Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,713   Posts: 1,483,015   Online: 690
      
Page 41 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3135363738394041424344454647 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 493
  1. #401
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,425
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
    As no more Kodachrome film will be produced, yet we still have a supply of E6 products, would it be much more practical to quantify precisely differences in appearance between the different Kodachromes and some current E6 materials?
    I guess the biggest difference is that certain rolls of Kodachrome film were exposed in locations where no E6 film was present, take the shuttle films for instance which restarted this very thread. You may be able to reproduce Kodachromes appearance with other media or hybrid processing, but this won't bring those shots to life that have already been taken.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  2. #402

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,740
    Quote Originally Posted by frobozz View Post
    This makes sense if Dwayne's had a Kodachrome processor capable of running movie film, instead of a K-lab (which I believe only ran 35mm in still camera lengths?) And it would make sense that Dwayne's would have a processor capable of running move film, because there was a lot of it about at one point, in the consumer sizes.
    They ran 8mm and 16mm K-14, even on the very last day.

  3. #403
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    The Kodachrome chemistry is exceedingly unstable and goes bad fast. The cyan developer turns cyan with keeping as it auto couples during air oxidation. Therefore the process must be kept running or it goes bad. That is why we kept our color developers as "blanks" with no color developing agent present. The developing agent was added at the time of use.

    The cubitainer was a standard Kodak product which they solld empty for us to store our chemicals in. I used to have a row of them in my home darkroom for B&W chemistry. The commercial products were supplied with a spigot, but the industrial version had to be punctured with a special tool/spigot. That was always fun if you missed the center of the bullseye. It was like opening an artery as the flabby bladder began its collapse spewing chemicals all over the place (and you if you were not fast enough - dont ask me how I know).

    Anyhow, premixed chemistry was often shipped this way, and IIRC, so were the Kodachrome chemicals.

    As for duplicating the look of Kodachrome, I noted above that it is possible. But, its look is due to its faults. That can easily be shown, and I have done so several times here.

    PE

  4. #404
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,140
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Dwayne's probably bought prepared "kits" from Kodak. They would not have hand mixed IMHO.

    MP labs typically hand mix.

    PE
    Trust me, this is true... the staff at Dwayne's is .... wonderful, very nice people, but NONE are chemists... at some point, there was a real chemist, and he left, but first taught the girl who runs the machines, and she teaches various people, and they follow controls and rules, but only because they have instructions, if they had to start from scratch, they would be totally lost...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #405

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    The Kodachrome chemistry is exceedingly unstable and goes bad fast. The cyan developer turns cyan with keeping as it auto couples during air oxidation. Therefore the process must be kept running or it goes bad. That is why we kept our color developers as "blanks" with no color developing agent present. The developing agent was added at the time of use.

    The cubitainer was a standard Kodak product which they solld empty for us to store our chemicals in. I used to have a row of them in my home darkroom for B&W chemistry. The commercial products were supplied with a spigot, but the industrial version had to be punctured with a special tool/spigot. That was always fun if you missed the center of the bullseye. It was like opening an artery as the flabby bladder began its collapse spewing chemicals all over the place (and you if you were not fast enough - dont ask me how I know).

    Anyhow, premixed chemistry was often shipped this way, and IIRC, so were the Kodachrome chemicals.

    As for duplicating the look of Kodachrome, I noted above that it is possible. But, its look is due to its faults. That can easily be shown, and I have done so several times here.

    PE
    That explains why the tanks looked quite stained from looking at the photos of Dwaynes lab, you can see the stained parts of the machine, the magenta tank from memory looked very stained.

    Anyway, there was a news clip on youtube that showed them mixing the chemicals at Dwaynes, ill see if i can dig it up, since it showed the actual containers that Kodak shipped it in.

    Anyway speaking of E6 films, ive been shooting a couple of rolls of the new Wittner chrome 200 stock from AGFA. This is supposed to be the closest E6 film to Kodachrome, i dont know if i can actually see any real resemblence to kodachrome or not, i really need to shoot more reds. But its a great film, although more grainy than ektachrome.

    I was always wondering what gave kodachrome its unique colours, i thought it may have been because the film was processed in a strong bath of dye couplers, rather than a small amount incorporated into the films emulsion itself, but i feel this is probably wrong.

  6. #406

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    Regarding the organic chemistry graduate student who is interested in Kodachrome: your friend should look at J.S. Friedman's "History of Color Photography" chapter 23. The book is available online for free at:

    http://archive.org/stream/ost-art-hi...ge/n9/mode/2up

    Friedman was an organic chemist himself who worked for Technicolor and other color film companies in the 1930's. He also wrote the monthly column in "American Photography" on color photography. He was an expert in dye chemistry and his discussion on dye couplers is the most thorough that I have seen. He also reviews principles which are specific to photography, such as development, bleach, fixing etc.

    Chemical reactions don't become obsolete--if they worked in 1938 they will work today. All Kodachrome relied on silver halide emulsions which, of course, were mixtures of AgBr, AgI and AgCl in gelatin emulsions. So any developer, dye-coupler combination which Friedman suggests would still work in the same way today. It would produce the same color dye when it developed a silver halide grain. The sensitizing dyes and other additives might complicate the chemistry but, as Frizza
    mentioned, he substituted a different coupler for the yellow dye and he still produced a passable full color image.

    I think it is possible to hack out some kind of hybrid process simply to preserve the latent color images which are out there. I agree that there is probably not much profit in it, but I think it is possible to approach donors and put together a fund for the purpose of providing a hybrid process so that this technology does not go the way of the dodo. Do you know that people are willing to pay ten thousand dollars for a single Kodachrome slide of Marilyn Monroe in Korea? This is one of the most important color films in history. I don't think we've tapped all our resources.

  7. #407

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by falotico View Post
    Chemical reactions don't become obsolete--
    No, but technology certainly does. Hasn't this horse been flogged enough or should this thread continue on for another meaningless 400 posts? I'm really tired of people with no technical knowledge saying we should bring Kodachrome back. If you really understood the film and the process you would know why it's not coming back. Enough already!
    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

  8. #408
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,810
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Hasn't this horse been flogged enough or should this thread continue on for another meaningless 400 posts? I'm really tired of people with no technical knowledge saying we should bring Kodachrome back. If you really understood the film and the process you would know why it's not coming back. Enough already!
    Perhaps then the option 'Thread Tools > Ignore this thread' would be the best solution for you?

    Just trying to be helpful...



    Ken
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  9. #409
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    The fault of Kodachrome lies in the very narrow absorption spectrum of the cyan dye. It thus requires more cyan contrast which leads to some colors becoming chalky looking and others being exaggerated. The high contrast also leads to heavy doses of color. Basically, Kodachrome gives an unreal color rendition to everything, but it is one which can make a garbage dump look pretty.

    Also, Friedman's book is so old, it predates K14 and thus is not really representative of the technology in use at the end of Kodachrome's life. But then, K14 is not representative of what could have been done if there was a K16... etc...

    PE

  10. #410

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,531
    Ken, perhaps this puts things in a better light.

    Customer: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!
    Owner: No no! 'E's pining!
    Customer: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
    'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
    'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!
    'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
    THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

    Substitute FILM for PARROT and you have Kodachrome.

    Apologies to Monty Python.
    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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin