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

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,753
Messages
2,780,425
Members
99,698
Latest member
Fedia
Recent bookmarks
0

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Actually, it was the colour of the edge printing As far as I have heard... Kodachrome sold without processing was limited to the USA, after Kodak was ordered not to bundle processing. so non included had Kodachrome as black lettering on a colour background and included was coloured lettering (or perhaps that was reversed)
Actually, the 35mm still film cassettes had the following as an integral part of the labeling: "Film Price Includes Processing by Kodak".
I have 40 or so rolls of 1995 era Kodachrome 25 that recently came my way, so I was able to check the accuracy of my recollection :smile:.
I'm not sure how reliable the "colour of end cap" check is, because that may have varied in different markets.
I'm also not sure whether the colour of the edge printing was an infallible clue, because I have a vague recollection that that may have also been keyed to the market it was sold in.
And I seem to recall that the Super 8 cassettes were imprinted with the "Film Price Includes Processing by Kodak" labeling, but I'm not sure.
My guess is that the 828 backing paper also had the "Film Price Includes Processing by Kodak" labeling.
And I have absolutely know idea how it was handled with regular 8 film.
 

Prof_Pixel

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Penfield, NY
Format
35mm
I'm also not sure whether the colour of the edge printing was an infallible clue
I worked part time in a photo store in the US from 1957-1962 and film edge printing was all important in the way Kodak charged the customer who brought us film purchased outside the US and sent to them for processing.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I worked part time in a photo store in the US from 1957-1962 and film edge printing was all important in the way Kodak charged the customer who brought us film purchased outside the US and sent to them for processing.
Between 1957 and 1962 I was learning to walk, talk and read, so I haven't much experience from then to rely upon. :smile:
My time in retail was between 1974 and 1980. Of course prior to then I just learned stuff from my Dad. At the Canadian Kodak lab where he worked, the norm was "processing included" but they certainly did see a fair amount of US film. I expect that the edge printing may have been a fallback position, with the cassettes being the first check.
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,330
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
Which edge printing are you referring to? On the film? For me a quick glance at the red ends was the way I could tell at a glance. Obviously it says on the cassette too, but easier to look at the ends and not have to find the text.
32356686165_be7d60cb2a_n.jpg
 

DF

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
583
Perhaps Kodak could also be in charge of a presidential ballot re-count too.
Or maybe bring the Olympics to Chicago.
APUG'rs, stop all this nonsense, this kooky-talk, Kodachrome ain't cummin back !!!
 

Nzoomed

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,259
Format
35mm
APUG'rs, stop all this nonsense, this kooky-talk, Kodachrome ain't cummin back !!!

Just like Ektachrome was not supposed to be coming back???:tongue:

Hey Kodak were the ones who threw out the suggestion, dont blame us!:wink:

Lets just wait and see what happens. :D
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I recall that Kodachrome film from outside the US had markings on the cassette and on the edge of the film. On occasion someone would bring in a roll from overseas at Baker's Photo. We would tell them that we would send the film in and when the film came back there would be a message from Kodak on whether or not we were to charge them. I never remembering that any of them had to pay for processing.
 

Nzoomed

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,259
Format
35mm
People are (except for PE) really, really underestimating the enormous undertaking it would be to re-establish a Kodachrome processing pipeline.
Kodak know more about processing the stuff than we do, im sure they have the know how to make something work.

Heck, it would be pretty easy these days to build a basic processor similar to a K-Lab running on the likes of an arduino to monitor the temperatures etc.

If they make a new Kodachrome, they should ditch the Rem-Jet for a start.
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,330
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
APUG'rs, stop all this nonsense, this kooky-talk, Kodachrome ain't cummin back !!!

Nobody said it was. Kodak simply said they were looking into what it would take to reintroduce Kodachrome. More likely than not they will find it's unfeasable, but we can always dream and ponder the "What if?". I don't see any harm in daydreaming.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
You just do not know what you are talking about in any sense of the word.

Just as an example, the rem jet is needed so that removal before the red (first) re-exposure can proceed. If any other means were to be used, it would not work. That is the nature of the Kodachrome process.

PE
 

kruiwagen

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
68
Location
The Netherlands
Format
Multi Format
Just like Ektachrome was not supposed to be coming back???:tongue:

Hey Kodak were the ones who threw out the suggestion, dont blame us!:wink:

Lets just wait and see what happens. :D

Strongly agree with this one. But at the same time I only take a few ppl serious on this forum.

I still have my hopes, but realistically I don't think we will see it return in the very near future. Let's just see how 2017 and 2018 develops. Markets have changed, production scaling has changed. After all, no one here has an insight in Kodak's numbers. We can only predict from things we've done in the past, when everything (market, demand, production) was different. It's difficult to compare the market of previous times with today's market.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
Just as an example, the rem jet is needed so that removal before the red (first) re-exposure can proceed. If any other means were to be used, it would not work. That is the nature of the Kodachrome process.

Hi PE,

Out of a genuine curiousity, i would like to understand what do you mean here. What I understand from the paragraph above is that "remjet is needed so it can be removed before red re-exposure".

I understood remjet removal was the first step in the entire K14 process, so the latter paragraph would read, to me, as:

"remjet is needed so it can be removed before processing the film".

Thus, it is unclear to me why remjet is essential.

Or what you do mean is that remjet is needed so that film base side is never ever exposed to any light until red re-exposure?

Thanks in advance.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
Kodak know more about processing the stuff than we do, im sure they have the know how to make something work.

Heck, it would be pretty easy these days to build a basic processor similar to a K-Lab running on the likes of an arduino to monitor the temperatures etc.

Yes, making the processor should be totally doable in these days of 3D printing, cheap microcontrollers, LED light sources, cheap stepper motors, etc.

More difficult is the chemistry. I read that Dwayne's had their own lab to prepare their own chemistry, although this doesn't necessarily mean that Kodak did not supply any chemistry.

Of course, a hundred times more difficult is to make the film stock, but it would be nice if somebody makes his own K14 machine with ersatz-K14 chemicals (see Stephen Frizza et al) to make use of all the frozen K14 stock out there. It wouldn't be the REAL K14 process (PE has warned, for example, that stability would not be the same), but at least it would give out color from a Kodachrome film. And if we're lucky, the greens of summer, nice bright colors, etc.

In fact such a machine, done as a Kickstarter project, would also be useful for doing B&W reversal process and E6 as well. Plus be able to process ECN-2 film used for still cameras (because of the need for remjet removal). A roller transport machine.

This machine could be implemented as a series of modules that can be placed one next another, each module is able to dip the film into a chemical bath. Each of thus modules correspond to a particular step of the process in use (i.e. E6); To this module you would plug-in any of the following accesorries:

- Re-exposure module: Exposes either the film base side or the emulsion side to light (of a specific color, or white in the case of b/w reversal processing). This module would sit on top and incorporate its own rollers with a flutter reduction device (probably using viscous fluid) so the film glides at a very constant speed over the light source.

- Aeration module: Air pump that makes 'bubbles'...

- Agitator

- Temperature control device

- Remjet water spray/buffer device for remjet removal

Beside those modules, the rest of the machine would be the motor(s) and rollers for transporting the film, and a programmable microcontroller for controlling everything.

For B/W processing you would need a minimum amount of modules. For K14, the most amount of modules. Things such as automatic replenishment of chemicals or automatic pumping of chemicals into/from a container would be left out to keep thing as simple as possible.

Of course, the whole machine needs to be placed in the dark, so monitoring of the process could be done in another room on a PC, via Wi-Fi connection (Raspberry Pi controllers already have the Wi-Fi option, for example.)
 
Last edited:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
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
 

Nzoomed

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,259
Format
35mm
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
OK, i guess this is because the developer used in E6 or C41 films removes that backing at the same time?
In that case, i can see where you are coming from, because it needs the re-exposure before going into any developer.

IDK if something else could be formulated to work that is easier to remove than rem-jet perhaps?

May as well just stay with the rem-jet.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
People are (except for PE) really, really underestimating the enormous undertaking it would be to re-establish a Kodachrome processing pipeline.

+1000

In addition all the processing machines were dismantled for scrap some time ago. They were large, complex and expensive. Replacing them would be a huge initial investment with no guarantee of eventual profit.

Bringing Kodachrome back is all 3.14159... in the stratosphere!
 
Last edited:

falotico

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
265
Format
35mm
They say that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. I guess Kodachrome is God's way of teaching photographers color film manufacture.

When the film was invented it was not possible efficiently to put the dye-couplers in the emulsion, largely because they would migrate to the wrong layer. Eventually Kodak found a way to dissolve the couplers into an organic liquid and then homogenize this solution into each emulsion layer. The Germans made coupler molecules so large that they would stay put in the emulsion and attached a sulfate group to the molecule which allowed them to dissolve in gelatin.

Kodachrome avoided the problem of incorporating the dye-couplers in the emulsion and, instead, added them to the developer baths. The way to be sure that they would produce the right dye in the correct layer was to develop each layer one at a time, using a different developing solution for each layer. This required re-exposing each layer separately, which meant that the film had to be transparent. If Mannes and Godowsky could have invented a process that produced a color snapshot on paper I'm sure they would have done it.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
They did. There was a "paper" version of Kodachrome that made pretty good prints. It was a plastic support. It could not be used with the more modern process that used 2 re-exposure steps and 1 fogging step. It was discontinued years ago.

The actual timeline that is given above by Falotico is much more complex.

PE
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,330
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
What is the purpose of Rem-jet? Just to absorb light from the camera exposure to prevent reflection back into the emulsion?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,879
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
What is the purpose of Rem-jet? Just to absorb light from the camera exposure to prevent reflection back into the emulsion?
It also provides "slipperyness" (friction reduction) and heat dispersal.
Remember, a very large percentage of Kodachrome was/is movie film. And the processing machines were traditionally high speed, large capacity machines that one fed with film by first splicing together many, many single rolls into one master roll, and then attaching that to a long leader and a long follower.
For the standard K14 machine, the leader (and follower) alone were each approximately a mile long. The processing machine was the size of a small bus.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
What is the purpose of Rem-jet? Just to absorb light from the camera exposure to prevent reflection back into the emulsion?

Kodak put Rem-jet on Kodachrome just to drive amateur film developers crazy, and guess what, their sneaky idea works that way real well. :wink:
 

Europan

Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
634
Location
Äsch, Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
It is nothing else than a thin unhardened gelatine layer, the gelatine being blackened with soot. The term is anti-halo back layer, not rem-jet. That is the abbreviation of removal jet, the warm water jets used in the processing machine to remove the presoaked, swollen, softened back layer.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom