Jump to content

Tech Pan to be discontinued


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Andrew;

 

No, I would not due to other color reproduction faults. If you wish to verify this, take a picture of a MacBeth color checker and then project the transparency and put the checker up beside it with identical illumination. You may also want to compare with an Ektachrome slide. You will find that the Kodachrome is actually not very good when compared to the Ektachrome. If they made an Ektachrome that looked like Kodachrome it would not be a very good film IMHO.

 

Due to the nature of the process, color errors or contamination take place in Kodachrome. This creates errors in the final image. Some people like the result, but I don't. Contrast is too high, greens are too dark for me, and flesh is 'beefy' to me.

 

I use Kodachrome very seldom anymore. I use Ektachrome or Portra VC or UC. I just got some Astia to try, and I do use Fuji color negative films as well, but not often.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

Could Kodak's dip and dunk Kodachrome processor handle 120 film? The place I send my 120 to uses such a machine, so it makes me wonder if they can still do it. And if so- what are the odds of getting them to do it on that machine? There are hundreds of these rolls still being sold on auction sites, plus the ones still in freezers now- so there must be some demand for someone to want to process this stuff in color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>If the EK engineers could find some way of faking the Kodachrome color palatte onto an E-6 film, would you use it?</i>

<p>

If we're taking a poll, then I'll vote NO, because the palatte is only part of the reason I use Kodachrome, and the resolution (which cannot be duplicated with chromogenic films) is the greater part.

<p>

While other films can claim a high LPPM number, there is something about the razor sharp Kodachrome rendition that they simply can't duplicate. You can even see it when looking at the emulsion, it looks like the image is carved into the gelatine. Normal color films images are formed with dye clouds that form near the silver grains. As R.M. pointed out, Kodachrome dyes form as crystals.

<p>

So, if they do away with Kodachrome, I can't say what I'd use, but simply offering up one more E6 film with a "Kodachrome look" won't cut it. I may just toss in the towel and take up some other hobby. It's like asking a sportscar enthusiast "if we make it illegal to drive your Porsche down the country road, would you be willing to ride in a Grayhound, if they put in Porsche-like seats?" He'd probably say "no, I'll just stay home."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Could Kodak's dip and dunk Kodachrome processor handle 120 film? The place I send my 120 to uses such a machine, so it makes me wonder if they can still do it. And if so- what are the odds of getting them to do it on that machine? </i>

<p>

I don't know how you'd manage to do the reexposures (one red, one blue) in a dip and dunk machine.

<p>

I doubt you'd be able to get anyone to process it. They'd need to buy the K14 chemicals from Kodak, and then they'd probably need two machines back to back (there are something like 15 steps to the process) and they'd need to configure both machines, and then they'd need to figure out a way to translate the replenishment routines to batch mode...

<p>

If you find someone to do it, let me know and I'll line up to buy some of that film. But I just don't see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dip-n-dunk machine was in the research labs. It was retired at the end of Kodachrome R&D, but is probably there in property storage in the sub-basement of B-59.

 

Yes, it handled the reversal exposures. Yes it also handled films to 120 or (surprise) 4x5 size. But I have seen Kodachrome processed on simple film clips with good result.

 

The sharpness of Kodachrome is a function of the process which imparts a tanned image to the film. If you look at the emulsion side of a Kodachrome slide you will see a relief image there. The 'edges' of the gelatin relief impart the sharpness. It is simply a procesing artifact, and nothing magic if you know about it.

 

You can simulate it in other processes if you wish, but it is too much trouble IMHO.

 

And, no, EK would not resurect the dip-n-dunk for your 120 film, but as I indicated above, it is not hard to process Kodachrome, it is just time consuming and expensive.

 

We used to mix up the 3 color developers as 'blanks' minus CD and coupler until use to prevent the severe keeping problems inherent in Kodachrome. But other than being a long process and having expensive couplers, it isn't so bad. Read up about it on the EK web site.

 

You can even buy the chemistry in prepacked kit form. Made up that way it is rather stable. If a group of you went together you could make it economical.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just posted a reply to your post in the CD1 thread, if there is anything else you'd like me to look at, let me know where it is, that was the only one I could find.

<p>

As far as the Kodak chemistry, I do have a copy of the formulas for the K14 chemicals, the document was making the rounds a few years ago, and I was one of the "lucky ones" to get a copy, but I don't know where to get some of the more esoteric components, such as the couplers and CD6.

<p>

I have been told that any Kodak "stockhouse" dealer can order the KLAB chemical packs, so with those, it <i>should</I> be possible to home process Kodachrome. I don't know how much they cost, or how long they will keep them available. I understand that the only remaining KLAB machine in the world is the one in Japan, so when that one goes T/U, it will probably be sayonara for the chemicals, unless some old timer in Rochester takes pity on us poor fools and decides to leave those CAT numbers active.

<p>

If you know any old timers in Rochester, don't hesitate to leave that bee in his ear, OK? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak management do not know their products or market very well. It seems that they often axe their niche products at the peak of their popularity. And they do this when the Kodak version is clearly preferred by photographers and there is no real competition.

 

Remember dye transfer about 25/30 years ago, when they stopped making the most popular and best film for that use .. just as it was becoming seriously popular worldwide.

 

And now, despite an steadily increasing interest in lith printing, thanks largely to excellent photographers and writers like Tim Rudman, Kodak have discontinued Kodalith Super RT developer.

 

Upon hearing this, I have made a conscious decision to avoid all Kodak products of any type in my darkroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gregory,

<p>

It makes sense when you look at the upper management. They are a bunch of beancounters. They look at the numbers, and they discover that they can save a few cents by dropping a product, and then that's that.

<p>

They can't think "outside the box" or maybe a better metaphor would be that they can't think "off the spreadsheet".

<p>

In the grocery business there are products that you carry because they bring people into the store. The trade is filled with tales of scads of lost customers when a store decided to drop some brand of yoghurt (or whatever) because "we only made thirty cents on it and we only sold a dozen jars a week". The lesson was that the shoppers went somewhere else for that yoghurt, and filled their carts up at those other stores.

<P>

Someone who knows the <i>business</I> (i.e., grocery for grocers, photography for photograpic stuff) will see the big picture, and say "over my dead body!" when his accountant says "dump the damn yoghurt!"

<p>

They know that the "thirty cent yoghurt" brings in customers who come to the store because you carry that "thirty cent yoghurt", and then they plunk another hundred fifty in sales into the cart while they're there.

<p>

And they know that if you stop carrying that "thirty cent yoghurt", those customers will go to the guy who <i>does</I> carry it -- and they'll take the <i>rest</I> of their shopping there too.

<p>

But when the beancounters are running the ship, the guy who "discovers that we can save a bunch of money by dropping this damn yoghurt" will get a pat on the back, a raise, and a plaque on "saved money for the corporation."

<p>

What beancounters can't seem to realize is that you don't run a business by "saving" money, you run a business by <i>making</I> money.

<p>And you don't <i>make</I> money by driving your customers to the other guy's store!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is entirely possible that the decision-makers at Kodak do not know that Kodalith Super RT lith developer ( a film developer ) is also increasingly used as a print developer in the production of lith prints. Of all the lith developers sold, it was the best and easiest to use, and lots of work had been done by many people in learning how to get the best out of it.

 

I can imagine them throwing it out with the fine-grain/lith/copy films they are canning .... and I can imagine someone in the boardroom saying something like " hey, if they don't have these sorts of film any more they sure as hell won't need the developer for 'em, will they ".

 

I do not believe this company's management know either their products or their market .. I reckon I've got to the point where, if I never use a Kodak product again, I really won't be missing anything ( with the possible exception of HIE infrared film ).

 

Its Kodak's timing that is, once again, so galling .. lith printing is really gaining popularity at the moment .. has been for some time. The results can be an utterly sublime expression of photographic vision. And mixing dry chemicals, putting them in a bag and selling it at a profit when the R&D has been done and you've already got a winning formula is pretty simple stuff .... a lot easier than making film.

 

I'll just have to make my own now, or use one of the other commercially available ones. Fortunately, I'm an industrial chemist, so it will probably be the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just phoned Kodak Canada and they had no listing on their system about Tech Pan or Kodachrome being discontinued. So as far as they're concerned, its still active indefinately. I enquired about the Kodachrome chemicals too. She said only some labs have access to that. Personally I wouldn't have a clue on going about developing this stuff at home, especially since I think Ron said it has to be 100 degrees in temp. What I do wonder is why some lab wouldn't give an offer for Kodak's dip and dunk machine of this that is sitting, buy it, get it running, and develop all the Kodachrome they can get their hands on with it in any format.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's the reply they sent...</p>

<i>><p>

There is no message in any of my programs regarding the discontinuance

of either product.</p>

 

<p>Thank you for contacting Kodak. If we can be of any further assistance,

please give us a call at 1-800-465-6325 extension 36100. We can be

reached Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Eastern Time.</p>

 

<p>Regards,</p>

 

<p>Doug B.

KODAK Information and Technical Support

Kodak Canada, Inc.</p></i>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ONE BIG QUESTION - is there anyone participating in this thread that has actually seen the fax from Kodak saying that KODACHROME film has been discontinued? NOT, I was told by some clerk at a camera store! NOT, XYZ camera said Kodak faxed them! NOT, I heard a rumor! Does someone actually have/had the fax in their hand or have seen it with their own eyes?

 

Does anyone actually have a copy of the fax from Kodak about KODACHROME? If you do, I have corresponded with a senior employee at Kodak that would like to see the fax ASAP!

 

Robert Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reuben;

 

I have posted answers to your questions / comments on the threads on Kodachrome and on CD1.

 

Scott;

 

I have information on the original K14 process. It is about 1 hour long and runs at 27 deg C. It used a prehardener. The newer process does not IIRC. I have read a 100 deg (37 dec C) process on the internet at the EK site about a year ago.

 

You may wish to look at USP 3.658,525.

 

Gregory;

 

I agree with you that dye transfer was a superb product, but there were so few customers that there were hardly any sales. Ctein knows more about that than I do. See his web site for details. Anyhow, the matrix and pan matrix films were hard to make and the process was very complex. You can only lose so much money on a product before you just have to stop making it.

 

I have made dye transfers, have you? If you have, you know how backbreaking it is to do and that is why a dye transfer costs so much. It is worth the trouble, but RA prints are almost as good most people at 1/10th the cost, time, and trouble, and about 50% less space. I abandoned it long ago, very reluctantly. I couldn't afford the cost of the film and my time.

 

EK managers try to do the best. They do get input from market research and your input is used there, so call them or write them.

 

Thats all I can add.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received a message from Charles S. Smith, senior public relations spokesman for Eastman Kodak. I have copied his message below in its entirety. Basically it says that the rumors of the "death" of Kodachrome are NOT true! They continue to make and market the product. Sorry, but he can't say the same for Technical Pan. All of you that use that film better buy some and make space in the freezer just as soon as possible. The part about Technical Pan is true!

 

We better use it or loose it! Have a Kodachrome Day!

 

Robert Johnson

Nashville, TN

USA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Kodachrome again]

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:16:32 -0400

From: charles.s.smith@kodak.com

To: me@robertejohnson.com

 

 

I have learned that we did send a letter (Aug. 1) to dealers that we will discontinue Technical Pan film. However, there was no mention of Kodachrome in the letter.

 

We will discontinue 120 format in December of this year; 135 and long rolls April of 2005; and sheets films in June. The letter suggests photographers use T-Max 100 as an alternative and suggests processing support.

 

As for a reason, the volumes of Technical Pan films are declining and changes in our manufacturing processes would make it impractical to support at the low levels of today.

 

Again, there was no mention of Kodachrome and we continue to make and market Kodachrome... hope this helps.... csmith..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been several statements posted that came from e-mail replys from Kodak.

 

Let me add this one (with a huge sigh of relief) This is the most unequivical response I have seen yet

 

I said I ahd heard rumors of Kodachrome being discontinued. The gentleman who responded from Kodak evidently thought hat rumor came from a dealer as here is his reply.

 

 

 

Dear Jason:

 

Thank you for contacting Eastman Kodak Company regarding availability of

KODACHROME 64 and 200 Films.

 

Please be advised that we are NOT discontinuing KODACHROME 64 and

KODACHROME 200. Please ask your dealer to show you the document that he

saw stating that we are discontinuing these films and verify if indeed

it says that. What you may find is that the announcement says that the

Fair lawn, NJ lab is closing and KODACHROME orders will now be going to

Dwayne's Photo Lab in Parson, KS (via District Photo in Beltsville, MD).

The orders will still go through normal channels and there will be no

interruption in service nor service times.

 

Below is how the announcement read:

 

Qualex, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidary of Eastman Kodak Company, has

announced plans to close its film processing lab in Fair Lawn, NJ in

September 2004. As a result of this decision, all Kodak prepaid

processing mailers will be sent to District Photo in Beltsville,

Maryland. District Photo will process all mailer orders, except those

for KODACHROME Film, which will now be forwarded to Dwayne's Photo in

Parsons, Kansas. Those slides will be returned in cardboard mounts

only.

 

Service times for mailers will not be impacted by this change, and you

can expect to continue to receive the same high level of service you

have enjoyed in the past.

 

Please begin using the following address when submitting future mailers

for processing:

 

Kodak Mailer Processing

c/o District Photo

PO Box 3640

Hampton Park, MD 20791

 

(Note: This address has been changed to the following address, in lieu

of a PO Box since Fed-X and Airborne cannot ship to a PO Box:

KODAK MAILER PROCESSING

C/O DISTRICT PHOTO

10501 Rhode Island Avenue, MD 20705

HAMPTON PARK, MD 20791

(301) 937-5300 x240

 

Please continue to use the same toll free number to contact our customer

service department at 1-800-345-6973 for questions regarding this

communication or for any other KODAK mailer related questions.)

 

If the dealer has some other written notice saying otherwise, I'd like

to see a copy of it. Please fax to: (585) 724-9581, Attn: G. Spence.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Kodak/Qualex is going to have major problems with the addresses they list for District Photo.

 

The P. O. Box address listed is actually in Capitol Heights, MD, less than a mile outside the District of Columbia.

 

The physical street adress is actually in Beltsville, MD, maybe 8 miles away to the north. None are in the Hampton Park, MD USPS zone!

 

Looks like Kodak has shot themselves in the foot again! Why do it think that so unusual? It's not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't everything mailed to that region sent through the irradiation machines?

<p>

I remember reading that National Geographic had some <i>developed</I> slides destroyed by the irradiation machine. Irradiation is <i>much</I> more powerful than xrays. It's designed to kill, not to detect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of 2002, the zipcode they listed is OK (if that's even the right zipcode), according to this thread; <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001rnc">Damage caused by USPS irradiation of mail</a>

<p>

I will see what more recent info I can find after I finish waking up, unless someone beats me to the punch. (And please, someone beat me to the punch!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I haven't waken up yet, but this is worrying me, so I looked up what I think is the definitive source:

<p>

<a href="">USPS - Mail Facilities Updates - Washington, DC</a>

<p>

<blockquote><B>USPS CONTINUES TO IRRADIATE GOVERNMENT MAIL</B>

<P></P>

<P>The U.S. Postal Service will continue for the foreseeable future to irradiate

letters, flats, Express and Priority Mail with stamps for postage and other

packages with stamps for postage destined to government agencies in the ZIP Code

ranges 202-205. </P>

<P>Mail from known mailers - such as Express with meter strips or corporate

accounts, Priority mail with meter strips or permit indicia and registered mail

- is not irradiated. At this time, irradiation is the only process used by the

Postal Service to sanitize the mail.</P>

<P>Mail that is irradiated may exhibit a discolored (tan-colored) quality, as

well as be brittle, show spots on envelopes and make address labels unreadable.

Documents bound with glue may have loose pages and some mail may have fused

pages. If tape is affixed to address labels, the address will likely not be

readable after being irradiated. The type of damage depends on the fiber content

of the paper.</P>

<P>Customers and businesses sending mail to ZIP Codes 202-205 can avoid the

irradiation process by affixing postage meter strips or permit indicia instead

of postage stamps to Express or Priority Mail. The use of corporate accounts for

Express Mail or registered mail also is another way to avoid the irradiation

process.</P>

</blockquote>

<p>

What this does <i>not</I> address is mail that passes <i>through</I> these facilities.

<p>

I don't know whether that's an issue or not, but I guess I am not going to gamble, so I'll use Fedex. It would be nice if they'd give us a direct address to use in Kansas, but I understand that Dwaynes will not accept Kodak mailers if send to them directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last note (Google returned a huge stack of links I haven't yet waded through, this like the other was near the top).

<p>

It looks like irradiation can even damage <i>digital</I> stuff!

<p>

And it looks like others are also concerned about routing issues.

<p>

From http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2403:

<p>

<blockquote>There seems to be a large FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about the whole irradiation thing. Officially, USPS claims they only irradiate incoming mail to certain zipcodes. But mail distribution routes can be very complex nowadays. The notice of compactflash damage was released by the Compact Flash Association.</blockquote>

It looks like irradiation can even damage <i>digital</I> stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last bad news item and then I really am out of here for a while.

<p>

It looks like due to the current scare, they are irradiating mail in the <b>entire northeast</b>:

<p>

<a href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=7dbptuo54e64jbuhq75hgamm5d7d8u5kh0%404ax.com&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dusps%2Birradiation%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D7dbptuo54e64jbuhq75hgamm5d7d8u5kh0%25404ax.com%26rnum%3D9">USPS follow up</a>

<p>

And if anyone wants to try to allege that DC isn't geographically part of the "northeast", all I'll say is "get real" -- it's all <i>about</I> DC, for the most part!

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...