What “inherent problems”? Kodachrome (especially Kodachrome 25) always reproduced the scene much more faithfully than Ektachrome in my experience.
The inherent problems in the last versions of Kodachrome - which were a bit better than earlier versions - meant that there was a built in inability to achieve colour fidelity.
The E6 films of the same era did not suffer from those problems, and were therefore able to achieve better colour fidelity.
I guess you could design into modern E6 materials the problems with Kodachrome colour fidelity, but would you want to?
What “inherent problems”? Kodachrome (especially Kodachrome 25) always reproduced the scene much more faithfully than Ektachrome in my experience.
I'm working from memory here - a deep dive into Photo Engineer's posts will reveal the information in more clear form - but IIRC in essence the process inherent in adding the colour to the three black and white images included some self masking characteristics that made it impossible to obtain the full amount of colour in at least one of the primary colours, leading to a deficiency in that colour.
And there was no way to engineer around that deficiency - just some ways that helped minimize it a bit.
I am not a chemical engineer, and I am not the person with the detailed technical knowledge who should be looked to for a better explanation. Back in the day, I relied entirely on Ron for this - both in his posts, and off thread communications. He clearly was of the opinion though that further work on a Kodachrome like process was a waste of resources.
Honestly, E6 is not really benefitting from any influencer push. I perceive with the new generation that slide film is seen as hard and it does not have the flexibility of C41. As a young one, I have to attribute Ken Rockwell in his Velvia 50 era, late 2000, which made me go into film. To be critical, slide did a lot for me to jump into this medium but I am also rarely shooting it.Velvia 50 is nicer IMO, and an E6 emulsion making production and processing easier and more available. Unfortunately, it's been dropped in large format and who knows how long it will be around in smaller formats?
I remembered top of mind that Kodachrome had particularities in the cyan dye, multiquoting some PE below. I loved its reds, but basically the primaries are rendered quite strongly in other (slide) films as well.I'm working from memory here - a deep dive into Photo Engineer's posts will reveal the information in more clear form - but IIRC in essence the process inherent in adding the colour to the three black and white images included some self masking characteristics that made it impossible to obtain the full amount of colour in at least one of the primary colours, leading to a deficiency in that colour.
And there was no way to engineer around that deficiency - just some ways that helped minimize it a bit.
I am not a chemical engineer, and I am not the person with the detailed technical knowledge who should be looked to for a better explanation. Back in the day, I relied entirely on Ron for this - both in his posts, and off thread communications. He clearly was of the opinion though that further work on a Kodachrome like process was a waste of resources.
Kodachrome has a unique cyan dye in it that has a very narrow band pass. It therefore requires a lot of cyan dye to make a neutral thereby making greens look 'different' than other films. At the same time, a neutral does not look exactly neutral.
It is for this reason that people report it difficult to scan Kodachromes. OTOH, I have seen some superb scans done by Al Weber. He has not had any problems with it by simply adjusting his parameters correctly.
Again, no mystery, just an accident of chemistry regarding the greens and cyans and blues. As to why overall? Kodachrome can pick any dye set they want due to being able to use 3 developing agents. They picked the couplers and developing agents for color purity (bandpass), and dye stability among other features.
PE
Unfortunately, the "peculiar" properties of the cyan dye used in Kodachrome K14, just like the predecessor, is related to it being in the developer and not in the coating. Being alkali soluble and unballasted changes the polarity and also renders it to some extent, microcrystalline as the dye. These are the two factors important in hue and image stability and they do not translate into E6 films very well.
PE
The fault of Kodachrome lies in the very narrow absorption spectrum of the cyan dye. It thus requires more cyan contrast which leads to some colors becoming chalky looking and others being exaggerated. The high contrast also leads to heavy doses of color. Basically, Kodachrome gives an unreal color rendition to everything, but it is one which can make a garbage dump look pretty.
Also, Friedman's book is so old, it predates K14 and thus is not really representative of the technology in use at the end of Kodachrome's life. But then, K14 is not representative of what could have been done if there was a K16... etc...
PE
they form a relief image that enhances sharpness. Also, using 3 developers, the dyes can be individually customized for stability and hue. My opinion has been that the cyan is detrimental to the image due to its peculiar hue, and I have presented evidence elsewhere.
I'm working from memory here - a deep dive into Photo Engineer's posts will reveal the information in more clear form - but IIRC in essence the process inherent in adding the colour to the three black and white images included some self masking characteristics that made it impossible to obtain the full amount of colour in at least one of the primary colours, leading to a deficiency in that colour.
And there was no way to engineer around that deficiency - just some ways that helped minimize it a bit.
He clearly was of the opinion though that further work on a Kodachrome like process was a waste of resources.
Trying to perfect something we were totally happy with. His improvements were technically sufficient, although not everyone like the result.
We don't want any further improvements.
Kodak will be OK, not sure if the same can be said about E-6 films. I'm enjoying it all, while it's here.
I would not be surprised if we see a Harman slide film in that time frame, especially given some of the results folks got from cross processing Phoenix. Given their current velocity, it seems totally plausible they might have a film intended for E6 within a decade.I predict that in a decade or so, we will have at least two Chinese suppliers of E6 films, LuckyChrome and AN Other.
I would not be surprised if we see a Harman slide film in that time frame, especially given some of the results folks got from cross processing Phoenix. Given their current velocity, it seems totally plausible they might have a film intended for E6 within a decade.
I'm really curious to see what the results of Chinese emulsions are.If Harman stays the course they'll do great. I hope Foma can hang in there.
China is an unknown but will probably disrupt the market like they've done before.
I'm really curious to see what the results of Chinese emulsions are.
Electronics has a staggeringly large financial and technological imprint worldwide. Photographic film is a little aphid.
I wouldn't count on either the Chinese or Harman for anything meaningful in terms of replacement color films if Kodak became absent from the market. Where's the R&D $$ incentive? Coating color film isn't like rolling out pizza dough.
And Ilford/Harman is going to have a hard enough time just trying to rein in the inflationary balloon of black and white materials, if they're going to continue to sustain consumer interest.
What is really needed are edible, biodegradeable cell phones. So many of them get thrown away once a newer model or higher speed shows up.
You're probably right. I come from science, and China is now the leading country for basic science (as well as engineering). The investment over the past decade is just staggering and it's hard to relate things like astronomy and fundamental physics to direct wealth creation. And nearly all the innovation in relation to tech products comes from China (innovation ... of course they're miles ahead as regards production technology). And no shortage of entrepreneurs wanting to realise their dream of creating new products that help their fellow citizens (I'm thinking of Takumi Home Darkroom for example).
So yes, you are probably right, but who knows?
I think China is good at copying and could make film but lack the mindset to create new stuff, such as AI.
I think China is good at copying and could make film but lack the mindset to create new stuff, such as AI.
What's it like being stuck in 1985 forever?I think China is good at copying and could make film but lack the mindset to create new stuff, such as AI.
And taking this comment as a basis, as it very much applies:I think China is good at copying and could make film but lack the mindset to create new stuff, such as AI.
As a platform, we do not approve of dismissive statements about the capabilities of a country or its people, especially if these are offered without basis and/or are evidently factually incorrect. This is indeed an international forum which is inherently welcoming to photographers and enthusiasts from across the globe, regardless of nationality etc. In order to maintain a welcoming atmosphere to all, disparaging comments about nations and peoples are not allowed.Remember this is an international forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?