R.I.P. Kodachrome

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Now it's official.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...55L3CZ20090622

I shot many rolls of Kodachrome in the mid-1990's when I was doing food
photography, but I never used it exclusively. The expense and waiting a
week or more to get my Kodachrome transparencies back were always issues,
but the results were beautiful. I sent my slides to my agency, so I never
scanned Kodachrome for submission, but the scans I fooled around with at
home on a cheapie flatbed didn't look too bad. I finally settled on Fuji
Sensia 100, the consumer version of Astia, as my standard slide film,
primarily because I could pick it up cheaply at Wal-Mart and get quick
processing turn-around at my local camera shop. The Sensia performed and
sold very well. I had no plans to use Kodachrome again, but it's still sad
to see a pioneering legend bite the dust. Think of all the National
Geographic images Kodachrome gave us. I wonder if Paul Simon is grieving or
if he's now singing, "Mama don't you take my EOS-1Ds away"?

SW

On 22-06-09 19:42, Summer Wind wrote:
sent my slides to my agency, so I never
scanned Kodachrome for submission, but the scans I fooled around with at
home on a cheapie flatbed didn't look too bad. I finally settled on Fuji
Sensia 100, the consumer version of Astia, as my standard slide film,

Astia was Sensia for a while and then they released a new Astia that had
slightly different curves from Sensia. Perhaps because too many pros
were using Sensia as a more than acceptable and cheaper substitute. I
too used a lot of Sensia, but eventually went more to E100G/S/VS and
Velvias. Got a lot in the freezer, actually.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
I'll bet Kodak sells more Kodachrome film in the next 6 months than
they have in the past 10 years.


Hoarding it is pointless. You won't be able to get it processed after the
lab shuts down.

SW

On 23-06-09 07:42, Summer Wind wrote:
wrote in message
...
I'll bet Kodak sells more Kodachrome film in the next 6 months than
they have in the past 10 years.


Hoarding it is pointless. You won't be able to get it processed after the
lab shuts down.

He didn't say hoarding.
As long as people expose and process it by then, there is no issue.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:42:23 -0500, "Summer Wind"
wrote:
: "Annika1980" wrote in message
: ...
: I'll bet Kodak sells more Kodachrome film in the next 6 months than
: they have in the past 10 years.
:
: Hoarding it is pointless. You won't be able to get it processed after
: the lab shuts down.

Why has it always been infeasible to process Kodachrome yourself? It required
(I believe) a reversal exposure; but so did Ektachrome, and home processing of
that was fairly routine. I seem to recall reading somewhere that processing
Kodachrome involves the use of dangerous chemicals, but that may be just an
urban legend. There must be someone in the photography newsgroups
knowledgeable enough to provide a brief disquisition on the subject.

Bob

On 25 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Robert Coe wrote:

Why has it always been infeasible to process Kodachrome yourself? It
required (I believe) a reversal exposure; but so did Ektachrome, and
home processing of that was fairly routine. I seem to recall reading
somewhere that processing Kodachrome involves the use of dangerous
chemicals, but that may be just an urban legend. There must be
someone in the photography newsgroups knowledgeable enough to
provide a brief disquisition on the subject.

It's a very touchy process, involving a number of steps, re-exposure
using carefully color-controlled light, requires very exact temperature
control...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process

Compare this to E-6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process

Also, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachr...dachrome_films

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

Robert Coe wrote:

Why has it always been infeasible to process Kodachrome yourself? It required
(I believe) a reversal exposure; but so did Ektachrome, and home processing of
that was fairly routine. I seem to recall reading somewhere that processing
Kodachrome involves the use of dangerous chemicals, but that may be just an
urban legend. There must be someone in the photography newsgroups
knowledgeable enough to provide a brief disquisition on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process

BTW, there were small run processing machines for Kodachrome sold in the late
1990's. They were intended for professional labs to buy and run as a service
for their customers. By that time, in many places, Kodachrome development had
slowed to 3 working days (pickup, processing, return).

I don't know if any information made it on line, but there should of been
studies published of the costs, return on investment, and environmental
impact of owning and using such a machine.

As for the re-exposure of the film, it's basicly passing the film under a
colored light. Ektachrome processing, which used a white light (of almost
any color) long ago dropped it entirely. While it probably took a great deal
of effort in the 1930's to get the color and brightness exactly "right", by
the 1990s it could be controlled with a microprocessor far better than a
person could of gotten it in the past.

I think it was more a question of economics. How much would you pay to develop
a roll of film? If it was $100, 3 day turn around (almost) anywhere in the
world would have been feasable, using a service like FEDEX, UPS or DHL.
If it were $5, it would have been difficult to do with local pickup and
delivery.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 26/06/2009 12:11 PM:

urban legend. There must be someone in the photography newsgroups
knowledgeable enough to provide a brief disquisition on the subject.

Go to APUG and ask there. Quite a few ex-Kodak folks there who know the process
intimately.

IIRC the reversal process can't be done chemically like E6 procesing does and
the colour pigments have to be added after, unlike E6.

frank wrote,on my timestamp of 27/06/2009 3:27 AM:


Besides loss of the film, there is a technical knowledge base that
Kodak is just discarding that is irreplaceable. And since this is a
film group, that is a real shame There were a lot of specialized
emulsions that are just gone. Granted there were lots of niche
markets, but that ability no longer will exist in the US.

What is really tragic is that Kodak is shutting down everyone's ability to make
Kodachrome. I'm quite sure if they made the process details and patents public,
someone in China, India or the old Soviet block would take it over and produce
and develop the darn thing at a reduced price. Why not, beats me: it's not like
they're gonna make some moolah out of that now?

Noons wrote:
What is really tragic is that Kodak is shutting down everyone's ability to make
Kodachrome. I'm quite sure if they made the process details and patents public,
someone in China, India or the old Soviet block would take it over and produce
and develop the darn thing at a reduced price. Why not, beats me: it's not like
they're gonna make some moolah out of that now?

What you don't know is what is parts of the current film and process are
either covered by patents, or are "trade secrets" that are used in current
and future products.

While as far as Kodak is concerned there is not enough money to be made
in Kodachrome, or black and white paper to make them viable products, silver
based technology is far from dead.

There still is a good sized market for color film and silver based prints of
digital images. To give away the Kodachrome process and film would probably
place far too much information in the public domain and give their competition
in those fields a "leg up", which would be bad for Kodak.

Considering there are people out there willing to invest 2.5 million dollars
and several years of their time to reproduce the Polaroid process, you probably
could get someone to fund your reverse enginering of the Kodachrome design to
produce a similar film, free of Kodak patents and trade secrets, with an
environmentaly friendly process.

Considering the basic Kodachrome design was done in the 1930's by two
musicians experimenting with color photography, you could do a far better
job if you combine the right creative thinkers and modern process design
engineers, chemists and computer control systems developers.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM