New Thoughts On The Return Of Kodachrome

[George Mann]

Yes, that mythical, magical film you'all hate to talk about! Well I am here to demystify some of the technical impediments regarding its return to the marketplace.

First of all, the technical issues all concern the complicated stages of development, as the production of the film itself is trivial.

But the fact that the former versions could be continuously processed successfully shows that
this should prove not to be the issue that it has been made out to be either.

The biggest stumbling block is in continually sourcing the chemical components once a new formula has been developed?.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Discuss.

 

[MattKing]

You will need to bring back the sort of volumes that accompanied Kodachrome motion picture film to make this economic and practical. Still film volumes won't do it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt take a look at George's recent threads in the last few hours and respond accordingly

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

the processing machines were scrapped after the last run. that is not just a modified E-6 machine. at least 4 developing steps. and two or three re-exposure steps. plus all the work that an ECN-2 machine would do. (Rem Jet, Bleach - fix MANY washes. probably a few "clearing bath" and Stop bath sort of steps.)

 

[mshchem]

Easy, formulate a film that looks kinda like the old Kodachrome that is process E6. Sell it for 24 dollars a roll in 20 and 36 exposure rolls in painted red and yellow screw top metal canisters.

 

[mshchem]

Oh if you want the grain of the real stuff, ASA 10 or maybe 25.

 

[grat]

Yes, that mythical, magical film you'all hate to talk about! Well I am here to demystify some of the technical impediments regarding its return to the marketplace.

And yet-- you didn't.

First of all, the technical issues all concern the complicated stages of development, as the production of the film itself is trivial.

Naturally. No dye couplers, thin emulsion layers, modern technology for manufacturing versus 1935 technology. Piece of cake, albeit an expensive cake to buy and set up.

But the fact that the former versions could be continuously processed successfully shows that
this should prove not to be the issue that it has been made out to be either.

The biggest stumbling block is in continually sourcing the chemical components once a new formula has been developed?.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Discuss.

Definitely no. "All" you have to do is accurately bind the dyes to the specific layers of emulsion. The original process took four development steps, including 3 re-exposure steps. If you read Kelly-Shane Fuller's comments on recreating the kodachrome development process, it is by no means trivial. It's certainly not something you or I could do in our darkroom, or in my case, a light-tight tank sitting on my kitchen counter. And while he didn't explicitly state as much, I've read elsewhere that most of the chemicals involved in development are at least grade "C" nasty-- they probably won't kill you (at least not quickly), but then again....

If Kodachrome comes back, it will be a modified Ektachrome that closely resembles the performance and color of the original Kodachrome. Any effort to revive traditional Kodachrome (and it's infinite improbability based development process) is just... silly.

 

[flavio81]

Yes, that mythical, magical film you'all hate to talk about! Well I am here to demystify some of the technical impediments regarding its return to the marketplace.

Please don't.

We don't need another "Bring bacl kodachrome" 300+ page thread. And Ron Mowrey, who set a lot of facts straight, is dead. May he RIP.

Everything that could be discussed was already discussed:

- Manufacturing the film including sourcing the chemicals

- Why K14 films failed commercialy

- Whether they would be commercially sustainable

- Environmental issues

- Comparison to E6 films in many aspects

etc

With people that worked in Kodak. With the AUTHOR OF THE ACTUAL K14 PATENT btw.

 

[George Mann]

With people that worked in Kodak. With the AUTHOR OF THE ACTUAL K14 PATENT btw.

I remember. And I don't ever recall any of these guys stating that it is impossible. The rest of you guys fed into this doomsday theory!

However, I do not believe that this film is likely to be resurrected in my lifetime.

 

[George Mann]

the processing machines were scrapped after the last run.

This can certainly prove to be a major hurdle.

 

[George Mann]

So we have three stages of difficulty here.

1. The necessary chemicals and process.
2. The lack of equipment to process said film.
3. Labs that are willing to process it, or the lack thereof.

 

[MattKing]

You forgot number 4 - the fact that the Kodachrome process is inherently a high volume process that is unsuitable for small runs.

 

[George Mann]

You forgot number 4 - the fact that the Kodachrome process is inherently a high volume process that is unsuitable for small runs.

Noted.

 

[NB23]

Lotsa romantic thinking there...

 

[George Mann]

Lotsa romantic thinking there...

You may think so, but this is not the purpose of this thread!

 

[flavio81]

Maybe you can continue the discussion here

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-would-take’-to-bring-back-kodachrome.143207/

No need to open another thread.

 

[George Mann]

Maybe you can continue the discussion here

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-‘investigating-what-it-would-take’-to-bring-back-kodachrome.143207/

No need to open another thread.

This thread is specifically aimed at dispelling a myth that a new Kodachrome variant is technically impossible!

 

[flavio81]

This thread is specifically aimed at dispelling a myth that a new Kodachrome variant is technically impossible!

I'd rather read 20 forum pages of Sirius Glass extolling the virtues of the Hasselblad.

 

[Wayne]

I'd rather read 20 forum pages of Sirius Glass extolling the virtues of the Hasselblad.

Well, 19 anyway...

 

[grat]

This thread is specifically aimed at dispelling a myth that a new Kodachrome variant is technically impossible!

No one said it was technically impossible, so you're trying to dispel a non-existent myth. If it were impossible, it wouldn't have been created in the first place.

It is infeasible, impractical and improbable-- It makes no sense from a technical, financial or ecological point of view.

Other than that, it's a great idea.

 

[Ian Grant]

No one would commit to the investment needed, some of the chemicals used are no longer manufactured.

You have to look at why Kodachrome sales plummeted, first processing was slow (except in the US if you were near a lab) and once E6 films were introduced and improved that was a death knell. Fuji 50 was accepted by National Geographic. By the time Kodak tried to revitalise Kodachrome by increasing the range with Kodachrome 200 and 120 Kodachrome it was already too late.

It was a superb film that very few professionals used, first most professional photographers rarely shot 35mm (except photojournalists) and second they needed fast turn around when it came to processing. So in terms of professional use it was limited to National Geographic and similar magazine photographers, plus a few creative advertising photographers.

If there was a replacement it would need to be E6 compatible perhaps a Kodak equivalent of Fuji 50.

Ian

 

[railwayman3]

You have to look at why Kodachrome sales plummeted, first processing was slow (except in the US if you were near a lab) and once E6 films were introduced and improved that was a death knell. Fuji 50 was accepted by National Geographic. By the time Kodak tried to revitalise Kodachrome by increasing the range with Kodachrome 200 and 120 Kodachrome it was already too late.



Ian

Exactly. I can recall that, back in the 1970's here in the U.K., my Dad or I could shoot a Kodachrome film at the weekend, post it to Box 14 on Sunday (by last mail collection at 6 p.m. Not now!) with the slides reliably delivered by the postie before breakfast on Wednesday, or at latest Thursday, ready to take to the Camera Club on Thursday evening.

However, these times started to slip even up to 2-3 of weeks, then Q.C, issues appeared (scratches, blue spots, and a sort of gloominess in some colours, then films being processed in Switzerland, with nasty plastic mounts. , Fuji (and Agfa) started to be more readily available wih Club members opting to try them, then staying with them.

IMHO, it was only in the last couple of years when processing was by Dwaynes that the quality and presentation returned to something comparable with earlier days. (And I even then had some slides back in less than a week to UK, via a return journey to and from Kansas via Switzerland ! Shows It could be done, but maybe it was the well-discussed issue of Hubris on the part of Kodak in the day. )

 

[etn]

Easy, formulate a film that looks kinda like the old Kodachrome that is process E6.

What about the new E100? How close is it to Kodachrome?

 

[guangong]

Considering the corporate world we live in, as users of film we should be grateful for what we have. NYC has lost every quality art supply store. Gone are Pearl Paint, New York Central, A.I.Friedman, and especially stores that catered to sculpturing in stone are gone. Nanny states have forced certain colors and brushes to be discontinued. The folks that used to shoot film (and Kodachrome) on holidays now use phone or iPad. Even the market for non professional digital cameras has tanked. The OP is somewhat like the frog living at the bottom of a well, convinced the sky was only a small round disk, believing that there is a multitude of people using film. I only hope that there are enough E6 users to keep the few good labs in business.

 

[foc]

You can click your heels 3 times and say "There is no film like Kodachrome....there is no film like Kodachrome...."
BUT we are not in Kansas.