Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

Stephen Frizza · Apr 1, 2012

ME Super said:
Right. The third reversal is a chemical reversal which renders all the remaining silver halide developable. I believe it's necessary to do it as a chemical reversal because silver in the red and blue layers could be blocking the green layer at this point. IDK though this is just speculation.

this is correct.

Stephen Frizza · Apr 1, 2012

Worker 11811 said:
More thinking...

Why am I trying to use a helicopter to cross the street?
Yes, my idea is workable but it's too complicated.

I don't know but I do believe in keeping everything simple. I did not use light tight small tanks in my processing. My set up consisted of small tanks which I dip and dunk the film into. Each tank lain out in the processing sequence in a darkroom with the processing bay on one side of the room and my custom set up printing station for re exposure on the other.

A few months ago I showed one of my autochrome style tests.... see link here

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I came up with simple elegant working solutions to some of the problems in that thread, the proof was in the pudding. I mean no offense to anyone in that or this thread but if you read the following 25 pages of testing and theory and development in the link I didn't see anything close to my example or anything that could super seed it. I feel this thread may very well do the same. sorry to be so demotivate.

Photo Engineer · Apr 1, 2012

On the contrary Steve, you tell it like it is. In fact, if there was an award for APUG member of the year for outstanding achievement, I would recommend you! Good work on both counts. I would love to have one of those screens. Are you going to sell them?

PE

Toffle · Apr 1, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
On the contrary Steve, you tell it like it is. In fact, if there was an award for APUG member of the year for outstanding achievement, I would recommend you! Good work on both counts.

PE

+1

ricardo12458 · Apr 1, 2012

Does this mean I can finally expose all of the Kodachrome in my freezer?

For the record, the only film I have left (after going to a big event this weekend) is 5 rolls of some E-4 Ektachrome films and 10-15 rolls of Kodachrome.

Nice work, Mr Frizza.

-R

tintruder · Apr 1, 2012

So long as nobody is planning to shoot movies, none of the film strips will be longer than 6ft or so.
It would be easy to construct a linear tank with support scaffolding inside to hold a full length 36 exposure 35mm or a roll of 120.
Agitation would be a simple rocking side to side like those oscillating tabletop "wave" lamps.
Color re-exposure could simply be by opening the lid and using an overhead lamp. To expose opposite side, simply open lid, flip the scaffolding over, expose, close lid and continue.
Wash steps could be accomplished by plumbing the water direct to the tank on one end, and the drain at the other end.
Similar tanks could be constructed for sheet film.

Now, for process control, since we have no supply of control strips, it could be a simple matter of using the first 3-4 frames on a 35mm roll as the control. Every roll you shoot, take 3 or 4 shots of a color card as the first exposures on the roll. At process time, extract the leader and 6 more inches, process it as the control. Evaluate and correct for the deviations when you run the rest of the roll.

I own a machine shop, do significant work with semiconductor and manufacturing companies, and am interested in building any equipment required for this, or other photography-related projects. (I do the same sort of thing for vintage Japanese motorcycles, another hobby of mine...)

So if you have ideas, and can render a half-way decent dimensioned drawing (or even a CAD drawing if that's your skill level), I'm happy to take a look and at least estimate the production costs. Just zap me a PM and we'll take it from there.

tintruder · Apr 1, 2012

Also, if you don't have the "Z50" publication set (numbered 01 to 10), read them...they will explain the K14 process in depth, answering many questions.
For the K-Labs in particular, Google for "K-Lab Theory Guide" and download it too. Gives specs such as film tension, speed, re-exposure guidelines, and much more data actually used to process the film.
No sense reinventing any more than necessary, and Stephen certainly has led the way in making this happen. If there is enough genuine demand, there is enough collective knowledge here to make it a practical reality.

Nzoomed · Apr 1, 2012

All i know is if Dwaynes kept their lab equipment, you would think they would have been still able to process kodachrome using the chemistry Steve has used.
In fact they should have had plenty of resources and knowledge required to do this since they had employed chemists to monitor the entire k-14 process.
It still would have been a viable part of their business for a few more years if nothing else until all the remaining kodachrome stocks around the globe dried up.
Even if the only did a few runs per year, it still would have been possible.
Anyway processc22 in the UK has a banner on their site saying kodachrome is only sleeping, they claim they are wanting to experiment with processing Kodachrome in Colour, would be worth directing them to this thread here.

Anyway, does anyone else agree that this new process be designated k-15?

I think its a fitting name since its not going to be ever 100% the same as the k-14 process and the chemistry is obviously slightly different.

Photo Engineer · Apr 1, 2012

K-16!

And, you cannot get the chemistry easily. Or inexpensively. Good luck guys.

PE

Nzoomed · Apr 1, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
K-16!

And, you cannot get the chemistry easily. Or inexpensively. Good luck guys.

PE

Well pretty much all the chemicals that Steve has posted on facebook are available on Alibaba at a price.
I cant comment on the "genuine" kodak chemicals though. There must be some differences.
Its very possible someone with a good background of chemistry could synthesise the exact chemicals from these.
Thats when it would be a great expense.
If it does a good job with the chemicals Steve used, i would not worry, providing its archival stability proves to be good.

I had a question for you regarding the long term archivability of kodachrome and the unique colours it produces due to the dye couplers being added.
Is this because the couplers are a different nature to E6 films, or is it because the film is going through a strong chemical bath containing the couplers that the film itself gets a stronger concentration of dye compared to the small amount thats incorporated into a regular E6 film?

Worker 11811 · Apr 2, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
K-16!

And, you cannot get the chemistry easily. Or inexpensively. Good luck guys.

PE

Well, the way I see it, veil has been lifted, so to speak.

Not to say that I'd attempt it but if I ever got a wild hare up my a$$, I might consider it some day
I have equipment that can do the job. The chemistry is obtainable even if it is expensive and finicky.

I don't even have a roll of film to process if I wanted to and I'm not about to try to get one just to play with film and chemicals. All I'm saying is that the the K-14 process has just taken a step up from "black magic" to mere "alchemy."

Stephen Frizza · Apr 2, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
On the contrary Steve, you tell it like it is. In fact, if there was an award for APUG member of the year for outstanding achievement, I would recommend you! Good work on both counts. I would love to have one of those screens. Are you going to sell them?

PE

Ron I'm very flattered by you of all people saying that. I vote you as APUG member of the century! I am not going to sell the screens as I have nightmares about doing so. the thought of people coming back to me complaining the screens don't work because they don't register the film to it properly or they don't process their film correctly etc...etc

I have however experimented in private with new screens that produced higher resolution, more accurate results. I would be more than happy to send u a screen or two as a sample so u can do the same process as me. Will send you a private message.

Steve Smith · Apr 2, 2012

I award you The First Annual APUG Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.

(stolen from The Simpsons).

Steve.

Stephen Frizza · Apr 2, 2012

Can I please remind everyone there is no more kodachrome film being made at present and its not likely to be resurrected any time soon, As a man who still processes E-6 I think we should all be focusing our attention to E-6 and the buying and shooting that before we loose it like we have lost kodachrome.

Now on a few other issues

First thing to note for kodachrome development. The First developer I used for my results was a formula very similar to Ilford PQ Universal, (sorry Ron if this rings alarm bells to you) I mention this to give example on how I've butchered certain steps of the process to get a system that works. This being said its all working as a one shot process. Ive really got no way of testing replenishment rates etc and I Don't have enough chemistry and film to experiment with that. So I have no idea if a K-14 machine can be used. Also Im not sure if the developers in a k-14 machine are replenished by a part A part B mixing into working solution. My notes for the dye developers I use each state that the chemicals WILL NOT KEEP (not sure if this is true for the solutions A & B separately but once mixed they MUST BE USED.

Secondly with no new film stocks ive seen heaps of older kodachrome films that were processed with slightly magenta or purple fogging from age to the base.... all kodachrome is now out of date. When looking at business somethings have to be taken into account, the cost of the process is a huge thing to take into account the chemicals are very expensive therefore the cost to the client will be very expensive...how much are people really willing to pay? secondly the huge issue more than this is the ammount of film on the market? theres no new stock ebing made and without a processing deadline people are likely to say YAY we can process our kodachrome but how many are actually likely to do so? and if they do once its processed then what? how are they going to get more?

lastly please read the tech pubs on kodachrome, everything you could ever want to know is in them, kodak does not make kodachrome a secret in any way shape or form. You can find out anything you want to know from how to make the film, what processing temps and times (specific gravities) , printing the film, anything and everything required in developing down to film tension issues in a k-lab machine...

Sorry to sound such a buzz kill I just don't want people thinking this little test is the birth of a new Kodachrome process...

Nzoomed · Apr 2, 2012

Stephen Frizza said:
Can I please remind everyone there is no more kodachrome film being made at present and its not likely to be resurrected any time soon, As a man who still processes E-6 I think we should all be focusing our attention to E-6 and the buying and shooting that before we loose it like we have lost kodachrome.

Now on a few other issues

First thing to note for kodachrome development. The First developer I used for my results was a formula very similar to Ilford PQ Universal, (sorry Ron if this rings alarm bells to you) I mention this to give example on how I've butchered certain steps of the process to get a system that works. This being said its all working as a one shot process. Ive really got no way of testing replenishment rates etc and I Don't have enough chemistry and film to experiment with that. So I have no idea if a K-14 machine can be used. Also Im not sure if the developers in a k-14 machine are replenished by a part A part B mixing into working solution. My notes for the dye developers I use each state that the chemicals WILL NOT KEEP (not sure if this is true for the solutions A & B separately but once mixed they MUST BE USED.

Secondly with no new film stocks ive seen heaps of older kodachrome films that were processed with slightly magenta or purple fogging from age to the base.... all kodachrome is now out of date. When looking at business somethings have to be taken into account, the cost of the process is a huge thing to take into account the chemicals are very expensive therefore the cost to the client will be very expensive...how much are people really willing to pay? secondly the huge issue more than this is the ammount of film on the market? theres no new stock ebing made and without a processing deadline people are likely to say YAY we can process our kodachrome but how many are actually likely to do so? and if they do once its processed then what? how are they going to get more?

lastly please read the tech pubs on kodachrome, everything you could ever want to know is in them, kodak does not make kodachrome a secret in any way shape or form. You can find out anything you want to know from how to make the film, what processing temps and times (specific gravities) , printing the film, anything and everything required in developing down to film tension issues in a k-lab machine...

Sorry to sound such a buzz kill I just don't want people thinking this little test is the birth of a new Kodachrome process...

Yes i do completley agree whee you are coming from. However i do feel sorry for those that never got their film to Dwaynes in time, i was recently contacted by the person who has made a whole film dedicated to the space shuttle and its all shot on kodachrome http://www.shuttlelaunchfilm.com/
He has films that he has not had processed and needs them done to complete his film. He is keeping them frozen in the mean time.
It would be great to help such people out, its worth mentioning that Steve Mccurry has kept a stock of kodachrome waiting to be shot in his freezer for the day that processing may happen again.
Ive got 15 rolls in my freezer that i bought from a photographer cheaply that he never got to shoot, im annoyed i never got the chance to shoot kodachrome myself.
At least its given me an interest in analog photography again and im stocking up on as much ektachrome as i can afford before thats too late.

kevs · Apr 2, 2012

Congratulations, Stephen; a really interesting thread. Be ready to seal up your letter box against a flood of Kodachrome and move to Tassie... j/k :-D

ME Super said:
<snipped>
<tongue-in-cheek>Who's gonna start making this new Apugchrome film and a camera to shoot it in? </tongue-in-cheek>

Where *is* TerryM. these days? :-D

Cheers,
kevs

Worker 11811 · Apr 2, 2012

Stephen Frizza said:
Sorry to sound such a buzz kill I just don't want people thinking this little test is the birth of a new Kodachrome process...

I understand what people are saying that the Kodachrome process has been available to those who want to learn for years. I don't mean to sound like it's a deep, dark secret.

To draw an analogy...
The projection room of a movie theater is usually a pretty "closed" area. People who are not operators or managers or who don't know an operator or a manager are typically excluded from the projection room except on special occasions like theater openings or behind-the-scenes tours.
Yes, you can read about cinema projectors and you can buy the equipment if you have the money but it's pretty difficult to learn to be a cinema tech unless you learn from another cinema tech.

I think the same thing goes for the Kodachrome process.
Yes, we can read about the K-14 process. We can see pictures of K-Labs and learn how they work but, unless you worked in a photo lab and were trained how to do the process, Kodachrome has historically been a "closed" area of expertise.

I do not entertain any ideas that I or anybody else is going to run out tomorrow and start learning how to process Kodachrome. I'm only saying that what was once "closed" is becoming open.

It's too bad this didn't happen ten years ago. Maybe there would have been enough demand for product if people knew they could process the film themselves.
At what difficulty or what cost, I don't know. I'm only saying that one of the things that might have led to Kodachrome falling by the wayside is the fact that too many people didn't understand it on a practical level.

It's a shame that this practical understanding didn't become more widespread until after the product ceased to be manufactured.

kevs · Apr 2, 2012

Worker 11811 said:
I understand what people are saying that the Kodachrome process has been available to those who want to learn for years. I don't mean to sound like it's a deep, dark secret.

To draw an analogy...
The projection room of a movie theater is usually a pretty "closed" area. People who are not operators or managers or who don't know an operator or a manager are typically excluded from the projection room except on special occasions like theater openings or behind-the-scenes tours.
Yes, you can read about cinema projectors and you can buy the equipment if you have the money but it's pretty difficult to learn to be a cinema tech unless you learn from another cinema tech.

I think the same thing goes for the Kodachrome process.
Yes, we can read about the K-14 process. We can see pictures of K-Labs and learn how they work but, unless you worked in a photo lab and were trained how to do the process, Kodachrome has historically been a "closed" area of expertise.

I do not entertain any ideas that I or anybody else is going to run out tomorrow and start learning how to process Kodachrome. I'm only saying that what was once "closed" is becoming open.

It's too bad this didn't happen ten years ago. Maybe there would have been enough demand for product if people knew they could process the film themselves.
At what difficulty or what cost, I don't know. I'm only saying that one of the things that might have led to Kodachrome falling by the wayside is the fact that too many people didn't understand it on a practical level.

It's a shame that this practical understanding didn't become more widespread until after the product ceased to be manufactured.

This is very interesting and Stephen has made an encouraging achievement. But I think the only thing that has changed is that a very dedicated enthusiast has managed to do what Dwayne's has been routinely doing for 20+ years. I don't think many professional users would have developed Kodachrome themselves- they're busy earning money - and it was pro users that kept Kodachrome viable. If the sales volume had been there, Kodachrome would still be available and would still be processed by Dwayne's.

The Kodachrome patents have been publicly available for years, as has the K-Lab manual (http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_01.pdf). Read the epic 'Kodak retires Kodachrome film' thread where PE discusses Kodak releasing the patents and Fuji's non-substantive film product. It's all out there.

I think this is more analogous to (say) China sending astronauts to the moon. We know it's possible, it has been done before and the science is freely available, but the necessary vehicles, equipment etc. aren't cheap or readily available - you'd have to build your own Saturn V rockets (or modern equivalent) from scratch.

IMO, this is the equivalent of Apollo 8 though.

Cheers,
kevs

Photo Engineer · Apr 2, 2012

Kevs;

Steve has proven what I have known all along, and that is that Kodachrome can be processed at home. In your lab. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then, well............. IDK what to say.

PE

Stephen Frizza · Apr 2, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
Kevs;

Steve has proven what I have known all along, and that is that Kodachrome can be processed at home. In your lab. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then, well............. IDK what to say.

PE

To be fair while you could process it at home you cant simply do it in your bathroom. you need a big big sink for each step of the chemistry and need a printing bay so you can do the re exposures and this requires space. You also Need to take into account that TEMPERATURES ARE CRITICAL. so u must have a method of regulating the temp of each bath. Also unlike processing black and white the chemical process will take you over an hour and a half. All in all its about a 2 hour round trip start to finish and most of its in darkness.

ME Super · Apr 2, 2012

I would say that for most people home processing of Kodachrome may be out-of-reach if all you have is a developing tank, reels, and a blue and red filter. The mobius strip hand processor spoken about earlier in this thread would be a tool that would make it much easier to process Kodachrome at home. Sort of like the difference between changing the heating element in an electric hot water heater. Difficult to do if all you have is a screwdriver and a pipe wrench. Much easier if you go spend a little money on the heating element removal tool. Proper tools, even if they're not to the degree of sophistication of the K-lab, would definitely make this easier to process at home. Not as easy as E-6, but possible.

ME Super · Apr 2, 2012

Stephen Frizza said:
To be fair while you could process it at home you cant simply do it in your bathroom. you need a big big sink for each step of the chemistry and need a printing bay so you can do the re exposures and this requires space. You also Need to take into account that TEMPERATURES ARE CRITICAL. so u must have a method of regulating the temp of each bath. Also unlike processing black and white the chemical process will take you over an hour and a half. All in all its about a 2 hour round trip start to finish and most of its in darkness.

Temperatures are critical with both C-41 and E-6 in addition to K-14. If somebody's setup can handle C-14 or E-6 temperature regulation, it's not much of a stretch IMHO to make it handle K-14 temperature regulation. People have processed E-6 with a tub of warm water and an aquarium heater to regulate temperature. It doesn't take any more than that to keep temperature constant for color. It's the re-exposure and number of steps that IMHO makes K-14 a complex process to try to do at home. Not impossible, but more complex than E-6 or C-41.

Worker 11811 · Apr 2, 2012

I think the mobius loop is a workable solution. Someday, I might "invent" it.

However, I already have the G-3 tank I mentioned above. I think that is a good alternative that uses existing equipment off the shelf.
We would need some of that plastic "apron" the others mention above to make my idea work.

In the dark, load the film onto the reel, emusion in, and wind in the plastic apron.
Develop, etc., and expose to red light throught the portal in the side of the tank. (Crank the film.)
Redevelop.
In the dark, open the tank, flip the reel of film over and "S-Wind" the film to the other reel.
Close the tank and expose to blue light through the portal. (Crank the film.)
Redevelop.
Chemically fog the third layer, redevelop and complet the process.

So far, this seems workable. It flips the film over but the plastic apron is in the way.
I need to figure out how to move the plastic apron to the other side.
Will probably have to unwind and rewind.

If this can work, you won't need to use the printing bay to lay out the film. It can all be done inside the G-3 tank.

I think I'll have to go get some regular reversal film and play with the tank to see how well it works and to figure things out.

Regardless, I still think this can be done and, except for the chemistry, this won't be THAT hard.
(As I said before, mere Alchemy versus black magic. )

Stephen Frizza · Apr 2, 2012

Ok I don't want to sound stupid, but if a small tank can be used why have I only heard of people before me hand processing kodachrome by a sink line system of small tanks where they systematically dip and dunk the film though each bath? wouldnt small tank have been done already and perhaps made kodachrome possible in a kit version? I sense some big problems with the G3 (morse) type tank system for this process.....but I wish you the best of luck with it.

EdSawyer · Apr 3, 2012

unfortunately, by the time any sort of home-processing becomes viable, all the existing film will be hopelessly out of date and magenta-shifted. >:-/

Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency