[rollei_list] Re: Kodachrome
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Sadowski" <dsadowski@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:49 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Kodachrome
In the early days of slide film, nobody gave much thought to what would happen to the films in future years. People then were simply 
amazed you could have color film at all.
Kodachrome's dye stability was unintended and turned out to be a happy coincidence. It certainly wasn't something that was planned. On the other hand, they didn't plan on those other films, like Anscochrome or 
the first Ektachromes, to fade so badly so soon either.
Same goes for color prints. Most snapshots from the 1970s or earlier have faded and shifted, while prints made in the 80s and later have 
fared much better.
So the film makers have learned something over the years. Meanwhile, there are people I know who won't use anything but Kodachrome, because some Anscochrome or Ektachrome slides they shot in 1955 faded.
Well, that was 54 years ago, and the situation has changed a lot for the better. I'm confident that the scientists hired by Kodak and Fuji know what they're doing when they test film materials for fading, 
based either on exposure to light or dark storage.
I'd be more concerned that since Kodachrome processing is only being done in one place in the world, there would be other potential problems that could crop up. Your film could be scratched during developing (K-14 is a much more difficult process to maintain), it could be lost in the mail, exposed to heat or x-rays, etc. etc.
When Kodak came out with PKR120, pros did not switch to it in large enough numbers to keep it a viable product. Even when they could get 
it processed in four hours.
They already knew that E-6 films get the job done, are easily processed, can be pushed/pulled, and offer an excellent result.
Any remaining advantages K-14 films have are so minor as to be outweighed by the disadvantages they have today. Velvia has pretty much caught up with Kodachrome in the sharpness sweepstakes. 
---
Rollei List
All Kodak color films including Kodachrome carried a warning that they might fade. I think Kodak was aware of the problem of fugitive dyes from the beginning. Whether this was a consideration in the design of Kodachrome is unknowable at this juncture. The original Kodachrome was something of a tour-de-force. The process relied on controlled penetration of the bleach into two of the layers with the film being washed and dryed between each step. This process was used for only about a year and a half and was replaced by the controlled re-exposure method, which has been used ever since. The second method is pretty fussy but not nearly as much as the original method. Sizes other than 16mm motion picture film were made available at the time the process was changed. Until the late 1940's Kodachrome was available in sheet film sizes up to 11x14 and even larger on special order. All processed in Rochester. Kodak either built labs or contracted with independant labs to process Kodachrome motion picture film and 35mm still film in about the mid 1940s to reduce travel time and the load on the Rochester lab. Originally the cost of processing was included in the price of the film since the entire thing was considered a package. An anti-trust action stopped this. I have forgotten the date but think it was in the early 1960s. Kodak then began to license independant labs to process the stuff. Kodak released Ektachrome and Ektacolor about 1946. When Ektachrome was put on the market Kodachrome sheet film was discontinued. The commercial photography industry was not happy about this despite the ability to process film locally because Ektachrome was inferior to Kodachrome and not as reliable. Large Kodachrome transparencies had pretty much become the mainstay of the advertising illustration industry by then for the most part replacing three-color carbro and dye transfer prints as originals for making photomechanical plates. Early chromogenic films were not at all stable as the motion picture industry discovered to their horror some years later. In particular, Agfacolor had very poor stability and began to fade in a few years despite the best storage methods. Ektacolor and Eastman Color Negative (motion picture stock) were better but were far from "archival". Prints didn't matter much because they were considered expendibles but original negatives were all one had for all the money invested in a motion picture and if they faded out you were left with nothing. some producers were wise enough to have B&W color separation protection masters made but most thought the negatives would last the same as B&W. Prints from Kodachrome were originally made by a similar process called at first Kodavachrome. I think these are pretty long lasting if stored in the dark. Prints from negative materials did not fare as well but many old Kodak prints and some transparencies were coated with laquer which turned brown with time. So, if you have old Kodak prints which are yellow all over they can be restored by removing the old laquer. Two types of laquer were used and its important to know which. Kodak used to have a note about this but I doubt if its still on their web site. One type of laquer was removed with a solution of sodium carbonate, the other, I think, with alchohol. One can test with a cotton swab. There is no doubt that modern color materials are much more long lived than those of even ten years ago and certainly are in a different class from the materials of sixty years ago. But, they still fade. 

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org 

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: