Kodachrome

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Everybody,

The Kodachrome development process removes & recovers, to be used again, all of the silver in the film, during processing.

Chromogenic black & white films, such as Kodak CN-400,  are black & white negative films processed in the same C41 processing that color negative films use.

This means that, like color negative films developed using C41 development, the silver is removed & recovered during development. And is available to be used again.

The same for color transparencies/slides using E-6 processing.

During the development of traditional silver based black & white negatives, like Tri-X 400, PART of the silver is removed, recovered & used again. Part of the silver stays on the film base as the black part.

1 of the reasons for stopping the production of Kodachrome was the toxicity of the processing chemicals & the problems associated with their appropriate disposal.

Issues related to the toxicity & disposal of chemicals related to the Cibachrome printing process was 1 of the issues which led to ending the production of Cibachrome.

Cibachrome & Kodachrome both produced unique, somewhat different from each other, high quality images, with extended image longevity. Not easily matched by other types of commonly available color film processes.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited May 4, 2024 by Michael Geschlecht

[Einst_Stein]

At least in theory, the Kodachrome look should be in the color formula. I wonder how difficult to replicate that in E6, or even in C41.

[BernardC]

12 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

1 of the reasons for stopping the production of Kodachrome was the toxicity of the processing chemicals & the problems associated with their appropriate disposal.

Issues related to the toxicity & disposal of chemicals related to the Cibachrome printing process was 1 of the issues which led to ending the production of Cibachrome.

I don't think that toxicity was a major factor in the discontinuation of those products. People stopped using them in large enough quantities. Kodachrome needs very complex processing that is only viable with a large turnover. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome died because the reversal film market collapsed, and even then it was much easier to scan and print reversal film.

[oldwino]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

I don't think that toxicity was a major factor in the discontinuation of those products. People stopped using them in large enough quantities. Kodachrome needs very complex processing that is only viable with a large turnover. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome died because the reversal film market collapsed, and even then it was much easier to scan and print reversal film.

That's true - it was expensive anyway and became specialized with the rise of digital photography. Pros shot chrome film, but digital put an end to that. The toxicity of the chemistry involved, for both Kodachrome and Cibachrome, meant that their days were numbered anyway, as regulations on poisoning the environment tightened up. Ask anyone who lived (lives) in Rochester about Kodak and toxic waste.

[TomB_tx]

Kodachrome 25 was my favorite - 64 seemed too contrasty, and I never tried 200. I'm just glad they brought back (or nearly duplicated) Extachrome with E100. After shooting color print films (and mainly B&W) for a few years, I finally got around to trying an out-of-date roll of E100 again, and was blown away by the colors and ease of scanning. Here's a (cropped) shot - standard commercial scan (Dwaynes) from R7 & 50 Summilux R. Nothing special - just a color test for comparison with other films.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 4, 2024 by TomB_tx

[Stephen.s1]

Ahhh, for me in the late 40's... ASA 10 and tiny shipping boxes...

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, BernardC said:

I don't think that toxicity was a major factor in the discontinuation of those products. People stopped using them in large enough quantities. Kodachrome needs very complex processing that is only viable with a large turnover. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome died because the reversal film market collapsed, and even then it was much easier to scan and print reversal film.

Hello Bernard,

Kodachrome & Cibachrome were a small portion of photographic volume.

At the same time they both produced results that were rarely exceeded by other films & printing technologies. They both set standards that were hard for other films/printing technologies to equal.

At the time Cibachrome was discontinued the toxicity of the processing was often mentioned as 1 of the reasons for its discontinuation. Keeping in mind that the discontinuation occurred at a time period BEFORE the Planet was considering implementation of large scale environmental legislation on the scale that people think about it today.

At the time that Kodachrome was discontinued (The last place in the USofA that processed Kodachrome was "Dwayne's" mentioned in a Post above.) the toxicity of the processing was 1 of the reasons mentioned for its discontinuation.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited May 4, 2024 by Michael Geschlecht

[Anbaric]

10 hours ago, BernardC said:

I don't think that toxicity was a major factor in the discontinuation of those products. People stopped using them in large enough quantities. Kodachrome needs very complex processing that is only viable with a large turnover. Cibachrome/Ilfochrome died because the reversal film market collapsed, and even then it was much easier to scan and print reversal film.

There is some informed commentary on this over on APUG/Photrio, including from the late Ron Mowrey ('Photo Engineer'), an immensely knowledgeable and much missed contributor who had been a Kodak senior staff member and researcher:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-did-kodachrome-fail-in-the-end.124425/page-5#post-1645408

Toxicity was not indeed the major reason ('K14 was no more toxic nor less than E6 or C41 except for having 3 color developers.').

[Michael Geschlecht]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

There is some informed commentary on this over on APUG/Photrio, including from the late Ron Mowrey ('Photo Engineer'), an immensely knowledgeable and much missed contributor who had been a Kodak senior staff member and researcher:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/why-did-kodachrome-fail-in-the-end.124425/page-5#post-1645408

Toxicity was not indeed the major reason ('K14 was no more toxic nor less than E6 or C41 except for having 3 color developers.').

Hello Anbaric,

Thank you for the information.

I did not read everything because before I could choose whether to accept or decline the cookies there was a deluge of 100 (Yes) cookies. so, I did not go beyond the opening page.

But, on that first page it was clear to me that the writer agreed with what I wrote that you responded to.

Please keep in mind that I have a somewhat different perspective toward the way some people write some things because I spent 6.5 years in Divorce Court with various wives. Which is longer than some people stay married.

The writer first wrote that the K-14 development process was not that much different than C-41, or E-6, etc.

Then he wrote: EXCEPT (my capitalization) for the 3 color couplers which needed (I think he used the term "more extensive") treatment.

In Divorce Court 101 one of the first things they teach you is that adding terms like "except" can be a big deal. And, when an "except" is combined with another part which seems OK, it can sometimes make the combination into something different.

So, it appears to me that my writing that: People writing about the discontinuing of Kodachrome: Wrote that 1 of the reasons that Kodachrome was discontinued was the toxicity of the chemicals involved: Is in agreement with the "except" of the writer of the reference that you were nice enough to provide.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Boldwin]

Can the rumors be confirmed that Kodachrome is still being manufactured and processed for some cinema productions?
Apparently some film directors insist on the special look of Kodachrome.
But Kodak would have made it known that photographers shouldn't come up with the idea of gluing their old stocks together and sending them for development.
Kodak's developing machines wouldn't be able to handle these splices.
 

[Anbaric]

9 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

But, on that first page it was clear to me that the writer agreed with what I wrote that you responded to.

PE isn't writing as a lawyer trying to trick you. I think you are over-interpreting that 'except' - separate colour developers are required (PE knows, because he co-invented one of them) so there were more types of waste chemical for the photofinisher to deal with than with simpler processes, but that doesn't imply that toxicity was a significant issue in the decision to bring Kodachrome production to an end. And with other processes, some of the environmental burden was shifted to the production of the film itself (e.g. addition of dye couplers, which Kodachrome does not contain).

I've read all his contributions to that thread, and it's very clear his opinion was that lack of sales, not environmental issues, was what lead to the demise of Kodachrome. Kodak's former flagship product was a declining segment (Kodachrome) of a declining segment (slide film) of a declining segment (film in general) of the photographic industry. It wasn't selling well (even expiring on the shelves), and the unique specialised infrastructure needed to support it couldn't be justified. From another post in the thread:

'The EPA had nothing to do with it. The Kchrome chemistry is no more "awful" than E6 or C41. ... Kodachrome failed to sell. Pure and simple. It went out to dealers and was returned or sold out of date due to lack of sales. This began in 2005 actually as Agfa and Ilford ran into problems back then as well, and Kodak got out of the B&W paper end of things. Volumes can just fall too low.'

and again:

'About 4 years before its demise, KChrome was on a yearly schedule and had been for some years. Once a year they made it, but each year, the number of master rolls decreased until finally, only one roll was coated. Then, in about '05 film began spoiling on shelves unsold. (Same with E6 but not so much). KChrome then went to an 18 month schedule. This helped. Then, on the 18 month schedule, returns began. They decided (IIRC) that a 2 year schedule for coating was untenable and coating less than one roll was impossible. This was the end!'

I don't know where the 'toxicity' meme came from. Is there any solid evidence for this claim from someone who knows the chemistry? It mostly seems to be internet hearsay, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak PR tried to claim it as one of the reasons for them killing off Kodachrome in an attempt to put a positive spin on the decision.

[Anbaric]

6 hours ago, Boldwin said:

Can the rumors be confirmed that Kodachrome is still being manufactured and processed for some cinema productions?
Apparently some film directors insist on the special look of Kodachrome.
But Kodak would have made it known that photographers shouldn't come up with the idea of gluing their old stocks together and sending them for development.
Kodak's developing machines wouldn't be able to handle these splices.

I don't think so, or we'd have heard about it. Kodachrome hadn't been used in professional cinemaphotography for many decades before its demise, and was only used extensively in a small number of films like Lassie Come Home in the 1940s. It was used much more recently as a home movie format, though, into the Super 8 era. Someone even managed to do home brew processing of this stock more than a decade after official processing ceased.

[Anbaric]

...here is one interesting exception, though:

https://theasc.com/articles/kill-bill-a-bride-vows-revenge

Robert Richardson ASC collaborated with Quentin Tarantino on Kill Bill:

'Richardson did design a specifically “textural” look for a sequence in which a wizened monk (Gordon Liu) helps The Bride (Uma Thurman) sharpen her fighting skills. “Quentin wanted to replicate the visual generation loss in these old kung-fu films — the scratches, the higher-than-normal contrast,” he explains. Instead of attempting to create the effect digitally, Richardson employed a photochemical process. He began by capturing the action on contrasty Kodachrome color-reversal stock. He processed that normally, struck an internegative from the print and then struck an interpositive from that, and so on. “We just kept making dupes and prints back and forth until Quentin was happy with the look,” he says. He used six other Kodak stocks for the rest of the film: EXR 5248 and 5293; Vision 320T 5277, 500T 5279 and 800T 5289; and 5222 for black-and-white sequences.'

But I don't think even Tarantino has the clout to get Kodak to revive a long discontinued film line and a complex process for the odd special effects sequence.