Language difficulties, a Kodak moment.

[Packard]

After all the rain we had for the past two weeks and then three days in a row of bright sun, my front and back yards are incredibly green and vibrant. 

I was thinking that it reminded me of how Kodachrome slide film registered greens—too green and too bright to seem real.

So this morning when I went to Starbucks the friendly barista made some conversation and I replied that is seemed like a “Kodachrome day”.  She stared at me like I was from Mars. 

It seems that she never heard of Kodachrome, Kodak, slide film, slide projectors or color print film.  She had never seen anyone put film in a camera and she did not know what you did with the film after it was shot.

Kodak stopped producing Kodachrome in 2009 (after 74 years of production).  So the barista was probably about 4 or 5 years old when they shut down the production. 

I should not have been surprised. (Sad, but not surprised.)

Due to some recent court cases that had convictions thrown out because it was suggested that the images in evidence might have been manipulated, some forensics labs are returning to film cameras.

Agfa still makes aerial film that gets re-packaged for consumer use.  I think in B & W only. 

 

[tjbnwi]

Tom

 

[tsmi243]

When I think back, on all the crap I learned in Packard's threads.....

 

[deepcreek]

Kodak still makes Tri-X 400 B&W. I shot and developed hundreds, if not thousands, of rolls of the stuff back in the day as an aspiring photojournalist.

I was never without my Nikon F3 HP but all my equipment has been in storage for decades now.

I only developed a few rolls of Kodachrome myself and then mounted all the slides.  Frankly, it was easier to send it to the lab.

"Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama, don't take my Kodachrome away."

 

[Sparktrician]

Hmmmm...  While I truly loved Kodachrome 25, Velvia was a worthy replacement for vibrant greens.  [smile]

 

[Packard]

Tom

In my original conversation with the barista, I asked if she knew the Paul Simon song “Kodachrome”?  She did not know the song, who Paul Simon was nor ever heard of the singing group “Simon and Garfunkel”.  I am best served by only discussing my coffee options with her.

 

[Packard]

Hmmmm...  While I truly loved Kodachrome 25, Velvia was a worthy replacement for vibrant greens.  [smile]

When you used Kodak mailers to send in the film, they returned the slides (or prints) by US mail.  The mounted slides came back often with small scraps of the ends of the roll of film.

I noticed once that the scraps amounted to more than the two end cuts of the film.  I found out later that Kodak had a machine that weighed each package and would add more scraps as required to bring it to the brink of the next postage jump.

In other words, they were mailing their garbage to their customers. It probably made a lot of sense to the bean counters at Kodak, but I found it slightly offensive that they were mailing garbage from other rolls of film.

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

The "99% Invisible" podcast did a great piece on Kodak's questionable use of "Shirley Cards" for calibrating equipment, it sounds like the tech industry is still stuck in the same 1950s mindset as they're programming their AI and machine learning algorithms, leading to all sorts of problems.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/

 

[Cheese]

Hmmmm...  While I truly loved Kodachrome 25, Velvia was a worthy replacement for vibrant greens.  [smile]

I'd echo that thought... [big grin]

I thought that was the reason it came in the green packaging to relay to the consumer its color bias. Similar to how the Kodachrome and Ektachrome packaging telegraphed those color biases to the consumer.

 

[Packard]

The advantage to photographers with Kodachrome, which unlike Ectachrome which only needed dunking containers and a timer and a thermometer to do, Kodachrome required a huge investment in capital equipment.

Kodak made a sophisticated automatic system that probably would cost $100,000.00.  So, even if you did not send your film to Kodak for processing, in all likelihood it wasn’t done by some hack in his cellar.

I got a tour of Kodak’s processing facility in the late 1960s.  The entire building was setup as a graduated clean room.  Filtered air was pumped into the building first through the film processing rooms, which were the cleanest.  Outside of that area was the print processing area, and outside of those areas were the offices and unpacking areas and the shipping department. All original packaging was removed in the outer areas, and product was put on trays.

The positive air pressure throughout meant dust was blown out and never sucked in.

Each area was sectioned off with automatic doors.  Entry to the processing areas required hair nets, paper booties and lab coats.  Men with facial hair had masks.

I mentally compared that with the early 1-hour labs, with operators smoking cigarettes at the machinery and the door to the street opening directly to the open air lab.  (I always sent my film to Kodak.)

In any case, returning to my language difficulties, in another 5 years none of the baristas will know about film cameras.  Mostly, I can tell a film movie from a digital one.  The dynamic range on film is still better than digital.  But they are improving and sometimes I’m scratching my head asking, “Film or pixels?”

 

[MikeGE]

I only developed a few rolls of Kodachrome myself and then mounted all the slides.  Frankly, it was easier to send it to the lab.

 

Aside from those working the complex equipment in special labs, I don't know of anyone who was able to process Kodachrome.  The timing, temperature, and agitation in each of the four developers was beyond the ability of everyone I know.  Processing Ektachrome was different and certainly within the ability of most amateur labs, but not Kodachrome.  I processed my own Ektachrome because it was more forgiving, but Kodachrome had to go to a lab.

In the 70's, I bought Tri-X, Pan-X, and Ektachrome film in 100-foot bulk rolls and made my own 20 or 36-exposure rolls.

 

[Packard]

I only developed a few rolls of Kodachrome myself and then mounted all the slides.  Frankly, it was easier to send it to the lab.

 

Aside from those working the complex equipment in special labs, I don't know of anyone who was able to process Kodachrome.  The timing, temperature, and agitation in each of the four developers was beyond the ability of everyone I know.  Processing Ektachrome was different and certainly within the ability of most amateur labs, but not Kodachrome.  I processed my own Ektachrome because it was more forgiving, but Kodachrome had to go to a lab.

In the 70's, I bought Tri-X, Pan-X, and Ektachrome film in 100-foot bulk rolls and made my own 20 or 36-exposure rolls.

I agree, only Ectachrome and some of the Agfa products could be processed in a home lab.

 

[Michael Kellough]

I only developed a few rolls of Kodachrome myself and then mounted all the slides.  Frankly, it was easier to send it to the lab.

 

Aside from those working the complex equipment in special labs, I don't know of anyone who was able to process Kodachrome.  The timing, temperature, and agitation in each of the four developers was beyond the ability of everyone I know.  Processing Ektachrome was different and certainly within the ability of most amateur labs, but not Kodachrome.  I processed my own Ektachrome because it was more forgiving, but Kodachrome had to go to a lab.

In the 70's, I bought Tri-X, Pan-X, and Ektachrome film in 100-foot bulk rolls and made my own 20 or 36-exposure rolls.

Same here.

I also made B&W positives for the art department and managed the photo lab for a year.

Kodachrome was reddish and Ektachrome was blueish while Fujichrome was greenish. Maybe Velvia was brought out to compete with Fujichrome?

 

[Packard]

An amusing (to me) side story. 

I was a photography major (Newhouse School of Journalism, Syracuse University) in the late 1960s. 

For four years, I opted for Monday evening (6pm to 10 pm) lab privileges (I missed every episode of Laugh-in). 

The same people showed up each week. 

I bought a small eye dropper bottle (in dark brown glass).  I applied a typed label that said “In-Focus Solution, one drop per 16 ounces”.  When I would open my lab locker, I made a point to pull out my my 35mm reels, stainless steel developing tank, thermometer and “In focus solution”.

Eventually, someone asked me about the solution (which was simply water).  I explained that you could use the in focus solution on any out of focus negative.  You would soak it at 1 drop per 16 ounces and let it soak for one minute.  Then dry as usual.  It reduces contrast, so you need to go up one grade (contrast grade) higher than normal.

But since the company went out of business and this bottle was all I had left, I was being stingy with it.  If they needed it, tell me and I would let them dunk in the solution if I was using it.  I was not distributing even one drop, but would share the solution when I used it.

I got very popular.  Of course it was the increased contrast by boosting the contrast grade of paper that created the illusion of greater sharpness.  But if you want something to be true badly enough, you will easily be convinced that it is true.  They all believed. 

I made up some cockamamie explanation about “clumping” of the salt crystals in the film’s emulsion.  It did not really matter.  They believed. 

By the middle of my sophomore year I ran out and could not obtain any more.  A sad day at the lab, that was.

[big grin]

 

[Crazyraceguy]

This kind of fall into an observation I have noted over the years.
"The time period that most people know the least about, is the 10 years before and after you were born"
You are too young to remember the latter and the former is not far enough back to be "history"

It seems to hold true for most people, with the exception of huge events like the Kennedy shooting, Sept 11th, Covid, etc.

 

[Stan Tillinghast]

How about Cibachrome? Anyone make Cibachrome prints in their home darkroom? Supposedly would not fade over time. I'd have to dig some out to see if that held up over 40 or so years. I may still have my Minolta enlarger somewhere. Wish I had a use for such a marvelously made instrument. Copy stand?

 

[Cheese]

How about Cibachrome? Anyone make Cibachrome prints in their home darkroom? Supposedly would not fade over time. I'd have to dig some out to see if that held up over 40 or so years. I may still have my Minolta enlarger somewhere. Wish I had a use for such a marvelously made instrument. Copy stand?

I had Cibachrome prints produced by a NY source...travelled to Canada in the 80's ? for a total eclipse of the sun and took some photos with a Minolta CAT lens. The prints still hang on the wall and seem as vibrant as ever. Although there isn't much vibrancy to be seen other than a couple of sun flares.  [eek]

 

[Sparktrician]

How about Cibachrome? Anyone make Cibachrome prints in their home darkroom? Supposedly would not fade over time. I'd have to dig some out to see if that held up over 40 or so years. I may still have my Minolta enlarger somewhere. Wish I had a use for such a marvelously made instrument. Copy stand?

I had Cibachrome prints produced by a NY source...travelled to Canada in the 80's ? for a total eclipse of the sun and took some photos with a Minolta CAT lens. The prints still hang on the wall and seem as vibrant as ever. Although there isn't much vibrancy to be seen other than a couple of sun flares.  [eek]

I shot a series of eight photos of a sunrise in Ocean City in June, '82, using a Nikon F3 with a 500mm cat lens on a 2x teleconverter.  All were printed on Cibachrome, then framed in register in a stack by a great framer as a gift to my parents.  They've since gone on, and that stack is back with me and looking as fantastic today as it did in '82.  [smile]

 

[Packard]

Cibachrome and dye transfer transparencies were the elite printing methods of my youth.  Despite the “chrome” in the name, Cibachrome was not a film.  Just an archival printing method.

When I was in college, Ernst Haas, the photojournalist was giving some lectures at the school.  He was also showing on display an array of his bullfighting photos printed in large sizes probably up to 20” x 24” (but maybe a bit larger).  These prints were dye transfer transparencies and were back lit to great effect.

We were told that they cost $1,500.00 per print to make.  In today’s dollars that is $13,481.14 for each print.  There were probably 15 prints on display.

Despite the great value of these prints, the University did not provide any special security.  Two of the prints went missing.

Nowadays we see backlit prints all the time, but in 1967 that was a huge novelty and vastly more impressive than a conventional print.

Haas used slow shutter speeds to capture the action resulting in a real sense of movement.  It also made the subject matter (killing bulls) seem more abstract and less offensive.  I suspect Haas was mostly interested in the movement and the brilliant swaths of color.  Up close, in those magnificent back lit prints, the images were mesmerizing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-m&q=ernst+haas+bullfighting&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAjZiWtPL-AhU2pokEHTVQDHsQ0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1144&bih=728&dpr=2

 

[luvmytoolz]

Funnily enough, without any effort on my part, that's pretty much like how most of my attempts at photography work out!;-)