New Kodak Film in 2021?
-
A
- Thread starter Mackinaw
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
While HP5+ is a good traditional grain film, I prefer Tri-X 400 and only use HP5+ for 4"x5" sheet film because I cannot get Tri-X 400 in sheet film.
Here it's almost impossible to find a photo shop without film stock. In the end, most people flip a coin twice before spending it.
Massive overkill on the field of B&W stock. Cheapest being Fomapan at around $4 135 and around $3.9 120.
E-6 process costs in case of 135 about $9.5, and 120 about $9.
Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
In an ideal world, Plus-X or Verichrome Pan.
MattKing
Moderator
Volumes that support really expensive, high volume processors.
The standard K-14 machine developed a mile of film each time it ran.
The last machines, which were designed for smaller runs, probably weren't economic.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
This here I agree with.
There was a minilab sized K-14 machine made in the late 90's - it's covered in the Z-50 documents. The problem is that a Kodachrome machine can only run Kodachrome, needs many more steps than E-6 & is possibly somewhat trickier to process control.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
It is those machines I was referring to when I referred to the "last machines" as being probably un-economic.
On another topic, there was a reference to the late Ron (actually Rowland) Mowrey (Photo Engineer here on Photrio) as being involved with Kodachrome.
In fact he was one of two named patent holders in respect of the most recent patent relating to the K-14 Kodachrome process.
He was also very sure that the world of photography had passed Kodachrome by.
On another topic, there was a reference to the late Ron (actually Rowland) Mowrey (Photo Engineer here on Photrio) as being involved with Kodachrome.
In fact he was one of two named patent holders in respect of the most recent patent relating to the K-14 Kodachrome process.
He was also very sure that the world of photography had passed Kodachrome by.
At this time in chemical photography, we should be grateful a company is even considering new (or reintroduced) products.
Bob Shanebrook's book suggests that Kodachrome would have died in the 80's, but a lot of effort was put into improving access to processing, diversification of products (120) etc - and it did well enough as a niche until digital came along.
People tend to forget how thoroughly current colour neg as fast or faster than the fastest Kodachrome equals or outperforms the slowest Kodachrome in all measures - and delivers less wonky colour - especially when used for the sort of professional imaging applications (ie that end up as a print or on a monitor) that was Kodachrome's raison d'être. And other than a brief period in the 90's, K-14 Kodachrome was 135 only (ignoring the type A cinema film for a moment)
the difference is in the colplexity. E6 has a re-exposure/colour development step that does all three layers in one pass. Kodakcrome requires Presise re-exposure through an exact colour filter on the back followed by a special colour developer, then another presise re-exposure on the front and a different colour developer. Finaly after yet another wash, a third fogging colour developer takes care of the middle layer. Over develop the front and back, and you get weird colour casts from using some of the middle layer for the wrong colour. it is a Rube Goldberg process.
actually MAKING the film is more straightforward, BUT the layers are thin and so even more precision is needed in making the coatings, compared to an E6 film.
all the processors are now scrapped, a new processor would be more than three or four times more complex than any Movie processor. (not including the re-exposure lights) and as Matt says, your basic processing run is in the 6000 foot range, and probably can't be designed much lower...
and yes about the magenta cast, That is typical for Kodachrome at th ebest of times. it is subtle but part of the Kodachrome "look" - Kodak came out and recomended Ektachrome even in the E2 era if you needed "accurate colors for scientific use"
don't get me wrong, I loved Kodachrome, but unless folks replace their cell phone Cameras with 16mm Cine Kodak Specials, shooting 400 ft of film a week, it will not be paraticable to bring back. I would be happy for an E-6 ASA 40 Tungsten film so I can use my Old Super 8 - which only takes 40 or 160 ASA.
actually MAKING the film is more straightforward, BUT the layers are thin and so even more precision is needed in making the coatings, compared to an E6 film.
all the processors are now scrapped, a new processor would be more than three or four times more complex than any Movie processor. (not including the re-exposure lights) and as Matt says, your basic processing run is in the 6000 foot range, and probably can't be designed much lower...
and yes about the magenta cast, That is typical for Kodachrome at th ebest of times. it is subtle but part of the Kodachrome "look" - Kodak came out and recomended Ektachrome even in the E2 era if you needed "accurate colors for scientific use"
don't get me wrong, I loved Kodachrome, but unless folks replace their cell phone Cameras with 16mm Cine Kodak Specials, shooting 400 ft of film a week, it will not be paraticable to bring back. I would be happy for an E-6 ASA 40 Tungsten film so I can use my Old Super 8 - which only takes 40 or 160 ASA.
You are referring to the Kodak K-Lab machine. https://125px.com/docs/unsorted/kodak/tg2044_1_02mar99.pdf
And of course Kodachrome will never come back. The participants here on Photrio should know this better than almost anyone. Why does this idiotic thread keep popping up?
That's beautiful. That's Kodachrome, the look. It was slow and it took real Kodak processing.
MattKing
Moderator
The K-14 machine at the North Vancouver Kodak Canada processing lab was the size of a small city bus, and during peak times operate on three 8 hour shifts, five days a week.
And it was really loud!
And it was really loud!
A film which uses that process..
Kodachrome itself was a complete absurdity. That Kodachrome was ever made to work is a testament to the genius of Kodak chemists and engineers. I can just imagine the first meeting, "Ok guys, what if add the color later ...". That was special.
Never say never!
MattKing
Moderator
.Thanks! Matt.
Where the heck are you buying your beer? Even in central London £15 for two pints would be considered a rip-off.
But your point about film prices is somewhat valid. People do forget inflation, and that average wages were much lower in the 70s and 80s. Kodacolor might have cost £2 in 1987, but that £2 is a whisker under £6 adjusted for inflation. How much is Kodak Color Plus today? £5.00 from my local camera shop, cheaper from mail order specialists. Both inflation linked and average wage linked the basic C41 CN consumer films are cheaper than 35 years ago. Pro films were always more expensive, though I don't have 80s prices for films which were squarely aimed at pros I do know that Ilford B&W film is similarly priced to the 80s when you take inflation into account....cheaper when average wages are taken into account.
It's the same in the world of enthusiasts of things like vinyl records and reel to reel tape.....they remember 70s and 80s prices or see an old price sticker on an item from dad's collection and moan.
You forget. We are the outliers here at Photrio. From what I can gather, most of the people actually trying to buy 120 film aren't using Hasselblads. They're using Holgas, Dianas, folders bought recently from eBay or second hand camera dealers. Heck, I consider myself a fairly serious amateur and the most recent MF camera I have is my Kiev 6. The films being requested from retailers in MF *are* cheap, no-nonsense colour negative and B&W.
Unless I have missed something, they have not. The supply has always been erratic, likely because Lomography puts in one or two toll coating orders per year and they don't always predict sales of their products accurately enough for everything to be in stock 12 months of the year. Also...plague. The films are still listed on Lomography's own website, Amazon and various photo dealers. Indeed I can head over to Lomography's website right now and buy their regular (non-specail effect) C41 100, 400 and 800 films at the click of a button. The 100 is out of stock in 120 and the 800 is out of stock in 135 but everything else is in stock and nothing is discontinued or disappeared. The gap has always been that the Lomography brand doesn't offer a 200 speed regular C41 film, which is the most popular speed these days. Highly likely because Kodak offers Color Plus from the same family of films (Kodacolor VR derived).
Regarding Kodachrome, I've been revisiting cine film I shot in the 80s, 90s and early naughties. Gods, I miss Kodachrome. The stuff was beautiful. And there was nothing else like it. I don't understand people saying it fades, I thought that was an E6 thing. I curate the slide collection of a late relative and the 8mm film collection of another late relative. Films from the 50s through to the 80s. All the Kodachrome looks like it was shot yesterday. The Ektachrome is fading to pink but I was able to scan the slides before they got too bad, and copied some to C41 negatives too. The Perutzchrome is now magenta only, and when the slides were entrusted to me 20 years ago I was only able to retrieve B&W images from them. But the Kodachrome? No deterioration whatsoever, nor on my own which goes back into the 80s.
Kodachrome isn't coming back, not as we know it. I recall Kodak saying a few years ago that they could probably still manufacture the film, but even that is no longer feasible with many of the component chemicals being unobtanium today and/or no-go for environmental reasons. But the biggest problem is the K14 process. But, the Kodachrome brand does have recognition. It's not just about us, and in this case it's not just about asking the man on the Clapham omnibus if he knows what Kodachrome is. If Kodak were to introduce some new film and call it "Kodachrome", there would be articles across all media heralding the return of an old favourite. Blogs, magazines, newspapers, TV news spots you'd least expect would be running stories on Kodachrome. And while I do care that it wouldn't be real Kodachrome, whatever it was the public would take note and the people who are buying most of the film today would lap it up.
Do I like the idea of some E6 or even C41 film mimicking the Kodachrome look and called "Kodachrome"? No, not especially. But I am open minded enough to realise that it would probably be a good seller for EK/KA and allow them to keep making the other products that I treasure. As someone else pointed out, what they offer will be what the marketing team thinks will sell...not what some crusty purists on a niche internet forum pine for. And I class myself as something of a crusty purist.
Indeed - and frankly, I find it a bit of a silly pantomime as people wrap themselves in knots trying to justify Kodachrome's rather odd colours - 1960's Kodachrome seems to have been the best tonal compromise in terms of colour, but was even further away from 'realistic' colour. Sharpness was essentially the only major advantage Kodachrome offered - and it's equalled/ beaten on that by all the Portra films - and on noise/ granularity, latitude etc - it really isn't difficult to see why pos/ neg thoroughly beats transparency if any step beyond direct viewing of the original film is necessary.
I could not care less about Holga or Lomo, and folks who find it cool. Sorry, but I see it as waste of time and money. Accept certain inalienable truths prices will rise, and one day when you reach my age you'll fantasize that when you were young
prices were reasonable.
Pint I had before all this madness, £6 in Hemel H.
In the 80's something as 135-36 Fuji HR200 photo shops charged about £3.5. E-6 development one roll 135-36 about £10. Most Ilford 135-36 films were between £2.5 and 4. C-41 135-36 only process £2, and between .12-.15p per print. The K process at this point was something only done in the Alps, Switzerland. Film is cheaper now if you think of the basket of goods argument. I use to gas my car .30 to .35p per liter.
When I was still kid, circa early 1970's a 135-36 roll of Kodachrome II ranged around £1.50 maybe £2 circa 1977.
In N.Y. circa early 90's I recall paying $10 sometimes $12 each roll of Kodak slide film. A pack of 5 120 (slide) use to cost $20.
| 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:  |