Kodakchrome

[kevin_berlanga]

<p>I understand that Kodachrome was discontinued and so were the chemicals used in labs to process the film, but can the 35mm film still be processed using normal color processing? Or do my 5 rolls of Kodakchrome 64 and 25 going to have to be processed in Black and White? Also can I get these processed at Walgreens or Walmart? <br />Thanks!<br /> -Kevin B.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>Walgreens and Walmart couldn't have done them on site even 10 years ago. Only a few labs could do the Kodachrome process. Developing them as B&W is possible, but not a perfect solution and not just any lab will do it for you. They cannot be processed in regular color systems (E6 or C41). If you have not already exposed them, just put them in a display case.</p>

[Colin O]

<p>Kevin, you don't say where you are located, so I'm going to assume you're in the US. If you have not exposed the rolls of film, as Bethe says, do yourself a favour and don't bother. If you have exposed the rolls and want to get images from them, at this stage your only option is to use a round-about process that produces black & white images. You could enquire with <a href="http://www.dwaynesphoto.com">Dwayne's Photo</a> about this.</p>

 

<p>Incidentally, if it were possible to to develop Kodachrome using normal colour processing, why wouldn't everyone always have done it that way?</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>... even longer ago than that Bethe. :)</p>

[henryp]

<p>Kodachrome is unique in that the colors were added during development, not impregnated in the film during manufacture.<br>

Dwayne's says, "Kodachrome processing ended Dec 30, 2010. We were the only remaining Kodak certified processor of Kodachrome in the world. We know of no other resource to process Kodachrome film in color."<br>

That means your 5 rolls of Kodachrome 64 and 25 going to have to be processed in Black and White and I doubt Walgreens or Walmart would have the first clue.<br>

<a href="http://digital-photography.wonderhowto.com/how-to/develop-kodachrome-film-b-w-hand-processing-kodaks-k-14-process-0123573/">Processing Kodachrome</a>.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>as henry p[psner posted very accurately.<br>

kodachome originally sold in 1935, was a multi layer B&W film with fiklter layers between three<br>

emulsions.<br>

It is still possible, at home, to develop Kodachome as a bl;ack and white negative film.<br>

It is likely or possible, due to the age of the film that results would be fogged or generally poor.<br>

as henry said color is added at the time of development.<br>

processing is supposedly very critical/<br>

despite this some former Kodak employees mentioned that K 200 was developed in a sinmk.<br>

as a slide film.<br>

and modern Photography mentioes that some bnold soul had sucessfully developed Kodachome the same way<br>

starting in the 1930's agfa ( the germans were very advanced)<br>

sold a color film. I assume with color couplers in the emulsion so when deveoloped the colors would appear.<br>

I think ansochome was based on this technology.<br>

Kodak later made ektachome. it , i the early years , was not a great film.<br>

these and fujicolor were all similar.<br>

but not identical.<br>

I recall a roumor thjat Ilford once made a color slide film similar to Kodachome, I am not sure.<br>

Perutz and others also made ektachome/agfachome type films.</p>

<p>I due miss kodachome.<br>

with everything going digital<br>

and onlu fuji still making slide film.<br>

it will be only a matter of a few years before we see less and less film photography.<br>

Oh yes Dynachome in rocester made a kodachome type film.<br>

It seemed to be possible in the 1960's<br>

to copy the moset com,plicated film ever made.<br>

I do not know how much they relied on kodak technology and chemicals.</p>

<p>there is a stite that I have lost that offered kodachome B&W negative processing<br>

and instructions.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Just out of curiosity, when Kodachrome is developed as B&W, is it done in ordinary B&W chemicals and you get a negative? Or is it done in B&W reversal chemicals and you get a B&W slide? And in either case, it the quality similar to ordinary B&W film or is is contrasty, grainy, muddy, etc.?</p>

[gnashings]

<p>the attempts i have seen best fit "muddy". The only reason to attempt this is if your faced with two options: never see the images on already exposed film, period, or at least get a muddy approximation. The intrinsic value of the moment captured is really all I see - either lost forever or at least partially revived.<br>

The examples I have seen don't even qualify for having "a look" that those people who insist that crap is art might want to LOMOsturbate over...<br>

I do wonder if anyone will undertake a Project Impossible type of endeavor with Kodachrome? I don't think just developing existing remnants would not be enough justify the venture, they would have to attempt to produce the film as well</p>

[kevin_berlanga]

THANK YOU ALL SO SO MUCH! I've

learned so much. I want to get into

street photography since i'm moving to

the Big Apple for college.

 

I was wondering if the same thing

applies to Kodak Tri-X Pan 35mm film?

[AJG]

<p>Kodak Tri-X Pan is still alive and well and is easy to process yourself--buy some and try it!</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Can't think of a more classic choice than Tri X. It's hands down my favourite film (not saying its the best for everything, just if I had "a pick just one film" scenario, Tri X would be it). So many iconic images that you probably know and love were made on that film. It can be pushed, pulled, used and abused, processed a million ways, given almost endless variations in the end result or just forgive a ham fisted shooter and still produce and image. In fairness, same goes for most traditional b&w film - if I had to make (very subjective) judgement, I would say Tri X handles it with a little more than some, and a lot more than others, grace and flexibility.<br>

Please don't be misled by Kodachrome and Tri X being both Kodak products - Kodachrome was a very unique film even in its hay day, even compared to other transparency films both from Kodak and other makers. Tri X, while many of us will go on about its many virtues and fine points (and some will criticize it too), is just a normal panchromatic black and white film - traditional grain structure, technically no different than its equivalents from Ilford or Agfa or you name it. The differences are mostly nuance and preference. <br>

If your aim is to make b&w images from the outset, it or any other actual b&w film would be a much better choice than Kodachrome. <br>

Good thing about actual b&w film, you can process it in coffee if push came to shove:) I can't see a day when you won't be able to develop black and white film, even if all the manufacturers went under and no longer made the chemicals. As a matter of fact, many folks prefer to mix their own and even have special recipes for developers, etc., in some cases better (or perhaps more specialized) than the commercial alternatives. I have been more than happy with what i get off the shelf, but its just another fascinating aspect of this hobby/obsession/medium, whatever you choose to call it.<br>

And if you actually want slides, there are still plenty of slide films which do no require the now extinct, dedicated Kodachrome process. Granted - for better or worse - I don't think any of them look like Kodachrome. But they exist, are easy to get and many labs will process them in a standardized process called e-6.<br>

OK. I have officially claimed the long winded blow hard award for the night - better get myself to sleep. Best of luck with whatever you choose:)</p>

[daniel_johnson6]

<p>If you're looking to try slide film, I recommend Fuji's Provia--great film, great color, great sharpness. My favorite film, and it's easy to find and easy to get processed. Good luck!</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>If you're a film processing wizard with access to a fully equipped commercial lab and the money and time to invest in making it work, it is apparently still possible to process Kodachrome in colour, though I don't think anyone in the world will do this for you as a service: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/103711-reports-colour-kodachrome-home-processing-emerge-sydney.html</p>

[gnashings]

<p>Richard, key word being wizard - I think you're right on all counts. I kinda hope someone gets a compulsion to make a Kodachrome clone and the processing needed. People said it couldn't be commercially viable with Polroid (hence "impossible") and yet here we are. Would be cool, right? One can dream...</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Yes, this looks like Gandalf-level wizardry, sadly.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>To chime in a bit. For years I used Kodak Tri-X, among other B&W films, but more recently have been using Ilford HP-5+. I like the results much better than what I get with recently-manufactured Tri-X. It also lies flat in the film holders on my Epson V700.<br>

As for Kodachrome -- all chrome films were originally designed for projection. That's why they are called slide films. Eventually, they became associated with pro-level photography and were the standard used in the publishing industry, etc. Digital killed chrome films for all the right reasons in the professional realm. Having said that, seeing a medium format or 4x5 transparency is a wonderful thing. There is really no way that anyone is going to invest any money in a way to develop Kodachrome. It's dead. It was great in its day, but like I say, when you are late to the party, don't complain that the beer is gone. <br>

However--- if you want to shoot some E-6 emulsions, check out the Film Photography Project. They sell a variety of films, and one that is a real hoot to play with is the color IR film. </p>

[randrew1]

<p>You can get your film processed as B&W at Film Rescue International (<a href="https://www.filmrescue.com/">https://www.filmrescue.com/</a>). I believe they process to a negative and then scan it. They specialize in recovering images from old out-of-date films. They are good at it. They also charge a premium. If your film has the last know picture of your grandpa or a recent picture of Elvis, this is the way to go. </p>

<p>Processing as B&W at home is possible, but it is much trickier than processing a roll of Tri-X. The REM Jet (removable jet black) backing must be cleanly removed before developing. This usually takes some practice. If you get some of the black carbon on the emulsion side of the film, it is not possible to remove it. </p>

<p>If you want to learn more about Kodachrome, I have links to many galleries and articles at: <a href="http://www.randrews4.com/kodachrome.html">http://www.randrews4.com/kodachrome.html</a></p>

[gnashings]

<p>Mark,<br>

<br />I have shot countless rolls of both HP5+ and TriX of various vintage (and age). I know its largely a matter of taste, but I always prefer Tri X - although with a heavy heart because I would much rather give my money to Ilford. And admittedly it is never enough to make me call one film better. I just prefer how TriX does what it does when I ask it. And yes, the older emulsion is visibly different from whats new in a store right now, sadly. But we are SPLITTING HAIRS. <br>

I don't really know or care about how these films react in a scanner, as I can't think of a bigger waste of time than scanning b&w film, not to mention having some garrish approximation of black and white subsequently spat out from a glorified ink jet. But to each their own - if the market was swayed by actual value, Justin Bieber wouldn't outsell even the most middling of concert pianists, and no one would scan and inkjet film. Walmart would have long ago gone bankrupt, etc... but I digress.<br>

<br />I also don't get the "if you're late to the party" comment - no one was late to the party, Kodak stopped making and supporting the film/process, and now future generations will not be able to enjoy this unique emulsion, through no sin other than their birth date. And those of us with full freezers just have to look at the pretty yellow boxes.<br>

And yes, "its dead", but so was polaroid. Am I saying someone will do it, revive it? No, I am not. But it is not outside of the realm of possibility if a person with enough resources decides that "wouldn't it be nice". People still buy record players and you can still buy wooden sail boats. Caterham makes great business selling Lotus 7's and people still spend lots of money on new parts for some very old cars. Hell, last time I checked, people still paint - wasn't photography supposed to "effectively kill" all that canvas and brush nonsense? <br>

One thing that Polaroid DID have is the instant gratification factor which not only survived the digital epidemic but was nourished by it like a genetically engineered tomato. Kodachrome does not have that, and for that reason, it is far likely to be the next darling of kickstarter and hipsters everywhere. It may be very much retro, but who will see it? Therefore, who cares.<br>

One thing I can't dispute is that digital imaging has completely displaced photography in the professional realm. But I wouldn't say it did so for all the "right" reasons - I don't see today's magazine covers being any better than they were 30 years ago, and I see a LOT more hackery everywhere else. So the reasons I would call ECONOMICALLY inevitable rather than right. And when a photographer makes enough of a name for themselves that people will pay them and wait however long it takes - quite often a film camera still comes out. I would predict this will happen more and more often to be frank, in all but the most main stream, mass market applications.<br>

For me, there is really nothing I have seen on a computer screen that is as magical and full of its own life as a slide - even 35mm. Sure, many of my slides suck as I am sure many of my b&w prints leave much to be desired - but I don't blame the medium. When I do my part there is nothing that hours with lightroom and photochop and whatever other pixel crunching programs could do to improve it - just like no amount of fiddling with curves and levels and whatever else will make a bunch of pixels look like a Kodachrome held up to a window.<br>

And now I will remove myself from the soap box as my ranting has gone substantially off topic. Don't waste time and energy shooting Kodachrome as b&w on purpose. If you had the only existing picture of a long gone relative on a roll of it somewhere, sure, better that than nothing - but the aesthetic value of the packaging has in my experience outweighed the results of b&w resulting from such experiments. Get some Tri X. Or HP5. Or whatever b&w film catches your fancy. Or comes to hand. Or happens to be free or cheap. Learn to develop it. Get an enlarger - they're giving them away - one perfect for 35mm and even 120 will handily fit in a small apartment bathroom, trays in the tub, and whole set up can be up in 15 minutes and down in not much longer. Enjoy actual photographs as a result. And a sense of accomplishment - because when you get it right, you know it was all you. And when you don't, you will learn from it. Can't beat it:)</p>