On the topic of dye bleach.......
Henry Wilhelm knows nothing about DB vs Chromogenic materials. The DB process is much more dangerous to use than any chromogenic prcess. DB materials were never possible to prepare with real camera speeds. It would take a family of shiftable dyes to make this possible. And finally, the grain in DB is at its maximum in medium to low density areas making the images you do get rather unpleasant. Kodak had a DB print process ready to go and its introduction date was 8 Dec 1941. It was called Azochrome.
K-Lab? I assume programing is windows based....
You can PM me the info if need be...
Some additional resources:
I also just wrote Richard Mackson who invented the K-Lab and was senior business and technology associate for Kodak from 1996-2009 to see if he has a line on manuals and any other info on his baby....I'm trying folks, that's best any of us can do.
So DB was more inconvenient and dangerous (the bleach). And I can imagine that the commonality of Chromogenic between film and print materials were more economic on R&D and production due to commonality.
Also, as of quality of image and longevity; Current Chromogenic material must be quite advanced. I wonder if much R&D is put into it, even if RA4 paper the most used and produced of the family of photographic processes. Many claims of inkjet (pigment inks) being better, but that is out of this forum and photographic process scopes...
Back to topic. As of retrieving the PDF data, isn't there any contact at Kodak, ex-Kodak, labs, that have the information?
The OZ EK retiree of the coating machine was trying to do some color, words about kodachrome were spread and nothing since.
Probably there is a few people interested in it but out of internet's reach (thinking of the latter). I do recall PE saying that many of his colleagues weren't interested anymore but perhaps there are a few around who could be with a little push.
I have to scream this from the rooftops I guess.
POS-POS print systems have an inherent flaw. You are basically multiplying the slope of one curve by the slope of the other curve, (original slide x print material) to get the final dupe image. If your original has a perfect capture and a slope of 0.3, and if the print material also has the same slope, the result is a slope of 0.09, which is a reduction in contrast. This is why you must use masks to adjust contrast and masks to adjust color.
No pos-pos system without these masks has ever been a big success. Thus, high end labs or printers use masks and get superb prints but at a high cost in time and materials. So, most simple pos-pos printers have failed. Or, they had commercial difficulties.
I know Henry personally and we talked for about 3 hours on his last visit to Rochester. He is avid about what he does, but just like me, neither of us is always right. :D
He never proposed, to my knowledge, a camera-speed dye bleach material. Mostly he opined (to use a recently popular word) that Cibacolor should have been introduced to print from chromogenic negatives.
My long-term use of and love for Kodachrome was entirely centered around projecting it, both stills and motion pictures. Direct prints from reversal films, whether Kodachrome or other transparencies, were never capable of duplicating that viewing experience. I didn't try forcing them to.
There are many schools of thought on the method for testing color products. You will note that the GEH sample was kept in the dark in their facility at optimum temperature and humidity, so this proves nothing. Real world samples are what count. I have color negs prints from the '50s and they survived just fine.
Color reproduction from a pos-pos system is different than the same work from neg-pos. The latter will win hands down.