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

[Theo Sulphate]

Make Kodak Great Again?

I know nothing about how Kodak was managed over the decades, but I think they performed very well. The fact is, with the rise of digital photography, film as a product could not be sustained at the levels it had been before. Of course, we all know that.

 

[mshchem]

Rumor has it Theresa May, UK, Prime minister is coming to meet with Trump this Friday. Reliable inside sources have confirmed, that an Anglo-American pact is being formed, that will allow Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris to jointly bring back Kodachrome 25, 64, and 200. It will be available in all common roll films and sheets upto 8x10.

At the same time Apple will announce the I-SX-70, SLR Timezero camera phone. 12 exposure pack film, with a flashbar that is powered by the phone's rechargeable Li ion battery. (By eliminating the battery in the pack they can get 2 more sheets of film in)

Make America Analog Again! Mike

 

[keenmaster486]

Make America Analog Again!

THIS IS IT.

This should be our anthem and our rallying cry. MAKE AMERICA ANALOG AGAIN.

We could start a whole website based on that slogan.

Great marketing, folks. That's what the analog community needs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is Trump's fault that we do not have Kodachrome, Plus X and HIE!

 

[flavio81]

It is Trump's fault that we do not have Kodachrome, Plus X and HIE!

Quite the opposite, Mr. Trump wants us to drop that made-in-japan, made-in-china digital cameras, and get back to using made-in-USA Kodak Film with good-old-made-in-the-USA Kodak Medalist cameras!!

What is more "american" than a 6x9 handheld camera? It's the equivalent of the "supersize" french fries at McDonalds... double the size, double the fun!

Make America Analog AGAIN!

Also: Trump to stop manufacturing of 120-size film in favor of 620-size film. You read it here first.

 

[Craig]

the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached.

Tri-X is very different to what it was in the 50's yet people seem to still like it. I'm sure that if Kodak were to come out with a revised Kodachrome they would make sure to keep the look and feel of the film similar to the original. They would be no point in reintroducing it otherwise.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It is Trump's fault that we do not have Kodachrome, Plus X and HIE!

Well, actually I do wonder why we lost HIE. If Rollei (Agfa?) can profitably make that almost-IR film, why couldn't HIE survive?

The new stuff I don't like. With HIE I could use a red (#25) filter on an SLR and see what I was photographing. With the new stuff, it's sensitive to the visible spectrum and in order to get true IR, I'd have to use a Hoya R72 - which means I can't view anything through the lens. Bah!

 

[LAG]

...we have 17 pages of utterly irrelevant pseudo-technical debate.

Welcome aboard!

... any slide film product with the dye couplers added during the development process would be a "legitimate" Kodachrome-type film, regardless of the colour rendition.

No Sir! (neither better nor worse, but not the same legitimate type)

...Make America Analog Again! Mike

Do not forget the rest of the World! (or being that selfish, at least Europe as well)

Well, actually I do wonder why we lost HIE. If Rollei (Agfa?) can profitably make that almost-IR film, why couldn't HIE survive?

HIE was not "that almost" (Kodak said "Low level of sales and manufacturing complexity", for a change). With HIE out of the market, for the rest ("don't let the door hit you on your way out") it is more comfortable. Political jokes aside, if there is one film that could have the opportunity to return (...) is precisely this HIE

 

[Cholentpot]

Tri-X is very different to what it was in the 50's yet people seem to still like it. I'm sure that if Kodak were to come out with a revised Kodachrome they would make sure to keep the look and feel of the film similar to the original. They would be no point in reintroducing it otherwise.

Dunno, I've seen some blood boil and eyes turn red when people discuss the MURDER OF TRIX ARRRGGGGGGG! IT USED TO BE SILVERREERERERERRE!

Dunno, I never liked the stuff. I'm a Tmax kind of guy.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

What I mean is:

HIE was a true IR film. You could use a #25 red filter, look through the viewfinder, and the result would be from the infrared portion of the spectrum.

The Rollei film is "almost IR" -- it has too much sensitivity to the visible part of the spectrum so that if you want an infrared-only image you need to use a filter which is opaque to visible light (e.g R72). But you can't use that on an SLR and see through the lens. If you use a #25 filter, the IR effect isn't very noticeable because of the light from the visible part of the spectrum that has passed through.

 

[kruiwagen]

What is really odd is that after 17 pages and links to previous discussions as well, is the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached.

Disregarding the pseudo science, what is your source for this so called 'fact' ?

 

[LAG]

What I mean is:

HIE was a true IR film. You could use a #25 red filter, look through the viewfinder, and the result would be from the infrared portion of the spectrum.

The Rollei film is "almost IR" -- it has too much sensitivity to the visible part of the spectrum so that if you want an infrared-only image you need to use a filter which is opaque to visible light (e.g R72). But you can't use that on an SLR and see through the lens. If you use a #25 filter, the IR effect isn't very noticeable because of the light from the visible part of the spectrum that has passed through.

I knew what you mean, but you're mixing things together: Film, filter & spectrum with what you see and with what you cannot

 

[Nzoomed]

Dunno, I've seen some blood boil and eyes turn red when people discuss the MURDER OF TRIX ARRRGGGGGGG! IT USED TO BE SILVERREERERERERRE!

Dunno, I never liked the stuff. I'm a Tmax kind of guy.

I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lol
I saw a factory film of the kodak plant back in the 50's and you could see them tossing in tons of silver ingots into a vat full of nitric acid to create the silver nitrate needed for producing film!

I wonder if they are cost cutting and reducing the silver content, or simply the production volume is so low that nowhere near that much silver would ever be used these days?

 

[Cholentpot]

I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lol
I saw a factory film of the kodak plant back in the 50's and you could see them tossing in tons of silver ingots into a vat full of nitric acid to create the silver nitrate needed for producing film!

I wonder if they are cost cutting and reducing the silver content, or simply the production volume is so low that nowhere near that much silver would ever be used these days?

Silver blocks the size of cinder blocks. Kershplash! into nitric acid.

 

[bdial]

What is really odd is that after 17 pages and links to previous discussions as well, is the inescapable but seemingly ignored fact that *IF* a product called Kodachrome was to be coated in the future, it wouldn't be the same as previous Kodachrome products but something new with the Kodachrome name attached. Therefore the more interesting discussion is what would that new film be, but of course that is a discussion way beyond the SQEP of all but one or two people on this or any other such thread, so instead we have 17 pages of utterly irrelevant pseudo-technical debate.

At some point in the future scientists will study threads such as these to try and understand how such insanity manages to flourish amongst a group of people.

...

Disregarding the pseudo science, what is your source for this so called 'fact' ?

Apparently Kodak/Alaris hasn't made any sort of official announcement, so there is only speculation.
But one fact is that Kodachrome, as it stands now, is not a product, it is a tradename. The owner of that name can apply it to any product they see fit.

 

[kruiwagen]

...


Apparently Kodak/Alaris hasn't made any sort of official announcement, so there is only speculation.
But one fact is that Kodachrome, as it stands now, is not a product, it is a tradename. The owner of that name can apply it to any product they see fit.

Understandable. But I'm getting a little annoyed with people stating their idea's/view as facts without providing any proof or sources. Although chances are small Kodachrome will return in the same product as it was before, we don't know anything for sure. A lot of people speculated Kodak would quit the film business entirely but they recently announced the return of Ektachrome. That, plus the reason that hardly anyone provides sources or proof, makes me doubt so called 'facts' which are basically personal opinions.

 

[flavio81]

Dunno, I've seen some blood boil and eyes turn red when people discuss the MURDER OF TRIX ARRRGGGGGGG! IT USED TO BE SILVERREERERERERRE!

You can get Trix at any grocery store and combines well with milk.

I really wonder how much silver they even use nowadays in the modern films! lol
I saw a factory film of the kodak plant back in the 50's and you could see them tossing in tons of silver ingots into a vat full of nitric acid to create the silver nitrate needed for producing film!

I think the idea of old films having "a lot of silver" or recent films having "too few amounts of silver" is a myth, probably started by EFKE when they marketed their films as "silver-rich".

If you can achieve good, high D-max (maximum density) with a film, then what's the use on worrying about how much silver is there in?

I'll leave Photo Engineer to educate us on this one.

 

[flavio81]

PD: Here it is, Mr. Ron Mowrey from Rochester, former Kodak engineer, educating us on this.

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00U9YV

Myth #6: Silver rich films and papers are better than modern films and papers that use lower silver.
This is an out and out myth!
In the early days of photography, emulsion making was a very imprecise science and led to emulsions in which there were a lot of what we called "Dead Grains". They were either insensitive to light or just would not develop. So, in order to get the right contrast or Dmax in a photoproduct, a high level of silver had to be coated. To achieve a density of 3.0 in a film may have taken 500 mg of coated Silver per unit area, 100 years ago, and today only 300 mg of silver per unit area. But, in both the old and new film, only 300 mg of silver per unit area is being developed. You see, a density of 3.0 can be related to an exact amount of real silver metal (taking into account the form of the silver that the developer creates).
The benefit in older emulsions comes from packing the Silver halide crystals tightly to give fine grain. Well, this is good, but today, the same grain can be achieved by making smaller crystals with better senstitivity. So, this evens out. In fact, we come out better with modern, finer grained films with lower silver. The modern films are less turbid and therefore are sharper! So we get the same grain today at higher speed and with greater sharpness all other things being equal, and we can use less silver halide per unit area. Just keep in mind that the amount of Silver metal that forms the image is likely the same or nearly the same in both the Silver rich and low Silver products.
Now, lets think back to myth #5 regarding old and modern developers. Here is a case where there may be another item to support myth #5 as being potentially a true fact. Old, silver rich films and papers will react differently in some of the old developers due to the fact that they were often designed with higher energy to try to push the dead grains into activity without fogging the product.
I have no specific cases for this latter to offer you, but merely present it as a possible special case!
Ron Mowrey

 

[Photo Engineer]

As true today as when I originally posted it!

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, actually I do wonder why we lost HIE.

For decades the US Department of Defense paid Kodak to continue making HIE after digital IR imaging was perfected and widely in use just so that IR film would available in case they ever decided that DoD needed it again. HIE was considered a national asset. When DoD stopped subsidizing HIE, Kodak could not longer afford to make HIE and maintain the HIE processing capability.

 

[farmersteve]

This guy on the Film Photographers groups is telling everyone that he will develop your Kodachrome rolls for $25. The results are mediocre with some decent color shifts but it is color and Kodachrome (You will need to be a member of the Film Photographer's group to view) https://www.facebook.com/groups/119931904758842/permalink/1226654574086564/

 

[keenmaster486]

That's piratology!

 

[flavio81]

This guy on the Film Photographers groups is telling everyone that he will develop your Kodachrome rolls for $25. The results are mediocre with some decent color shifts but it is color and Kodachrome (You will need to be a member of the Film Photographer's group to view) https://www.facebook.com/groups/119931904758842/permalink/1226654574086564/

Is this the same as our own "Pireateology"? Because we have here our own guy that is considering developing rolls for other people using what I call the "Pirate-K14" alternative process.

In any case...

Prepare for 25+page threads, and general APUG forum meltdown once word is out that there are people able to process K14 on demand!

 

[flavio81]

That's piratology!

Commander Keen, is this confirmed?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have posted my suggestions for improved processing in the other thread.

PE