Should all Kodachrome users switch?

[ilovekodachrome]

Hi all,

A recent post by Ron Andrews (http://ronald.andrews.googlepages.com/kodachrome) talks about the longevity of Kodachrome. He quotes a Wilhelm Research document published in 1993.

Chapter 5 of William Wilhelm's "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" refers to the Arrhenius test, which is an accelerated aging test for a 20% loss of a film's least stable dye.

The results? Echtachrome (made starting in 1988): 220 years; Kodachrome 185 years.

A quote from Chapter 5: "Agfa has indicated that, based on its experience with the Arrhenius test, the dark storage predictions given for its products...may have a margin for error as high as 50%."

So what are we to make of all this?

Is Echtachrome's life expectancy is 220 years +-110 years while Kodachrome's is 185 years +-92.5 years?

So, worst-case (for Kodachrome), Echtachrome could last 330 - 92.5 = 237.5 years longer than Kodachrome.

Or, Kodachrome could last 277.5 - 110 = 167.5 years longer than Echtachrome.

Or is it that Kodak would have used the same testing methods for both of its films -- meaning that modern Echtachrome really does last longer than Kodachrome?

There's no doubt that Kodahcrome's slower 64 speed is a negative (I use a tripod at all times), as is its lack of projection stability, but I like the way Kodachrome looks (rich without being annoyingly saturated).

Should we all switch to Fuji Provia 400x because of it "provides improved image stability and resistance to fading" -- presumably even better than Echtachrome?

Or is Echtachrome the winner?

I suppose that the Kodachrome 100 and 400 that were never released would have had even better archival properties?

What are your thoughts? I would appreciate your help.

 

[Akki14]

Are you planning to be around in 237.5 or 167.5 years time to care? If so, please point me in the direction of your fountain.

 

[Jeremy]

Are you planning to be around in 237.5 or 167.5 years time to care? If so, please point me in the direction of your fountain.

From a conservator's point of view this is a moot question as it's not about our lifetime, but the lifetime of the object. Additionally, you could die tomorrow so why not shoot everything on paper negative made with newsprint coated w/ liquid light and damn any archival needs.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well my fathers old Kodachromes from the 50's early 60's have faded badly, it's not all it's said to be archivally, these are properly stored slides kept in the dark in dry cool conditions, around 16°/18°C. The Kodachrome II's have faired slightly better, I doubt any have been projected more than a dozen times, I'd guess far less.

Is Kodachrome everything it was hyped up to be, yes and no. It was once the best slide film available without a shadow of doubt, but E6 brought an end to that.

Ian

 

[CRhymer]

I thought they had done the last run of newsprint!
I have a roll in the freezer.

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[Lee L]

Albatross!

Lee

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ahhh, now if Agfa had made a film called "Echtachrome" that would have been the real chrome.

 

[Anon Ymous]

My hovercraft is full of eels

Seriously speaking, I'd say use what pleases your eyes. It's the color palette that matters for me. I don't care if it's called kodachrome of whateverchrome. Simple isn't it?

Oh and that thing about life expectancy is indifferent to probably 99,9% of slide shooters. They will outlast us by a large extent, so why should we care? Besides, after all these tests all they can say is X years +-50%. Very accurate

 

[Akki14]

From a conservator's point of view this is a moot question as it's not about our lifetime, but the lifetime of the object. Additionally, you could die tomorrow so why not shoot everything on paper negative made with newsprint coated w/ liquid light and damn any archival needs.

I don't remember there being a sign up sheet saying you absolutely must use the most archival processes ever to be a photographer. Maybe if you're a conservator it's an issue, but for normal photography users, it's probably not.

 

[GeoffHill]

I use p400x because I like the colours, as long as it lasts more than about 5 years, I dont care

 

[Lee L]

Ahhh, now if Agfa had made a film called "Echtachrome" that would have been the real chrome.

For export. Echtechrom domestically.

Wonder where "Ekta" came from. I've read stories about the invention of the Kodak name, but not the "Ekta" prefix.

For a pound I won't interrupt this thread.

Lee

 

[Pupfish]

At least there are other emulsion nowadays with excellent color fidelity and a reasonable dark-storage life-- time was when that was exclusively the domain of Kodachrome.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I say, use whatever floats your boat. Arrrrh. I'm afraid that Kodachrome is almost a sinking ship. But as long as it floats, it's a viable option. Why should you be forced with a choice? I think one of the reasons attention was steered away from Kodachrome was (is) the toxicity of the process, something I don't ever hear anybody speak of. I have no proof that E6 chemistry is less toxic, or that the compounds incorporated into the film is less toxic than those of Kodakchrome, though. If there are any Mythbusters out there, please have at it!

If people would make informed decisions about what they think is good themselves, perhaps Kodachrome would be in a different situation today. Is it really the advertising gods that have steered us to the E6 process, or do people really like the results from E6 better? Are people that smart? Or are they the ultimate consumers, buying what they've been trained to buy by the advertisers (like cell phones, iPods, Garmin nav systems, etc)?????

- Thomas

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron Andrews is a former Kodak Photo Engineer. His information is very trustworthy.

Henry Wilhelm also has good data, but the tests results for keeping depend on condition. Oxygen diffusion and atmospheric pollutants determine the extent of correspondance of the accelerated tests to real world results.

PE

 

[nickandre]

Just got some 120 kodachrome I'm going to try to process. Fun fun fun!

Anyways, Velvia 50 has been shown to have relatively poor longevity (something like 100 vs 250 years). People use it as their primary film.

Plus projecting slides makes them fade in an hour. Kodachrome stability under projection is much poorer than Ektachrome (1 hour versus 3) so you should make duplicates for projection.

 

[Photo Engineer]

EKtaChrome was the derivation for this name. It was a prefix to denote films only processed by the user. KODA was the original prefix for films developed by Kodak. Of course this only applied to color.

EK of course referred to Eastman Kodak.

As for projection, there is reversible fading and permanent fading. Some films fade mometarially during projection but unfade afterwards.



PE

 

[nickandre]

As for projection, there is reversible fading and permanent fading. Some films fade mometarially during projection but unfade afterwards.

What? How? Who?

meh, this just got too confusing.

 

[Lee L]

EK of course referred to Eastman Kodak.

Of course...

As for projection, there is reversible fading and permanent fading. Some films fade mometarially during projection but unfade afterwards.



PE

When did Kodak have a plant in Cheshire?

Lee

 

[Photo Engineer]

Actually Lee, it does happen, but I forget the technical name for this phenomenon.

Twas Brillig, and the Slithey Toves did Gyre and Gymbal in the Wabe.
I'm going around my sundial widdershins until I can remember what it was called.

PE

 

[nuckabean]

I think one of the major downfalls of kodachrome are all the complexities of the K-14 process. As far as I know, it involves the film being re exposed by different color lights in between chemicals baths, which is a lot more difficult than E-6, which you can do in the comfort of your home.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have seen Kodachrome hand processed.

PE

 

[wogster]

I have seen Kodachrome hand processed.

PE

Not a pretty sight though, and one needs to be able to get access to the chemistries, and the right kind of light for the re-exposure. The idea of Joe Photo processing K64 at home in his trusty plastic tank, sounds ludicrous to anyone who has read the technical data on process K14.

 

[Lee L]

Actually Lee, it does happen, but I forget the technical name for this phenomenon.

PE

Not doubting you at all. Just having some fun with the concept. Some days I'm compelled to make my own fun.

Lee

 

[Photo Engineer]

For me, it was a wonderful and inspiring sight! But otherwise I agree with you. Lets reserve our levity for digital rather than Kodachrome. Agreed?

PE

 

[CRhymer]

Hello PE,

I agree completely. However, now I know what the un-fade mask in Photoslop is for.

Cheers,
Clarence