Archival E-6: Why or why not?

[ChrisPlatt]

The demise of Kodachrome film processing begs the question:
Why can't E-6 transparency film images be made to last as long as those on Kodachrome?
What is the prospect that manufacturers can increase the archival properties of future E-6 films?

Chris

 

[xwhatsit]

I saw a post on APUG (can't find it) which referred to a paper (can't remember name or author!) which gave various lifetimes for various transparency films.

I believe Photo Engineer made the post, for those who read APUG.

They said, "no colour process is archival" or something like that. They all degrade.

Modern Kodachrome had a lifetime of 150 years or so. Old Ektachrome was listed just a few decades. Modern Ektachrome (since the 80s) had a lifetime of 250 years or so!

What I got out of it is that the very old early Ektachrome was rubbish and would start to fade and turn magenta in just a few years. It got a bad reputation because of that. However modern Ektachrome should last for longer than Kodachrome.

This was all based on acceptable levels of colour shift, fading, etc. Acceptable was deemed to be a 1% or 5% change or something.

 

[apodeictic]

You can read the bible on the archival properties of colour material here for free:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

Kodachrome was unique because of how it was processed. Unfortunately there's no other film like it in terms of archival stability.

 

[xwhatsit]

You can read the bible on the archival properties of colour material here for free:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

Kodachrome was unique because of how it was processed. Unfortunately there's no other film like it in terms of archival stability.

Ah. Thank-you for the name. He's the guy who wrote the paper.

I found the post I was talking about, actually on Photo.net. By Ron Andrews, ex Kodak engineer (different from Photo Engineer -- is his name also Ron though?). His post is at the bottom of the first page in this thread.

The content of his post here:

Henry Wilhelm collected the information that manufacturers published about their products. The compilation is included in the pdf file at: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_05_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf
The criteria is the number of years it will take for a 20% loss in the least stable dye. Here are some of the numbers:
Fujichrome @ <10% rh: 150 years
Fujichrome @ 70% rh: 40 years
K-14 Kodachrome: 185 years
E-6 Ektachrome (group II after 1988): 220 years
E-6 Ektachrome (group I after 1978): 105 years
E-4 Ektachrome: 30 years
E-3 Ektachrome: 8 years
There is no humidity specified with the Kodak results, but I know that 40% rh was the standard condition used in these tests.
I'm old enough to have some personal experience with dye fading. I have some E-4 Ektachrome slides that are 35 years old that do not show obvious fading although I have not been measuring them. I have my grandfather's Kodachrome slides over 60 years old that show no signs of fading. I've never seen a Kodachrome slide produced since 1938 that shows dark fading. (Light fading is easy to show on Kodachrome--leave a slide on a light box for a week and you may see the difference.) I've never seen a slide from the original Kodachrome dye bleach process (pre-1938). I have some Ektachrome movie film over 30 years old that is losing yellow dye.

The key point being that your statement ("nfortunately there's no other film like it in terms of archival stability") is incorrect, (recent, post-1988) Ektachrome is in fact a better film in terms of archival stability than Kodachrome. When you compare old Kodachrome to old Ektachrome, the Kodachrome did last a lot better because it was a lot better than the Ektachrome of the time, which might've been E-4 process or even E-3 (only 8 years to lose 20% dye in the reference above!). However modern Ektachrome is obviously quite a different film.

 

[nikon_sam]

I've got some E-6 slides I developed back in 1978 and they still look good...I really can't see any fading or loss of colors...How long do you need yours to last...???

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Kodachrome has been discontinued since it was long obsoleted by other film technologies. Modern E6 films from Kodak and Fuji are superior in nearly every way.

Modern E6 films are at least as long term archival as Kodachrome. They are much better suited to projection as transparencies. Kodachrome was ill-suited to projection.

Since they are "analog" and highly redundant technologies even as they start to fail, however, they are still usable. The image quality might be degraded but they are not lost--- and there are various techniques for restoration.

None of these approaches are ideal for the highest quality of archiving. For this one is best using a CMY separations and storing each as B&W polyester copies. Correctly stabilized one estimates a life expectancy of beyond 500 years. Due to its self-apparent technology and low demands there is little reason to expect that these can't be used in 100s of years.

For images captured and processed using digital techniques--- e.g. not living on film--- the most reliable and cost efficient long term archival methods are too mostly based upon use of films--- but not always as rendered images.

 

[sevo]

Kodachrome already lost its position as the film with the best dark storage properties more than twenty years ago - Velvia was no worse, and successive generations of E6 film have become even better. And the Kodachrome light fading properties (i.e. in projection or display) always were worse than those of E6 or C41 slide dup films - for professional projection use they had always to be copied, as Kodachrome originals did fade to yellow within less than a week of continuous projection (while dup film would last a month or two).

Archival stability also depends on processing - E6 always will be more vulnerable as anybody can process it, and sometimes does. Most 90's minilabs were careless and did not perform any level of process control beyond checking the immediately visible result - and some of the worse in-shop processors did not even do that. But in the decline time of Kodachrome in Europe, the dwindling and neglected European Kodak labs were turning out their share of mis-processed rapidly fading Kodachrome as well...

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Archival stability also depends on processing - E6 always will be more vulnerable as anybody can process it, and sometimes does.

Its also less vulnerable for the same reasons: one can process it in ones own lab. Important for E6 stability is the use of a good protein crosslinker (aka. protein fixer) such as Formalin or Glutaraldehyde and heat.

A hot air dying cabinet is important! Anything, however, from the small Jobo Mistral II (or DevAppa) to a large rig is sufficient. Important is that the temperature should be above 40C but below 60C--- the Mistral/DevAppa is 45C on high.

Protein fixatives are typically found in either the final rinse or in an earlier bath. Due to some concern over occupational safety and liability the baths are sometimes lower in Aldehydes, sometimes use something that does not sound like Formalin (but breaks down to it) or sometimes even leave it off or unintentionally wash it off. According to Rowland Mowery (former Kodak engineer) Kodak does not need Formalin in their E6. Given that there are other E6 vendors of film and chemicals its still I think the best path. Kodak C41 final rinse, for example, is still based upon Formalin.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

So labs that adhere to best practices outlined should justifiably be able to claim archival E-6 processing.

This might be good for business and should be advertised, if true.
It would definitely influence my choice of lab.

Chris

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

So labs that adhere to best practices outlined should justifiably be able to claim archival E-6 processing.

Correct. Does not have to be a "special" place either. The large German mainstream labs Fuji-Eurocolor in Gera (mailers) and CeWe in Germering (where DM film goes) do good jobs. The advantage of pro-labs such as Bildmanufaktur (Meyer) is the availability of special services--- they also do Agfa Scala--- and faster turn-around (same day versus up to 1 week from the big labs) . Their only downside is that they charge a bit more: 5 EUROs per KB roll, for example, from Meyer versus 2 EURO from CeWe through DM. The situation In Berlin and Hamburg I'm sure are quite similar.

This might be good for business and should be advertised, if true.
It would definitely influence my choice of lab.

Chris

Kodak's program is called Q-Lab.