The Death of KODACHROME | It's NEVER Coming Back (Probably)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- Maybe in your search for cheap film to shoot you've come across rolls of Kodachrome. Maybe it's a roll of super 8 in an old camera, or a few rolls of 35mm, but is it worth shooting? NO! Find out why you should avoid these old Kodachrome rolls.
- - - SUPPORT ANALOG RESURGENCE & SEE MORE FILM EXAMPLES - - -
/ analogresurgence
- - - For New Analog Content Every Week - - -
SUBSCRIBE & HIT THE BELL 🔔 ➡️ analog.watch/subscribe
- - - Follow Me on Instagram & Twitter - - -
/ noahender2000
/ analogresurge
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.13 | 5 พ.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Uhzt_Oprgc4/mqdefault.jpg)
Kodachrome 25 and 64 was my slide film. Warm and tight grained. The thousands of slides show no appreciable color shift, even the ones my Dad shot in the 1960’s. It was a great film.📸😃
I have slides from the 50s that my grandfather took that still look like they were shot yesterday. My ektachrome from the 70s turned purple years ago.
And that is what was so unique about Kodachrome.
@@RobHoffman83 Same here. I have Kodachrome slides my father shot from 1952 through the late 60's. Their color is still as sharp as it was when first developed. The Ektachrome slides he shot have all gone purple as you noted. When I scanned the Kodachrome slides (Epson scanner) I needed very little to no color adjustment in Lightroom. When I scanned the Ektachrome slides it took a LOT of fiddling, and I got very close to original, but.... they just don't look quite the same. A shame, really.
I absolutely LOVED taking Kodachrome 25 slides, but by the late 1980s, I started running into slides with a cyan or magenta shift. I largely shifted to Fujichrome Sensia 100 and its successors.
@@randallstewart175 I have some slides from the first years of the E-6 process (1977-78) and they look remarkably good! They were all processed by Kodak, and stored in darkness.
Kodachrome had vastly superior archival qualities. I was a slide curator in a university art history department back in the 80's. At that time we had 50 year old Kodachrome slides that hadn't faded one iota. Ektachrome color was gone in 15 years. For me the loss of Kodachrome was a genuine tragedy.
Also lost recently was Ilfochrome chromolytic(dye destruction) print paper. That had a lovely look and wouldn't fade either.
Dye transfer prints was another fade resistant technique which is currently impossible to practice sadly either. Two processes lost.
No, not today...E6 process over take his late and stable since 90'. Take a Fujichrome, and you will see she did not move. Maybe Fujichrome was better than ektachrome...
@@layonel9900 Velvia use latex couplers, which were originally invented by Agfa-Gevaert back in the late 80ties. Agfa went into bancrupy bevore they could turn out film products with that technology and Fuji cought up the patent and developed it a bit further. The Velvia dyes are "fixed" with latex molecular strings in their position, so they can't fade or transfer in other layers, they are stable. But nothing compares to Kodachrome 25,64,200....
Loved it 'till today...
Kodachrome was a great film. I feel lucky that I used it. Most of the E-6 slides will fade in a few decades while Kodachrome slides will last probably over a century.
The big reason to bring back Kodachrome today. Digital formats and hardware will evolve, or devolve, but film is forever. Especially Kodachrome & B&W film. Could your great grandchildren get a print off your cell phone, or even hold one of your digital files up to a light and see the image?
im patiently waiting for it to happen, or to afford a trip to the kodak hq where some employees might be able to develop it. I have around 16 rolls shot in different cameras and dying to see the result
e6 will still last ages.
You can sort of do it. Shoot the new Ektachchrome and have it scanned in really high res. Slide the saturation the right about +6 or +8...then back off the blues to about -5. It sort of works.
It's true that old ektachrome faded in a couple of decades, but the modern ektachrome is esitmated to last about 200 years before the there is significant shift in color.
Kodachrome wasn't just a "process" it was a totally different film layer structure. K-14 Kodachrome developing ADDED color dyes whereas E-6 Ektachrome altered chemical layers in the film to create color. Because Kodachrome had fewer layers, it was thus far sharper than others. K25 35mm film is said to have the same sharpness as a 20-meg digital camera!
It also should be noted that motion picture films have always used negative films in which to make prints for movie theaters.
Back in 1984 I started working in the film industry in Hollywood and I was told by cinematographers, camera operators and still photographers to shoot Kodachrome instead of print film. They said the colors on rolls of Kodachrome taken on day one are still bright as the day it was processed.
Absolutely. I have some Kodachromes my dad and uncle took in the 50s and they are still perfect. Their 70s prints are sadly faded to a miserable washed out brownish yellow.
Hey Kodachrome!! I want you in my elmo camera NOW
As a former "Professional Photographer", Kodachrome was my go-to film
There is more to Kodachrome than the "just" the look.
For example, it has amazing keeping ability if stored dark and tempered.
Kodachrome from the 30s and 50s are just as brilliant now as back then, if they were stored well.
The surface of the film is very slightly raised along contrasty edges, which gives a sharper look when projected.
Hell yeah is it shard, you can literally see the exposed layers!
The reason for that is it was exposed in black and white and the color was added during the process. That's why Kodachrome will keep the bright colors long after the the E-2/E-4/E-6 slides have faded.
John Dahlmeier that’s not the “reason”. You might very well have a film that does that and not have those properties.
I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 back in the day, also Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 200. I bought the K 64 in bricks of 50 rolls and development was included in the price with "mailers" for the lab. As I was learning photography at the time, my regret is that I wasn't really a good enough photographer to take full advantage of these wonderful films. I plan to retrieve my old slides that are in storage in Canada when I return for a visit next year. Will be looking for a few pearls that are scan worthy, fingers crossed...
Visit next year. That aged poorly. Hope your slides are still existing.
@@cpufreak101 Oh yeah, don't worry they are perfect as I was able to check them 3 years ago, looked like the day I first received them 35 years ago as they are stored in optimal conditions. They will be good for at least 100 years....:)
I used to shoot Kodachrome back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. When they announced the end of Kodachrome in 2009, I tried to buy a roll to shoot my last roll, but the cost was ridiculous, sellers online were gouging with prices of 75.00 or more for a roll of old expired rolls. It was absurd. Now they can keep their worthless rolls that cannot be developed. It’s sad people were so greedy.
The best family pictures I have today are the ones my Dad shot on Kodachrome. They scan beautifully, requiring no correction or anything. That is the beauty of film. Choosing a stock for it's look and then taking a picture and it not requiring a bunch of manipulation to have it look good.
Pretty much the main use for Kodachrome these days is for testing your Super 8 camera to make sure it will advance film properly. Especially since oftentimes, if you get an old Super 8 camera on eBay or at the thrift store, it will have a Kodachrome cartridge already in it or will come with one still in the box
I grew up with Kodachrome II and X and later 25 and 64. I mostly took pictures in the wild areas, I did a lot of backpacking. The color, the fine detail, and the sharpness was just perfect! I could look real closely through the actual slide (35mm) and it was like being there! Other films just did not look the same as what is seen in nature. Today, I take pictures with my iPhone 8 plus and the color is just not very good at all. Boy, how far I have fallen!
A "Kodak Law" would have to be enacted, which obliges Kodak to manufacture and develop Super-8 Kodachrome at all times. The world history of the past 100 years is recorded on Kodak film. The Pope would have to canonize Kodak !!!
And "cannonize" them if they didn't make it :) :P
I want large format 1940-50s kodachrome back. Hope digital can achieve that magnificent beauty someday.
I developed my Kodachrome 40 in caffenol last week, what a beautiful format.
Great video by the way👍
AND? Did they have colour?
Publish your results please.
@@clemsonbloke It was likely B&W by scraping off the color layer
@@SuperCouchproduction It was absolutely guaranteed black-and-white, you mean.
I can't express how much I appreciate the Paul Simon referanse
I shot my first roll of Kodachrome where I was in Jr HS, circa 1978, with my spankin’ new Pentax K-1000. It was a disaster, but I got better over time. I shot with it in my years in the Navy (photographers mate) during the 80s, college, and later some pro work. By the end of the decade, the newer higher quality color print films were quickly replacing B&W at most newspapers. While I did load one of my cameras with Kodachrome for stock photos and agencies, newer E6 films were being launched to compete with Kodachrome (especially from Fuji, specifically Velvia) and the fact that Kodak was shuttering several facilities that processed K-14 films pretty much put an end to my relationship with Kodachrome. Still, I do miss it, it was a groundbreaking event in film and a pivotal period in the history of photography. Let Kodachrome, R.I.P.
What a great story Noah. Kudos to you for sharing your knowledge. Your commentary is awesome.
In the 70's and 80's, I loved shooting Kodachrome 25 and 64 for its sharpness, contrast, and bold colors. What a great film that is surely missed. Nowadays, I like Portra 160 for its calming look. But don't get me wrong - I LOVE my digital cameras!
I love my digital cameras too. But, if I want anything to last, I print it and/or shoot with film. You'll be lucky to be able to access your digital files in 10-20 years time and they could even have completely corrupted by then. And, you'll have probably gone through 10 or more cameras in that time. Your Leica M3 or Nikon F3 will still be good and ready to shoot pics way beyond that time. So long as they still have film around.
I recently came across about 1500 slides taken by a guy here in Europe who travelled a lot and took nothing but street photographs. I had never appreciated how good Kodachrome was until I strarted to view them. I was truly like stepping through a looking-glass into the past. There was no color washout and the slides were as vibrant as if they were taken yesterday. I also found some 16mm Kodachrome footage from the World's Fair in 1939 when it was first made available to the public, and color had not degraded one iota. Truly fascinating stuff.
I even have some 'lost' 35mm footage of Marilyn Monroe shot on Kodachrome in 1951 and the quality is truly amazing and vivid (I'm keeping this footage for my pension!).
Ektachrome, on the other hand.....
Any printmakers remember Cibachrome?
Yes, I made a small number of Cibachrome prints but it was too expensive for me to use a lot.
yes i used to shoot sonar p2 in 8x10 and make contact sheet style prints along w/internegs if enlarged some of the prints are almost 3d looking they are so sharp and haven't faded on me yet was tough making those internegs but worth it
Yes. Two forms existed; one you could develop yourself and one that had to be processed with a machine. It is the machine process that is archival if I remember right and also slightly irridescent. Spectacular when there's something shiny in the image, like water. It was expensive and it is also a direct-to-positive process (slide or transparency to print) and fairly contrasty. I had some 4x5's printed on Cibachrome and they are marvelous.
Very beautiful I hear. Also gone.
You could enlarge Kodachrome 25, 35mm slide film just about as large as you'd ever want with no visible grain. There is nothing like it.
I definitely want to hear about "Still Crazy After All These Years". Great video. Thanks!
I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 in the 1960’s and 70’s. 64 was okay, but 200 was never as inspiring. People these days talk about Kodachrome as having very bright colors, which is very strange. Kodachrome was loved because of the subtlety of colors. It was superb for greens and browns and flesh tones. It had a perfect palette for the golden light of early morning, or evening. The colors were very natural. Whereas Ektachrome was more garish, it tended toward too much magenta. Agfachrome emphasised reds, Fuji emphasised blues and greens. Only Kodachrome got a beautiful balance of color that was artistically satisfying. It’s Achilles heel was the time it took to come back from the lab, and those stupid cardboard slides that could get caught in the projector much more easily than the plastic slides everyone else used. That and the occasional times when the post office lost the mail or delivered it to a nosy neighbor who would swear they would personally hand it over, but would secretly look at the slides first. Having a local lab develop E6 was far more convenient and faster. At one point I was developing E6 and Cibachrome in my own darkroom. Lots of memories but I am so very glad we moved to digital. In the 1980’s and 90’s I was spending $200 a week on film stock and chemicals. It was a lot of money back then. I do not miss that at all.
Kodachrome 200 was a grainy nightmare. 64 and 25 much cleaner.
1L6E6VHF You are not wrong there. I especially loved 25, but 64 was more practical, and 200 was rarely on my shopping list. I remember when 200 was introduced in 1986. There was a lot of buzz and Kodak said it was “slightly” grainier and a little less saturated but with better greens. I was never impressed with it. I also remember when 64 was introduced in the 70’s. 64 was quite good, but I still liked my 25 better. However, my mentors tended to prefer the older 10. 25 was introduced in 1961, the year before I got my first camera, so it was the one I grew up with.
Well with Kodak reporting a 21% increase in sales since November 2018 and they have had to run their equipment 24/7 to attempt to keep up with demand, things are looking really good for the future of film.
I wish Kodak would get a bit more DIY friendly and release information on Kodachrome which would allow people to develop chemicals to develop K-14 film.
One of the reason to sent the film to develop by Kodak, was that the proccess was VERY COMPLEX an take many steps. Never has been and never will be easy to develop Kodachrome.
Take a look at Sakuracolor R100 of the 1960's, which had "Kodacrhime-X" feel. Konica made the leap from E4 to E6, but I've only heard of Fujichrome R100 in the U.S. in the 1970's.
@@Arturo.H.M I know K-14 is complex but the information about how to develop the film should be available. Or even direction how to use available chemicals to get fair results b&w or some sort of color.
I tried developing the film with monobath and got poor results. However I was able to pull a grainy image from the film. There is a remjet layer on the film which adds to the complication but I develop a lot of Vision3 stock so I have ways to deal with that.
If you check out some of the patents for it (even though there like 60+ out there), it really isn't that hard of a process, its just long, and most of it needs to be done in the dark. The chemicals supplied by Kodak are going to be very hard to find, but there are substitutes available (I've even heard certain hair dyes work!). I'd love to experiment with using off the shelf color couplers and c-41 developer, but all I have is some super 8 k40 right now, and because I don't have a tank can't do much with it.
@@samdavisson580 Thank you! I have yet to see any information as to how, only lots of people saying it's complex. I develop massive amounts of film so I am no stranger to E6 or any other comon chemical process. But K-14 and C-22 are common but no easy way to get a decent image off of them. C-22 (very old color Negitive film) is worse than K-14 (Kodachrome).
I knew this because I saw the Movie "KODACHROME" on Netflix staring Ed Harris
which is a drama based on the demise of the film and the effect on commercial photographers.
You’re awesome. LOVE the work you’re doing. ✌🏾&💜
Kodak will produce whatever they can make money selling. If there is demand, it will come. The color and archival qualities alone make kodachrome worth the effort and expense.
back in the day i was a fashion photographer, and when ever i got to use kodachrome, it was amazing!!
"WhErE's ThE sUpEr 8 cAmErA?"
Jokes aside, I believe Kodachrome COULD be an easy film to re-engineer--on paper that is. The film itself is just a multilayer B&W emulsion with a yellow filter beneath the blue sensitive layer. The development process I would think (but I may be wrong) could also be simple, but very long. Each of the three color developer baths could be created with c-41 color developer if you mix in some suitable color couplers (I've even heard hair dyes could work!) Experimenting around with some old Kodachrome sheet film would make figuring things out much easier.
I understand that this channel is a bit more aimed at those new to the world of photography, and because of that many of the things you say are true (such as that you can't get color from it anymore unless you're willing to experiment), however I would disagree with the statement that it can't be done. Can it be done by Kodak? Yes. Will it be done? No, because there isn't a market for such an expensive film when we have E6.
For now we'll have to keep playing around in the darkroom while we search and dream for exactly what Paul Simon wrote that song about.
In it's original form (though Kodak was constantly changing the film and development process throughout its history), it will never come back. Everything they used chemical wise is simply too complicated to synthesize yourself and too cost prohibitive to buy. The process if done in a tank or dip and dunk style will never be as accurate as what Kodak had with their development machines.
I still believe however that with enough work and experimentation, an image different, but dare I say as good as what Kodachrome is known for, could be achieved.
I don't believe Kodak can do it anymore. They've already gone through a lot of trouble resurrecting Ektachrome 100 - and the price is going up in 2020 which further reduces market share. If they can do it, the cost of ramping up the lab and infrastructure would be passed along at too high a cost for anyone to consider, which again gets undermined by a lack of demand outside of niche markets. There was a time when that's all there was. Provia made that untrue and even if Provia isn't as nice as Kodachrome, it still takes a bite into the market that narrows the margins for the Kodak product even further.
I suppose you're right, I never really thought about the infrastructure needed for something of this scale. My thought process is basically that because kodachrome came before integral coupler films, it would be easy (relatively) to recreate the film and process. Its probably doable on a small scale, but won't ever be on a large one again.
@@samdavisson580 Kodachrome was unique in that it was brutally simple on the film end and fiendishly complex on the development side. In addition, the lines only made economic sense when processing thousands of feet a day. The film had a cine carbon black backing that had to be mechanically removed. The several color developer and color reversal steps that required finicky and toxic chemicals, and calibrated color lamps. By contrast, E-6 has as few as three steps and only demands precise temperature control for the first developer.
hahaha nice shout out for the 8mm ca... That gave me a chuckle
I am 68 years old. When I was growing up as a child my fathers favorite film for all family photos was Kodachrome Slide Film. My dad used a Kodak Retina iic camera. This unique Color Reversal Slide film had rich colors. It is too bad that this Color Slide Film went out of existence.
You do know that Color Slide film is still being produced, don't you?
Fuji never stopped making E-6 slide film, Kodak had stopped, only to reintroduce Ektachrome when personal stashes were exhausted.
Sadly, the price is much higher, and most E6 users, having no laboratory nearby, have to send their exposed film by mail, further increasing the cost and the wait.
I used to use Kodachrome 25, 64, and 200 in my camera almost exclusively. I found by underexposing by 1 stop by doubling the ISO film settings i.e. set my ISO at 50, 120 or 400 I could get consistently stunning results. R.I.P. Kodachrome.
Have this record, too. Nice album!
New subscriber.
I hope you get around to covering Fujifilm and their Instax range.
My Kodachrome slides from the 80's will likely outlast the slides shot and developed in E6 2023. The lifespan of Kodachrome is outstanding. Lasts generations.
I've got lots of unexposed kodachrome 35mm and super 8 in the basement. Don't know why I keep it except I just don't have the heart to throw it away.
While digging through a storage unit there was a tote full of Kodak boxes and products. Inside i found my first Super 8 camera still in its original box with unused batteries, and one cartridge of Kodachome II haha
Kodachrome was sold in Costa Rica, however, It had to be sent either to Panama or Mexico to get processed! I never used it!
I wish I would have tried some Kodachrome 200 when it was still around. Back then I was afraid the grain would be horrendous and unusable, but now that I have digital cameras for when I want photos to look "perfect", I've begun learning to embrace the "organic" aesthetic of grain that I just considered a nuisance before.
Here Kodachrome was prepaid still in the 80. None developed it in Finland so they had to send it to Denmark. I rectal it took two weeks to gt the slides back. Fuji also included developing.
I can see the marketing folks bringing back the name "Kodachrome" as it is a trademark. We have seen other old product names be reassigned to a different product. Pretty common in the auto industry. I agree it won't be Kodachrome, except some marketing droid would say it was.
To be pedantic,that's already happened to "Kodachrome". There was a two colour film produced by Kodak called "Kodachrome" introduced circa 1915. Tripack Kodachrome was introduced in 1935.
I did see a shot on 11X14 Kodachrome once. Awesome!
I always shot Kodachrome 64 in the 80s, it was great stuff 😺
Before Velvia, my film was Kodachrome 25. I shot so much of it. I shot fireworks handheld with Kodachrome 25....loved the jagged blur.
That little bit at 8:50 had me rolling
Excellent explanation
My favorite video of yours so far. The jokes really landed for a degenerate like me. I don't even want that super 8 camera, but where is it?
About Kodachrome though: Going through my grandpa's stuff after he died there were bins and bins of loose slides, and I feel super jealous that I didn't get into film before this format died. I love ektachrome as much as the next guy, but good lord the colors are striking. Even out of focus or badly exposed shots of my dad's family that my grandpa took had a crazy color science that perplexed me. I don't know if its possible to replicate the strong primary colors of the film, but I can't think of anything that comes close. But then again there's a healthy bit of nostalgia mixed into my feelings. Anyway.
Kodachrome was an uncompromising slide film back then, and really would make you into a "got it right" photographer. When I graduated from roll film to 35mm cameras, I started with a Leica IIIa and learned how to use an exposure meter to produce good Kodachrome slides once the "hazy/fuzzy speed lens" 50mm f/1.5-9 Taylor-Hobson Xenon was replaced by a 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar. Someone may yetr shake loose data on "Kodachrome-X-like" Sakuracolor R100, but at least Ektachrome is back.;)
I recently printed a 43 year old Kodachrome image of my mom feeding me when i was a toddler. The quality and colors are unparalleled.
I shot a few super 8 cartridges of Kodachrome right before Dwaynes stopped processing them, they at one point told me that they were unable to get the chemicals because they had to buy them in such qualities that it didn't justify the demand.
I loved Kodachrome! My favorite was Kodachrome 25. I thought the color was more accurate than Velvia. Dark storage is as archival as any other film out there. Crazy sharp. The only downside to my thinking was the exposure HAD to be right on. An overexposed slide would break your heart. I’d buy a brick of the stuff in a heartbeat if they brought that and the processing back!
f/5.6 @ 1/250th second, and BE THERE! I shot bricks of KM and PKM, too.
*Throws my newly brought $30 Kodachrome cartridges at the nearest wall!!!* AHGHGHHHHHHHHHH!
I need to get some real stock!
Is it true that, to keep Kodachrome film as thin as possible, the emulsion didn't even contain the color dyes, when shot, but were added later in processing?
Or is that an "old wives tail"?
Edward Elgar true, but not for thickness reasons.
If the colour dyes weren't present you wouldn't achieve colour photos!
The dyes were added as part of the processing. They weren't part of the emulsion, as they are in C-41 and E-6 films.
@@berkeleygang1834 Kodachrome is slide film! You're thinking of Colour negative film!
@@upcomingcloudrapperluca7645 Kodachrome did not have the colour dies. They were added later during processing. They had three layers in the film that reacted to different colours, but in order for them to be colour when processed the dies needed to be added. That is why people who develop their own Kodachrome end up with black and white slides. This is why Kodachrome is so difficult to process. It requires several types of chemicals added at the right time and temperature controlled.
content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1906503,00.html
I can remember when Kodachrome was rated at 10 asa (iso) in the 1950s. It was processed in Hemel Hempstead in England. In the 1970s we had to mail the film to France for processing.
I used to love Kodachrome 200.
I used to print directly from slides Cibachrome paper, development was done in a tank in daylight.
The prints were gorgeous and were completely permanent.
I still have some Cibachrome prints.
I think Cibachrome paper and chemicals are still available, at a price.
I did a few Cibachrome prints, you have inspired me to get them out and look at them for the first time in 20 years.
A rather scary process: you had to mix the chemicals together in a bucket to make them safe to pour down the drain!
Caw, mixing the old chemicals with neutralizer before tossing them down the drain wasn't so much a safety measure as it was an EPA/ecology issue. I miss Cibachrome, my prints still have that intense Kodachrome look to them. Inkjet just doesn't do it.
You should have explained the Kodachrome process and how its similar to Technicolor and Dye Transfer....
He Probably doesn't know what those things are.
Kodachrome brought me views of places that have completely changed, moments I was not around to witness and people who are no longer here with us, the high contrast and saturation made them pop-up like old memories in my head. Kodachrome was quite literally the dream format because every shot felt like one.
It was a slow film and the dynamic range meant some cameras or operators of the camera could screw it up royally. Never happen to me, but I saw it happen to a guy on some important pictures. You had to kind of know what you were doing, people today are usually unbelievably sloppy with photography because of the digital nature. In fact lots of shots were a mess in the old days, which is why they tried to make point and shoot things idiot proof. But, even then you were aware each click was costing you money and you knew it. You felt it. Then you processed it and felt it again. Today you just click and it's on the phone or whatever and you see it instantly or even during and delete all supposedly free, but not due to storage and device costs etc.
I agree completly. Starting photography with Kodachome 25 and 64 with an Canon A-1. At that time, the A-1 had the first full digitally operated exposure control sytem... never got a wrong exposed slide. If I got bad picture, the problem was probably behind the camera.....
good info. thanks
Brilliant!
Loved the way you spell my name ❤️
Anyway, it's a bit sad when something that was so popular in the past years, comes to an end. But it would be meaningless to reintroduce an old expensive chemical process, just to bring an old film back. And an E-6 compatible Kodachrome, would make any sense as well, unless you don't make it better, or eventually different, from the actual Ektachrome.
I never shot in reversal by far, but since we have Ekta, Provia and Fulvia, I don't get the point of resurrecting Kodachrome.
I would more appreciate different version of the actual Ekta. Maybe something like the 500T that you can TRY shoot at night... Maybe...
Oh, i SO miss Kodachrome! 64 and 200, 35 mm. Used for almost all my slide films! It's LOVELY! But a Pain in the ass to scan! Any tips?
it`s so ironic that the special processing method both make the film and break it at the same time
The truth is, kodachrome died a long, slow death. By the mid 1990's, most people had already switched entirely to E6 film for their transparencies; only a relatively small number of stubborn photographers of the older generation were still using kodachrome at that point. When Kodak announced the discontinuation of kodachrome film production, I was not at all surprised. It was just a matter of time. There simply wasn't enough demand for it. If Kodak would reintroduce kodachrome today, the novelty would likely wear off in a very short time. It does not make sense to bring it back.
Great video. It’s a shame I’ll never get to shoot Kodachrome...
It was the best and unlike colour print film my oldest photos are just as good as they day they dropped through the letterbox in their distinctive mustard coloured boxes. E6 is pretty decent too, but very expensive to use now. Not as saturated as Kodachrome so I suppose is more accurate, but I just loved it for the vivid colours.
I'm lucky to have some Kodachrome slides my father took back in the 60s and 70s. They are incredible looking.
Provia and Velvia are better in my opinion, the new Ektachrome probably is too I just haven’t shot it as yet.
Looking at old slides, there's a well-known phenomena known as "magentizing" where over time some of the colors in a transparency will fade leaving mostly magenta left. But I've also seen old slides that don't at all seem to have this problem. Do you know if the tendency to magentize is only with certain films? What films, if any, aren't subject to this effect?
Lol at the super 8 Kodak bit.
What happened to their new Super 8 camera? Been hoping for it to be available in stores
I miss the good old days of shooting on film
BadKarma 714 You still can! Many of us do!
Marty Jackson dozens of us!
I miss being able to by a single roll of 35mm film at Walgreens and similar stores. Now it's a 4 pack or a disposable camera at those places.
@@robertknight4672 where i live there is not a single store serving anything film relate, it honestly feels like someome is actively making sure of it.
(Singing) Momma they took my Kodachrome away ..... ☹️
As I understand, the magic of Kodachrome and Technicolor was the dye-transfer process, which was unique to those two film stocks. All other cinematic and still color photography used film stocks with color dyes in the emulsion. Technicolor was actually just three strips of b&w film running through a special camera at the same time, each behind a primary-color filter. All of the color was added later, in what Technicolor called dye-imbibition processing. Although I don’t know as much about how Kodachrome worked, unless I am very much mistaken it also had no color couplers in its emulsion, but instead added color dyes in processing.
It might be interesting to know just what it was that Technicolor did in the early 1950s, when their own film stock failed after Eastmancolor became available to the studios. Somehow, they managed to save Technicolor by discontinuing their own film stock altogether and adapting their imbibition process to use Eastmancolor film stock. How did they do it when Eastmancolor had the dye already in the emulsion? And why can’t someone smart figure out a way to use, say, Ektachrome stock with a new dye-transfer process to produce a new version of Kodachrome, looking close enough to the original to keep the name? It seems like there should be some way to do it with chemicals that are less difficult to procure and work with.
What eventually killed Technicolor altogether was the super multi-screen cinemas that became common in the 1970s. Suddenly, the studios needed exponentially more prints for opening major releases, and Technicolor’s process was not so much too complicated as too slow in producing theatrical prints to compete with straight Eastmancolor.
That was enough Rhymin Simon, thank you. The rest of this video was quite helpful, as I have a presentation to do on Kodachrome. All of this video was entertaining, let's hope my presentation can follow suit.
Did it follow suit? I'm sure you at least passed
@jucabnubster I passed! It wasn't super entertaining, instead packed full of information. I skipped including the Muppets rendition of Kodachrome. A mistake!
@@LieutenantLights that was a fast response! Congrats though
I shot around 2.3 miles of super 8 back in the day, the majority of it was K40. It was a beautiful film format, great for close ups.
The Kodak chief marketing officer is actually best placed to make the decision on bringing back Kodachrome - it's not merely a technical decision - it must be driven by marketing considerations. That marketing decision must include cost, demand and profit feasibility studies. The technical folks at Kodak can provide help with the cost estimations, but they can't integrate the overall manufacturing, product set and sales cycles that a proper marketing department is responsible for.
Just the same, if the marketing guy says "maybe", it means there may be enough people that would be willing to buy it at a price that would make it profitable, but then technical guy says "no way", guess which one is going to be right.
Sadly with the developing labs ageing, happens the slow vanishing of the colour analogue photography. My opinion is, to save it, could be possible only if a new silver-less film is made with cheaper way of home developing . Very informative video, by the way
"Motion picture" is also "photography" .... and it all uses a 'Camera' of one sort or another.
Yes, we have cameras....however, my Nikon came with a little book and the book calls it "the lens and the CPU." What? Wait....I thought I bought a camera! oh, well. My wife and I had a good laugh over this.
As long as you're looking at Kodachrome-themed records, take a look at John Cale's _The Academy in Peril_ ... I believe it's from a year earlier than Paul Simon's LP... (and it's also a great record...).
You should definitely listen to "The Paul Simon Songbook." Paul Simon's first album.
That's a good album.
I still got that one OLD exposed roll from my teen years in the 70s. I watched it (sitting on my desk) as the deadline came and went. So I guess it's B/W or nothing, probably nothing. Got to try.
I've been photographing since I was nine years old. Photography was my very first love that progressed gray and white to color. When digital photography took over the world, I thought great, more possibilities, less expensive. I used them all, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji etc, never being disappointed, never! For a few years I have been using digital cameras for my work. What I think of digital photography? Spending a hell of a lot of money for one camera after another, researching for hours in order to get the best quality of natural colors as in analog, nuances contrast, expensive computers to work with, hours of corrections.
I will admit, without digital photography I could not do my artwork and still, I am disappointed in the quality of this digital bullshit. Digital photography will never replace analog film. Just like Ed Harris said in the film, Kodachrome; feel a pair of false tits, there is nothing like the real thing. I still have my old 35 mm and will have it buried with me.
Digital bullshit? Really?
I began at age thirteen, in 1966. Loved Kodachrome until they fucked it up in 1974 with the change from Kodachrome II to Kodachrome 25. After another quarter century of that, I’d had enough. Been there, done that.
There’s nothing you can do with film that can’t be done better digitally. Just my two cents worth......
When I realized kodachrome existed it was in 2010. Luckily I ordered five 35mm kodachrome, I used it and sent it to Dwayne's Photo for development. What makes me crazy is how difficult is to digitize properly those slides.
I heard that scanning on a flatbed like an Epson V850 and using Silverfast software with the Kodachrome film profile works best. I haven't tried yet though as I don't have access to my old slides. They are in storage in another country from where I live, though I will try to get them and attempt this eventually...
You're right. The fact that you have to convert film to digital in order to handle it...means that no one really shoots film nowadays. Shooting film and printing optically is the only way to get the true film experience, but few do this. This is why I hated shooting Kodachrome because it was nearly impossible to do anything with it. Cibachrome prints were the best way to print from Kodachrome but expensive/difficult. There were some interneg processes but all were difficult and not easy/cheap like getting prints from print film. Kodachrome was only good for projection, or for those rich National Geographic shooters who had expensive labs doing the transfer to the magazine.
If you have some Kodachrome slides...digital scan is hard to get done well. Optical capture is cheaper and can be done DIY...but may not give you the best results for sharpness. But optical capture works well to record the Kodachrome colors. Dust on the slide is a big issue with optical capture, though. The basic DIY approach is to hold the slide frame up to a 5200K light source and take a picture of with a digital camera. Although there are adapters that hook to your camera lens. Some adaptors can be quite pricey but pay for themselves if you shoot a lot of slide film.
I recommend using a digital camera with a more cool color tone sensor, because its easier to correct. Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras/lenses gives good results. Stay away from the Leica branded lenses, they can be warmer toned. Sony sensors suck because their colors are terrible. Canon sensors/lenses will often throw a warm tone. However, each new generation of sensor is slightly different, when it comes to color.
Probably.. I love that word..
For a video you should show how you develop color film and b&w film
ive got about 40 years in the photography business in one way or another. the BIGGEST REASON Kodachrome was discontinued, and why there were only a handful of labs that could develop it was because the K-14 process resulted TOXIC CHEMICALS as a by-product. it was also one reason Kodak kept it a proprietary film process. it was a fabulous fil and its archival properties were and continue to be hands down the best for color...
i still have a roll of exposed undeveloped film I used it didn't get it processed before they stopped processing it.
I cut my photographic teeth on Kodachrome 64. Loved that film. Forced me to be "perfect" with exposure, focus, composition.
So, I need some help. Yes, Kodachrome can be developed with caffenol. Am I right to suppose that it also can be developed by using black & white chemicals? (now, that color doesn't matter) My question how ever, is how to approach a Kodachrome slide film. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that I can't use my E6 chemicals. What would caffenol or a black & white process do in this case? Is there any way to do the magic? thank you!
The chemicals required for development can be reproduced in a laboratory, all you really need is a sample to determine the chemical composition 🧪
Not realy, if you dont know how to make it it can be rather difficult to reverse engineer a chemical substance, especialy in a high quality. Possible, but very difficult and expensive.
Probably cheaper to call up kodac and have them make a batch (cause theyre a company, if you pay enough for them to make sufficient margin, they'll do it)
@@the_retag what you said gave me the idea
That it would be an ideal project for crowdfunding, if we can find enough interested people for it
The greatest color film ever made.....the colors and sharpness were gorgeous.
A side note on the Paul Simon song....When the song was getting airplay, Kodak was in the middle of changing the Kodachrome process from K-12 to K-14. Of course this also required the film to be updated. The new emuslions were Kodachrome 25 and 64. The users of Kodachrome were very unhappy and not shy in their criticism od EK. Kodak said the new process was better for the environment. Kodachrome users didn't care. I worked for one of the three labs in the Chicago are that processed Kodachrome. Beleive me, changing a chemical process is a big deal. I have often wondered if Paul Simon was aware of what was happening
to Kodachrome when he wrote that song.
Before good digital I always used Ektachrome because its color was closer to reality and picked up subtle color differences. Kodachrome was over saturated and made pictures have brighter colors especially green. This made pictures better for amateurs who liked the brightness. Fujifilm had amateur film that accented blue. Of course I shot most of my 35mm with Tri-X because it was intended for newspapers. Color was for me and I liked true color
Funny that this just popped up, I was just thinking about this the other day. I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 and print Cibachrome prints back in the day. I was wondering if with digital photography they could create film profiles, ie Kodachrome 64, Velvia 50 etc. Kodachrome was known for it's reds (not greens as per Paul Simon) Velvia was known for it's greens.
Green wasn't Kodachrome's strong point. The original pre 1960(ish) Kodachrome produced vivid blue skies.
In the late 70's and 80's my favourite combination for making colour prints was Kodachrome printed on Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome). Unhappily they are both gone. I see no reason to shoot E-6 anything since there isn't (as far a I know) any way to print slides without and internegative or scanning. If you're going to scan, just shoot digital.
Damn you for dashing my dreams!
I hate when the truth hurts too!
I can't express how angry I become when I think about the fact I won't ever be able to use Kodachrome. like it genuinely breaks my heart. I wish there was a way to use Kodachrome without such a had effect on the environment. I hope it comes back one day.
😭I miss you so much.
I understand that Kodak sold off their Eastman chemical division (who went on to survive, unlike Kodak..) so even if they wanted to restart a Kodachrome line, they'd have to find someone (likely Eastman may not be able or interested) to reengineer all of the chemicals and processes to remake the product. I don't think there's a market big enough to make it worth it.
oh fellow canadian! where in canada are you?