No more Kodacrome?

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

Is it true what a frined of mine told me yestarday that Kokak is

going to dismiss the production of the kodacrome 64 and 200?

Joe

[doug herr]

Kodak is closing their last US Kodachrome processing lab in New Jersey, but there is no indication (yet) that they plan to discontinue production of the films. Beginning in the fall, North American Kodachrome processing will be outsourced, probably to Dwayne's in Parsons Kansas.

[Robert_Lai]

Well, I just bought 5 rolls from Al Kaplan, so I'm OK for another month!

[jay_.]

Kodachrome suffered a crippling stroke in 1974 when K-II was replaced by the less-saturated higher-contrast K25, and it finally died when K25 was discontinued. Other than the archival qualities (which are negated if you project the slides--this straight from Wilhelm Research, not my personal opinion), there would be no rational reason to lament the passage of either K64 (muted colors, high contrast)or K200 (nice colors but excessive grain compared to today's 400-speed film).

[rolfe_tessem]

Kodachrome, due to its design, can pretty much reproduce all the colors naturally

occuring in the world. E6 films cannot claim to do that, as pretty or garish as some of

them might be in their own right.

 

That feature alone would be reason enough to lament the passing of Kodachrome, which

fortunately has not yet happened.

[jay_.]

<<Kodachrome, due to its design, can pretty much reproduce all the colors naturally occuring in the world. E6 films cannot claim to do that>>

 

Complete and utter balderdash. Kodak EPN, an E6 film, has for years been the film of choice for medical and dental photography because its colors are as true-to-life as any film is capable of. I agree that some of the E6 films are a little over-the-top in color saturation. But to say that Kodachrome is the only film capable of producing "natural" colors goes beyond ignorant.

[blakley]

What Jay said.

[rolfe_tessem]

I don't agree with everything Erwin says, but in this respect he is absolutely correct:

 

"Kodachrome uses a three layer emulsion, that records a real world scene as three black

and white images of the red, blue and green part of the spectrum. The layers are classical

silver halide emulsions and during development an extremely complex process adds the

color to the layers, which is still grain based.

 

Normal E-6 processing replaces the original grain image with dyes, that are incorporated

into the layers themselves. This technique allows for many more layers (often three for

every color: a high, medium and low speed layer) . The dyes can be manipulated quite

precisely and with the help of development inhibitors and other chemical chain reactions,

the size of the dye cloud and the colors can be controlled very accurately. But the dyes

cannot reproduce any color that occurs in nature."

[rolfe_tessem]

I should have added Erwin's next paragraph for clarification:

 

"In contrast: Kodachrome is grain based and its simple additive three layer process can

record all colors in nature, but the process does not lend itself to provide saturated colors,

as these do not occur in nature. Saturated colors are in a sense fantasies of the mind. But

humans do like them very much, as did the painters who worked with them to bring

excitement to their paintings."

[jay_.]

I'm not really clear how Erwin's usual smokescreen of jargon, thinly veiling his blantantly subjective biases, proves anything other than that Erwin likes Kodachrome. He and you would have us believe that the entire worldwide medical and scientific community are incapable of recognizing and comprehending what the two of you alone can.

 

It is one thing to say "I like Kodachrome's colors better than E6" and argue your contrarian stance on the basis of personal taste; and quite another to utter a brazenly ridiculous proclamation that attempts to contradict fact. You and Erwin should present your findings to the World Science Foundation, you might save Kodachrome and win the Nobel Prize too. Or at least provide them some rousing comic relief.

[thomas_dannhauser]

I (and others in the Kodak community) have tried to provide, on this and other photographic websites, accurate information on Kodachrome and Ektachrome films, and to even gently correct the substantial amount of misinformation that constantly resurfaces and is stated as fact. It's an uphill battle.

 

But the Kodachrome description above attributed to Erwin is just so far in the weeds that I can't restrain myself. It is indeed rare to see in one place such a collection of complete and utter nonsense! I can only hope the reason for this is some sort of translation error, for the only correct statement there is that Kodachrome processing is a complex process. Rather than discuss each and every point, let me comment about the statements regarding color reproduction and control in Ektachrome and Kodachrome. These appear critically ignorant of color science and dye chemistry. The rules of color reproduction are not miraculously suspended because Kodachrome uses additive couplers instead of the incorporated couplers used in Ektachrome and other E-6 type films. Kodachrome does NOT accurately reproduce all colors, and we at Kodak know it. In fact, NO color film can do this.

 

But, K-64 and K-200 DO have a unique color pallette and image structure that is not found anywhere else in the film world. Many folks love it; others (like Jay) are less enthusiastic and find other films meet their needs better. So be it. Whether you use it or not should be determined by YOUR tastes and wants.

 

Finally, regarding rumors about Kodak "wanting" to kill Kodachrome. More rubbish. We make money on Kodachrome. We will continue to manufacture Kodachrome as long as sufficient demand for the film exists to continue making money on it. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

[jay_.]

<<but the process does not lend itself to provide saturated colors, as these do not occur in nature. Saturated colors are in a sense fantasies of the mind>>

 

The only fantasy here is in Erwin's mind. Saturated colors don't occur in nature??? Tell that to a male frigate bird whose neck pouch is as bright a red as any fire truck. Tell that to a field of yellow sunflowers in Tuscany. Tell that to the blue mid-day sky above Las Vegas. Or the green of a palm frond. Perhaps in the nature that occurs inside Erwin's apartment in Holland there are no saturated colors, because quite evidently he's never been outside to see the tulips in bloom.

[rolfe_tessem]

Thomas,

 

Is it not accurate to say that capturing a color scene as three B&W images is the most accurate and objectively correct method of recording true colors?

 

Was this not the basis of the late, lamented Technicolor three-strip process? Is it not true that this process was so highly regrarded for exactly these properties?

[jay_.]

Tom, I'm glad someone with your authority chose to respond, because it *might* stave off a wave of ridiculous alleged corroborations of Erwin's poppycock. Then again, if you don't have any photos uploaded to PN someone may still challenge your credibility.

 

Yes, I find other films to my liking better than Kodachrome, and most of them happen to be Kodak films. Velvia "50", Provia 400F and Delta 3200 are the only three currently, as I have not found the nearest Kodak equivalents as satisfying. But my mainstay film is Elite 100 (I'm still working through a huge buy lot I made several years ago of Elite-II when Costco was clearing it out--bought a whole kiosk full) and in neg film whatever the name-du-jour is of your chromogenic B&W, plus Portra 160VC which IMO is the best color neg film of all time, and Portra 800 which IMO is the best high-speed color neg of all time. So I am not anti-Kodak. I loved Kodachrome-II, liked K25 less, never liked Kodachrome-X or K64, and though I think K200 is a good film it's grainier than Provia 400F and a stop slower.

 

<<We will continue to manufacture Kodachrome as long as sufficient demand for the film exists to continue making money on it.>>

 

I'm sure that's a statement which in its generic form would apply to any product sold on earth by any manufacturer. But with only one K14 capable of serving the entire US population, one would have to conclude that the demand for Kodachrome is awfully small. So that brings up a very pertinent question: Is Kodachrome's demand near the cut-off point or can the demand wane significantly more and still not get axed? That then brings up another question: exactly how small a demand can a single emulsion stand before Kodak will give up on it? In other words, if 99% of the consumers are shooting only digital, and of the remaining 1%, 99% of them are shooting only say 1 roll a month, can we still expect to be able to buy Kodak film, and at what price factor compared to today?

[thomas_dannhauser]

Rolfe -- BOTH E-6 and K-14 films initially generate 3 B+W images (first developer). How these images are recorded depends on the spectral sensitivity of these layers -- common issue to both K-chrome and E-6; neither matches human visual sensitivity. Then you need to convert these B+W images to color. Here is the principal difference between K-14 and E-6. The latter uses incorporated color couplers and the dyes are generated in a single color developer step. Kodachrome uses additive color couplers, so each color record must be separately fogged and then developed in a unique color developer to generate the appropriate dye in each layer. Ingenious, but much more complex. With both E-6 and K-14 (or any color film, for that matter) you still have the problem that the resulting dyes are not perfect (hue and purity). Consequently, reconstructing the original image with dyes having different absorbance characteristics than the colorants in the original scene means you can't have perfect color reproduction. Ever. You can come close, and some films do this better and more frequently than others, but none are perfect. And perfect reproduction is not always desired -- sometimes color/contrast enhancement is preferred for an image.

 

Jay, I did not mean to pick on you or your choice in film. You have your own experience and reasons for this, and have explained this before. No argument here -- my job is to make a film better for your use, or suggest an alternate product that you may not be aware of. You're right - I have no photos posted on P-net because I am a poor photographer -- I don't have the vision and creativity to regularly generate striking images. On the other hand, I am a pretty good film scientist (I think), and I hope my less flambuoyant comments and information are useful to others.

[rolfe_tessem]

Thomas,

 

Thanks for the informative posts and for the information that Kodachrome isn't yet on the endangered species list. I still have 50 rolls of K25 in my freezer, and look forward to shooting my way through it :-).

[jay_.]

Same reason I don't have images posted Tom, and my comments are valid too--even the flamboyant ones ;>) Though there are a couple forumers who imply, because they have no other substantive means of defending their own ignorance, that being a good photographer is a prerequisite for knowing your way around the technical end of photographer.

 

I notice though that you did not address my last questions. Can I take that to mean that Kodachrome is teetering on the brink of extinction just ahead of film in general?

[kevin m.]

"I am a pretty good film scientist (I think), and I hope my less

flambuoyant comments and information are useful to others."

 

See, Jay? This is how it's done.

[jay_.]

You mean, like this (quoting from Tom above):

<<But the Kodachrome description above attributed to Erwin is just so far in the weeds that I can't restrain myself. It is indeed rare to see in one place such a collection of complete and utter nonsense!>>

 

Sounds a lot like what I write. It is clear to everyone by now that you have a childish grudge against me, going to my profile page and hunting down the threads I post to so that you can deposit your pathetic little taunts. My posts may not always be chockablock with insightful and helpful information, but lately and for the longest time the only "contributions" you've made to this forum have been in the interest of baiting me. No matter how many times you come away in shreds you just won't quit, you're a scrappy little alley cat to keep spitting at the tiger, I'll give you that much.

[thomas_dannhauser]

I must have had too much caffeine/sugar this AM. The tone of my comments regarding Erwin's Kodachrome description was really uncalled for. I still don't agree with it, but I could have voiced that in a more mature & "gentle" manner. Sorry, Erwin.

[jay_.]

Thomas, we're only human. Sometimes some statements are just so over-the-top ridiculous it's just hard to muster enough restraint to treat them with more respect than they deserve. I save that energy for people who make those ignorant statements innocently. When self-espoused "experts" do it, especially someone who sells books and gets his blather printed on Leica's website, the gloves come off. I wish I could be little miss tactful but that's just not me.

[jay_.]

PS, Thomas you did understand my comments after quoting you were directed at Kevin, not you.

[kevin m.]

I'm flattered, Jay, but no. It appears that you and I just read many

of the same posts.

<p>

Is it just me who has a beef with your bullying style? Not if this

<a

href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0

08yqO>recent thread</a> is any indication. Go get 'em, tiger!

[rolfe_tessem]

I'll give Paul Simon the last word (at least from me) on this thread...<a href="http://

users.cis.net/sammy/kodacrm.htm">click here</a>

[jay_.]

Kevin your link, like yet another attempt to outsmart me, comes up empty.

 

Rolfe: Unfortunately Kodak did not listen to Paul, and they took his Kodachrome away. The song is off the Rhymin Simon album, released in 1973. Paul was writing about Kodachrome-II, which was discontinued in 1974. I said in the beginning of the thread << Kodachrome suffered a crippling stroke in 1974 when K-II was replaced by the less-saturated higher-contrast K25>> Thank you for proving my assertion so well with this most clever response. It is always amusing when, to borrow from Shakespeare, the enginer is hoist by his own petard.