Jump to content

Kodachrome


Recommended Posts

I like Kodachrome, for its sharpness and for its colors. The

combination of Kodachrome and Leica glass produces, in my opinion,

the finest color imagery in 35mm (and is, by the way, equivalent to

16 megapixel). I started making color pictures on Kodachrome II in

the sixties and must have about 40.000 Kodachrome slides by now.

 

I just came back from a visit of the Kodachrome laboratory in

Lausanne (Renens), a department of the Kodak Laboratory in

Switzerland. I was very kindly received by their head of Kodachrome

processing, Mr. R鮩 Agassis. They develop for all European

countries and now also for Australia. The countries that send them

most film are the UK, Germany and Switzerland. They develop with a

classic K-14 processor as they believe that the level of process

control, dependability and most of all quality, is superior to the

newer K-Lab processors. The laboratory develops 35mm film and movie

stock. As the front- and back ends of the Kodachrome development

process is a rather manual exercise, they are able to offer a series

of options: Push processing (2 options), framing in classic

pressboard mounts (mainly for professionals who like to write on the

paper boards), framing in plastic slide mounts, film return uncut

and film return cut in strips of 4 pictures. You want Kodachrome 400

in pressboard mounts? They can do it.

 

It takes about an hour to get the K-14 processor working in the

morning. When the control strips from Rochester come out right, they

start processing. Three people control the running of the

development train (this excludes chemistry, maintenance, etc.). The

laboratory has enough film to process to develop every day and to

ensure process stability. As slide film, including Kodachrome, is a

shrinking medium, the laboratory is now housed quite large, probably

half the space occupied would be sufficient. There are a number of

unused machines.

 

One of Kodak's problems is maintenance and repair of their aging

equipment. They retain some older technicians who adjust and repair

the gear and can manufacture spare parts, if necessary. Many spares

have become unavailable but the laboratory has found solutions to

these problems.

 

Another problem is the constant fight against dust and dirt. The

plastic slide mounts, for instance, have a tendency to charge static

electricity which attracts dust. The laboratory maintains a very

clean environment.

 

I was really impressed by the attitude of the Kodachrome processing

staff. "Despite diminishing volumes" they say "we will maintain an

absolutely first class processing environment". And they do. They

complained that there has been no advertising for Kodachrome for 10 -

15 years and remarked that despite this the demand from

photographers who want quality imagery did not disappear. They

insisted a couple of times that any observations, even the

slightest, should be brought to their immediate attention for

correction and analysis of their work methods. I had no problems

though in almost 40 years. Very good people indeed and I hope for

them (and for all of us!) that Kodak continues to make Kodachrome

for a reasonable number of years.

 

The people in Lausanne would very much like to continue quality

processing of Kodachrome longer term but are afraid that Kodak will

shut down Kodachrome production, probably sooner than later.

Kodachrome 25 is gone already and Kodachrome 200 was ditched but

came back after massive protests. Shutting down Kodachrome

production probably means that the Kodak laboratory in Switzerland

would have to close down operations at the expiry date of the last

Kodachrome batch manufactured.

 

A solution to continue Kodachrome for another number of years after

Kodak's final run, could be for Kodak to transfer (lease?) their

Kodachrome production know-how to a small film factory (EFKE in

Croatia? Foma in the Czech Republic? Forte in Hungary? Ilford

contract manufacturing in the UK?). Kodachrome is easy and cheap to

make and difficult and expensive to develop. If Kodak does not want

its name on the box anymore, as they do not control quality after a

transfer, the film could be called Efkechrome, Fomachrome,

Fortechrome or whatever. And Kodak Switzerland would love to

continue to develop the stuff.

 

Maybe Kodak is listening out there, somewhere.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello,

 

I really wish that Kodak or other people cared about that sort of dedication to a film. If Kodak is losing money on a film/process they will end it. It is just a business for them, and if Kodachrome does not make their stock go up they will put the ax too it.

 

I think you will have Velvia in the forseeable future. When they stop making Velvia, then film will be truly dead:( Or maybe when Kodak stops making Tri-x.

 

 

Regards,

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>The combination of Kodachrome and Leica glass produces, in my opinion, the finest color imagery in 35mm (and is, by the way, equivalent to 16 megapixel</i><P>Oh really? When did allah drop from heaven and grant you this devine insight that your Leica is superior to a 16mp capture back? Oh, I forgot {shucks} You own a Ger-muhn camera and we own Jap-Pa-nese cameras! All those magnificient images in your portfolio superior to 16mp capture backs are just so much better than mine. BTW - I've concluded my RB67, which shoots a piece of film with 5x the surface are of your stupid Leica, is the equivelant of 100megapixel camera. Why? Because I say so, and it makes me feel better than you.<P>If the Kodachrome process were so good, it would have been adapted by other companies since it's basically the CMYK version of pre-press, but applied to film. From my perspective Kodachrome also inherets the same paper'ish looking dyes and artifical sharpness of that same process. From a technology perspective it's actually much simplier than messing with dye couplers in E-6. From an applied perspective, it's much more complicated. Kodachrome still doesn't scan worth %^&$, it blocks the hell out of strong colors, doesn't direct R-type worth beans, and isn't available in legitimate camera formats like 120 which real professionals shoot.<P>But still, it's an awesome film that will always be better than any other medium because it looks good on a light table even though you can't do much else with it.<P>Also, the people who work at the local Walgreens are dedicated and nice folk to, but I don't plan on shooting amatuer print film to keep them employed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeepers, Scott! Who stuck the hot poker up your butt? That's just the sort of flaming the moderators don't want. There are advantages to Kodachrome, and many magazines long ago figured out how to get it on to the printed page. They project well and hold color better than other films over time. B&W negatives don't scan well either but I can still buy B&W film. Use what YOU like, but that level of insecurity is uncalled for. Save it for the new digital tax.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, man, why the flip-out? This guy likes Kodachrome, he's rightly concerned that it may be endangered, and you act like he's personally insulted you. There are a number of people out there who want to continue using Leicas and Kodachrome. If they don't continue, I kind of doubt it's going to be because of your huffing and puffing about how much bigger your negatives are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerard:

 

Thanks for posting the report on Kodachrome. I found it very interesting. I was, and still am, a fan of Kodachrome film. I still use K64 from time to time, and miss K25. I like the somewhat unique color palette of K64, even though I use mostly Velvia and Provia nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post - thanks for that.

 

I think maybe Scott has discovered that the (no doubt expensive) digital gear still isn't even up to half the megapixels of a scanned slide and as such he's traded down in quality for an increase in convenience. Guranteed to stress anyone out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post! I love Kodachrome and looking at slides that I took as a teenager in the 50's makes me glad I liked it then.

Just which I hadn't used a lot of Ektachrome and Agfachrome in the sixties and seventies. Much of it is faded.

 

If you think that Kodachrome and Leica go well together you ought to see 120 Kodachrome transparences taken with a Hasselblad. Heck I still have some unexposed 120 Kodachrome somewhere. Wish they hadn't quit processing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"Oh really? When did allah drop from heaven and grant you this devine insight that your Leica is superior to a 16mp capture back? Oh, I forgot {shucks} You own a Ger-muhn camera and we own Jap-Pa-nese cameras! All those magnificient images in your portfolio superior to 16mp capture backs are just so much better than mine. "</i><p>

He said it was in his opinion, Scott. What gives with you? Why would I need Allah to show me what my opinion is? And why do you insist on bringing up the German v. Japanese thing? What difference does that make? So what if our German cameras kick butt over your plastic crap. :-)

Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’  _ ,    J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing 35mm and 6X7cm film is relevant ... to a point. Kodachrome, to my knowledge, is no longer produced in 6X7 so that crimps the comparison somewhat. Kodachrome is great for what it is, but it still has the inherent blow-up limitations of its 35mm size. 6X7 is a different beast. Better? That's a subjective call. Enjoy both for what they are. Don't belittle them for what they're not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...