Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,786   Online: 889
      
Page 5 of 50 FirstFirst 123456789101115 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 493
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    29
    Yikes, I'm back after months of an intense stage of therapy for my vision (long story) and I come back and see this thread.

    Unless someone would come up with a way to bring that cost WAAAAAAY down, I couldn't afford it. If I could afford it I would. Such is the consequence of people wanting to save a dime here and there and not wait, now we have lost that special film for what maybe forever.

    Forgive my ignorance (and what may be interpreted as a somewhat snarky tone), but if two freaking musicians with chemistry training could invent this stuff by themselves in the 30s, why can't anyone figure out how to make small batches of it now? Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting. I know the Kodachrome horse has been beaten a lot, but I am genuinely curious. Kodachrome was awesome, and it would be cool to recover it like how the formula for Greek fire was rediscovered recently. Where is the inventive spirit of God and Man? In any case, I hope that at least E6 will survive.

    Please don't gather around me in a circle and stone me. And please, especially you PE, don't be mad at me for poking the carcass of this horse with a stick.
    Last edited by TexasLangGenius; 11-07-2012 at 04:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

    Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
    Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
    Medium Format: Mamiya RB67

  2. #42
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,506
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasLangGenius View Post
    Forgive my ignorance (and what may be interpreted as a somewhat snarky tone), but if two freaking musicians with chemistry training could invent this stuff by themselves in the 30s, why can't anyone figure out how to make small batches of it now? Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting. I know the Kodachrome horse has been beaten a lot, but I am genuinely curious.

    Beating that horse again and again: it is not an issue of technology and competence but economics.
    In the past 7 manufacturers aside of Kodak made such type of film.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Beating that horse again and again: it is not an issue of technology and competence but economics.
    In the past 7 manufacturers aside of Kodak made such type of film.
    I, for the most part, understand that it is all a problem of making batches economically (especially small ones). I wonder what God and Man did to make the original formula in small batches before signing with Kodak.

    Unfortunately, I feel that beating the horse is going to be inevitable for the foreseeable future (not just me and my occasional musings on it), until future generations become mostly ignorant of Kodachrome (and the concept of film) altogether. I can see kids 20 years from now scratching their heads when hearing Paul Simon singing that song.

    For now, I will still stick with E6 and whatever else is left (I'm happy to have even that). And at least I can talk about my passion for film here. I went on a rant last year on the Pentax Forums after I read a statement by one of the former Kodak employees who stated he wished that film would disappear (while commenting on our favorite horse carcass). I faced an onslaught of criticism from the mostly digital people after venting, so I exiled myself from there. Yikes...
    Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

    Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
    Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
    Medium Format: Mamiya RB67

  4. #44
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,506
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasLangGenius View Post
    I wonder what God and Man did to make the original formula in small batches before signing with Kodak.
    Mannes and Godowsky were subsidized by different sources.

    And there is no source stating they ever made a complete film. To the contrary: even after the joint work at the Kodak laboratories had begun the first result was only a 2-layer film!
    Last edited by AgX; 11-07-2012 at 05:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Mannes and Godowsky were subsidized by different sources.

    And there is no source stating they ever made a complete film. To the contrary: even after the joint work at the Kodak laboratories had begun the first result was only a 2-layer film!
    Cool, thanks for letting me know.
    Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

    Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
    Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
    Medium Format: Mamiya RB67

  6. #46
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,506
    What they well did was the invention of both "controlled diffusion" as well as "selective re-exposure".
    But from this and basic experiments to a working film was still a long way.

  7. #47
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    122
    If we send the money and the film, would processing be done when the lab reached a certain amount?
    It's not like turnaround for this is critical. I have one exposed roll I forgot about and one unexposed roll. I'd like to see the images and i'd consider paying $250 a roll for it.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  8. #48
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Mannes and Godowsky had custom coatings and custom synthesized chemicals made by EK even when they lived in NYC. When they moved to Rochester, their labs expanded and they got more chemicals and coatings. Steve here has had to replicate all of this with a fixed film base to work with and some rough formulas in patents that represent an amalgam of K14 and the previous process, as the product we knew was still in development.

    PE

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    62

    Future Kodachrome Colour Developing

    some folks are wishing it would cost $20-30 a roll. They are basically asking for it to be what it costed (with inflation) in the 80's ;-)

    I was a student then and loved slides but on the long run i could not afford it. I did a quick search and found an article from 81 where a guy was complaining that it cost $8.15 to process http://tinyurl.com/kodachromeprice According to a handy inflation calculator that is $23 now. I bet, as a Canuck, I was paying more. Even in its heyday it was not cheap - which is why my film archive suffered when I stopped the 'chromes until I started BW stuff a few years later.

  10. #50
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,243
    Images
    60
    In 1980 I was working in the camera department of a Canadian department store (Sears Canada). We sold lots of Kodachrome. As it was in Canada, each roll included processing by Kodak.

    Working back into the mists of my memories, I think a 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome 64 was a couple of bucks more than $10.00 ($11.99 plus 7% sales tax?) and a 24 exposure roll was just under $10.00.

    If you dropped your film off at a Kodak dealer, it would generally be returned to that dealer within 2 days, processed and mounted, without charge. A very small number of dealers were then making noises about charging a small handling charge, but most weren't

    Otherwise, you would mail the film in to Kodak in the handy pre-addressed envelope.

    The fact that processing was pre-paid was inscribed on the cannister itself - the mailing envelope had no monetary value.

    It was more expensive to shoot negative film and have it processed and printed - thus a fair number of people would shoot slides when they were traveling.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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