As long as there are online photography forums dedicated to film, there will be discussions about Kodachrome. It was Kodak's high water mark and so much better than anything else in its day that people can't and won't just forget about it on demand. Heck, Kodachrome is probably the only real film that most current day photographers who have been raise solely on digital even know about. At least by name.
It's one big mess of cats that will just continue to refuse to be herded.
"Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
—'blanksy', December 13, 2013
I'm not against talking about Kodachrome, I just don't want to continue to see people being treated like crap because they are passionate about using it. I also don't want to get told that as a photographer who would like to use the film I have, that I should essentially do all the work to become a damned chemist or to shut up.
In looking at the entirety of this thread and the outright rudeness of one person in particular when it comes to the response to the more passionate and less chemically inclined Kodachrome user, I would just assume this thread be locked up and a new one started that moves the discussion forward. By all means, keep the discussion going, but lets not ram it down others throats that figuring out a new Kodachrome process will be hard work, no one's images or project is worth the time and that we have to sit here and be brow-beaten into lab tech submission.
That's just ugly and frankly that is what this thread is.
Last edited by PKM-25; 08-18-2013 at 03:37 AM. Click to view previous post history.
falotico and PKM-25 - Two very sensible replies, at last!
Very few of we Kodachrome enthusiasts really believe that a similar film will be revived....but it is a very brave, stupid, or arrogant, man, who says "never".
I can totally understand why it was considered an interesting plan to record the final Shuttle Launch on Kodachrome, but, if this were knowingly done with too little time to get the film processed before Dwayne's cut-off, it is too late now to complain or expect someone to work miracles with an alternative process. (And there was some unexpected leeway as Dwaynes were still processing into January 2011 to clear the last films and until the final chemical supplies were used.)
If I had been at the shuttle launch and wanted a guaranteed record, I would, frankly, have used digital, with more then one camera. Just for fun, I took family pictures over Christmas 2010 with the idea it would be a final "Kodachrome Party". But RL commitments then intervened, I was too late to get the film to Dwaynes.... my fault,I'm not complaining or expecting anyone to rescue them! Other family members used their phones and digital cameras, so I knew we'd have the usual good record of the holiday.
What I really object to is being told what I should or shouldn't do or discuss in my photography hobby (and, for that matter, how I should order my life!), This summer I have been experimenting with the Anthrotype process...enlarged digital "negatives", no darkroom, laboratory or degree in organic chemistry required, no nasty or rare chemicals, and can be done in limited spare time. Of course a totally "dead" process for many years, so I now wait to be told to "move on".......
Processing a whole roll of Kodachrome with what is available today is, if you followed Stephen's comments in this thread, a royal pain in the neck and costs a lot of money, and possession of some of the compounds may get you on someones "drone him if you can" lists.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
As it looks today, there will be no more US$10 per roll Kodachrome development service. Whether there will be a US$ 1000 per roll Kodachrome service depends on several things, most importantly sufficient availability of people willing to pay the price and to put in some effort on their own.
Starting such a process takes more than just mixing up a few chemicals, starting a few tempered bathes and running a strip of film through them. It takes people willing to sacrifice some of the last few remaining unexposed rolls in order to get the process fine tunes, it takes people willing to pay for process chemistry long before the first roll is successfully processed, and it will take reliable feedback from people who want their rolls processed, whether the results justify the effort: there is a reasonable chance that colors and hues won't be perfect in home brew setup.
As this thread deteriorated, the crowd split up into a "I don't care about chemistry, I just want my great art processed" camp and a "why should I put in the effort to process someone else's chromes" camp. If we can't bridge this gap, then well, that's it then.
So the question to you, PKM-25, is: how many rolls of Kodachrome are you willing to put into this effort? How much time are you willing to commit for constructive critique? How much money is it worth to get your Kodachrome project moving again?
This is definitely not a "we only need some skilled chemists" situation.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
To be honest I personallty prefer the Fujichrome range of Professional slide films, and haven't used Kodachrome for about 25 years, so I don't miss it
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Agreed with your comments about the complexities of starting a viable Kodachrome processing service, over and above the basics of the chemistry ^^^ .....it's not going to happen, and certainly not at a commercial price. Steve has done the work, and his trials prove this if there was ever any doubt.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
But I also think that PKM-25 accepts this...I can't see anywhere where he is expecting this, or still requiring such a service for his own Kodachrome project? If you read his website at the time, all his Kodachrome shooting was before 31st Dec 2010 and his project is to complete the publication of a book.
Like me, he has unused film which, if a miracle happened, would be worth paying a few $ to use up, but nothing more.
Last edited by railwayman3; 08-18-2013 at 09:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I wonder if some one started a thread on the dodo would it reach almost 300 posts. They are both gone, kaput, fine, never to return! It was a nice film but it did have its faults.
From recent articles in scientific journals, the dodo has a better chance of coming back than Kodachrome.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 08-18-2013 at 09:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Nothing in your post or any of the posts following it have successfully made the value case for dragging it on. Continuing this thread is a waste of bandwidth. Stephen, the only one here who has actually processed some Kodachrome lately, concludes it's not a "business opportunity" he's interested in pursuing. The business case for him or anyone else establishing a process to develop limited existing stocks of a discontinued film doesn't exist. It's over. Accept reality.
Originally Posted by falotico
Ron's frustration is both justified and understandable. He has forgotten more about chemical photography than most of us will ever know. After tens of thousands of posts, very few are willing to accept what he has to say in this and related threads. I'm actually shocked at how calm and restrained his responses are. Should he ever reach a breaking point and leave APUG, that "don't know what you've got till it's gone" phrase will be most applicable to the membership here.
That's a separate discussion entirely, but my unequivocal answer is YES!
Originally Posted by falotico
Dan, I agree completely. What I am against are the people here that are saying "why doesn't someone do something, or why doesn't Steve do it for us again?" and this attitude is akin to saying "you do it for me". You see, there is a difference between your post and some others here. You are not a chemist but can accept the reality that Kodachrome is gone, and although it could be "revived", it is impractical and will not be done. Others can't accept that POV and want it revived (at least the process) at any cost.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
Steve gave a base price for material, not including labor. It also does not include chemical waste due to low throughput. It also does not include the cost of "abandoning" his regular customers to do this job. So, the real cost is going to be pretty high. And people have to understand that.
Steve will probably have to give up a full day of regular work, if not more, just to do one batch of someone's Kodachrome. That batch may consist of one or several rolls, but this will depend on demand, and the payment would probably have to be made up front to finance purchase of these expensive chemicals.
So, sorry if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent. It seems that people did not understand that it is gone, Steve showed how it could be revived and then went on to say it was not viable commercially or even as a "favor" to people.
And BTW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I did not love Kodachrome. It had too many faults and was too difficult to make and process for it to last forever. But that does not mean that I cannot sympathize with you for your loss.
The Kodachrome Project has been shot, done, I even went over 100 rolls past the December 30th date right up until the last minute before tossing my roll...the very last roll to be shot into the soup about 45 minutes shy of when the machine was shut down on January 17th 2011. Then I shot Tri-X of the rest of the day and had that processed in dr5.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
I have zero expectations for my remaining 60 rolls. But if a more grassroots effort were to be brought forth, of course I would be willing to put in some effort. But the manner in which this thread started and where it has arrived at now...it's ugly. If and when the time comes that someone confidently but *gracefully* comes onto to this site and lays out a game plan for how to soup Kodachrome film and get actual Kodachromes out of it, regardless of cost per roll, I will take a look at it just like anyone would.
I could easily do my own C41 or E6 at home on my CPP2 and would if I decided that were a priority in my life. But it is not, so for those few times I shoot color, I happily send it out to one of my great labs...they are good at what they do and I am good at what I do. If the next K14 maestro requires me to fill out 18 forms, give them my SSN, put up my business equipment as collateral and take a blood test before I have the pleasure of handing over a minimum of $5,000 in order to "maybe" get slides back that look kinda like Kodachome on some 5-10 rolls....I, as a photographer and artist, are very likely to pass on the "Deal".
In my mind and opinion, Kodachrome died on January 17, 2011 and is not coming back. It's not the end of the world, it practically lived the average lifespan of a human being and unlike a human being, we get to enjoy looking at the marvelous film for the rest of our lives. This, I feel....is the full reality of it.
Last edited by PKM-25; 08-18-2013 at 10:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.