Kodachrome last remaining film roll developed in Kansas

[Boom]

'Created in 1935, it was the first commercial film to successfully shoot in colour.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12095771

[russell_w_b]

Brilliant stuff; shot on it for years. I'd use it now in my steam-camera if it was still made!

[amp_mangler]

yep !!! very very sad

I still have 3 35mm cameras ( always used kodachrome 25 ( red tint) or kodachrome 64 ( blue tint) what about my 6X6 or 6X4 cams
boo hoo hoo
I have a Canon EOS10D and several lenses that cost over $10,000
it takes WORSE photographs than a box brownie !!!!!!

thats regression NOT progression


Joe

[EF80TVVALVE]

I have a few rolls of Kodachrome II that i am hopefully going to use. A few companies can develop Kodachrome II in negative B&W and can invert the colours when it is put onto DVD. But at £40 per 25ft roll it's a bit expensive (especially if nothing turns out!!!) I have saw the deep colours on my grandfathers cine film (the ones that are not attacked with mildew). The film can still hold its colour after 20 years in damp, the agfa reel he used has no colour other than different shades of purple and black!

[AlanBeckett]

When I was a lad - early '60s - we used to develop it in the school darkroom.
It wasn't always successful
However, it does mean that it's possible, and you don't always need a professional processor. Perhaps this is the (new) beginning of home colour developing. Can you still get the paper?
Alan

[peter_scott]

Originally Posted by russell_w_b

Brilliant stuff; shot on it for years.

I agree totally. For stability and colour rendition it was unbeatable. Unfortunately I haven't aged as well as the Kodachrome used for this shot from 1954.

Peter

[amp_mangler]

superb film, wasnt it ?

must be at least 3 trillion unobtainium pixels, eh

where IS this world heading

Joe

[Big Band Heaven]

I came across this video on the Kodak youtube page and thought it might be of interest here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RTnd3Smy8

[dseymo1]

When I was a lad - early '60s - we used to develop it in the school darkroom.

I suspect that you're thinking of another reversal film - Ektachrome perhaps?
The E-4 process was rather involved, but quite practical, and its successor, E-6, was not at all difficult.
AFAIK, it's never been possible to home-process Kodachrome (process K-14 since the mid-1970s). Apart from its complex chemistry, a number of very precise re-exposure stages have to be undertaken, unlike the single re-exposure of some other films, which has considerable latitude.

[russell_w_b]

I'd be interested to see if digital storage (under correct conditions) can match Kodachrome for archival quality and longevity. I'm pretty sure that opto-chemical photography will always be readable (even by photographing it - positive or negative - with a digital camera), but will the clocking-out of photographic 1s and 0s from a digital storage device today still be achievable tomorrow without having to transfer all the data to meet any unforseen non-legacy standards?

[peter_scott]

Although most Kodachrome transparencies appear stable I'm pretty sure I have some that have taken on a wrong colour cast. Whether this was a deficiency in the film stock or in the subsequent processing I don't know.

All the older stuff was processed at Box 14, Hemel Hempstead, Herts but I don't think the problem correlates with any particular processing lab.

I would think there will always be some way of storing and reproducing digital images without loss.

Peter

[Brased]

I used Kodachrome 64 particularly for travel photography and I always had some concern that something might have gone wrong, either with my camera or in the threading of the film, and that I would return home with useless films. Even after dispatching my films to 'Box 14' I would worry about their safe return, although it was possible to reduce the risk a bit by taking the exposed films along to the drop box at the Kodak offices near Holborn.

With a digital camera I can see at once what I have got. I don't have to worry about the film running out at an inopportune moment. My camera is also much lighter and will even produce a video with a good definition. Yes Kodachrome was good in its time but I for one am happy to move on.

[murphyv310]

My Dad was a keen photographer and we have lots of pictures, negatives & transparencies going back 40-50 years. I still have his Zorki 4, lenses, tripod and developing stuff.
All I can say is that photographs taken with Kodachrome & Ektachrome are still amazing, (the Kodachrome was professionally developed). The transparencies are still perfect, most of these were done on a Ferrania kit.
Photos printed out by inkjet printers don't last and just fade away. I suppose it's like anything else done on the cheap now!

[techiesteve]

Kodachrome 25 was amazing in its day, but it was a fine weather film. I've got boxes of Kodachrome 25 slides taken by my father, it wasn't an easy film to scan. Faster Kodachrome emulsions followed in the 60's and 70's. Myself I preferred Fuji Provia or Astia E6 process film. I've still got a fair bit of sheet and quickload 4x5 and 120 roll film in the freezer and film fridge, although I use very little these days. It scans very well too. BTW, a good inkjet print printed with pigment inks onto a ph neutral cotton based paper is archival.

[EF80TVVALVE]

I have just thought, I have a Kodachrome film of a 405 line television off shot in colour. I am not sure what the program as but it was about trains must have been around 1973. I will try to get some photos of the footage but i am not sure what reel it was on. Yet no sign yet of the Beau decca radiogram what they had (i wish i'd been there!). I will look through the films and upload some pics! Also footage of a Vanden Plas Princess (the ones now used for wedding cars) and when it ran out of petrol! so much family history packed into 13 reels...

[Patrick Dixon]

Originally Posted by AlanBeckett

When I was a lad - early '60s - we used to develop it in the school darkroom.
It wasn't always successful
However, it does mean that it's possible, and you don't always need a professional processor. Perhaps this is the (new) beginning of home colour developing. Can you still get the paper?
Alan

Are you sure?

C41 (colour negative) or E6 (transparencies) maybe, but AFAIK, Kodachrome can't be developed outside a Kodak approved lab.

You can still get plenty of other films, and home developing of B&W, Colour Neg and Transparency is easier than ever. There are plenty of people still shooting film and you can scan and print on inkjet, or enlarge and print on photographic paper - whichever you prefer.

[AlanBeckett]

dseymo1, Patrick,
You may well be right as it was a long time ago, and I wasn't that interested in photography, especially colour, as I simply couldn't afford it. However, I was up to reading the instructions and following them, which was beyond a lot of others.
However, why shouldn't Kodacrome be developed 'outside a Kodak approved lab'? I would imagine that the process was fully automated - they hardly had people sweating in a darkroom with a stopwatch and dishes of chemicals. On that front therefore, what has happened to the developing machines?
Alan

[kalee20]

I don't think that Kodak released details of the Kodachrome process - unless an employee leaked the info. I seem to remember hearing that the Kodachrome developing process has 32 stages. In any case, when you bought the film, you paid for the processing at the same time.

As dseymo1 says, Kodak's Ektachrome colour reversal film could be processed by a good photographer - as could Kodacolor colour negative film. For these, cost of processing was not included in the purchase price.

Kodak as a company have certainly moved on - seeing the writing on the wall for traditional photography, they invested in digital and as the market developed (), they have been right up to date and had products available.

[dseymo1]

I would imagine that the process was fully automated - they hardly had people sweating in a darkroom with a stopwatch and dishes of chemicals.

I understand that fully-qualified chemists were required (not just preferred) in order to maintain the process chemistry. The unique feature of Kodachrome is that each of the dyes is (was) actually formed within the emulsion during processing, unlike other reversal films which use dye-coupler techniques to 'fix' existing dyes contained in the unexposed emulsion.
As an example of the complexity involved, normal reversal films require a fogging stage. This is usually accomplished chemically these days, but originally involved re-exposure. As long as this exposure time is adequate to fully fog the film, it's non-critical. Kodachrome, by contrast, required three such exposures, each to light of specific wavelength, and precisely timed.

[Mr Moose]

Hello,

Whilst the ordinary Kodachrome film sold in this country was sold process paid, in the U.S. the anti trust laws prevented this and the film was sold non process paid and there were independent labs that processed it. (You could buy the Kodak mailers separarely.) The non process paid cassettes for 35mm film had white ends rather than the black ends of the process paid versions.

Many years ago I had access to the Kodak Professional Catalogue and if I remember correctly there was a Kodachrome Professional Film that was sold without processing and the processing chemicals were also available but only in large sizes. I think that there were large professional organizations in this country that did process their own Kodachrome Professional film.

Kodachrome film does have much better colour stability than any other colour transparency film if kept in the dark but it does fade more rapidly than Ektachrome under the bright light when projected.

I used to process my own Ektachrome films in the 1960's initally using the E2/E3 process. It took over two hours and if your developing tank did not have transparent reels you had to remove the film from the reel for the reversal process and move it across a 275 watt Photoflood lamp for a minute or two. You then had to get it back onto the reel which with the damp film was very difficult especially with a 36 exposure film. The later E4 (and E6) process had chemical reversal.

The processing kit would do three 36 exposure films so you had to wait till you had used enough film to make it worthwhile. However the processing kit did come in two yellow plastic boxes with transparent lids about 6"x4"x1.5" which were very useful for small electronic projects!

Yours, Richard