And then there were two: Kodachrome processing

In article NC8Gg.8185$Vo.7177@trndny09, Bob Hickey
wrote:

I don't understand any of this. What was Kodachromes
competition; Ansco, GAF, who later joined forces in time to fold? Ektachrome
blue and white? Some of that color was terrible, but still people bought it
"cause Kodachrome was a $1? more. Suppose it was, say 30 years ago, and they
put K-25/64 up against todays Fuji line of chrome? I don't mourn K-25 or
Ektacolor, or the first Tri-X cause the stuff was so great, but for the
incredible amount of out and out junk they made along with it. Maybe Lucky
will steal a few formulas from Efke and the Kodak flag will fly again. Bob
Hickey

If I interpret you correctly, your thesis is that Kodachrome only shone
in comparison to the dreck it was originally compared with?

Perhaps, but I think not.

Other slide films of 30 years ago certainly did have much higher grain,
lower sharpness, and (ahem) creative color balance, by comparison.

One can do a comparison with modern emulsions; while the differences in
grain and sharpness have diminished, Kodachrome still has the edge. As
to color balance, most films now have a similar look; and for the most
part, they all look like overly vivid and contrasty Ektachrome, which
is, in fact, what they really are.

Finally, the issue of permanence. My Kodachromes from 30-40 years ago
are still fine; other slides have not fared nearly so well. Has this
improved? I'll check in a few decades...

"Bob Hickey" wrote in message
news:NC8Gg.8185$Vo.7177@trndny09...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:

It is criminal of Kodak to starve that product to death.

1) Look up the definition of "criminal".

2) Neither mama, nor Kodak took the Kodachrome away, lack of users did.

3) It would be negligence if Kodak kept it going and losing money.


I don't understand any of this. What was Kodachromes
competition; Ansco, GAF, who later joined forces in time to fold?
Ektachrome
blue and white? Some of that color was terrible, but still people bought
it
"cause Kodachrome was a $1? more. Suppose it was, say 30 years ago, and
they
put K-25/64 up against todays Fuji line of chrome? I don't mourn K-25 or
Ektacolor, or the first Tri-X cause the stuff was so great, but for the
incredible amount of out and out junk they made along with it. Maybe
Lucky
will steal a few formulas from Efke and the Kodak flag will fly again. Bob
Hickey



With regard to my comment that it was "criminal" of Kodak to kill off
Kodachrome, that term was used with editorial license, and no reasonable
person would have interpreted it to mean that Kodak's management should have
been subjected to criminal justice.

As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today, because
my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus the
Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered into
using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king. And if
one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.

My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain if
I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find out.

The Man With No Name wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Parsons,+KS

I'm curious how you found "a large technical operation" from that map. I
agree there's often good things found in small towns, but neither Google
Maps nor Mapquest really showed them

As I said:

and zoom out a bit. Zoom out even more for the big story.

Parsons is the location of the "Kansas Army Ammunition Plant".
Seemingly located in Parsons because Parsons is the most
isolated [or close to it] place in Kansas.

The ammunition plant is about 4 miles by 6 miles in size.

Odds were, you could find chemists and chemical workers who
were used to all sorts of mucky chemicals working there.

Now to get people to use the stuff.

Well, it's not Iowa, but whatever happened to "Build it and they will
come"?

A Speilberg fantasy, isn't it? -- Just sounds good.

Though there is a Russian saying:
"It sounds so good, it must be true."
which goes with:
"You have to be drunk to understand it."

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation
http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/

In article y0kGg.3942$E_.1298@trnddc06, jeremy
wrote:

As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today, because
my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus the
Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered into
using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king. And if
one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.

Yeah, I tried that junk too. Not a single usable frame remains. Of
course, it was really intended for release prints for the movie
industry, for which longevity was NOT a design criteria.

My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain if
I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find out.

To me, K25 seemed to have an odd and wonderful "micro-contrast" that
gave vivid color without excessive overall contrast and burned
highlights. K64 has a similar look, but can't quite match that. While
you're at it, don't ignore the 200 speed version. I shoot a lot of air
shows with long lenses, and use KL200 almost exclusively. Some people
complain about it, but I still like it a lot better than any E6 film.

Scott Schuckert wrote:

In article y0kGg.3942$E_.1298@trnddc06, jeremy
wrote:


As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today, because
my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus the
Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered into
using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king. And if
one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.


Yeah, I tried that junk too. Not a single usable frame remains. Of
course, it was really intended for release prints for the movie
industry, for which longevity was NOT a design criteria.


My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain if
I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find out.


To me, K25 seemed to have an odd and wonderful "micro-contrast" that
gave vivid color without excessive overall contrast and burned
highlights. K64 has a similar look, but can't quite match that. While
you're at it, don't ignore the 200 speed version. I shoot a lot of air
shows with long lenses, and use KL200 almost exclusively. Some people
complain about it, but I still like it a lot better than any E6 film.

And KL200 can be pushed to ISO 500.

--

These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

John

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article y0kGg.3942$E_.1298@trnddc06, jeremy
wrote:

As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today,
because
my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus the
Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered into
using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king. And if
one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.

Yeah, I tried that junk too. Not a single usable frame remains. Of
course, it was really intended for release prints for the movie
industry, for which longevity was NOT a design criteria.

My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain if
I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find out.

To me, K25 seemed to have an odd and wonderful "micro-contrast" that
gave vivid color without excessive overall contrast and burned
highlights. K64 has a similar look, but can't quite match that. While
you're at it, don't ignore the 200 speed version. I shoot a lot of air
shows with long lenses, and use KL200 almost exclusively. Some people
complain about it, but I still like it a lot better than any E6 film.

I still have the promotional material from one of the 5254 processors, RGB
Photo Lab, that extols the virtues of that wonderful, fine-grain movie
stock. What a crock! The prints were lousy and the slides have all faded
to the point that there is barely anything on them.

But my Kodachromes look like they did from the first day.

On 2006-08-20 12:12:08 -0400, no_name said:

Michael Weinstein wrote:

On 2006-08-19 14:28:10 -0400, "William Graham" said:


"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...

"Scott Schuckert" wrote:

Ah, if one could. The processing of Kodachrome film is fiendishly
complex; I can't imagine an individual attempting it, even if the
materials were available..


I believe that an individual could process Kodachrome as a
black and white film, but I don't know the timings or how
good the result would be.


I would have thought that all you needed were the proper chemicals, a
timer, and temperature control equipment, but I don't really
know......Is the method more complex than that? - Like, do you have to
expose it to light during the process, or something like that?


Kodachrome is about the most complex film developing process there is.
The dyes are NOT in the film as they are in E6 films such as
Ektachromes and Fujichromes, they are put in during processing. That's
why there's only one place in the US doing it any more. You can develop
E6 at home with minimal equipmnt and good attention to time and
temperature, but you cannot do Kodachrome at home.

There's more than one place. Kodak only has one place, but they sold
processing systems & there are a few independents who still do K-14.

According to the OP there are only two places left and only one in the
US, and it isn't Kodak:

"Kodak ceases Kodachrome processing in Switzerland. Dwayne's
Photo in Kansas and the Horiuchi Color Lab in Tokyo are the
only two labs left."
--
Michael | "He's dead, Jim."

On 2006-08-22 10:24:40 -0400, Scott Schuckert said:

In article y0kGg.3942$E_.1298@trnddc06, jeremy
wrote:

As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today,
because my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus
the Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered
into using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king.
And if one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.

Yeah, I tried that junk too. Not a single usable frame remains. Of
course, it was really intended for release prints for the movie
industry, for which longevity was NOT a design criteria.

My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain
if I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find
out.

To me, K25 seemed to have an odd and wonderful "micro-contrast" that
gave vivid color without excessive overall contrast and burned
highlights. K64 has a similar look, but can't quite match that. While
you're at it, don't ignore the 200 speed version. I shoot a lot of air
shows with long lenses, and use KL200 almost exclusively. Some people
complain about it, but I still like it a lot better than any E6 film.

Better than Kodachrome 25 (which I loved) and its short-lived (and also
ASA 25) predecessor Kodachrome II was KODACHROME. ASA 10. I still have
slides taken on that. The color, sharpness and zero grain was
astounding. Of course you couldn't do much with today's trendy slow
zoom lenses and Kodachrome ASA 10, but my old Nikon F with a 1.4 Nikkor
could do wonders. And it was amazing with "high speed" Kodachrome II/25!
--
Michael | "He's dead, Jim."

"Michael Weinstein" wrote in message
news:2006082223323650073-notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetcomcom...
On 2006-08-22 10:24:40 -0400, Scott Schuckert said:

In article y0kGg.3942$E_.1298@trnddc06, jeremy
wrote:

As for why I liked Kodachrome, I originally liked it for its saturated
colors (Kodachrome 25) and fine grain. I like it even more today,
because my Kodachromes from the 70s have held up extremely well, versus
the Eastmancolor Movie Film Stock (5254 and 5247) that I was suckered
into using. If one appreciates saturated colors, Kodachrome was king.
And if one appreciates longevity, Kodachrome still rules.

Yeah, I tried that junk too. Not a single usable frame remains. Of
course, it was really intended for release prints for the movie
industry, for which longevity was NOT a design criteria.

My only regret is that I didn't use Kodachrome exclusively. I just may
start doing that now, as long as it is still available. I'm uncertain
if I'll like K64 as much as I loved K25, but we'll just have to find
out.

To me, K25 seemed to have an odd and wonderful "micro-contrast" that
gave vivid color without excessive overall contrast and burned
highlights. K64 has a similar look, but can't quite match that. While
you're at it, don't ignore the 200 speed version. I shoot a lot of air
shows with long lenses, and use KL200 almost exclusively. Some people
complain about it, but I still like it a lot better than any E6 film.

Better than Kodachrome 25 (which I loved) and its short-lived (and also
ASA 25) predecessor Kodachrome II was KODACHROME. ASA 10. I still have
slides taken on that. The color, sharpness and zero grain was astounding.
Of course you couldn't do much with today's trendy slow zoom lenses and
Kodachrome ASA 10, but my old Nikon F with a 1.4 Nikkor could do wonders.
And it was amazing with "high speed" Kodachrome II/25!
--

Back in those days, they weren't selling cheap kit zoom lenses with new
cameras.

The Time-Life Library of Photography notes that Ernst Haas was devastated
when Kodak discontinued the old Kodachrome, and that he complained so
bitterly that his Kodak rep managed to ship him all of Kodak's remaining
stock--enough to completely fill a full-sized refrigerator.

I started with Kodachrome when Kodachrome 25 was first introduced. My
initial interest in the product stemmed from having read that the resolution
was so high that it enabled a 35mm camera to produce images that rivaled
medium format (this was before Kodak marketed Kodachrome in 120 size). Back
then I did not realize that shooting at full aperture resulted in softer
images, so I don't think I got the full benefit of the film emulsion. I got
most of my early photographic education from Pop Photo and Modern
Photography--and they had a different agenda than educating their readers.
They were more oriented toward getting us to buy additional lenses and
accessories, and I got swallowed up in that for a number of years, just as
many others did.

No one ever talked about Kodachrome's archival qualities back then. The
pity is that now we know want great stuff that was, and it is coming toward
the end of its product life cycle.

jeremy wrote:




Back in those days, they weren't selling cheap kit zoom lenses with new
cameras.


Just 'cause they're sellin' them don't mean you gotta' buy one. Buy the
body and get the lens you want to go with it.



--

These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

John