MattKing
Moderator
I doubt there is anything about the K-14 process that would attract any special EPA attention. Environmental concerns weren't the problem - the market was.
I doubt there is anything about the K-14 process that would attract any special EPA attention. Environmental concerns weren't the problem - the market was.Given the president's latest supposedly regulation-cutting orders... Suppose the EPA ends up eliminating the regulations that currently restrict various Kodachrome-related chemicals. Would that change the game a little?
The original Kodachrome process was updated and simplified many times since the original. In fact, I am sure if you were to research the original you would be totally put off by the differences and complexity of it compared to K-14. The modern Kodachrome is a snap compared to the first one.
PE
It's interesting reading about ferrania's challenges downsizing the old equipment and they never were neve close to Kodak in output.
I'm genuinely interested in how Kodak are approaching the challenge.
Given the president's latest supposedly regulation-cutting orders... Suppose the EPA ends up eliminating the regulations that currently restrict various Kodachrome-related chemicals. Would that change the game a little?
I wouldTry the pleasure of unloading the film from the spool, making sure you expose the right side and only that for the exact amount of light without bending, scratching or dropping the film, and then put back the wet film on the spool. In total darkness!I did it (on a jobo, too) - it's fun (and I hope to have the time to try out PE's latest suggestions, results were so-so). But it just can't work in a commercial environment, which needs repeatable and exact results (I remember people complaining that K14 quality at Dwayne's not as good as in the Lausanne lab). I was thinking of making a 3d printed re-exposure machine. Even if Kodak brought back the film and made the chemicals available, how many people would actually do this at home?
Who said anything about the 1946 version???Damn, I hope not! Any improvement to already-wonderful E100G would be nice, but reverting to the 1946 version is a deal breaker.
Given the president's latest supposedly regulation-cutting orders... Suppose the EPA ends up eliminating the regulations that currently restrict various Kodachrome-related chemicals. Would that change the game a little?
... and someone could devise a home machine to make remjet removal and colored light re-exposures easier.This I believe.
TBH, it would have not even been that much to put me off trying the K-14 process if i had access to the chemicals needed.
The only real annoyances are the remjet removal and the light re-exposures.
Are you referring to the old ferrania or the new ferrania?
AFAIK, they are wanting to upgrade their small research coater to increase production, not downscale further, thats why they did the kickstarter to save parts of the old coater to extend the drying tunnel etc.
Yep, I agree, would be piece of cake to make something with an arduino and 3d printed gears etc.... and someone could devise a home machine to make remjet removal and colored light re-exposures easier.
... and someone could devise a home machine to make remjet removal and colored light re-exposures easier.
Who said anything about the 1946 version???...
They are going to produce a reversal film called Ektachrome. It remains to be seen whether it is the same as any earlier films.
Its intended to be as close to the original as possible.
I also think that, if really film flies again high in the sky, and slide film sales rise very much, a Kodachrome technology can come back.
The previous fall of Kodachrome was due to the wait and risks in sending the precious film away.
In this age of microprocessors and miniaturization, I don't see as unfeasible - if there was a demand - to create a small automatic laboratory (in the cost of less than 5000 Euros, let's say) that would process Kodachrome automatically. We are not in the '70s any more. "Remjet" removal and coloured light re-exposure cannot be something so difficult to obtain in modern times.
The only big IF is the film and slide film markets. IF the volumes go back to the order of magnitude they used to have (hard, but not impossible) Kodachrome is probably going to come back with some minilab technology able to process it IMHO, thus taking away its greates drawback, the need to mail it. Nihil difficile volenti.
I dont see why kodachrome could not be processed in a jobo style machine, as is already demonstrated with homebrew couplers, it would just need a darkroom accessory for the light exposures.
Even if Kodak brought back the film and made the chemicals available, how many people would actually do this at home?
Now, whew, if K14 is a snap being what it is, the original process must be quite a feat.
no but there are kits available for thisHave you ever tried anything like doing this at all? For example, have you tried reversal processing a b/w film to one chromogenic color?
How many K-labs were there? Perhaps a few have escaped the scrapyard.
If someone were to use a rescued K-lab to process existing Kodachrome stock, that would be cool.
Getting Kodak to manufacture Kodachrome again for a new generation of photographers is a different story.
From PE you can learn what slight exaggeration is.
Kodak need to conduct market research on what people would pay etc.
...I would hope that there are a lot of people like me, only just becoming a force in the film market, who would propel such a film to profitability. But I fear that I am in the tiny minority
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?