It may have been aimed at the C41 market primarily, but the patent filing definitely did say it would work with Kodachrome. I read it with my own eyes.
I know about Dynachrome -- I used it. Seems like I recall another Kodachrome-type film too, Myracolor or Mirrorcolor or something like that. Maybe private-labeled Dynachrome?
Fuji used to make their version of Kodachrome. They stopped in the 80s when overall Kodachrome sales began to fall rapidly. They were smart, I guess.
But, I've never heard of Fuji having made a Kodachrome-type film. I do know that there was a Japanese manufacturer -- Sakura, I believe -- that made Kodachrome-type film in the postwar era, but quit when Kodak decided to/was allowed to start exporting Kodachrome to Japan.
Do you have some documentation on that Fuji stuff? I think you may be confusing it with the Sakura product, which was from an earlier era.
I don't have any numbers, but I'd always heard that Kodachrome was quite popular in Japan, moreso than here in the USA. That would be consistent with Horiuchi investing in one or more KLAB machines and doing domestic processing (and I think there was a Kodak K14 lab in Tokyo too). This was in the 90s, as I recall (until quite recently!)
If the bottom fell out of the Kodachrome market in Japan, why would Horiuchi spend that kind of money investing in the KLAB stuff to process it?
Everything that I have heard on the situation in Japan was that demand was always high -- even in the immediate post-war era -- which was why they struggled to make their own version. And, the reason that their version stopped selling was not due to any drop in demand, but rather, to the availability of "real" Kodachrome. In other words, sales didn't drop, they just moved over from Sakura to Kodak. At least, that's how I've always understood it to have happened back in the '50s.
But this stuff about Fuji, in the '80s, this is something I've never heard of -- and I was selling plenty of Fuji film back in the 1980s, so I think my rep might have mentioned something about it.
According to a thread on Photo.net, its K200 thats been discontinued. K64 is still here for now.
The machine in question was aimed at all films but primarily at C41 for rapid minilab printing. AFAIK, it never worked well. And, customers wanted their film.
The Kodachrome patents have indeed expired, but even during their life, Kodak abandoned the patent due to lack of interest. This note is appended to the patent if you look at a scan of the original document on-line.
Both Fuji and Sakura have produced Kodachrome type films. I have many many slides taken using both materials and I have visited the processing plant in Tokyo. It used the same Kodachrome process as Kodak used, as those patents had expired. Fuji abandoned the process/film when they introduced Fujichrome for E6 in about 1990. These products are characterized by the same high stability as Kodachrome itself, but being natively produced sold for far less.
Since Kodachrome is a B&W film with a color process, it was easier for them to engineer. They abandoned the new films due to the higher difficulty coating them and the new patents among other things. They also began using the multilayer coating process with Kodak style couplers then.
Old news perhaps, but Kodak will stop selling Kodachrome in Japan this March (or sooner, if stock runs out), and stop processing it by the end of the year. Thereafter it goes to the States.
P-E, do you remember the names of the Sakura and Fuji Kodachrome films? I used Fuji R100 in the mid 70s but I always thought that was E-6.
When I first got interested in photography back in the early 60s I used Kodachrome II because it was the cheapest color slide film, but I longed for the glamor of High Speed Ektachrome. Today, those K-II slides still look perfect, everything else has almost completely faded away. Thank god Kodachrome was popular and cheap.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Sakura was Sakura Color film. Fuji was Fujichrome. I have both the negative and the positive films from Sakura from back then. I went thorough the labs with the head of Konica research in 1959. Subsequently, I talked about this with Hirozo Ueda from Fuji. He was former director of research.
Afterthought. When I was there, 320 Y = 1$ (about) and it cost $10 for Kodachrome with processing. The comparable Japanese films were a lot less. I bought several rolls of Fuji when at Hakone and used it at Fuji.
The magic, as you point out, is in the soup (and add CD6, and three couplers to the brew.)
Originally Posted by dmr
Now, a little thought experiment/hypothesis:
Kodachrome, being a B&W film (3-layer), the magic is indeed in the soup.
The colors that make K64 K64 (and K25 K25 for those of us with freezers) are an artifact NOT of the film, but of the soup.
Kodachrome II -- or even Kodachrome ["period"], if it could withstand the high temperature and rough handling of the K14 process (it can't), would give us the SAME dyes in the final slides. The contrast/H&D would of course be a bit different, but the colors would be the same.
The trademark "cyan sky" of the old ASA 10 Kodachrome would be gone, replaced by the nice accurate (OK, the real sky is a bit cyan, but nothing like we had back in the '50s) K14 sky.
Now, let's slip into reverse gear.
Kodachrome 64 et al, processed in K12 developers (with the CDs and couplers used with K12), would give us that legendary Kodachrome II color! (And I'd wager that a bit of tweaking with the first developer could get pretty darn close to the same tonality/gradation, too.)
So, the question is, are the couplers and agents used in the K12 process available (or "buildable") anywhere?
And the bonus question is, what would happen if we were to use -- gasp -- E6 couplers? Not in the film of course, but in the three developers.
Is there any reason that E6 couplers (which must be available, since Fuji is making a variety of E6 films) would NOT permeate the emulsion if dissolved in the developer?
(And, if the answer is "no", there's no reason that they wouldn't permeate the emulsion, then I presume that the CD used with the E6 process would work in all three developers, with only the couplers varying.)
Enquiring minds want to know!
I realize that the rendition would be different from K14 processing. I don't know that it would be bad, though. In fact, I'd really like to see some empirical tomfoolery along those lines!
Does anyone have a line on how to get ahold of small "research" quantities of E6 couplers? I wonder if Fuji would be interested in underwriting such an endeavor? It might open up a market for them (of unknown proportion). It would most likely result in some goodwill brownie points for them.
If that can be done, then all we'll need is a simple rig to hold the film and aim a filtered light on each side. Yes, there'd need to be testing to determine optimum exposure of the red and blue lights, but I'd think we'd know pretty darn early into the testing whether or not it'd work. IF it will work, I'd expect the very first roll to come out of the process with reversal color images. Might be a bit dark, might be a bit light, might have a color cast, but those are all minor things that should yield to a bit of tweaking. The main thing is to determine if all layers -- if each layer -- will respond to its coupler.
If all three layers produce a dye image, then success is likely within reach (unless the three colors are orange, gray, and blinking dayglow green :)
However, I would not expect any oddball colors. As I understand it, the chemistry between the coupler and the CD "is what it is" -- a yellow coupler is going to give a yellow dye, when used with the appropriate CD. The only question would be, as mentioned above, will it permeate the emulsion. If we can get it to permeate the emulsion, then we can get it to form a dye image in the appropriate layer.
That is my hypothesis. I am willing to listen to "reasons it won't work", but I'm not really interested in hearing any illogical "negativity". If someone wants to tell me that, well, no, it's never been tried, and there's no reason the couplers, dissolved in the developers, won't permeate the emulsion, buuuut, it Just Won't Work (and when pressed, come back with something boiling down to "just because, that's why; just because!"), then please save us all the angst, and keep it to yourself.
I am inured to bureaucratic "explanations" (it won't work because that's not how it's done, it's not done that way because that's not how it's done, we have another way of doing it, and that's how it's done). I just don't want to hear them. I am weary of that kind of crap.
I want to hear of REAL issues, IF any exist, i.e., "E6 couplers can only permeate an emulsion if it's heated to 1,500 degrees and hit with a six pound sledge while singing "Dixie" in piglatin."
Now, I don't think there is going to be an issue. I think that E6 couplers WILL permeate the emulsion. But if they won't, that's what I want to know. And I want real knowledge on the fact (if it IS a fact!)
Otherwise, I don't want to hear it.
Do I sound like a bureaucrat?
I sound like a cowboy. :)
Oh, and just to show that I'm not completely stupid :) I'll say right off the bat that I don't want to hear anything about C41 couplers either!
Those suckers wear two hats. They're one color when they're NOT developed, and another color when they are developed!
That's the reason for the mask (almost always "misnomered" (pardon my verbing) as an "orange" mask, i.e., a built-in orange filter overlaying the entire film.
That "orange" color is a genuine mask. The "orange" (a combination of the different couplers) is a true mask, which is to say that it "masks" the actual image. Where you have image, you don't have mask. Where you have mask, you don't have image. (And most of the time, where you have "partial" image (since most images are continuous tone), you have "partial" mask.) But, if you were to have an image that was solid white (in the negative, solid black), you'd have no mask.
The couplers used in color negative film have two colors. When they are developed, the unexposed/undeveloped areas have one color -- the exposed/developed areas (the image) has another color. The "mask color" exists in in inverse proportion to the developed dye image.
And that's why we don't want to even think about using them in our "Cowboy Kodachrome" developers!
I hope I've given at least some folks a spark of interest in seeing what, if anything can be done about this. I don't have any connections at Fuji. (Or Kodak, for that matter.) So, unless E6 couplers are available on the open market, someone will need to make entreaty to someone who makes E6 film, and see if they can schmooze a few bits of the three couplers out of them for this experiment. At least enough for let's say a dozen or two rolls of film.
And, that would need to be either someone with an "in" with one of those companies, or, someone with incredibly persuasive cold-call abilities. We're talking serious life-insurance agent grade powers of persuasion, folks. :) And that ain't me.
We'd also need someone with some stainless steel sheet, a tig/mig welder (and the know-how to use it), a bit of dollaroloa to buy a couple of filters and set up a jury rigged re-exposure closet. A dip and dunk processor would be nice, too, but SS reels should suffice, if you don't mind wet-loading them a few times. That, and of course a scale (they're cheap these days), and a few/several tens of dollars worth of "other" chems, to mix up a first developer and so forth (the K14 formula is out there, so as a starting point I'd suggest mixing up everything other than the three color developers as "by the book" as possible).
In case it's escaped anyone's notice, these requirements do NOT have to all reside in the same person! One person could sweet-talk up some couplers, someone else could rig up the rig, another could mix up the brew, and someone else could be the test pilot.
Does any of this whet anyone's interest? Or am I just up too late? :)
That's it for now. I think "the above' is a fair amount to chew on for a bit. Feedback (within the reasonable constraints detailed above) is welcome.
I'll close with a final point to sweeten the pot: If you'll spend a bit of time searching the web -- as I did perhaps 4 or 5 years ago -- you should find that there have been several people who have sucessfully processed Kodachrome at home -- in one case, Kodachrome movie film (which means the re-exposure must have been a real challenge!)
It can be done. It has been done.
Now, we want to find out if it can also be done with off-the-shelf chemicals. (Or, if not "off-the-shelf proper", at least "in production", and used in a fairly wide variety of E6 films.)
I don't think this is a fool's errand. I don't think there are windmills ahead, nor do I think that "they might be giants."
There are people doing 1800's wet processes, using deadly chemicals -- mercury vapors, cyanide, really bad stuff -- and succeeding, and surviving. I think this would be far less of a challenge.
OK, now I'm really done -- and Hendrix is playing "Little Wing", so I really need to go.:)
First off K12 films can go through K14 with a prehardening step. And, K14 films can go through K12 processing.
The problem is that these two crosses will give bad results, as the developers and couplers are different. So, you would have to redesign 4 developers to get the right result. This is doable. It has already been done in experiments. So, there you are. All it takes is time and money.
The easisest approach is to expose 3 sheets of film to an RGB image in a beam splitting camera, develop them each in a separate Kodachrome like reversal process and then tape the individual separations together. This has also been done and it gives good results.
Ugh...this thread always makes me nervous....now it seems to have turned into a "Meth-lab" manifesto, LOL!