Survey - Kodachrome Revival Price Point?

[Photo Engineer]

Roger, in most cases you supply the formula or even the materials to Inoviscoat. They do not do R&D for you except to a small extent to establish the coating parameters. And that is what caused the demise of K25. It could only be coated on 1 machine and the R&D needed to develop a new coating formula was not there due to low sales.

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

I get it. It's still POSSIBLE given enough money. Almost anything is. We're saying the same thing. You're saying it's impossible for all practical purposes because that kind of money isn't there in the market for it and won't be again. I'm saying it's impractical because that kind of money isn't there in the market and won't be again.

I recall you said it was possible to process it at home, though highly difficult and involved and expensive. Stephen proved you correct on all points.

 

[Nzoomed]

Roger, in most cases you supply the formula or even the materials to Inoviscoat. They do not do R&D for you except to a small extent to establish the coating parameters. And that is what caused the demise of K25. It could only be coated on 1 machine and the R&D needed to develop a new coating formula was not there due to low sales.

PE

Thats interesting regarding K25.

What was different about that emulsion compared to other speeds in Kodachrome that only one coater was capable of?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Interesting Nzoomed! Very interesting indeed. If we knew what the problem was, do you think we would have failed?

Actually, we pretty much did have hints, but there was no simple solution then. AFAIK, there is none now either.

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

Interesting Nzoomed! Very interesting indeed. If we knew what the problem was, do you think we would have failed?

Actually, we pretty much did have hints, but there was no simple solution then. AFAIK, there is none now either.

PE

Dont quite understand you sorry, are you saying Kodak failed with K25? Your post suggests it was a hard film to coat, or am i getting you wrong?
I thought there was less demand for K25 thats all, being such a slow film speed etc.

On another note, why are C41 films so popular? I thought everyone claims they are supposed to have alot more resolution than slide film, but i fail to see that myself, ive only shot a few rolls of portra and kodak gold recently and its way more grainy than my E6 (E100g).

 

[railwayman3]

Interesting Nzoomed! Very interesting indeed. If we knew what the problem was, do you think we would have failed?

Actually, we pretty much did have hints, but there was no simple solution then. AFAIK, there is none now either.

PE

I think that is just another proof of how impossibly difficult it would be to reproduce Kodachrome....apart from everything else, it seems it's not just a matter of finding someone with a random coater, or building one from scratch !

Just for interest, was it only just one coater in the world that could do K25, or one type of coater. (I have K25 cartons in my little collection saying "Made in USA", and "Made in England", and I'm fairly sure I once saw "Made in France", though the latter may have been Kodachrome II. Or perhaps the films were made in US and packed in other countries ? )

 

[railwayman3]

On another note, why are C41 films so popular? I thought everyone claims they are supposed to have alot more resolution than slide film, but i fail to see that myself, ive only shot a few rolls of portra and kodak gold recently and its way more grainy than my E6 (E100g).

Presumably that casual shooters preferred paper prints, and the negative films were much more forgiving of poor exposure and handling issues. Also a slide is normally a single original, while a negative allows any number of good quality first-generation prints to be made.

 

[Nzoomed]

I think that is just another proof of how impossibly difficult it would be to reproduce Kodachrome....apart from everything else, it seems it's not just a matter of finding someone with a random coater, or building one from scratch !

Just for interest, was it only just one coater in the world that could do K25, or one type of coater. (I have K25 cartons in my little collection saying "Made in USA", and "Made in England", and I'm fairly sure I once saw "Made in France", though the latter may have been Kodachrome II. Or perhaps the films were made in US and packed in other countries ? )

Thats what i was trying to get out of PE, but he seemed to take it the wrong way. I was only wanting to know the technical differences in the K25 emulsion, as there is obviously some changes to its properties that make it difficult to coat, more viscous perhaps? IDK, im not the expert, that was why i asked.

Interesting you mention about UK coated Kodak...
I remember reading here that people reported that the quality of UK made Ektachrome was different to the US made stuff, something about the thickness of the layers was thicker?
I believe thinner coats of the film were better, and perhaps the UK coater was not up to the task?

Anyway, obviously the other speeds of Kodachrome were relatively easy to make such as K64, and we all know it is essentially a B&W film made with 3 different light sensitive layers. PE himself even admits that C41 films are far more complex, and i imagine that the same would apply to E6 films also.

Producing Kodachrome was not really the main issue when K64 was dropped, it was simply that the sales become unprofitable.
Then there was also the chemistry for processing the film that was an issue also.

If processing was easier to manage, and others produced the chemistry etc, i dont think Kodachrome would have died as soon as it did. Either way, im amazed how long Kodachrome lasted.
On a side note, i just scanned some long forgotten slides given to me of my mother when she was a child, (yes its Kodachrome) and its truly amazing how well they have scanned, even being so damaged and scratched, they have scanned beautifully and you would swear that the photo was taken yesterday!

Comparing this to my E6, and im totally lost for words, this stuff was amazing!

 

[Nzoomed]

Presumably that casual shooters preferred paper prints, and the negative films were much more forgiving of poor exposure and handling issues. Also a slide is normally a single original, while a negative allows any number of good quality first-generation prints to be made.

Yes, makes sense, C41 is essentially a print film, but with today's digital scanners, is negative really cruical?
Even today most C41 is just developed, and then printed digitally at most labs.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Yes, makes sense, C41 is essentially a print film, but with today's digital scanners, is negative really cruical?
Even today most C41 is just developed, and then printed digitally at most labs.

If you don't care about projecting slides, then C41 is more or less all you need. Superior exposure latitude, still widely available processing and much lower prices. What's not to like?

 

[railwayman3]

Yes, makes sense, C41 is essentially a print film, but with today's digital scanners, is negative really cruical?
Even today most C41 is just developed, and then printed digitally at most labs.

Am I right in thinking that most labs scan the neg, then exposure onto "real" photo paper with 3-color lasers ? Then chemically process the paper as normal ?

 

[RPC]

Yes, makes sense, C41 is essentially a print film, but with today's digital scanners, is negative really cruical?
Even today most C41 is just developed, and then printed digitally at most labs.

The dynamic range of negatives is superior to slides, and this has nothing to do with scanning. Also, color negatives are masked for dye impurities whereas slides are not, meaning better color quaility when optical printing (there are those who still do that) and I would think theoretically better even when scanning, although I don't scan them so I am not sure. The high contrast of slides can also be an issue when printing and perhaps scanning, and is generally less desirable for people pictures. Negatives are just a safer bet to use for just about everything except direct viewing or projection.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's not necessarily correct at all. All color neg films have serious hue reproduction problems. Most are optimized for pleasing skintones, not overall neutrality. In most cases, you can get more accurate color from a chrome, leaving contrast control as the biggest hurdle. With color negs, some of
that extended range involves inherent dye curve crossover or contamination, hence muddied hues. But getting form Point A to Point B involves quite a bit, depending on how you are printing the image. Color negs are EASIER to print under an enlarger; but you still often have to tweak them with correction masks for ideal results. Ektar is a bit different animal, demanding attention to certain idiosyncrasies of its own. But I have found it to be a reasonable substitute for subjects where I previously relied on chrome film.

 

[RPC]

I never said negative film had no problems or was perfect. As I said slides are fine when viewed directly but are problematic to get good color when printing due to lack of a mask and high contrast, far more than negatives. This is a major reason why the motion picture industry uses negative film as opposed to reversal film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What the motion picture industry did use a lot of instead of color neg stock was Technicolor. So they certainly weren't avoiding a very complex and expensive color reproduction process, but fostering it for the sake of its superior results. No sense going into the history of all this here - there are plenty of educational sites describing the evolution of various film media. But BIG budgets allowed these kinds of options. For us little people, well...
I think the largest number of 8x10 film masks I once used to print an 8x10 chrome onto Cibachrome was eight. I've heard of dye transfer printers using up to fifteen or twenty sheets of film prior to exposing the matrix film itself. That's a lot of expense at today's film prices! When printing color
negs, I use supplementary masks only about 30% of the time, and the printing paper itself is far cheaper.

 

[Photo Engineer]

What a lot to answer.....

K25 was an unforgiving film being a very very thin coating done at medium speed on 3 coaters world wide (IIRC). The type of coater was such that changing it rendered the result useless. As Kodak retired machines in England and France, they brought Kodachrome back to the US for total production on one machine, but eventually it had to be retired as well. No other machine could coat K25 and the ROI for R&D to make it coatable was not there. Product sales of all Kodachrome films was insufficient to support any R&D. So, when the machine "expired" the product retired!

Negative films are better than reversal films in every way. They are also more complex. Every time you print reversal onto reversal, you print toe to toe and shoulder to shoulder. This is not so with negative films. You print straight line to toe and shoulder thus preserving highlights and shadows. You get no dupey look, and this is why Technicolor and Kodachrome could not work in the MP arena.

Also, color reproduction from generation to generation is better with negative films. And, in spite of what you may think, they are less grainy! The coatings have up to 15 layers as I have said before. Coating is very precise and is done at very high speeds. As for E6 films, again the market was not there to support R&D for better image stability and better image quality. In fact, when the income on E6 fell below the cost of making it, then it too was retired.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

The best multiple-generation duplication I've ever gotten was with Fuji Astia 100F. Nothing else came close for me. And that was obviously chrome film. But I always did supplementary masking to control the inevitable contrast buildup each step. But the K25 information is interesting. I never liked
the 64 product quite as much as K25.

 

[Nzoomed]

If you don't care about projecting slides, then C41 is more or less all you need. Superior exposure latitude, still widely available processing and much lower prices. What's not to like?

Readily available and cheaper processing is the main advantage for me, but i still prefer the colour of slide films, and i dont care what anyone says, but this stuff is as grainy as hell, even portra is showing heavy grain when scanned.

 

[Nzoomed]

Am I right in thinking that most labs scan the neg, then exposure onto "real" photo paper with 3-color lasers ? Then chemically process the paper as normal ?

Some labs do indeed do that with fuji crystal archive.

Here in New Zealand, there are only a handful of labs that do that, most labs print them using dye sublimation, which is OK for most prints, but i send most of my high res scans down to Wellington to get printed onto Fuji Crystal archive which is RA4.

Thats why im saying that it doesnt really matter what film you use today if its being printed digitally, as the scanner should be able to accurately reproduce your slide images perfectly.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You may find that the grain is so fine on Portra and Ektar that your scanner is showing some aliasing due to its quality. I have seen some outstanding drum scans of C41 films even as long ago as 20 years!!

PE

 

[Nzoomed]

You may find that the grain is so fine on Portra and Ektar that your scanner is showing some aliasing due to its quality. I have seen some outstanding drum scans of C41 films even as long ago as 20 years!!

PE

Maybe that is the problem perhaps?
IDK, ill check with my photo lab and try another scanner.
All i know is all my scans seem to show alot of grain.

 

[Truzi]

I suck at scanning, and had no obvious "grain" with various c-41 films, including Portra. I used a Canoscan 8600F at it's highest "optical" resolution. It was my first time color processing, so I'm sure the negatives could have been better. When I zoomed in, I saw "noise," not grain. I can identify "noise" in electronics, and grain in old or improperly exposed color film, but I'm not sure I even know what grain looks like on a properly-exposed modern color film (my compliments to the C-41 chefs).

I can't wait until I learn to print these.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I suck at scanning, and had no obvious "grain" with various c-41 films, including Portra. I used a Canoscan 8600F at it's highest "optical" resolution. It was my first time color processing, so I'm sure the negatives could have been better. When I zoomed in, I saw "noise," not grain. I can identify "noise" in electronics, and with old or improperly exposed color film, but I'm not sure I even know what grain looks like on a properly-exposed modern color film (my compliments to the C-41 chefs).

I can't wait until I learn to print these.

I think you may have it right.

PE

 

[Wayne]

I suck at scanning, and had no obvious "grain" with various c-41 films, including Portra. I used a Canoscan 8600F at it's highest "optical" resolution. It was my first time color processing, so I'm sure the negatives could have been better. When I zoomed in, I saw "noise," not grain. I can identify "noise" in electronics, and grain in old or improperly exposed color film, but I'm not sure I even know what grain looks like on a properly-exposed modern color film (my compliments to the C-41 chefs).

I can't wait until I learn to print these.

I have a hell of a time focusing grain from 4x5 Ektar and my eyes aren't that bad. I wish it was more grainy.

 

[Wayne]

Wow. Why did my post above trigger the "offtopic digital content warning"? Grain? Ektar? WTF?