I was really enjoying the turn the thread made with the imagery of some evil dude hiding out in a ruined photographic factory somewhere in Europe with PE and possibly ProfPixel as minions/prisoners.
Then someone has to go and spoil the fun.
I think we all realize that Kodachrome is not coming back, but a film that lasted almost 75 years, has a hit song, a state park, and has the joke about God and Man to make it, is going to have a bit of a cult following. The last year it was available, I shot all I could afford, and had fun doing it. I personally would love to see someone come up with a way to process it affordably, but that doesn't look like that's going to happen either. I can accept that, but for others to start belittleing someone because they choose to post on this thread isn't really polite. There are a lot of discussions on APUG that sometimes last longer than I think they should, but generally when I get tired of it, I stop reading that thread.
Thank you and I will now adjust my flame proof underwear and hide the wooden soapbox.
I see this thread has reactivated and I will update people. I have been extremely busy running my business and have not had time to tinker further with my K-14 substitute process to develop Kodachrome in colour.
I do face a number of issues with doing this process.
A, As stated earlier, compared to other processes its EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING.
B, Chemistry I have to do this is Limited
C, I have no actual idea of just how archival the process I am doing is compared to the K-14 process.
D, I Would love to be able to help the Shuttle project but I can not process motion picture film! This is due to the length. The longest length of Kodachrome I have developed by hand has been 35cm long. (not even a complete roll) I have serious doubts about maintaining development consistency over longer lengths.
E, Initially I made the post to see if anyone would actually pay such a high price ( $260 being the actual material cost of the process) and was also making people aware of the reality in costing for doing kodachrome in colour post a K-14 line being an active service.
I know Kodachrome has a Cult following, Its nice to know there is still such an interest in it. but the fact is there are so many other materials currently available that we really should support and focus on. I Do foresee myself returning to experiments and trials with Kodachrome processing in colour, but right now it is not high on my list of priorities. All the chemical and processing information, all the patients...everything you could ever want to know about kodachrome from its origins to present day is easily and readily available online. Its no secret or great mystery, Kodak gave the knowledge away for free. It will just require your time and patience to study.
Currently my main focus is working on 2 very large bodies of photographic work which I am already feeling I am running behind on and juggling lab work for my main clients.
Each week I have people email me asking if they can send me their Kodachrome to process. Sorry to be blunt but the Answer is NO. (and I seriously think half these people have more money than sense) My current stance on this subject may change for one or two people in the future but at this point in time my answer is NO.
Steve @ The Lighthouse Lab
I may be the last one to dispense business advice, but the sentence "Each week I have people email me" together with "half these people have more money than sense" sounds like a solid foundation for a business plan. All this talk flies in the face of labs shutting down left and right "because there is no demand any more" ...
I think that, realistically, all we "Kodachrome enthusiasts" realise it's not going to come back, but it has been a big part of the photographic scene for 75 years, there are billions of slides in existence, and there is no reason why it should not be discussed, reminissed over, or whatever people wish to do. Or do you think that everything in history is "dead and buried" and should be forgotten? :)
A, There is a finite supply of film,
b, None of the film is fresh
C chemistry is limited
D, The labor in this process by hand is HUGE!!!
E, The cost to process the film is ($260) this is not taking into account a fee for my time to do it.
Its not viable when there are so many other far more profitable processes that require far less effort.
These amongst other reasons is why this film and its process is dead.
Amen, Steve, Amen.
I do agree with What Steve has said, and i did wonder how much more difficult it would be to process motion picture film for him.
I really do feel sorry for the Shuttle Film project, and being something of historical significance, i feel that enough money could be raised to process the remaining films, (I know there are Astronauts who are happy to donate to this project if its guaranteed that it can be processed) then i feel that this should be pursued, but i dont feel that Steve necessarily should be made to process it, rather i would like to see a combined effort of people who are serious enough to do so, as of yet, no one else has come forward, nor has anyone else contributed anything significant to the Kodachrome Wiki, so that shows that there is little serious interest for processing this film.
Whatever the outcome, there needs to be enough money raised to make it worthwhile for anyone such as steve to economically do it and cover labour, etc.
However, huge amounts of kodachrome have been stockpiled from ebay buyers who are buying up all they can find, i sold a few rolls on ebay for a reasonable amount of money also.
Either way, i can only thank the demise of kodachrome to get me interested in film photography again, since ive only ever shot c41 films before getting a digital camera 9 years ago.
I love E6 and is the only film i will shoot, ive got a nice stockpile of Ektachrome and love the results im getting. Im sad i never got to shoot kodachrome, but im just glad ive still got some time to enjoy E6 films.
I have the right to reply to this thread, having as I do a collection of 20,000 Kodachrome slides from 1968 to 1994. It's not as if it is alien to me.
As Stephen has rightly pointed out in a later post, the process is dead on a cost-basis alone. I, along with anybody else here can see the beauty of Kodachrome slides more than 50 years since they were shot. But all that reminiscing isn't going to bring it back. Now, how about we embrace what we still have of film while that lasts? Or is that opportunity going to be wasted jockeying on keyboards? Sorry, but I've got photography to do.
Telling someone that they are somehow engaged in a "rant" because they simply enjoy reading a thread, and the rest of the APUG community as a whole that they must all immediately "move on" from a topic that apparently interests them, but offends you, is not really very fair now, is it?
Do you not, as a matter of course, simply skip over those threads whose topics you dislike? Everyone else here does.
I anxiously await your (civil) response...