CMur12
Veteran
I would hate to see that, as it would dishonor the Kodachrome name, at least to my mind. It would be like the new electric Ford Mustang, which is Mustang in taillights only.
- Murray
Two New Kodak Films in 2021?
- Thread starter Mackinaw
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 101
- Views 8K
I would hate to see that, as it would dishonor the Kodachrome name, at least to my mind. It would be like the new electric Ford Mustang, which is Mustang in taillights only.
- Murray
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
The look and the image permanence were not only due to the process, they were dependent on the process. Yes, it would be good enough for me; but not happening.
I have bought and installed every “Kodachrome mimicking” digital processing preset on earth, as far as I know. None of them are capable of doing Kodachrome colors. Close-ish in many cases, no cigar. What they do is create a look that a lot of people who never used much Kodachrome think that Kodachrome possessed, a Kodachrome caricature in most cases.
If it can’t be done it digitally, and apparently it can’t, the idea that crippled Kodak can do it with E6 is magical thinking. If only. Nobody can do it with E6. (Someone here has already posited the idea that maybe the Chinese can resurrect the actual machinery, infrastructure, and process. At least that’s within the realm of the possible, though I have my doubts it will happen. Another person mentioned that reviving true Kodachrome was, distinct from the Polaroid “Impossible Project”, in that reviving Kodachrome was the Impossible Project that actually was impossible. True enough.)
If Kodak could have duplicated Kodachrome back in the day, using E6, if this were humanly possible, at any time in all those years when they were full to the gills with chemists and engineers, and when they were running simple, inexpensive, quick, cheap E6 processing alongside infrastructure and time and money intensive Kodachrome processing; if they could have converted it to E6 and sold it and processed it as indistinguishable Kodachrome, and saved themselves shiploads of money, they would obviously have done so. Not obvious? Have another think. Or however many thinks it takes.
Ron Mowery, ex Kodak engineer, active over at apug, now sadly deceased, could have explained the nuts and bolts of this in laymen’s terms.
Back to the subject at hand: Something which might be within the capability of what’s left of Kodak, if only because every other manufacturer can do it, how about making Tri-X that doesn’t curl like Shirley Temple’s hair? If Shirley Temple’s hair was made out of spring steel. Just so tired of fighting that.
(This isn’t aimed at Chris, his post was just one of scads I have seen over time floating the idea that E6 Kodachrome isn’t a contradiction in terms. Not meant to be a personal attack, please don’t take it that way.)
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Sorry to hear that - his knowledge and generosity was great.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
The permanence of the latest E6 film, the new as well as the last release of Ektachrome, is better than Kodachrome
Freakscene
Obscure member
Ron was a great guy.
https://bartolomeo.com/tribute/details/12929/Rowland-Mowrey/obituary.html
Marty
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Would be interested in seeing any testing which supports this.
The last versions of Ektachrome were more color stable than earlier versions of Ektachrome, that’s as far as it went, but I am not aware that even anyone at Kodak was claiming they were more archival than Kodachrome. Yellow was the most problematic color in Kodachrome and it was subject to a loss of only 20% over 185 years, in testing. As far as I know, Kodachrome is unsurpassed for dark stored color stability, for color film, similar to black and white films primarily because that’s what it was, more or less.
The recently released Ektachrome, there is no data on that with regard to long term color stability, one way or the other.
Color palette is a matter of taste more than accuracy, which is why people choose one emulsion over another in the first place. None of them are “accurate”, just try photographing a grey card in varying lighting conditions, but we can usually find one that suits our “vision.”
There just are not as many emulsion choices as there once were, though there may be one that an individual loves. For accuracy, digital offers greater hope of achieving that than any E6 film, provided you shoot with a grey card and calibrate everything along the chain. With slide film, WYSIWYG. Just scan it while it’s fresh, before it “goes away.”
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 9:50 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,736
Projected permanence (bright light source)? Or dark permanence (storage)? Big difference.
I recently found several boxes of Kodachrome slides my dad took in 1954. I doubt the boxes have been opened in 67 years. The Kodachrome slides looked like they were taken yesterday.
Jim B.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Yep. Projected permanence, Ektachrome was good for more hours than Kodachrome, which mattered if you were doing some kind of a constant projection as in a store display. Archival, stored permanence, the complete opposite is true.
It’s rumored that ten year old Ektachrome was the original inspiration for The Blue Man Group.
irbridge
Member
Dear Jim,
Dark permanence for new Ektachrome should be 80+ years. I emailed Kodak last year for archival details. RFF members might find the reply very interesting. (Apparently new portra and ektar should last even longer! A pretty big breakthrough for colour negative archival stability if true...):
'The latest EKTACHROME E100 film features dark storage image stability of at least 80 years in storage conditions of 10°C (50°F) and 15-20% relative humidity. PORTRA and EKTAR Films should last even longer. The key is proper storage: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/cis_e30.pdf
Hope this helps,
Thomas J. Mooney | Manager Film Capture Business and Vice President'
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
80 years would be sufficient for my use.
Now if they could tweak the color palette...
Chris
Now if they could tweak the color palette...
Chris
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Wilhelm did the tests a while back. 185 years for K64 and 205 years for the last iteration of Ektachrome.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Fair enough. Thanks for that.
Though I take it this refers to the “last” iteration of Ektachrome, the 1988 version reborn as Ektachrome Plus, 64x, etc., which is all I can find Wilhelm information for, from 2013. Nothing on the even later 100G that I can find on Wilhelm, which was the last version made by the original Kodak company, and is now every bit as gone as Kodachrome.
I’d have my doubts that the 2018 new Ektachrome produced by what’s left of the Kodak facility is the same film, in consequential ways, as the original “last” Ektachrome, as I have seen no evidence it might be, but who knows. I’m just guessing, based on the trouble that the latest iteration of Kodak has had making functional 120 backing paper, D76 or XTOL that weren’t defective, or HC-110 for that matter. But, maybe unlike all these easier to make things, it’s great, and “just the same” as 100G or Ektachrome Plus, or even better. It seems to not look the same, at least in my hands, so permit me to doubt it will have the same storage characteristics. I can’t find any wilhelm research on the 2018 100E version, though maybe it is out there. Though glad Kodak is still here, am not oblivious to their “issues.”
But, point taken.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
If more people start to use new E100 in future we might get something that looks more like Kodachrome...
Chris
Chris
Corran
Well-known
None of these are made by Kodak I don't believe but 3rd-party suppliers.
zenza
Well-known
Drives me nuts when people talk about how Kodachrome is superior to the newer ektachromes when it comes to this. Ektachromes since the 90s have been better than Kodachrome in terms of stability. Kodachrome was a junk film compared to modern E6 stuff.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
It drives me nuts when people disagree with me about Kodachrome and talk about what they like instead. Modern E6 stuff is a junk film compared to Kodachrome.
Because the internet exists to drive people nuts. 🙂
Unable to resist stirring this witches brew toxic pot of opinions, I will go on to say that some people prefer the color palette of Kodachrome to what is otherwise available in other transparency films, even if it is junk film compared to modern E6 stuff, stuff which I use a lot of, even if I do drive people nuts.
And reading the Wilhelm reports in detail as to the methodology, not just the paragraph of conclusions, is extremely enlightening as to the applicability of the research to the real world.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
True enough, though that was not the case in the distant past. Things have changed in Rochester as to their capabilities. Maybe that matters with regard to the current discussion, maybe it doesn't, I don't know.
George Mann
Member
Impossible to bring Kodachrome back? Improbable, but not impossible. Kodachrome is junk? Sacrilege!
das
Well-known
If Kodak were smart, it would introduce a good 200/400 speed C41 print film that comes in at $4/roll or less for 36 exposures (something that comes in under Portra) and reintroduce a C41 chromogenic film like BW400CN. Anything else is a waste of time and money IMHO. There is no infrastructure to develop K-14 slide film any longer. Or any alternate process for that matter.
Hibbs
R.I.P. Charlie
How likely is Ektar 1000 and/or Ektar 25?
Just thinking aloud.
~ Hibbs
Just thinking aloud.
~ Hibbs
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
