Anyway, your right on the life of the chemicals when mixed. How long do they last? Is it a matter of minutes or will they keep for an hour? I know they oxidise fast and you could see the staining on the tanks at dwaynes.
This is truly sad for me to hear coming from someone so in tune with the inner workings of film R&D and production, but I'm sure you're right.Kodak called it quits [with E6]. I expect Fuji to do so soon.
Is there anyway we can have a moratorium on "bring kodachrome back" type posts?
I dont mean to sound flippant or insensitive, but its just too much a waste of time. It's OK to talk about Kodachrome as a past phenomena, but it insults the sensibility to discuss it as a future possibility.
The word Kodachrome should join the other naughty words on Sean's novel Post/Thought Police warning..
I think to a certain extent, PE's view of Kodachrome is like the view of a musician who wants to play their current music, while all the fans keep asking them to play the old hits over and over and over.
...
I believe that the bag in box chemicals were flushed with nitrogen or some other inhert gas, which explains why it was possible to ship the mixed chemicals.Nzoom, to answer your question, the color developers last for minutes. I have played with some color couplers and CD-3. By the 3 minutes or so that is required for the color development, the developer is oxidized from oxygen in the atmosphere and of no further use. In 3 minutes plastic cup used for developing is stained in pretty cyan, yellow or magenta - which is not a color. And the dye is nearly impossible to clean up if you spill chemicals and the dye forms on a surface.
It seems that a constant supply of fresh chemistry into a machine would be needed as well as the old removed. I would wonder if the K-14 machines used a nitrogen purge in order to minimize oxidation.
This is truly sad for me to hear coming from someone so in tune with the inner workings of film R&D and production, but I'm sure you're right.
Tragically, it might be Ferrania who puts the nail in the coffin of E6 films. I feel terrible saying this, because they are doing exactly what I want -- introducing new film. But I'm sure the best they'll be able to come up with is something comparable to Rollei's Digibase 200CR film, which is a far cry from Provia or Ektachrome. When Fuji quits, slide film will be done for. I'll buy some Ferrania when it's available, but it won't fill the huge void left in my photography (medium format stereo slides -- the best photographic experience I've ever seen), as this demands ultra high resolution low grain films, meaning Kodak and Fuji.
Kodachrome's gone. Buy, shoot and process as much E6 as you can or else it will be gone very soon as well. Discontinuation of FP100C is a warning -- nothing's for certain. I'm buying some Provia and Velvia tonight.
Tragically, it might be Ferrania who puts the nail in the coffin of E6 films. I feel terrible saying this, because they are doing exactly what I want -- introducing new film. But I'm sure the best they'll be able to come up with is something comparable to Rollei's Digibase 200CR film, which is a far cry from Provia or Ektachrome. When Fuji quits, slide film will be done for. I'll buy some Ferrania when it's available, but it won't fill the huge void left in my photography (medium format stereo slides -- the best photographic experience I've ever seen), as this demands ultra high resolution low grain films, meaning Kodak and Fuji.
And, even if the "new" version were no better than the 25ASA version from the 1950's, this might appeal to those who want a retro look (dare I say Kodachrome enthusiasts,
Check out the samples of scotchchrome on flickr, its pretty good and i cant fault it.
I agree, I wish Ferrania much success, and I will buy their film. I just know that film (and moreso colour film) absolutely IS rocket science, and the "high-tech" films seem very threatened. I'm absolutely convinced there will be film for the next 100 years, but my concern is with the emulsions with very advanced technologies that seem to be in financial trouble. I buy Delta films and I think they are really good, but they don't contain all the ultra advanced tech as T-max and Acros. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying Delta is not an equivalent product to T-max and Acros (in my mind). Whenever someone says they feel E6 is in trouble, everyone immediately brings up Ferrania. I'm sure their product will be great, I just don't think it's reasonable to say that their product will be equivalent to Velvia or Provia or Ektachrome. Just think about how much R&D money Kodak and Fuji's invested into their E6 films.Let's give Ferrania a chance before we condemn their film with faint praise
I think Kodak could have perhaps reintroduced a vintage kodachrome if they wanted to and appealed to a newer target consumer base with such a unique and exclusive product, but enough of that[…]
Let's give Ferrania a chance before we condemn their film with faint praise. Their Scotchrome and Solaris color neg were perfectly usable and the fast version had, I believe, a higher speed than any other film....and a check on their website shows that dozens of companies were happy to use the neg film under own-brand labels.
And, even if the "new" version were no better than the 25ASA version from the 1950's, this might appeal to those who want a retro look (dare I say Kodachrome enthusiasts, and those who are still keen to use Rollei Digibase, despite the apparent light piping problems being discussed in another thread right now). I still have Ferrania slides home processed by my late Father in the 1960's Johnsons-of-Hendon kit, and the colors are not awful, just a nice pastel period look. We have a few scanned and printed, in frames, and there is almost a watercolor look to them.
I dont think you see where i was coming at.Poor PE, it never ends.
Kodak advertised Kodachrome heavily until the early '90s when sales began to lag. About then it shared ads with Ektachrome, which had sales far greater than Kodachrome.
Kodachrome was coated once a year and supplied the entire world for that year at about that time. Then the coating schedule slipped because unused outdated Kodachrome was being returned. Gradually slippage to the coating schedule to about 1 time every 2 years, and just one master roll. When returns on that became too great, costs could not be supported.
As for keeping of the solutions, you have three developers with the developing agent and the coupler mixed together. These don't stand around long. In KRL we used to make blanks with no coupler or developer both for keeping and to allow easy experimentation. But to keep it running well, you had to keep it running or it went bad.
It is such a complex product that it overwhelms the making of vinyl records by orders of magnitude. You talk about this as a simple undertaking, but it is not. Steve Frizza worked a near miracle to get the results he got! And that is just with the process. The film already existed.
PE
Dear PE,
I understand the technical requirements are what makes it virtually impossible for Kodachrome to come back in a profitable way. But you seem to imply that because in the 90's the market wasn't interested in Kodachrome anymore no matter the amount of advertizing efforts back then, it means that in the in current and even in a future market this cannot be different. I disagree with this concept. Back then Kodachrome was seen as an old product, taken for granted, more expensive and less popular than E6 (especially Velvia). The context is very different now and many people who never got the chance to shoot Kodachrome would love to use it now even if it is quite more expensive than other analog film. Technical considerations aside, who would have guessed there would be a market nowadays for instant photography based on the sales and interest for it at the time of Polaroid's running out of business?
As I stated in my original post, I don't beleive in a return of Kodachrome for it would require much more than just interest for the product (a new easier way to get it developped and a new interest in color transparencies in the first place). So no, I am not in denial nor illusional (to reply to people who just reject any constructive discussion by throughing out those two words to anyone who might have a different point of view than theirs).
Once again can we forget the "look" of Kodachrome. It was caused by a problem with the cyan coupler. The E6 process uses different and better couplers so we aren't going to see the"look" again. I really don't know why this keeps getting brought up.
When you look critically at Kodachrome's color balance there was not much to like. Skin tones were decidedly cold lending people a rather unheathy appearance.
I was actually talking about Ferraniacolor (the ancient and the possible new versions) in that post. Kodachrome's so-called "problem" coupler contributed to a unique look. 25ASA Ferraniacolor used the old pre-war Agfacolor couplers, again a retro look which will never be repeated in film.
But what's wrong with wanting a retro look, if it suits the subject or our "artistic" intentions....if it doesn't matter, why do we bother with B&W or sepia toning, or the many alternative processes. (And, for that matter, why do present-day professionals spent hours at their PC's photo-shopping their images to get the exact results they want for their assignments and publications).
I was actually talking about Ferraniacolor (the ancient and the possible new versions) in that post. Kodachrome's so-called "problem" coupler contributed to a unique look. 25ASA Ferraniacolor used the old pre-war Agfacolor couplers, again a retro look which will never be repeated in film.
Dear PE,
I understand the technical requirements are what makes it virtually impossible for Kodachrome to come back in a profitable way. But you seem to imply that because in the 90's the market wasn't interested in Kodachrome anymore no matter the amount of advertizing efforts back then, it means that in the in current and even in a future market this cannot be different. I disagree with this concept. Back then Kodachrome was seen as an old product, taken for granted, more expensive and less popular than E6 (especially Velvia). The context is very different now and many people who never got the chance to shoot Kodachrome would love to use it now even if it is quite more expensive than other analog film. Technical considerations aside, who would have guessed there would be a market nowadays for instant photography based on the sales and interest for it at the time of Polaroid's running out of business?
As I stated in my original post, I don't beleive in a return of Kodachrome for it would require much more than just interest for the product (a new easier way to get it developped and a new interest in color transparencies in the first place). So no, I am not in denial nor illusional (to reply to people who just reject any constructive discussion by throughing out those two words to anyone who might have a different point of view than theirs).
Are you sure that they used the old couplers? They coated with a slide coater, and AFAIK, the problem of using that coater with the old couplers was never solved.
PE
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?