Originally Posted by brucemuir
Chromes, trannies, sliders, boxers... all are the one and same: reversal film that bounces into life on the lightbox. :)
It took me just over 20 attempts to get the image looking 'correct' and all I've practiced with is shots of colour charts. The most challenging part for me was figuring out the re exposure steps. My second challenge was getting the development in each layer correct. I had issues with the magenta development stage for the green layer. In the early stages I had problems with silver remaining in the other layers, once that was sorted i had a few other things to tweak.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
As you always said Ron the process can be done by hand....but your absolutely right about cost, effort, time and access to chemicals and i will add im skeptical of precise control (getting the exact same result each time). with the amount that can go wrong in this process and the unavailability of fresh film....i think its best this process be left alone.
I will never offer this as a service, Im still sane and glad i saw it could be done but upon reflection I think compared to the simplicity of other reversal methods its a ghastly way of making a positive image ( no offense) but ....it isn't easy.
Kodak makes no secret of how kodachrome is processed, Greg Miller probably could do the process if he wanted to, but from a business point of view the hand processing methodology is totally insane.
Originally Posted by nickrapak
Just out of curiosity, setting aside, for now, problems about availability of virgin Kodachrome material:
Would it be possible, for a well-equipped industrial laboratory, to offer single batches of this treatment (with disclaimer of no guarantee etc.) or does it have to be made forcibly in a labour-intensive way?
I was thinking about a "call for process" for, let's say, 10.000 rolls.
First phase: Call for payment. Through a internet web site connected to a credit card network, each client could "book" a certain number of rolls. That would imply giving credit card numbers, either for immediate debit or for debit at a later stage.
Second phase: Call for rolls: When the quantity is reached (such as 10.000 rolls), the credit cards are debited (if that was not done in an earlier stage) and the rolls are called (by sending envelops, for instance).
The rolls would arrive at the laboratory within a short timeframe, given the fact that they were already paid for.
What I wonder is if, in theory, such a process could be mounted on a professional laboratory such as Dwayne's.
PS I know there are other problems to overcome to resuscitate Kodachrome, besides treatment, especially the availability of new material. I am just asking this as a theoretical possibility. If treatment is feasible, production of Kodachrome material could even be outsourced by Kodak to some external firm such as Fuji or Agfa. Treatment is probably the biggest hurdle for Kodachrome.
...nevertheless, it's an amazing standalone accomplishment, given that you were outside the Kodak information loop and apparently had to work backwards from only partially published data. That it took over 20 attempts speaks directly to the level of difficulty you overcame.
Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza
I'm interested to know more about Kodachrome developing, mostly from an academic point of view.
Everybody I have ever talked to seemed to give the impression that it is some kind of black magic. But for reading the occasional paper, I know little about it. I've never seen the machines that develop Kodachrome and I have a hell of a time imagining how it would be developed by hand.
I can't imagine how it could be done in regular hand tanks. Spiraling film on and off the reels, once wet, would be nearly impossible. You can't re-expose the film correctly through the emulsion side only then on the base side only with the film on reels.
I have a Morse G-3 developing tank for cine film that has a window in the side of it for re-exposing the film. You use the cranks to reel film back and forth.
But it is my understanding that those tanks are less than optimal for getting even, controlled development.
So, how would you do it? Removing the rem-jet layer is the least of the troubles. Developing the silver is child's play, relatively speaking.
Exposing only ONE side of the film to the correctly filtered color of light, redeveloping, exposing the other side, re-redeveloping then doing it all over again for a third time (in the dark, no less) really does sound like some kind of black magic!
This ignores the fact that you have to source the supplies to make the chemistry in the first place.
I want to know how it's done, not because I really want to do it myself (maybe in a dream) but because I just HAVE TO know.
An appendectomy can be done quickly and easily nowdays, but did you know how awful it used to be? That was only 60 years ago, when they had you in a bed for a week with stitches, many many stitches up your abdomen. And, surgery on the eyes for cataracts had you immobile for days with braces on your head. Today it is a walk in procedure.
So... E6 vs Kodachrome. :D - same difference!
I have some ideas on this though regarding easier means to Kodachrome type results using B&W film. I would be interested in your source for Color Developers and your source for Couplers.
Autochrome is more interesting to me, frankly.
I would firstly like to congratulate you for your successful attempt at processing kodachrome!
Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza
Someone tried doing exactly the same thing back in the day when kodachrome was king of colour films, and using the correct couplers and chemicals from Kodak was unable to get satisfying results, although i must admit this was probably the older k-11 process or possibly even older again.
If you do more experiments in processing kodachrome, it would be very interesting to see how an actual photograph (sky, skin tones etc) turns out and compares to the last kodachromes developed at Dwaynes, it will be extremely interesting also how long the dyes last compared to the original k-14 couplers (if there is anything significantly different in the couplers or developers) would be very interesting test to put some up in a hot place like the roof cavity in the full heat of the sun to see how stable the dyes are.
It is an extremley complicated process, and i know that some of the chemicals in the formulas you posted on facebook are available on alibaba at a price, from memory one chemical in the cyan developer was $2500 per ton!
Anyway, if its any help to you or anyone else interested in processing kodachrome, i have created a Wiki called Kodachromia its found here at kodachromia dot wikia dot com
This way, any information can be collected and arranged in an easy to find way, that makes it easier than scrolling through thousands of forums and patent documents trying to find those little bits of useful info.
Since im a member of thekodachromeproject forum, ive been well aware as well as some of you are in regards to this "k-lab" of klittlegraphy's.
We have not heard from him in a long time, so are unable to know its whereabouts even if it still exists or not.
But i think the best way to look at processing this film is to obtain the correct equipment such as a k-lab or else its a waste of time.
Im not sure how much kodachrome is even left, but alot sold on ebay, and any that turns up sells fast.
You can keep the developers from oxidising if they are stored in sealed containers that have no air space, hence the bag in box design that the k-lab used.
They also filled any air space inside with an inhert gas such as nitrogen, to flush out any oxygen left.
Kodak has not ruled out the possiblity of producing kodachrome again in botique amounts, so this will be very interesting to follow, would be some years away i would imagine. The worlds demands for such a small amount would only require a sinlge k-lab type machine. Its quite obvious that the chemicals are available to process kodachrome if you know where to look, so wont be any problem for kodak to supply them, since they have the resources to make them.
Will be interesting to see what happens, at least we all hope that they will once again produce their E6 range of films on a smaller coating machine.
Im not really looking forward to shoot Fuji when my Ektachrome stocks run out.
Is that even possible?!
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Obviously it must be coming from someone such as you!:D
Correct me if im wrong, but as far as i understand, Kodachrome is essentially a B&W film made of 3 layers sensitised to each of the 3 primary colours?
But a standard B&W film is sensitive the the full colour spectrum?
I cant see how it could be any easier to add colour couplers to a B&W film than kodachrome when each colour layer is not seperate, i expect you would still have to do re-exposures to add the dye couplers?
Either way, im confident you have the know how to do this, and you must know something that Kodak didnt!
I will be very keen to try this out myself if easy enough. If it possible to get kodachrome like results with a B&W film, then this will be quite exiting.
I don't know about hand tanks for roll film, but I had lunch today with several fellow Kodak retirees and one of them brought a 4X5 Kodachrome image he had taken from about 1950. We all agreed it must have an experimental coating, since a corner was 'clipped' with no notch code. I'm sure it must have been processed by hand in sheet film tanks.
Originally Posted by Worker 11811