Can we save Kodachrome?

[35mmdelux]

I'm afraid a 100 years from now, our descendants will find film little more than a curiosity, of no practical value. Especially negatives, which can't be held up to a light and enjoyed.

I am sure they said this 150 years ago when they were shooting glass plates. I am glad Brady plowed ahead and recorded the American Civil War and captured images of the great Abraham Lincoln. We owe his vision and preserverance a debt of gratitude.

 

[wayneb]

I'm going to disagree here - I'm currently using a desktop scanner to get old kodachromes into flickr, etc and make small prints and it's fine quality. I assume there will always be flatbed scanners as long as there is printed material, which I think there will be for a very long time.

There are so many negatives and slides in existence that there will be a market for equipment to scan this media. I was in Sears recently, they still sell turntables in the electronics section.

The archival aspect isn't going to mean anything when there is no equipment to read a piece of Kodachrome film as anything other than a 24x36mm curiosity.

 

[varjag]

So, there is no way 22nd century technology would be up to projecting or scanning a 35mm frame? Depressing thought.

 

[35mmdelux]

.. little more than a curiosity, of no practical value. Especially negatives, which can't be held up to a light and enjoyed.

since when does art, any art, have practical value? We shoot because we want to and if in this journey we are lucky to capture one beautiful image to some of us it was worth it.

I shoot Kodachrome because of what I said above. You may chose to shoot Walmart Gold. You may also chose to wear polyester suits and dine at McDonalds or your local fast food establishment. Life is about choices in an uncertain span of time.

When my parents died, having the ability to archive some fotos became more important to me. When I meet famous leaders, archival ability is important to me. Some of course may chose to argue the nuances of digital and what may/may not occur in the future. I do not have such a crystal ball. I only try to do my best here and today. Whatever the pessimism, Kodachrome renders beautiful colors and this is all I really care about.

 

[gdi]

Look what just happened to us with HIE - a much greater loss than Kodachrome will be in my opinion. But at least you could have stocked up on HIE and still develop it - when Kodachrome is gone, Dwayne's will shut down the line as well.

Kodak will not be swayed. But Hopefully there will always be MangoFalls...

 

[noimmunity]

since when does art, any art, have practical value?

it's OT, but here goes: While art may not have practical value, the connection between advancements in optical technology and warfare (or security and population control) is integral, very well documented, and as lucrative as it is destructive.

Love the MangoFalls (?) beach photo!!!

 

[varjag]

Our grand-grand children will likely be not some green-skinned alien hedonists, but sentient human beings, conscious adults, just like you and me. Who can be interested in a multitude of things, and given population figures there will be substantial interest in any random thing imagined.

 

[35mmdelux]

Eugene, how many glass plates do you have in your home? How many nitrocellulose negatives from your great-grandparents? How many Autochromes?

There is just a point beyond which technology is no longer "practically' accessible for the average person.

Your pessimism is not holding water Leicasniper. Your argument insists on "practically accessible for the average person." Do I need to say more? In art this is considered an oxymoron. By analogy you are confusing Michael Jackson with the opera, brandy with Courvisier.

 

[sepiareverb]

To assume that our great-grandchildren will have the least interest in small squares of acetate is a giant leap of faith.

Bet your ancestors are real glad you came along Tossed out all those pictures of great-grandma holding your dear sweet mother? Family pictures is one area where these small squares of acetate do still have real value. Every semester I have students bring in old family negatives wanting to see them printed, asking how to fit some 6x9 or 4x4 neg into the enlarger. For all the world I don't see how even the above average digital snapshooter will have any record for their great-grandchildren.

 

[oscroft]

@oscroft: I have to use different settings on my Coolscan 5000 to get it scanned without the cast. But it does scan for me once I remember to treat it differently.

I found that tricky, because the amount of magenta doesn't seem to be consistent, so each individual photo needs a slightly different treatment. It's actually quite easy to rectify afterwards, but it's a serious inconvenience because I have lots of old slides to scan, together with another 50-100 new rolls a year - and I'm only in the same country as my scanner for half the year.

It also seems to me that Kodachrome from different eras scans differently. My rolls that gave me a magenta cast were from the 90s, and I'm now scanning some 1986 rolls that are giving me a slight blue cast (as other people have experienced).

So overall, much as I love Kodachrome, if something like Sensia 100 gives me simpler and consistent scanning (and it's really very good), then I'll probably rely on that longer term. But as I say, I'll wait and see how my latest 30 rolls of KR turn out.

 

[dave lackey]

Well,

My slides from the 60's are stunning even today. I just picked up a slide projector to go back over them just for fun. Come to think of it, that is what slides have always been about!

20 years from now, my old 50-year old slides will be fine and my slides shot this week will be as well.

20 years from now, are my CD's full of thousands of images going to be okay? Who knows? What technology will be around then and am I going to convert all of those? No way!

What I do know is that I am damned tired of digital images because I work with PS 10 hours a day at work and film is for fun! Going back to slides and projectors is way more fun than sitting in front of the photoshop screen!

So, I pose the second question, why in the world would someone NOT want to save Kodachrome? There are still enthusiasts for tin-types, daguerrotypes (sp?) and I would NEVER try to limit their enjoyment of their chosen medium. Seems to me that there are too many people who want to impose THEIR digital preference on ME which I categorically refuse to accept.

That is why I posted this thread...if the flagship film medium, Kodachrome, goes away, we have only ourselves to blame and my kids/grandchildren will be the poorer for it.

So, let's SHOOT and enjoy it!

 

[dmr]

So, I pose the second question, why in the world would someone NOT want to save Kodachrome?

I really don't think anybody is leading any "Kill Kodachrome" movement, but I think it's mainly because the Teeming Millions just don't have any big burning desire to jump upon the bandwagon to save it.

Most of today's amateur photographers are sooooo in love with their Latest And Greatest DSLR. That notwithstanding, those who shoot film, those who shoot slide film that is, are more likely to prefer the availability and convenience of the various E6 films, such as Fuji {whatever}. You can get that kind of thing off the shelf in most large cities, plus you can usually get same-day E6 processing as well.

Now if I had a few mil. to invest (which I don't) I would look at getting or starting a company to either buy out Kodak's Kodachrome business (which I'm sure they will eventually be willing to sell for one song and one dance, assuming there are buyers) or produce an independent Kodachrome-like film. According to PE over at APUG, Kodak has released their Kodachrome patents and anyone could, if they had the desire and the skill, make a Kodachrome-like film.

 

[victoriapio]

What I really would like to see is the return or older versions of Kodachrome from a few decades ago... gorgeous looking stuff. Reminds me of 3-strip Technicolor.

The change in the "qualities" of Kodachrome from the 70s-80s to earlier this century was one of the big reasons I switched over to digital. Not to mention that only one publication I shoot for is still even taking slide submissions, they have all switched to HQ digital.; not to mention that digital slide shows are much easier to produce, not to mention that digital images are much cheaper to create, etc, etc, ect.

But I totally agree with almost everything said in earlier posts about the wonderful attributes of Kodachrome. What a film stock it was, RIP when it finally happens.

O.C.

 

[Ronald_H]

Forget Kodachrome, I wouldn't even know where to buy it in my country!

It's getting increasingly difficult to even get E6 processed, and to buy B/W chemistry

But now my M2 is CLA'd and my Digiflash is calibrated, I shot some plain Sensia. Ok, my screen broke this weekend, but my bedroom wall still works. Projected my slides with a Rollei projector I got from the supermarket adverts for 10 euros and ENJOYED.

If photography is an artform or just means to an end, I don't know. I don't care either. But my dear old mum is very pleased that the single print that exists from herself as a little girl could be digitally restored and printed. And if I make it to a ripe old age, I hope to see the children of my friends discovering the pics I made from their mum and dad.

I never understood what's so magical about RF's and Leicas. Now I have three RF's, an M2 among them, Maybe I should try Kodachrome too, now it's still there!

 

[dmr]

The process to produce Kodachrome is so complex that it's simply not practical on a small scale.

I am not a Photo Engineer<tm> by any means, but those who are, most specifically Ron S. on the Kodachrome list and other places, has given me the impression that the formulae for the emulsion layers of Kodachrome are actually simpler than those for the more common E6 and C41 type films. They are in essence sensitized silver-based B&W emulsion layers with no spooky color couplers or anything like that.

There was even some speculation that a Kodachrome-like film could be produced on a machine such as this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/

I'm sure that industrial-grade coating machines would be more practical, however.

Another myth that Ron has dispelled is that it's impossible to process Kodachrome on a small scale, and that at minimum a K-Lab machine is needed. He explained that it was not that uncommon to do tank development in the lab, with the tricky parts being two re-exposure steps where the wavelength of the light and the intensity and uniformity of the re-exposure are critical to success. (Hey, if God. and Man. could do it with 1930s technology ...)

The way I understand it, the only real exotic chemistry in the process has to do with the CD6 color developer, which is the Magic Potion in the three second developers which drives the dye-formation process.

The one thread I recall concluded that since the CD6 formula is in the patent documents (which have apparently been released to the public domain) anyone "experienced in organic synthesis with access to lab facilities" should be able to make it.

Difficult? Yes.
Practical? You tell me!
Impossible? No!

 

[sanmich]

I don't know if scanning 35mm slides will be feasible in 100 years for now but I do know what are the chances of survival of a digital file.

So of course, no perfection, no guaranty, but why in the world should I shoot anything less than than the highest archivability stuff?

Yes, I shoot Kodachrome for all my family stuff. I started after I got interested in digital and understood what can of worms archivability is regarding any stuff other that well processed B&W and Kodachrome. I did my best so my children have good chances to have these pictures available in 50 years from now.
Once I realized I still have a beautifull picture (BW) of my grandparents wedding (40's), Guess what remains of my (colour) wedding picture of my parents ('69)?

What you can do for K survival is to promote it for what it is: the best support if you want to keep your pictures longer thean 20 years. Maybe others, like me, will start using it when they realize that simple fact.

 

[sepiareverb]

That long life coupled with when well exposed and processed Kodachrome is beautiful gives us all the more reason to shoot it. Dwayne's will scan it for you, so you can see the pictures on your phone, email them about and store them with the rest of your digital 'archive' .

Don't get me wrong, I'd never use Kodachrome for a job with a deadline, digital is king there, but for family pictures I think digital has a long way to go to capture the magic of a slide show in the living room with the lights down and the curtains drawn, some popcorn, and the squeals of laughter seeing grandma in that sexy swimsuit and cats-eye sunglasses. The stories that get told during and after a slide show are fantastic.

 

[sanmich]

Don't get me wrong, I'd never use Kodachrome for a job with a deadline, digital is king there, but for family pictures I think digital has a long way to go to capture the magic of a slide show in the living room with the lights down and the curtains drawn, some popcorn, and the squeals of laughter seeing grandma in that sexy swimsuit and cats-eye sunglasses. The stories that get told during and after a slide show are fantastic.

You should be aware though that kodachrome has very bad archivability when projected. Dark storage conservation is what makes K the king...

 

[dmr]

For those who care ...

For those who care ...

... here's a diagram showing the current Kodachrome film and the steps from exposure to finished positive film.

 

[shadowfox]

(>>PERK!<<)

Oh really?

Any info?

RE: Kodachrome Convention

Oops, sorry, that's just one of my ideas to answer your question