Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 07:30:30 -0800 (PST) To: From: "Dr. Kevin Pernicano" Subject: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com I wonder just how many people would actually buy and use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the past as I sure would like to give it a try! -kp Dr. Kevin Pernicano Louisville, KY, USA (Home of the Kentucky Derby) _______________________________________________ Kodachrome mailing list Kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome From: "Sean Weitzel" To: Subject: RE: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:53:55 -0800 Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com > -----Original Message----- > From: kodachrome-bounces@lists.kjsl.com [mailto:kodachrome- > bounces@lists.kjsl.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Kevin Pernicano > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:31 AM > > I wonder just how many people would actually buy and > use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The > idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail > list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to > produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the > past as I sure would like to give it a try! Just think of the Ilfochromes one could make! Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:19:57 -0500 From: Jim Hemenway To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Dr. Kevin Pernicano wrote: > I wonder just how many people would actually buy and > use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The > idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail > list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to > produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the > past as I sure would like to give it a try! > > -kp Count me in! Jim Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:31:01 -0500 To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com From: Ron Schwarz Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream In-Reply-To: <335740.41910.qm@web33114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com 07:30 AM 1/8/2008 -0800, Dr. Kevin Pernicano wrote: >I wonder just how many people would actually buy and >use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The >idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail >list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to >produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the >past as I sure would like to give it a try! It's not the making it that's the issue (there are (relatively) plenty of frozen rolls to be had). It's the processing that's the problem. No one is set up to process it. Apparently, you *must* set up a dedicated line (a cine processor, not a KLAB machine) for 120 use *only*. If you only have one machine, you can use it for 35mm and smaller. To use it for 120 means *major* reconfiguration, from what I understand, *not* the kind of thing that anyone is going to do on a regular basis (i.e., once a day, or once a week, or once a month... it took forever for Kodak to deign to set up one machine for *one* run of the stuff on October 1, 2001, in Wimbledon. They did not do so lightly, nor were they about to do it again. Yes, it sucks. Regardless of any issues involved with the mechanics of doing 120 Kodachrome, the bottom line seems to be Kodak's apparent wish to get rid of the emulsion once and for all. They haven't promoted it at ALL in *how* many years? If they *wanted* people to buy it, it seems like they'd go about things a wee bit differently than they have been doing. -- Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical; a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.) From: Fredrik Sandstrom To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:19:44 +0200 Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Is it correct that Kodachrome was only _ever_ available in 120 size between 1986 and 1996 as http://www.arp-geh.org/FileUpload_demo/KodaEktaSmall_Aug9_2005.pdf (page 10) seems to indicate. If so, why? Why no 120 Kodachrome in the 1940s, 50s and 60s? -- Fredrik Sandstr=F6m fs@iki.fi From: "Sean Weitzel" To: Subject: RE: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:34:53 -0800 Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com > -----Original Message----- > From: kodachrome-bounces@lists.kjsl.com [mailto:kodachrome- > bounces@lists.kjsl.com] On Behalf Of Fredrik Sandstrom > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:20 PM > To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com > Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream > > Is it correct that Kodachrome was only _ever_ available in 120 size > between 1986 and 1996 as > http://www.arp-geh.org/FileUpload_demo/KodaEktaSmall_Aug9_2005.pdf > (page 10) seems to indicate. If so, why? Why no 120 Kodachrome in the > 1940s, 50s and 60s? That seems odd. I wonder why no 120 when huge 4X5 kodachrome existed in the 40's Check out www.shorpy.com Specifically, http://www.shorpy.com/alfred-palmer-photographs-ww2 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:42:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com On 8 Jan 2008 at 7:30, Dr. Kevin Pernicano wrote: > I wonder just how many people would actually buy and > use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The > idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail > list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to > produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the > past as I sure would like to give it a try! I'd be happy already if someone offered a last batch of 120 processing! Willem (with 2-4 bricks in his freezer, 1 exposed) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:34:47 -0500 To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com From: Ron Schwarz Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com 01:42 PM 1/11/2008 +0100, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: >On 8 Jan 2008 at 7:30, Dr. Kevin Pernicano wrote: > >> I wonder just how many people would actually buy and >> use kodachrome 120 if it could ever be produced? The >> idea keeps surfacing every now and then on the mail >> list. Not that this would ever convince Kodak to >> produce it again, but I wish I could time warp to the >> past as I sure would like to give it a try! > >I'd be happy already if someone offered a last batch of 120 processing! > >Willem (with 2-4 bricks in his freezer, 1 exposed) Jan I wonder what would be the chances of begging Dwayne's to go out with a bang? (I don't mean out of business -- I mean out of K14, when the inevitable day occurs.) What would it take for them to -- after running their last batch of 35/16/8mm film through their line, to, before shutting it down forever -- to set it up for one last run of 120? I bet there's still plenty of it sitting in freezers. Kodak didn't exactly go out of their way to either publicize *or* facilitate use of *their* last run (10/01/01, Wimbledon). It took us over a week of phone calls to various Kodak offices -- all over the world -- before we were able to find out how to send our film in for that run. Mind you, this was *after* we'd found out *about* the run, and knew the date, and the city. Depending on who we spoke with, we received all sorts of conflicting information, before *finally* getting the lowdown. IMO what they *should* have done was to handle it "at the counter" like any *other* film -- and then, upon receipt at the lab, sequester it away in cold storage, pack it up and transship it to Wimbledon, and then, send it back to the labs for return to the retail counters. In other words, the same way the started doing things with Dwayne's when they shut down their own labs. We specifically asked if that could be done. The answer was a flat NO! If we tried sending it in via a Kodak account, it'd be returned unprocessed. If they *wanted* to make it as difficult as possible for people to avail themselves of that run, I doubt they could have made it any more difficult than it turned out to be. The final inanity was the date itself -- the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. International air freight was NOT available for some time after the attacks, and there was no way of knowing IF it would be restored in time to get our film sent to Wimbledon. We asked if they were considering rescheduling it, in light of the global situation. Again, NO! Anyone who thinks Kodak cannot shoot straight need only take a look at the corporate foot. There must be a big bullseye painted on the wingtips. Oh, we *did* find ONE dealer who offered to transship it for us (and as I recall, intimated that this would be our only way of getting it there). This was a famous lab located in the Rocky Mountains. They wanted some truly stratospheric fee for this service, which sent us reeling. I forget the amount, but recall it being something like $30 a roll. (Kodak charged us something like $7 or $8 a roll.) Anyway, I wonder if, when the unthinkable day arrives, Dwayne's would be interested in doing the Kodachrome community that service (for fee, of course)? If they *would* be willing to set their machine up for one last run of 120, it's the kind of thing that should be publicized ahead of time, so that people would know about it, and, know how to participate. In other words, the exact opposite of how Kodak handled *their* last run. -- Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical; a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.) From: Fredrik Sandstrom To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:07:16 +0200 Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Ron Schwarz writes: > What would it take for them to -- after running their last batch of > 35/16/8mm film through their line, to, before shutting it down > forever -- to set it up for one last run of 120? Interesting suggestion. There's problems with it, though - How much exposed and unprocessed 120 is there? Some, but probably not THAT much. How much unexposed film is there? Probably a lot, but no one is using it, as it can't currently be processed. IF a run was scheduled some years in the future, do you think a lot of people would suddenly START using it? Of course not. I mean, this run could take place not earlier than a few years after K64 has been discontinued, and that is still some years ahead, we hope. Would you shoot today on film that is already 10 years outdated, knowing that you'd have to store the films for possibly another 10 years before you get to see the pictures? The results given that the film would be 20 years out of date by then would probably not be THAT spectacular. I'd do it, but I'm crazy. Sensible people who just want good medium format transparencies can use any one of the excellent Fujichrome emulsions. -- Fredrik Sandstr=F6m fs@iki.fi Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:24:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Kevin Pernicano" Subject: [Kodachrome] Re: Kodachrome Digest, Vol 77, Issue 12 To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" > I'd be happy already if someone offered a last batch of 120 processing! > > Willem (with 2-4 bricks in his freezer, 1 exposed) Jan Since Dwaynes is the only place doing k-14, I wonder if they would do this? I will email them and ask. -kp From: "tandemcat@juno.com" Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:39:02 GMT To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com There are also the problems of modifying the machine itself--it's "modifying", not "setting up." The machine must essentially be rebuilt throughout--wider rollers (which don't exist--custom machining), wider tanks (custom fabrication), more solution, and still retaining the same rate of agitation. Then the modifictions have to be tested--with 120 Kodachrome. And, IIRC, someone once told me that the machine at Dwayne's is a smaller, narrower machine than some of the others, and the modifications might not even be possible. OTOH, it has been proved a time or two that hand procesing of Kodachrome is possible. Someone would have to research what has been done, and come up with some kind of tanks, temperature control, agitation, etc. I think three separate re-exposures are required. It would probably work best for someone who was experienced processing Kodachrome to do this--someone who thoroughly understands Kodachrome. I believe Dwayne's used to have a Kodachrome manager named Jenny Gartner--someone like her. A source of all the required chemicals would be needed, so this would be easier before Kodachrome got discontinued altogether. Mark S. From: "Steven Sawyer" To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Kodachrome] 120 Kodachrome The best approach IMO is to keep asking Kodak and Dwayne's about this. Not harassment per se but enough to let them know there's still interest. Most film shooters today are die-hards. These are just the kind of people who would use 120 Kodachrome. The fact that Dwayne's is the only processor left makes it that much easier to deploy the product. I for one would shoot most of my 120 slides with Kodachrome - if it were available. Steve Sawyer Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:44:23 -0500 To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com From: Ron Schwarz Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com 04:07 PM 1/11/2008 +0200, Fredrik Sandstrom wrote: >Ron Schwarz writes: >> What would it take for them to -- after running their last batch of >> 35/16/8mm film through their line, to, before shutting it down >> forever -- to set it up for one last run of 120? > >Interesting suggestion. There's problems with it, though - > >How much exposed and unprocessed 120 is there? Some, but probably not >THAT much. How much unexposed film is there? Probably a lot, but no >one is using it, as it can't currently be processed. IF a run was >scheduled some years in the future, do you think a lot of people would >suddenly START using it? Of course not. I mean, this run could take >place not earlier than a few years after K64 has been discontinued, >and that is still some years ahead, we hope. Would you shoot today on >film that is already 10 years outdated, knowing that you'd have to >store the films for possibly another 10 years before you get to see >the pictures? The results given that the film would be 20 years out of >date by then would probably not be THAT spectacular. I'd do it, but >I'm crazy. Sensible people who just want good medium format >transparencies can use any one of the excellent Fujichrome emulsions. If you think you'll still be able to buy Kodachrome ten years from now, you *are* crazy! My wistful musing is predicated on the notion that "D-Day" will be happening within the not-too-distant future, and, that there'd be enough time for word to get out to those with the film, so that they could use it. There could even be some kind of fallback, i.e., arrange things so that people send it in to Dwaynes, to keep on ice until That Awful Day arrives. If it turns out that there *isn't* enough film turned in (not enough to make a run), then they would either scrap it, or return it (customer option, customer pay return postage). Yes, there'd be some PITA-factor for all involved. However, this is the opportunity of a lifetime for those with the film, and, it would make Dwaynes a superhero among labs, and garner them an incredible amount of goodwill and loyalty. I daresay that a LOT of people would lock-in with them for all their work, esp. their E6, once K14 is a memory. -- Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical; a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.) From: Fredrik Sandstrom To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Subject: Re: [Kodachrome] Kodachrome 120 pipe dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Ron Schwarz writes: > If you think you'll still be able to buy Kodachrome ten years from > now, you *are* crazy! Not ten years, but a few. Plus a few years for Dwayne's to process what's out there. (They won't stop processing K64 the day Kodak announces it's over, and we wouldn't like that.) That makes 7-10 years, is my guess. -- Fredrik Sandstr=F6m fs@iki.fi From: "tandemcat@juno.com" Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:06:32 GMT To: kodachrome@kjsl.com Subject: [Kodachrome] K-12 Pipe Dream Reply-To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com While we're doing pipe dreams, how about another "last run" of K-12 Kodachrome? What I have in _my_ freezer is Kodachrome-X! Actually, I think I have some Kodachrome II also--it was my favorite Kodachrome, despite the slow speed. I think it had the very best colors, and the contrast was "just right." For this last run, no change in machine width would be required--just some different routings as I believe the number of solutions is different between K-12 and K-14. Then there is a difference in processing times for Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X, so there would have to be _two_ last runs! You would just have to get the chemicals, some of which were supposed to have become illegal for their toxicity, or something like that. While we're talking about Kodachrome-X, does anyone have any idea which Kodachrome was the rarest, in 35mm roll form? I think Kodachrome 40 was made longer. Kodachrome-X was the same speed as Kodachrome 64, IIRC, but the 64 is still made. Kodachrome-X certainly wasn't very popular, but it did have a sort of unique flavor which I enjoyed. Mark S. Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:35:37 -0600 (CST) From: To: kodachrome@lists.kjsl.com Subject: [Kodachrome] Old Kodachrome... I'm reading, with amusement, the desires for processing the old Kodachrome. Maybe you folks are either more skilled or luckier than I am. I stored a couple of bricks of Kodachrome 64 that I had bought around 1980 in my Mom's deep-freeze (-10=C3=82=C2=B0F) and tried to use it about 12 years later in the early '90's. My results were terrible. There was no dMax to speak of and the slides looked terribly gray. I ditched all the unexposed film. I've still got about 10 unexposed rolls of Kodachrome 25 that have been stored in my basement for the last 10 years. I don't dare use them. I hope you all get great results from all the old film you have. As much as I like Kodachrome, I wouldn't chance it. Mr. Bill