Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,670   Online: 885
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Let's see now, wasn't someone saying we'd never be able to build a machine to process Kodachrome at home. Sure, it's a more complicated process than e6, but certainly this machine wasn't trivial.

    Makes me want to break out that old brick of 120 I have in the freezer.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  2. #12
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Let's see now, wasn't someone saying we'd never be able to build a machine to process Kodachrome at home. Sure, it's a more complicated process than e6, but certainly this machine wasn't trivial.

    Makes me want to break out that old brick of 120 I have in the freezer.
    You just have to make it many times as wide and then find the chemistry. The first one is simple. I think I'll just show up in kansas and beg to use their overflow...it seems like we've all acquired a brick of PKR 120...
    --Nicholas Andre

  3. #13
    nick mulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,204
    Images
    14
    120m of 16mm... sure!

    But 120 ??
    Cleared the bowel problem, working on the consonants...

  4. #14
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Let's see now, wasn't someone saying we'd never be able to build a machine to process Kodachrome at home.
    Kodachrome processing is not a problem of machinery at all. Kodachrome could be processed even in small hand-agitated spiral tanks and removed from spirals two times for the reverse exposures. A small and simple machine (consisting of one stepper motor, motor driver, two leds, maybe some filters and some mechanics) - about the same size as normal processing tank - could do the exposures. The real problem lies in chemistry availability and cost and process control (processing quality). I mean, if you can't get perfectly the same results as you always with Kodachrome, then there's not so much point to shoot it at all as there are much easier E6 films available; Kodachrome shooters want a specific look.

  5. #15
    Terrence Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    288
    Well, I'm impressed, being a photographer with years of shooting experience and years of experience working in commercial labs, as well as a basement tinkerer.

    As long as we have the person, or people, who designed and built that machine, who have the passion and desire to do so, analog will NEVER die.

    I have seen videos of people who run overclocked processors (I believe that is the term), with cooling towers with liquid nitrogen, and the effects when the cooling tower is removed. For my money, that hand-made processor has got the modifications that the digoids make to their computers beat by a country mile.

  6. #16
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by nick mulder View Post
    120m of 16mm... sure!

    But 120 ??
    Yes, I have an upopened brick of 120 size. No place to process it. But I have the film.

    It was dumped on eBay as a curiosity item. Can't remember how much it was, but it was a lot cheaper than a brick of 135 was selling at B&H at the time.

    It looks great on the shelf next to a Brownie Hawkeye.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  7. #17
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    Kodachrome processing is not a problem of machinery at all. Kodachrome could be processed even in small hand-agitated spiral tanks and removed from spirals two times for the reverse exposures. A small and simple machine (consisting of one stepper motor, motor driver, two leds, maybe some filters and some mechanics) - about the same size as normal processing tank - could do the exposures. The real problem lies in chemistry availability and cost and process control (processing quality). I mean, if you can't get perfectly the same results as you always with Kodachrome, then there's not so much point to shoot it at all as there are much easier E6 films available; Kodachrome shooters want a specific look.
    3 times if you include the remjet removal :P
    --Nicholas Andre

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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