• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Reports of (Colour) Kodachrome Home Processing Emerge from Sydney

Latest Gallery

Junk it

A
Junk it

  • 1
  • 1
  • 28
Dawes 2

A
Dawes 2

  • 1
  • 0
  • 28

Photrio On the Go

Mobile Photo

Vedauwoo Wyoming 426789

Joel_L

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
204,342
Messages
2,867,344
Members
102,230
Latest member
sesuone
Recent bookmarks
0
StoneNYC said:
I should probably start a new topic for this, but I've always wondered about the thickness, why would 120 need to be thinner? I've noticed the mill of the film differentiate between film sizes but why? It's the same exposure levels etc, why would it change? It can't be the rolling factor since 35mm rolls up as well.

Side note, what about 70mm perf AND unperf so you can make 116 rolls and shoot it on antique foldies, so fun!


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

120 needs to be thinner because it has to be rolled up with backing paper on the spool as well.
 
MattKing said:
120 needs to be thinner because it has to be rolled up with backing paper on the spool as well.
Click to expand...

Oh right! But still, what does that have to do with anything, I mean I know you would need more spool room (wider flange) but it still could be done right? Is it just back in the day when 120 was created they decided to make it thinner than 4x5? Or was 4x5 thinner then?

Like I said probably should start a new thread, I just like understanding the reasons and that's usually a history lesson.

Thanks.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kodachrome was processed in what was called a roller transport machine. When in use, 35mm and 120 take different tensions due to the wider thinner base of the 120. If tension is not adjusted, the 120 buckles and touches the undercut roller in the center. The same problem exists with coating machines and these supports and it also involves DW and SW FB papers. Similar problems.

PE
 
StoneNYC said:
I should probably start a new topic for this, but I've always wondered about the thickness, why would 120 need to be thinner? I've noticed the mill of the film differentiate between film sizes but why? It's the same exposure levels etc, why would it change? It can't be the rolling factor since 35mm rolls up as well.

Side note, what about 70mm perf AND unperf so you can make 116 rolls and shoot it on antique foldies, so fun!


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think that it's not 120 is thinner, but that 35mm is thicker to prevent it from tearing out the perforations, you could probably coat it on the same base if the base was polyester so that it wouldn't tear so easily. sheet film base is thicker still to give it stiffness needed so it doesn't slump down in the film holder. A thinner film would require a different focus adjustment just like a thicker one would.
 
AgX said:
Modern coating machines can be reduced in coating width. But the speed is another factor. Depending on coating technology there is a limited speed range. And with short strips to be coated these must be brought up to speed before coating starts. And the volumes of tubings, the machine rig-up time, cleaning, the preparation of needed elements not availabable off the shelf, necessary pilote runs..., all must be taken into account.

But as you indicated, it is not an issue of technology and still(!) not an issue of competence, but an issue of economics.
Click to expand...

There are two issues of economics, you can produce more then the market will bear, which means a lot of waste, or you can produce a small amount, and sell all you can make, it costs more to make per unit, but vast amounts of waste are not economical as well.
 
wogster said:
I think that it's not 120 is thinner, but that 35mm is thicker to prevent it from tearing out the perforations, you could probably coat it on the same base if the base was polyester so that it wouldn't tear so easily. sheet film base is thicker still to give it stiffness needed so it doesn't slump down in the film holder. A thinner film would require a different focus adjustment just like a thicker one would.
Click to expand...

You must be blocking me and others. We explained the reason! It is that 120 is thinner due to the backing paper.

PE
 
wogster said:
A thinner film would require a different focus adjustment just like a thicker one would.
Click to expand...
No focus adjustment needed, as the emulsion side of the film always contacts the rails located at the plane of focus.
 
Why can't people accept the fact that Kodachrome is dead and move on ? why do they still "clutch at straws"?
 
benjiboy said:
Why can't people accept the fact that Kodachrome is dead and move on ? why do they still "clutch at straws"?
Click to expand...

They just need a new song about Fujichrome and a Canon and no one will remember the Kodachrome song LOL


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Quelle horreur... Here we go again, picking over the carcass of Kodachrome! Move along. Nothing more to see here.
(elsewhere, a lively thread, again speculating on the Resurrection Day of Kodachrome, is in full swing...)
 
benjiboy said:
Why can't people accept the fact that Kodachrome is dead and move on ? why do they still "clutch at straws"?
Click to expand...

Because even Michelangelo had a favorite set of chisels?

Ken
 
The way I see it, there is no greater compliment to the true Kodak of old than this ongoing loyalty to its most famous progeny. These threads about Kodachrome—years now since its death—speak volumes about the good will people still feel toward Kodak and that product.

Kodak was an integral part of American life. Photographs of amazing people and places on Kodachrome by National Geographic. Photographs of amazing Little League baseball players on Kodachrome by my late father. And everything in between. For generations.

I was out doing fall colors again this year like everyone else. I do it just for the sheer relaxation of driving around and looking. I was using Provia 100F. A very nice film. Finer grain than Kodachrome. Better scanning than Kodachrome. Insanely easier processing than Kodachrome. And undeniably beautiful results.

But it wasn't the same. Nor will it ever be.

Ken
 
Ken Nadvornick said:
The way I see it, there is no greater compliment to the true Kodak of old than this ongoing loyalty to its most famous progeny. These threads about Kodachrome—years now since its death—speak volumes about the good will people still feel toward Kodak and that product.

Kodak was an integral part of American life. Photographs of amazing people and places on Kodachrome by National Geographic. Photographs of amazing Little League baseball players on Kodachrome by my late father. And everything in between. For generations.

I was out doing fall colors again this year like everyone else. I do it just for the sheer relaxation of driving around and looking. I was using Provia 100F. A very nice film. Finer grain than Kodachrome. Better scanning than Kodachrome. Insanely easier processing than Kodachrome. And undeniably beautiful results.

But it wasn't the same. Nor will it ever be.

Ken
Click to expand...

Well said...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hoffy said:
'Mama, don't take my full-frame 24.3MP CMOS Sensor with on-chip phase detection AF and 14-bit Raw output away from me'
Click to expand...

Haha! Awesome!

What's phase detection?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
StoneNYC said:
What's phase detection?
Click to expand...

Phase-detection auto-focus. Needs a mirror box.
As opposed to
Contrast-detection auto-focus. Doesn't need a mirror box. Certain non-film cameras use it. Generally slower and less reliable than phase-detection.

AF film SRL all use phase-detection I suppose. I might be wrong.
 
Just remember to set phasers to 'stun'.
 
And practically all AF-finder film-cameras used the contrast detection (either in the active or passive version).
 
Ken, you are right. But only in this sense... Look at the threads and out of the 60,000 or so members of APUG, only the same 10 - 20 people are posting. So the people posting are avid Kodachrome users, but in the broad sense the customer base has vanished and there are few true users. In fact, the most avid will still not pay the price projected here in APUG for a roll to be developed, and yet i feel that is the true cost now. Once you realize that Kodak was approaching that price limit, (ie. No profit) then you realize that there is no avid customer base, at least not one much bigger than the people here and there like us posting on APUG.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
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