Chodachrome processing on life support

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Savageduck, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    It seems Dwayne's is keeping processing running as they have not been
    able to cope with the flood of Kodachrome arriving. The shipping
    deadline remains fixed at December 30, 2010, but they are not turning
    away the business which has kept arriving, and they have been
    processing 24 hours a day to finish up the back log. It looks like the
    last roll will be out of the machine sometime around Wednesday.
    It will be interesting to see what that last frame looks like. I have a
    feeling that many of those shots were taken in a desperate effort to
    finish up any stock piles bought in the rush to clear the shelves a
    year ago, and might not be keepers.

    <
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/01/09/state/n180045S54.DTL&tsp=1or
    < http://thurly.net/0knr >
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Damn! did I have a massive phingrr phallt whith that subject line??
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Savageduck

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sounds like a nice little cash-flow burp for them!
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 10, 2011
    #3
  4. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    My thoughts exactly!
     
    Savageduck, Jan 10, 2011
    #4
  5. Savageduck

    Alan Browne Guest

    To the limit that equipment (failure free) and chemicals will allow
    them. But hell yes - make hay while sun shines. Certainly those
    customers want those slides back.

    Good thing the company wasn't in Germany. Ven ve say ve vill not accept
    more film, ve vill not accept more film!

    (I wonder if there was any 8mm in the pile ...)
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 10, 2011
    #5
  6. Savageduck

    Mort Guest

    Hi,

    I recently had some 55 year old Kodachrome slides scanned to CD-R, then
    I printed them out via my PC. Not only have the colors not faded at all,
    in contradistinction to Agfachrome, Anscochrome, and Kodacolor neg.,but
    the sharpness is unexcelled to the naked eye. The blacks are really
    black, which adds snap to the images. I have made splendid 8 x 10"
    prints from half of a 35mm. Kodachrome slide, and the quality is
    something to behold.

    Goodbye, old friend.

    Morton Linder
     
    Mort, Jan 11, 2011
    #6
  7. In real life, Kodachrome has been dead for over 10 years. Kodachrome lost
    the film wars to Fuji: Velvia* is better for high-saturation work, Provia is
    better for general-purpose work, and Astia is usable for portraits. Velvia
    itself is seriously crazy stuff (Provia 100F is way easier to use), but was
    a significant improvement over Kodachrome.

    *: According to Wiki: "Velvia was introduced in 1990 and quickly replaced
    Kodachrome 25 as the industry standard in high-definition color film. It has
    brighter and generally more accurate color reproduction, finer grain, twice
    the speed, and a more convenient process (E-6). Kodachrome 25 fell out of
    popularity a few years after Velvia was introduced; Kodachrome 64 and 200
    followed more slowly."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvia
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 11, 2011
    #7
  8. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    That may well be. However this post was not a statement on the death of
    Kodachrome, or which was/is a better film for specific purposes, but
    the amount of processing business Dwayne's has continued to handle
    since the deadline came and went on December 30.

    That those last minute Kodachrome diehards finished up their stocks and
    hustled to get it processed is somewhat irrelevant. Some shot those
    last frames out of nostalgia, and some shot Kodachrome because it was a
    match for their style. Now they are going to make some other creative
    decisions.

    Meanwhile Dwayne's has had an unpredicted flood of Kodachrome
    processing business from across the globe.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 11, 2011
    #8
  9. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    And of course both Astia and Velvia scan ten times betterr than
    anything Provia was ever able to do...
    Provia 100F is so unsaturated it begs disbelief,. It is one of the
    worst slide films available today, with horrible scanning properties
    and huge grain compared to other modern films. It has never been
    improved since it was released for the simple reason that "pros" are a
    conservative lot who will stick with crap after having incorporated it
    into their workflows. And nowadays very few "pros" use film anyway.
    For general amateur use, Velvia and Astia are far superior. Stop
    sprouting Provia: 100% of slide film users in this day and age are
    much better served with the other two.
     
    Noons, Jan 11, 2011
    #9
  10. I watched an interview last week where the guy who took the "Afghan girl"
    shot with Kodachrome said he'd pretty much moved over to digital. There was
    also some blather about National Geographic and how they're heavily digital
    now. Notable were high ISO shots which were just impossible with film.
     
    Charles E Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2011
    #10
  11. Savageduck

    Bill Graham Guest

    Just like when congress considers outlawing guns....All the gun stores get a
    huge increase in business...:^)
     
    Bill Graham, Jan 11, 2011
    #11
  12. Savageduck

    Savageduck Guest

    Maybe. However this was a one time final opportunity. There will be no
    more Kodachrome processing once they are done with the backlog.
    ....and I have what I need as far as firearms go.
     
    Savageduck, Jan 11, 2011
    #12
  13. Savageduck

    Alan Browne Guest

    Except for the E-6 fading thing.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 11, 2011
    #13
  14. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    Charles E Hardwidge wrote,on my timestamp of 11/01/2011 2:01 PM:
    Yeah, but don't let that stop this lot from "recommending" a film emulsion that
    is long surpassed for amateur use.

    There is ONLY ONE reason why film makers call an emulsion "Pro": because if
    processed the same way in the same workflow, it will produce results that are
    *repeatable*. Most were processed by optical means, not scanners. Again, with a
    fixed workflow.

    That's what real pros want: predictability. They can't afford to fart around
    with experiencing.

    That's why those films were called "Pro". They are mostly useless for amateurs,
    because they are ultra-conservative in their approach to tone range. Not a
    problem for a pro armed with filter weaponry and custom chemical workflow,
    certainly a problem for an amateur.

    Velvia, Astia, Superia in its many forms, and the Sensia emulsions are nowadays
    vastly superior for scanning and amateur use.

    But you'll never hear the truth from these "film expert" digital spruikers...
     
    Noons, Jan 11, 2011
    #14
  15. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 12/01/2011 12:22 AM:

    Really? You'll have to explain to me why is it that all my E6 slides form the
    80s are still in perfect condition, then. Don't have earlier ones because I was
    using Kodachrome and b&w before that.
    Sure: not in the same class as some K25s and K64s I have from the 60s, but still
    a darn good performance.

    Certainly a long shot better than Agfa's CT-18 for example, of which most of
    mine from the 80s have now faded to a horrible brown.

    Not aware of any other slide film process, except perhaps for the short-lived
    Polaroid.
     
    Noons, Jan 11, 2011
    #15
  16. Savageduck

    whisky-dave Guest

    I think I still have some CT-18 and CT-21 somewhere.......
     
    whisky-dave, Jan 11, 2011
    #16
  17. Savageduck

    Noons Guest

    whisky-dave wrote,on my timestamp of 12/01/2011 1:06 AM:

    Good luck...
     
    Noons, Jan 11, 2011
    #17
  18. Ilford had one cicra 1983. I think the films were E-something whatever was
    current. I don't have any extant, but they did have a different "look" than
    Ekatchrome.

    I remember buying a whole bunch of them (it?) on a trip to the UK in 1983.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jan 11, 2011
    #18
  19. Given my limited knowledge of film I've got no reason to disagree with that
    but I'm not going to wrench myself in half over it.

    Actually, I think, some films were called "pro" simply because they had
    guaranteed temperature control from factory to retail.

    In any case, anyone getting precious over the label "pro" is probably an
    "amateur" in some other field.
     
    Charles E Hardwidge, Jan 11, 2011
    #19
  20. Kodak was very specific about what pro meant. As a film changed color response
    as it aged, a pro film was aged so that it would "look" as close as possible
    from batch to batch assuming it was refrigerated until use, used quickly
    and then processed.

    Non-pro film was expected to go through the same cycle at room temperature
    and over a period of about a year, from when it was purchased, exposed and
    developed.

    So pro film was optiumized for a different set of circumstances and results
    than the non pro film.

    Remember that pros did not care exactly how a film "looked" as long as it
    always "looked" the same (and they could manipulate it to produce the "look"
    they wanted), while amateurs, just wanted it to "look good", no matter how
    badly they abused it.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jan 11, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.