The real reason to use Kodachrome?

[lex_jenkins]

Ilkka, you must not have many kids in your immediate circle of family and friends. Much as I love 'em, ain't no way my cousin's five kidlets are getting their sticky paws on my vacation photos.

 

That's why I prefer slides for certain purposes. Even adults can't be trusted to handle fistsful of prints passed around the living room - they'll spill coffee or wine on 'em or make 'em greasy with finger oil. Screw that. If they want to see my vacation pix they'll have to endure my slide show, which I will keep as brief and interesting as possible.

[Aoresteen]

I'm with Lex! My family loves to look at sides! They consider it a treat. And they last much longer than I can - after 6 140 trays I've had it but my kids want more.

 

The fan is not a problem. And my projector has autofocus which works resonably well (as long as the slides are in the same type mount that is).

 

BTW slides I recieved back fom both Kodak & Fuji in the past month have been far dirtier than slides that have been in trays for 20 years and repeatedly shown. And yes, I did write Dan Carp a letter about it.

[Matthew Currie]

Ilkka, it sounds as if you need a new projector.

[mike_buckles]

Kodachrome is hard to scan, here's a recent slide I took last week, the face is not dark in the original slide....but I do love Kodachrome at poolside, and it looks great on the big screen. If I want a nicer enlarged print, I'll leave that to a lab pro.

[grahams]

When I was starting out in photography, my father built a projection room come preview cinema onto our house with 30 seats and a 15 foot screen. Two Carousel AV projectors with sound sync and auto-fade. Projected Kodachromes were simply awesome! Only those of you who have seen such projections will know what I mean. And then a friend did a trip to Japan and shot everything on a Hassy using 6x6 KII. Now those trannies were really awesome when projected. My 8x12 ink-jet prints pale by comparison - it was a very satisfying and enjoyable experience to see one of those slide shows.

[george2]

I fully agree with the opinions of Samuel Dilworth, Anthony Oresteen and Lex Jenkins above, as I use slides for projection myself. And I know what Graham means... But there is something Jay wrote that needs some clarification:<p>

Jay said that according to Wilhelm Research "Kodachrome is the worst film of all if the slides are used for projection". This means that Kodachrome is not stable <b>for continuous exposure to light</b> as used for example in showcases in museums and exhibitions, where medium and large format transparencies (6x6 and 10x13cm) are backlit for a couple of months and 8 hours a day, or 35mm slides are permanently projected onto screens, totalling exposures to light for up to <b>1000 hours</b>. For these applications E6 materials are more stable.<br>

The Wilhelm evaluation should not be a misinterpreted as Kodachrome's instability to a projector lamp in general. A typical slide will be projected less than 40 times and each exposure will be no more than 20-30 seconds, resulting in a total of 20 minutes, orders of magnitude shorter than the above thousand hours. I have shot lots of Kodachrome 64 from 1974 to 1992 and from 1998 to 2002, my slides have been projected a dozen times each and their colours are as good as new. And I am glad I did, since some Ekta-Fuji-Agfachromes from the late seventies, stored and projected under same conditions, have started to fade slightly.<p>

 

There <b>are</b> some reasons not to shoot Kodachrome, but I see no reason to hate it like Scott does. For my part, the only reason I stopped using Kodachrome in 2002 was the slow processing; a turnaround of 4 weeks in Lausanne was a bit too long. And the two main reasons I started using it again: sharpness and colours.<p>

 

BTW, I found an interesting comparison <a href="http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/maremmaphoto/filmtest.eng.html">here</a>.

[chris haake]

George, that's a very interesting and helpful link. Thanks!

[lex_jenkins]

Interesting article, George, thanks for providing the link.

 

The author's observations match mine almost identically, right down to the strengths and foibles of Provia and Kodachrome, which I prefer despite their shortcomings in some areas.

[rowland_mowrey]

I find this thread very interesting. Lots of material to agree with and disagree with.

 

First: You are comparing dye stability of 50 year old products, but technology isn't standing still. Todays E6 films are far better than E1 or E2 Ektachromes.

 

Second: The colorama projected images were on Ektacolor Print film, made from a color negative original. They were subject to continuous 24/7 projection wherever they appeared. The image quality of that negative positive process couldn't be matched by a reversal material. Neither Kodachrome nor Ektachrome were deemed suitable for that display. One for fade resistance, and the other for quality.

 

Third: AFAIK, no Kodak film was ever discontinued due to a lack of supplier for a given chemical. Remember, EK is one of the largest manufacturers and suppliers of chemicals in the world itself with Eastman Organic Chemicals, Eastman Tenn, Eastman Texas, and etc. They supply fibre for carpet manufacture, textile dyes, etc. So if someone made something critical, EK could and would make it themselves. (I know, today these are separate companies, but back then they were part of EK)

 

Fourth: Kodachromes current process, just as the previous process using a diffusing bleach, allows severe color contamination to take place, thereby causing degradation of color. The wrong dye can end up in the wrong layer. Don't get me wrong, I love the quality of a good Kodachrome slide, but it isn't very faithful to the original colors. It is sharp, fine grained, high in contrast, but relatively inaccurate in color reproduction.

 

Fifth: Kodak is cutting back on Kodachrome film because even with all of this support on the forum, practically no one is buying it anymore. Why make it and scrap it due to lack of sales? Most people are buying more modern films. And, there is negative feedback. Due to the unstable nature of the Kodachrome process, it has to be kept going virtually 24/7 to be in control. When it isn't in control, quality suffers. Then customers complain or shift brands. Sales go down, and EK cuts back some more. It is a downward spiral.

 

Last but not least: technology exists to make a far superior Kodachrome today. One was on the drawing boards a few years ago, but was cancelled due to lack of sales of existing Kodachrome products. So, the Kodachrome that is out there uses technology from the 60s and 70s, not the 90s or later.

 

Oh, on an added note, I find that all of my slides kept in carousels are keeping better than those from the same era in the original boxes they were shipped in. This includes all Kodak transparency films in the period 1950 - 1980. Slides newer than that are either much more stable, or have not had enough time to show any keeping problems. Those in glass mounts fared the worst. I have Fujichromes, Sakuracolor, and Anscochromes from the same era, and the Sakuracolor are faring as well as the Kodachromes, and the Anscochromes are not far behind, but were originally so bad that it doesn't make much difference. Fujichrome is fading as well. About similar to Ektachrome but in the opposite direction in color.

 

Ron Mowrey

[reuben_c]

<i>Sakuracolor are faring as well as the Kodachromes</i>

<p>

I've read (somewhere, can't recall where) that the Japanese in the early '50s had a Kodachrome-like (non-chromogenic) tranparency film. Could that be your Sakuracolor?

<p>

Other than 3M's Dynachrome, I think that was the only non-EK "clone".

[jonathan_bundick]

The reasons to shoot Kodachrome are legion, but the same is true for any other emulsion. Can you work with it? Does it produce the results you want/like? Are you concerned with archival characteristics? If you answer yes to any of the questions above, then Kodachrome might be a good choice for you.

 

I like the look, but not for everything. Decide for yourself and enjoy.

[rowland_mowrey]

Reuben;

 

I think you are probably correct about Sakuracolor. They had several films out there at the time. In early 1959 or 1958, they had a solvent fire that demolished a large part of their coating facility.

 

Between that and the bombing of their plant at Hachioji, it nearly demolished them and led to the growth of another company called Fuji. At that time, Konishiroku was following both Kodak and Agfa in product lines. Konishiroku had been the largest supplier of film products in Japan until the war, and after the war was recovering nicely until the fire.

 

Fuji was following the EK model for film building for the first few years, and then begain to branch out.

 

The history of photography in Japan is fascinating.

 

But yes, I suspect that Sakuracolor was a Kodachrome look alike. It was extremely grainy though.

 

 

Ron Mowrey

[reuben_c]

Do you know anything about the history of Dynachrome?

 

I remember it being a bit more contrasty than Kodachrome, but it used the same process, and was much less expensive.

 

I wonder why no one else jumped on the bandwagon. Did 3M have some kind of licensing deal with EKC?

[rowland_mowrey]

IIRC, Dynachrome was founded by several EK employees who went into business first processing Kodachrome and then making their own film. Eventually, they were bought by 3M.

 

The plant was about 2 miles south of Kodak Park.

 

About this time, 3M and Ferrania merged, and opened a plant in Rochester about 1 mile west of the Dynachrome plant. These were all located in the same area as the Dupont film plant as well. The 3M color products were mostly made in Italy by Ferrania, and B&W products were made in both Rochester and at the main 3M plant.

 

AFAIK, the 3M plant in Rochester is no longer in operation, but is still standing. The Dyanchrome plant burned down this winter in a spectacular fire.

 

The Dupont plant looked like an empty field last time I drove by, with nothing left of the original buildings. The Dyanchrome plant, just down the road was a fire gutted mess.

 

The original Dyancrhome was the 'old' or 'original' Kodachrome 10 speed film and then 25 speed IIRC. It was either made with permission from EK or, more probably was made after the Kodachrome patents expired for the older film.

 

Just for example, the patents for the 'newest' Kodachrome process are probably about to expire, if not already expired. I could look that up, but I'm too lazy and I've tired myself out working in the yard today and processing film.

 

Sakura did indeed make a Kodachrome type film, and also an Agfachrome type film using Fischer couplers instead of the EK type using dispersions. Fuji started making EK type dispersion films rather than Agfa type films. Sakura (Konishiroku) made Agfa type films due to the Axis alliance in which technical expertise was exchanged between Japan and Germany, however, Konica also exchanged information with EK before the war. Konica was the bigger of the two companies in Japan before the war. The founder of Konishiroku visited George Eastman and from what I heard they got along well and exchanged information about film making.

 

Kodachrome was an easy film to manufacture, but a hard film to process correctly. It still is hard to process correctly. You could duplicate Kodacrhome at home using 3 sheets of pan sensitive film and the right 3 color developers and any good MQ. After you are done, just laminate the 3 sheets of B&W film together to have a beautiful homemade Kodachrome transparency.

 

This method was published in a manual back in the 40s by Fawcett books. The authors were Leadly and Stegmeyer. (I'm still to tired, but I didn't have to look this one up. My memory worked for a change. I remember because there is a misprint in the chemical names of the recommended couplers.)

 

The reasons for ease of manufacture and selection of different coupler types and some other points are related to coating technology.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[reuben_c]

Thanks for that history, it's very interesting (I archived it).

<p>

I really do hope they keep it going. I've heard that Kodachrome is very popular in Japan, lots of demand for it there. Maybe that will help keep it alive a bit longer. I've read accounts of people home-processing it, but none of them seem interested in "sharing". I know it would be loads of fun to handle the two filtered reexposures, but I think it could be done. The biggest problem would be getting hold of the couplers and developing agents (I think it uses CD5 or some other CD agent that I've never seen for sale anywhere, and I've never seen <i>any</I> couplers for sale anywhere. I've got a copy of the formulas but when I saw the list of chemicals, I gave up hope).

[rowland_mowrey]

The beauty of processing a 3 sheet 'Kodachrome' is that you don't have to do the special re-exposures. You just run a straight E6 type process with 3 color developers. You don't even have to use the CD6 for the yellow layer. You can use any CD you want, even C41 if it suits you as long as it gives the right dye.

 

The only problem is getting the couplers. Those can be purchased as SO items (special order) from EK IIRC, but are very expensive. There are other alternatives to them that can be substituted if you can get access to the right source of organic chemials.

 

You need a phenol or napthol for the cyan, an pyrazolone for magenta, and an acetoacetamide for yellow. For example, you could actually use phenol, but it washes out of the coating unfortunately. BTDT. Heh.

 

If there is interest, I can post the entry from Leadly and Stegmeyer with the misprints and all, and then put in some corrections.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Note to the administrators;

 

Several posts have vanished from this thread. You guys having a problem?

 

If not, please let us know that you deleted posts and why.

 

Thank you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[James G. Dainis]

One post was deleted from this thread which was nothing but a rant against another member and contributed nothing to the topic under discussion.

[rowland_mowrey]

James;

 

Two posts on processing Kodachrome at home using 3 sheets of flim were deleted. One post was the request for more information, and the other was my post answering it.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Ron Mowrey

[James G. Dainis]

Ron,

 

<B></B><BR>         I've been trying to find out if there was a site outage or archival glitch that caused a loss of some threads in the data base. So far I haven't received any information but that is what it sounds like. Unfortanately, once the posts are lost from the thread there is no way to recover them.

[reuben_c]

<i>Two posts on processing Kodachrome at home using 3 sheets of flim were deleted. One post was the request for more information, and the other was my post answering it. </i>

<p>

You're right! And not only that, but I re-saved the page, and now my archived copy has been overwritten.

<p>

:(

[reuben_c]

Hmm, now maybe it's back? I first searched the page for the work "archived" (which I'd recalled including in my post) and didn't find it. Now it seems there. Are you talking about your post from the 26th and mine from the 27th, or were there earlier ones that are still gone now?

[rowland_mowrey]

Reuben;

 

I'm not sure anymore. This thread and the one below it on C41 have me feeling like Alice in wonderland. Things get curiouser and curiouser.

 

I thought there was another comment about history and Kodachrome, and then I answered it, and now it is gone.

 

I made another post in the other thread giving some additional information, and it vanished as well.

 

It really doesn't matter. The administrators do a teriffic job reading and archiving all of this and keeping the system going. I should complain?

 

Bottom line. If you want any info on making 3 color separations and then running Kodachrome at home, I can give you some formulas to start with and suggested couplers. Availability and cost are another matter.

 

Ron Mowrey

[david_fields1]

I use Kodachrome 64(PKR) on days that have deep-blue, haze-free sky filled with dense, puffy clouds, shooting of course, at or near 90 degrees to the sun W/a good polarizer, with little if any shadows. An ideal location is the beach, sand bottom, sky atop. The results are dramatic, distinguishable from E-6 films. Dry, earthy, razer-sharp. Earth tones especially - rocks, sand, soil, tree bark, metals, skies(storms). Sure, 100GX, RSX, Elitechrome100, which I also use, are much more colorfull, easier to expose. They have their place. Kodachrome has it's. If your not shooting Kodachrome in the conditions I've described, try again.

[DB_Gallery]

The real reason?

It is going to disappear, never to re-appear again. There is a reason I now have some

1,500 rolls of it. The reason would be:

 

Http://www.Kodachromeproject.com

 

Check it in a week, it will have more than the home page.

 

Something happened in November, something not-so-good. Kodak did something and

only told industry people, not the public, I only just found out yesterday. But....I can not be

the one who lets this cat out of the bag, I am trying to work on funding for my project, it

might jeopardize it. But you will all find out, I just hope soon enough.

 

In the mean time, shoot it, don't wait, do it now.

 

And for god's sake, do not listen to a single word that Mr. Eaton has to say about this film,

he is the most incorrect person on Earth about it. Let the images you make with it speak to

you. I actually feel bad for Mr. Eaton, I think he is pained over something and takes it out

on people who know how to shoot this incredible film and make it stand out as something

very worthy of the effort.

 

Shoot it, you are running out of time....