I know that they say it's difficult to produce Kodachrome

I know that they say it's difficult to produce Kodachrome, but is that because it's hard to make the film, or is processing it a nightmare why they don't make it? I'm wondering if it would make sense to sell, and Paul Simon would probably hate me for saying this, as a B&W film, and figure out the processing later, as Kodak doesn't have a low speed B&W film. Would it be possible to make a film with all the same properties a Kodachrome, including archival stablity, that's less of a pain in the butt to develop?

I'm an optimist, so I think that Kodak will eventually launch Kodachrome again. They have to figure out how to make the chemicals less toxic, though.

It would be far less difficult to re introduce Panatomic X or Panatomic X Professional with no processing issues at all. Kodachrome was quite an amazing film, but if there were a significant market for it or Panatomic X, they would still be available, IMO. Economics.

It's my understanding that Kodachrome itself is actually somewhat easier to make than conventional color film(whether C-41 or E-6) since there is no need for color couplers in the emulsion itself.

 

Of course, Kodachrome is useless without the correct processing chemicals. Assuming you can get the correct dyes(I think Sigma sells them but they are $$$ in small quantities) it CAN be reverse engineered. Still, though, even standard color chemistry is a lot easier to "brew" yourself than Kodachrome.

Yeah, it's basically multiple bw layers where color is applied in processing. None of that dye coupled fuzziness to get in the way of micro contrasts.

 

In Kodachrome's defense it did have a distinct look, especially the super sharp 25 asa version. This compared to existing lot of still in production print films that laughably don't look much different than bland VPS III which they are based on. Can we trade boring wedding film's for bringing back K25, or will that mean porta fans will need to learn proper metering? :-)

 

Oh yeah....i scanned some old Kodachrome trannies for a relative a couple weeks ago, and used my dSLR and macro. Results were superb and easier than Ekatchrome or my old drum scanner. Kodachrome was a pain to scan with classic scanners, but my 60D nailed them and likely any dSLR.

If all the photographers who like Kodachrome all pooled their resources we could buy out Kodak and produce whatever film we want.

If all the photographers who like Kodachrome all pooled their resources we could buy out Kodak and produce whatever film we want.

 

But you still need the lab to process it.

It isn't "hard" to make Kodachrome film. It is hard to develop it:

 

"By the mid-1980s the film [Kodachrome] had been largely outmoded by faster, cheaper, films from Fuji and others. The high technical threshold for making successful photos and the complicated developing process that once made Kodachrome’s final images so incredible and cherished now acted as a liability".

 

If you're a professional, you are willing to pay designated amount of money to buy/properly expose/develop the film, but if you're a consumer (which is always in vast majority) you don't want much hassle. Demand for high grade product gets reduced and subsequently it dies. And mind you, there was still Ektachrome which was easier to handle. I'm surprised Kodachrome lasted until 20xx.

They don't even have the Ektachrome they promised available yet. Forget about Kodachrome.

It isn't "hard" to make Kodachrome film. It is hard to develop it:

 

"By the mid-1980s the film [Kodachrome] had been largely outmoded by faster, cheaper, films from Fuji and others. The high technical threshold for making successful photos and the complicated developing process that once made Kodachrome’s final images so incredible and cherished now acted as a liability".

 

If you're a professional, you are willing to pay designated amount of money to buy/properly expose/develop the film, but if you're a consumer (which is always in vast majority) you don't want much hassle. Demand for high grade product gets reduced and subsequently it dies. And mind you, there was still Ektachrome which was easier to handle. I'm surprised Kodachrome lasted until 20xx.

 

You're off by just shy of a decade. Kodachrome's real nemesis was Fujichrome Velvia.Once it hit wide circulation in the early '90s, Velvia knocked K-25 off photo editors' light tables. Pros got the message and switched to what sold. That's what mattered.

You're off by just shy of a decade. Kodachrome's real nemesis was Fujichrome Velvia.Once it hit wide circulation in the early '90s, Velvia knocked K-25 off photo editors' light tables. Pros got the message and switched to what sold. That's what mattered.

Quote wasn't mine, thought it was true. Thanks for enkindling.

Kodachrome was difficult to manufacture because the layers were very thin. Although it had a look some liked, it was technically inferior to today's E-6 films as it had crossover and dye impurity problems. The processing was very complex, and very exacting, making it costly and next to impossible to process at home. The chemistry went bad very quickly requiring high volume processing to make it feasible. To start manufacturing and processing it again would be cost prohibitive as the demand just isn't there, and there is no reason for it to be, considering the popularity of digital and the decline of reversal films. Kodak recently did an investigation to see if the market would support the return of Kodachrome and found it would not. Kodak seems to be having trouble getting the new Ektachrome out the door (and it is much more feasible to release than Kodachrome) and its success remains to be seen, so odds are high that the re-introduction of Kodachrome is simply never going to happen.

Yes, for last three years at CES, Kodak has demoed a Super 8 camera that they have yet to bring on the market. Every year it gets a bit closer and the estimated retail price goes up. For awhile there were lots of people that thought it was just vaporware and would never see the light of day. Kodak has made enough progress that an actual product seems more likely, but will the revenue ever make up for the investment?

 

Between the announcements of the Super 8 camera and the re-introduction of some old film, Kodak has shown they can generate buzz, but so far they're not getting any revenue. They aren't the giant they used to be. They don't have the capital, the facilities, or the expertise to bring new (or old) products to market the way they used to. If I ran the company I'd be very reluctant to commit to anything like re-introducing kodachrome until I knew they could accomplish what they've already promised to do. That's assuming it was a good idea, and realistically, I don't think it is.

Fujichrome Velvia.Once it hit wide circulation in the early '90s, Velvia knocked K-25 off photo editors' light tables.

Actually, in my experience "back in the day" Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome and Ektachrome all rendered skin tones differently. All were very good and were used based on the the model and the desired effect. With Kodachrome as 'normal' Fuji tended toward a golden look, Agfa was sort of rosy cheeked, and Ektachrome was cooler and a bit less saturated. I also think that outcomes, not particular film base is what editors look for. Just my recollection / impression.

Sandy, I think you're right. I was too young (or rather too lazy!) to be a photographer back in the '90s, but I read a lot of magazines. Velvia was by no means the be-all and end-all. A lot of people loved Fujichrome 100 & 50, Ektachrome Elite, even Kodachrome 200. I did shoot some slide film though, but never Velvia, probably because it was more expensive. I can't recall. Kodachrome was great due to the pre-paid processing.

 

IIRC the consensus was that Velvia was really an ISO 40 emulsion.

Kodachrome was perhaps the most beautiful of the slide color films. It is an un-incorporated color film meaning the dyes (cyan – magenta – yellow) are infused during the developing cycles. This permits greater freedom as to dye selection. Its cousins Ektachrome E-6 and Kodakcolor C-41 have the dyes incorporated into the film during manufacture. Incorporated films are greatly limited as to what dyes will work. I think it is remarkable that Kodachrome was the brainchild of two musicians, amateur photographers, devised in their basement workshop in New York City, Leopold Mananes and Leopold Godowsky in 1933. A federal monopoly suit in the 1950’s forced Kodak to reveal how to make and how to process.

 

 

As a young man, just out of school, I was Quality Control Manager for Dynacolor’s Aurora, IL plant. Dynacolor was acquired by 3M. The Dynacolor name was used, other film produces were under the Scotch Brand, most were sold as private label (drugstore names and mass retailers). The Dyancolor films were first formulated as the K-11 process. Later the film was reformulated to the K-12 process.

 

 

Both the the K-11 and the K-12 versions are complex black & white multi emulsion layered films. The devil was in the makeup of thee dye coupling agents. They laid down dye in the appropriate film emulsion layers. These are super complex color developers, no longer being made. I think they would be super difficult to resurrect and these coupling agents are the heart of the K process.

 

Kodak coupler yellow Y-54, (Alpha-benzoyl-o-methoxy acetanilide)

 

Kodak coupler magenta M-32, (1-phenyl-3-[3,4-dichlorobenamido]-5-pyrazolone)

 

Kodak coupler cyan C-16, (N-[o-acetamido phenethyl]-1-hydroxy-2-napthamide)

 

 

Developing Kodachrome

 

 

 

1. Pre-harden and remove rem-jet backing. An opaque coat on the reverse of the film.
   2. First Developer MQ ordinary B&W developer forms negative images in all three emulsions.
   3. Wash
   4. Expose the film to strong red light.
   5. Re-develop in b&w developer – action only in red sensitive layer, contains C-16 a cyan dye coupler that deposits cyan dye in proportion the silver laydown.
   6. Wash
   7. Expose the film to strong blue light.
   8. Re-develop in b&w developer – action in blue emulsion layer, also contains Y-54 a yellow dye coupler that deposits yellow dye in proportion the silver being formed.
   9. Wash
   10. Re-develop in b&w developer containing chemical fogging agent. Thus all remaining undeveloped silver compounds are reduced to metallic silver. Contains M-38 a magenta dye coupler that deposits magenta dye in proportion to the silver being formed. The use of a chemical fogging agent instead of green light reversal exposure make sure all silver salts are reduces to metallic silver otherwise some insensitive crystals would remain as salts of silver. This action occurs in each emulsion. M-38 thus acts in every one of the emulsion. This results in unwanted magenta dye formation in the red and blue layers. This action gives Kodachrome a unique warm color balances especially in the toe region.
   11. Wash
   12. Conditioner – prepares the film for next step
   13. Bleach – chemically reacts with metallic silver coverts it to silver salt.
   14. Fix – conventional fix bath dissolves silver salts.
   15. Dry – lacquer applied to emulsion side to preserve – movie film lubricant applied to sprocket holes.
   

 

A Kodachrome type film can be made by most any factory that makes b&W film. Its structure is similar to a complex b&W movie film. The problem will be the making of the dye couplers. Make a photographic film is an expensive undertaking. It is product that thrives on economy of scale. In other words, you must have vast sales so you can make tons of the stuff or else the price to make skyrockets and nobody can buy the product. I think this age of digital, with film sales the lowest in modern history, Kodachrome will remain a foot note in history. I am glad I was part of the history.

Edited May 2, 2018 by alan_marcus|2

Actually, in my experience "back in the day" Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome and Ektachrome all rendered skin tones differently. All were very good and were used based on the the model and the desired effect. With Kodachrome as 'normal' Fuji tended toward a golden look, Agfa was sort of rosy cheeked, and Ektachrome was cooler and a bit less saturated. I also think that outcomes, not particular film base is what editors look for. Just my recollection / impression.

 

For wildlife, landscape, travel, product, fashion(though not portraiture), editors, repro and printing depts loved the punch and contrast that Velvia delivered. Just the taste of the times.Not a great all-rounder to be sure but instantly distinguishable from Kodachrome to photo editors in many instances. What you liked projected in your living room wasn't necessarily what sold to clients-which was what mattered then and now. Kodachrome's archival properties were an unanticipated bonus. Contemporary materials like Agfachrome, early Ektachrome, Konica R100, Scotch Chrome, and GAF didn't die pretty.

Not a great all-rounder to be sure but instantly distinguishable from Kodachrome to photo editors in many instances. What you liked projected in your living room wasn't necessarily what sold to clients-which was what mattered then and now. Kodachrome's archival properties were an unanticipated bonus.

 

Fortunately we also have Provia to deliver a bit less contrast and color "punch" with finer grain than Velvia. I keep both films on hand in all formats, although my Velvia:Provia ratio is probably 4:1.

 

Actually, I should put a fresh box of Provia on my next order of LF film...all I have is a box with a few sheets of RDP-II kicking around.

 

In any case, Fuji does report excellent archival life for their E-6 materials.

What looks good in a magazine print doesn't always appeal to projection, or scans well, or makes a workable R-type print. Kodachrome for instance was a terrible medium for making Cibachromes because of it's short tonal range and abrupt highlight transition. Yet Kodachrome is a legend in magazine print because of those same characteristics.

 

My archived 120 Fuji chromes look as good as they day I processed them. Can't say the same for Kodak E-6.

Hopefully the latest batch of Ektachrome will have the same archival characteristics as their last batch....which finally knocked Kodachrome off the top of the archival list.

With Kodachrome as 'normal' Fuji tended toward a golden look, Agfa was sort of rosy cheeked, and Ektachrome was cooler and a bit less saturated. I also think that outcomes, not particular film base is what editors look for. Just my recollection / impression.

 

Here are my recollections. Ekta E-4 tended to a blue cast--the change to E-6 was still a bit cool and lacking in the reds. Agfa tended toward a flatter, more pastel palatte--stronger on the magenta cast. Fuji struck me as garish in ways that 'aped' the range of Kchrome but not as crisply--and overaccentuated the green.

 

I could be entirely wrong though and have been quite colorblind.

I could be entirely wrong though and have been quite colorblind.

Actually, I was talking specifically about skin tone rendition. Would be interesting, if time consuming, to dig into my old slides and see if my recollections were correct. Clearly there are considerable variations in individual perception of color.

(snip)

 

Kodak coupler yellow Y-54, (Alpha-benzoyl-o-methoxy acetanilide)

 

Kodak coupler magenta M-32, (1-phenyl-3-[3,4-dichlorobenamido]-5-pyrazolone)

 

Kodak coupler cyan C-16, (N-[o-acetamido phenethyl]-1-hydroxy-2-napthamide)

 

After a previous discussion on this, I asked one of the usual chemical supply companies about these.

 

I believe one is a standard catalog chemical, and already somewhat expensive.

 

(Usually reagent grade, unless otherwise specified. Photographic grade is about the lowest,

usually lower than technical grade. It won't be easy to find someone to make photographic

grade couplers.)

 

They were going to quote me for the other two, but never did.

 

Might be in the $100/gram range, though.

Here are my recollections. Ekta E-4 tended to a blue cast--the change to E-6 was still a bit cool and lacking in the reds. Agfa tended toward a flatter, more pastel palatte--stronger on the magenta cast. Fuji struck me as garish in ways that 'aped' the range of Kchrome but not as crisply--and overaccentuated the green.

 

I could be entirely wrong though and have been quite colorblind.

 

As I understand it, the last of the development steps of Kodachrome develops (and generates dyes for) all the still undeveloped grains in all layers. This would seem to me to have a slightly unusual effect on the color of the result.

Actually, I was talking specifically about skin tone rendition. Would be interesting, if time consuming, to dig into my old slides and see if my recollections were correct. Clearly there are considerable variations in individual perception of color.

 

My recollection is similar to yours and jokingly the boxes.

• Kodachrome was a bit red, and so was the printing on the box
  
• Ektachrome was bluish tint and so was the printing on the box
  
• Fujichome had a greenish tint, and the box was green.
  

I did not use Agfachrome so can't say anything about the color tint. I think it was an orange tint, which matched the orange box.

 

Where I saw the tint colors was in the blacks/shadows.