[rollei_list] Re: Kodachrome
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:33:31 -0800
----- 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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
