18, 2017

I think the announcement from Kodak is a clever way of gathering market research, can you imagine the amount of bombardment they are going to get from people asking if it will become available again?

I guess that will tell them if its worth investing in reproduction.

Either that, or Kodak were incredibly stupid to make such a statement!

KenS · Jan 18, 2017

I 'could' be tempted to give it a try again... but 'back then', I gave up on Kodachrome when it was taking up to 5 to 6 weeks to have the slides returned, so changed over to Ektachrome for slides and started processing in my own darkroom. I'm still not convinced such a delay can be 'blamed' on the Postal Services.

Ken

Nzoomed · Jan 18, 2017

KenS said:
I 'could' be tempted to give it a try again... but 'back then', I gave up on Kodachrome when it was taking up to 5 to 6 weeks to have the slides returned, so changed over to Ektachrome for slides and started processing in my own darkroom. I'm still not convinced such a delay can be 'blamed' on the Postal Services.

Ken

Kodachrome would be considered a very niche product if it were to return, I for myself could not care less how long it took to get back from processing.
Its not like I dont have to wait for my E6 to get processed as it is, I even keep my exposed rolls in the fridge before sending out to the lab make it more worthwhile to send them together.

Sirius Glass · Jan 18, 2017

If Kodachrome does come back, I do not know how I will deal with hear Paul Simon singing that song.

Photo Engineer · Jan 18, 2017

Here is a simple outline of what must be done. They must re-create up to 9 emulsions and check them out with the old chemistry or with new chemistry if the old is not available. This includes keeping, spectral response, curve shape, speed, grain and sharpness. This is done in single layers and must be done in a narrow width to avoid tying up production and using huge quantities of film support and chemistry.

Then the multilayers begin to be constructed, a layer at a time. And, to do this they must have a reliable K14 process (in the case of EKtachrome, it is E6 of course). Once finished, the pilot coating is then translated to full width or stepwise from 5" to 21" to 42" or 72".

This process used to take us up to 5 years. Now, they have cut the cycle down by quite a bit, but still......

PE

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 18, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
If Kodachrome does come back, I do not know how I will deal with hear Paul Simon singing that song.

Or you could have me warble it to you... ♫ ♪
All together now —

If you took all the girls I knew when I was single,
Brought 'em all together for one night.
I know they'd never match my sweet imagination
Everything looks worse in black and white.
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away,
mama don't take my Kodachrome away—.

wiltw · Jan 18, 2017

480sparky said:
I found a reference somewhere that one person was able to soup Kodachrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process

Yeah, and it is stated, "In 2012, photographer Steven Frizza had documented success in reproducing the K-14 process manually,[2] noting its difficulty and expense."
Difficult and expensive. Two strikes against it. And then the chemistry posed environmental issues...what about that consideration, when there is a lot of chemistry to neutralize/dispose of, the third strike?! The environmental factor KO'd Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints, too, yet the discussion seems to conveniently ignore that consideration as a reason for Kodachrome to not be revived.

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 18, 2017

wiltw said:
The environmental factor KO'd Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints, too,

That is not strictly correct.

cmacd123 · Jan 18, 2017

the anti-halo layer is essential for all films, and is often a dye undercoat or a silver layer for colour film. Movie film they like the rem-jet for all the reasons mentioned.

a Silver anti halo layer could not allow the back side of film re-exposure. getting a dye layer to de-colour without messing up the colour sensitivities of the image layers (so that the re-exposure only happens where it is needed) would be very tricky.

The rem jet is quick and fast to take off (with the right equipment) and also probably allows minor base scratches to come off with it.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 18, 2017

I have processed quite a bit of ECN-2 film. Never had any problem removing the remjet coating. The one change that I make is to remove it after the fixer. Much easier when you can see what you are doing. The alkalinity of the developer softens that coating just as well as the prebath. The various baths are filtered through lab grade paper for reuse.

Cholentpot · Jan 18, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
I have processed quite a bit of ECN-2 film. Never had any problem removing the remjet coating. The one change that I make is to remove it after the fixer. Much easier when you can see what you are doing. The alkalinity of the developer softens that coating just as well as the prebath. The various baths are filtered through lab grade paper for reuse.

I've found that baking soda works as well as washing soda. I take the film off the reels after the fix before the stab and wipe them down. Fuji would come off far easier than Kodak.

Photo Engineer · Jan 18, 2017

Poisson Du Jour said:
That is not strictly correct.

Your objection is not entirely correct either.

PE

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 19, 2017

Photo Engineer said:
Your objection is not entirely correct either.

PE

I would love to release all the communication/correspondence I have had among photographers to and from the lab, and the gob-smacking, sloppy responses that were received from Europe. Very especially 2007-2009. IC wasn't doomed because of chemicals.

wiltw · Jan 19, 2017

Cibachrome P-30 chemistry was highly corrosive. My understanding is that the bleach-fix was the issue. It needed to be neutralized before disposal.

Kodak ‘Investigating What it Would Take’ to Bring Back Kodachrome

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency