I believe it is possible. Hopefully PE will reply on this thread. He is far more the expert.
Originally Posted by bwfans
Well I'm learning all kinds of stuff about film tonight
5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B&L 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 5.6 Symmar in a Synchro Compur
RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
Random 35mm stuff
Someone else is interested too: http://www.kodachromeproject.com/for...read.php?t=674
Originally Posted by michaelbsc
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Ok PE, I just whipped up a few hundred rolls of RonAchrome, so how do I process this stuff?
Yes, that's the thing.
Apparently there still are plenty Kodachrome (type) films around, but no way to process them.
So you approached this backwards, PE. Back to the barn!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think it is published in the patent documents. And if I recall correctly Kodak specifically released all that in hopes someone would also get into the market. Apparently there was some competition in the K-13 and K-12 realm. But K-14, in what was even then a shrinking market, just pushed Fuji and Agfa out the door rather than expanding the market.
Originally Posted by bwfans
What I see as the big lost opportunity was an idea I was pushing back a few years ago, when it was apparent Kodachrome was moribund even though not yet dead. Had Dwayne's provided awesome quality scans rather than the infamously mediocre ones (and there may not have been a cost sustainable market, so I'm not second guessing Dwayne's management), then instead of kids dropping off C41 and checking the CD box one could drop off K14 and check the CD box.
After all,from the perspective of the user today the important thing was the CD with the scans. The negatives were those weird colored things people loose, and I knew a lot of kids didn't even want the prints. So what if you got back a box of slides instead of a sleeve of negatives. If you got back "blow me away awesome" scans from a roll of Kodachrome, people would have bought it. At least I think they would have bought it for special occasions.
And there could have been a market to sell Kodak photo printers! For crying out loud, even my dad, who is such a old guy he's not even interested in a cell phone, notices the Kodak printer ads on TV.
On one side, I would like to see the link to published Kodak chemical formula for K-14 process, if it is available on the web.
On the other side, and probably of the same importance, I would like to see the replacement chemicals for those K-14 chemicals made by Kodak and no longer being made now. I realize there are some major compromises we have to make because the replacement is not the real thing. But if the replacement chemicals can produce some sort of color images, that will be a major progress.
With long history of Kodachrome, there will be many Kodachrome film left in someone's old cameras with 1-5-10-25-50-75 years old valuable images on the film, and also many unused 120 films and 35mm films and movie films, to be used for nostalgia, artistic creativities or other reasons.
I've gotta know if the guy on Kodachromeproject has a chance. PE, have you spoken with him at all?
Kittlegraphy is his name (I'll assume that's his christian name ); and he's quite literally purchased a K-Lab machine.
I'll get the chains, who's got a barn?
I have a barn, and since we got rid of the cows it's available.
Originally Posted by holmburgers
I wonder if the K-lab is the best approach, frankly. It's still a monstrosity to operate, and is still going to take quite a bit of film volume to be feasible.
The "K-14 process" is really nothing more than, dissolve/wipe off the rem-jet, agitate the film in the chemical baths, re-expose in appropriate order interleaved with the chemical baths, then fix it out.
I know that's an extremely simplistic restatement of a pretty sophisticated process, but there's no reason one cannot do it in a sink in a small darkroom. It's probably too much to get done in a changing bag, and the fact that the re-exposures have to occur from both sides without light contamination to the other side is problematic. But I doubt it's insurmountable.
Obviously you cannot fog like the old Ecktachrome where you just took the reel out of the tank in white light. But you can pass in front of some kind of slit similar to the plastic movie processing tanks have. You'd just need some way to do it from each side independently.
Here is the beginning of a K-Lab-2: http://cgi.ebay.com/MOVIE-developing...item45f659cf36
Last edited by michaelbsc; 12-31-2010 at 11:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I believe that 'bwfans' has hit the issue square on the head. Film, any film, is a part of the fabric of history. What will we do if there is a treasure trove of undeveloped Kodachrome found? Witness the uncounted rolls of undeveloped b&w film shoot by Vivian Maier. Fortunately, we still have the technology to develop them. Kodak has always shown the most atrocious disregard for the role in history that it took upon itself to monopolize. There's probably not much to be done about that now. So what can be done? In my opinion, it starts with not relying on one individual who supposedly can/will supply the answers. The irony is that that mentality is the direct descendant of Kodak's brainwashing. Chemistry is science, not magic. Not everyone is able to re-engineer Kodachrome chemistry, but a whole lot of people are. If there is to be a campaign to be mounted, it should be to bring those people together to work the problem as a team, including literature research -- something that can be done by even the most chemistry-phobic.