I worked in the National Geographic photo labs on the second floor of the 17th St. Headquarters building in Washington, DC from 1974-77 when all the photographers shot on Kodachrome. It was a dye transfer process in which the dye were put into it during processing, why it was so complicated to make and process (14 different steps) but allowed the use of more permanent dyes and resulted in finer grain since the silver was removed and replaced with the dyes. NGS was Kodak’s biggest single customer for Kodachrome. Samples from batches would be sent to the NGS Color Lab for testing and then NGS would buy the batch with the best characteristics train box car loads it stored in a large freezers. Incoming film from the photographers would be split into two batches for processing: one batch in Rochester and the other in a processing plant Kodak built in Gaithersburg, MD to service NGS, NGS also used a lot of Ektachrome it processed in house for working copies of the photos it would publish. The originals would be copied on a camera stand that cost more than my house. Prints were made from the slides by creating 4x5 or 8x10 internegatives which were used in an enlarger which ran on tracks on the floor projecting the image onto a wall where the color photo paper up to 50” wide was held in place by vacuum. There was a B&W lab which created the layout story boards the editors used on the walls of their office for laying out the magazine. I worked in the photomechanical lab which primarily worked with the Cartography department in the production of the maps on lithographic film for printing. But we also reproduced B&W photos with halftone, duotone and CYM tritone sepia and did color separations for map relief. One of the process cameras I operated filled an entire room and had a 6 x 8 foot copy board and 40 x 48 inch film back. The other had a 20 x 24 inch film back. It was an amazing place to work which led me into a side gig teaching college classes in photo reproduction in the evenings and then a career in managing web offset magazine and book production.
Thank you for your post-what an interesting job you had. Is it true that there were only 2 or 3 labs around the country that were dedicated to processing Kodachrome?
@@davidtverberg2606 AFAIK, Rochester and Gaithersburg, MD were the only two locations which processed Kodachrome. I recall it being sold to consumers with a pre-paid mailer addressed to Kodak in Rochester for processing.
@@TeddyCavachonthat’s not true. There was also a Kodachrome lab in Dallas, and for a brief period in the 1980s, there was NewYork Film Works in Manhattan (New York City) which not only processed Kodachrome but where you could buy an entire run and have them tweak the color as well as push or pull process Kodachrome to your specifications. I used and got a tour of New York Filmworks in 1984 during a visit to New York for a client, and in 1988 when I move. To ew York Citg briefly to work as Peter B. Kaplan’s (look him up kids!) first assistant for Peter B. Kaplan, we used them. Two of the reasons K’chrome was discontinued was the expense of manufacturing it and the amount of polluting effluents (arsenic and heavy metals mostly) produced by both manufacturing and processing it.
@@lloovvaallee That was due to how the dyes were put into film during the processing replacing three separate silver emulsion layers with RGB filters. A similar process was used to make dye transfer prints. The lack of colorfastness of prints is why it took studio portrait and wedding photography so long to switch to color. Back in 1970 when I graduated high school the senior photos were still being shot in B&W and then colored with transparent oil paints because the color print paper available then would fade in less than a year if exposed to any direct sunlight. Prior to working at the NGS photo labs I apprenticed with top wedding photographer Monte Zucker who would occasionally sell large dye transfer color prints to his rich clients. As a marketing strategy he decorated his client waiting and consultation rooms with 24 x 30 and 30 x 40 dye sub prints which made the 11x14’s included in the standard wedding contract seem puny by comparison. When a client asked about the bigger one’s he’d explain they were very difficult to make and very expensive - probably more than they’d want to pay - using reverse psychology to set the hook. 😀
I'm old enough to be able to say that I remember Kodachrome 10 for the pain in the ass it was. I remember when Kodachrome II, then Kodachrome 25, was introduced. Nearly all of those who praise it as a mystical super-film almost certainly never shot a roll of it. It had too much contrast, and its color pallet was inaccurate by modern standards. Colors in the blue-purple range were a mystery to Kodachrome. So, why was it so popular at the time? When you're the only game in town, what's better? Options? Anscochrome, Agfachrome, Perutz(? sp), which later reappeared though 3M as Dynachrome. All were based on proprietary chromogenic processes, like Kodak's 1950s Ektachrome, which was just as bad. Now there was some ugly color slide film. Agfachrome improved a lot, and Kodak's new E-4 process and Ektachrome-X finished off the rest in the 1960s. Over time, Ektachrome advancements also killed Kodachrome, being cheaper, had better contrast, and more accurate colors. So Virginia, neither Santa Claus nor Kodachrome are coming back. Neither is the unicorn.
@@randallstewart1224 No need to be a d*ck. Just because you didn't like Kodachrome does not mean that those of us who did like it "never used it." I used a lot of Kodachrome 25. It produced beautiful greens and golden colors. It liked lots of light but was also perfect for dappled light on tree leaves in the street. I never thought it had any mystical quality about the colors, but it produced colors that I liked a lot. I also shot a lot of Agfachrome in the early 60's. A lot more contrast than Kodachrome. Darker greens would skew toward black. Reds were super punchy. I prefered Kodachrome for landscape, Agfachrome for people, although Agfachrome was ideal for gardens with flowers. I agree with you on Ektachrome. It leaned towards magenta and brownish tones around 1962 when I first tried it. I remember Kodak would advertise it with lots of beach photos. I hated it. Preferred Kodachrome at the beach. I remember the mailer you would pay for when buying the Kodachrome. Writing in my return address. I didn't mind waiting for the slides to come back, but what I did not like was that Kodak insisted on using those crappy cardboard mounts that were prone to jamming in the projector, while Agfa used plastic mounts that never gave any projector problems. Back in those days I shot mostly black and white. Mostly TLR 6x6, but also 4x5 on the Speed Graphic, but it was when Speed Graphics were on their way out. 135 was still regarded mostly as amateur film, not for serious use, and I only used it for personal use, and 6x6 for work. I still have my Speed Graphic. Even have a half dozen flash bulbs in its case. I still have a couple of Minolta Autocords. I wore out two of them years ago. I proved that you can wear out the internal brass gears. But the two I have left work, although the lubrication is a bit stiff these days. My first 135 camera was a used Exakta Varex VX, then moved on to the Pentax MX, and then Nikon FA in the 80's. I pushed a lot of film through all those cameras. I still have the majoritry of the cameras I ever bought and most of them still work, but some better than others. It is obvious that Kodachrome will never return, and neither will the color palettes of any of those older films. You might be obssessed with color accuracy, but I prefer a more artistic use of color. I enjoy Lomography Metropolis, and like the various repackaging's of Aerocolor. I like them because they give me a taste of when colors were not perfectly true, but had a more creative style about the palette. However I do like transparencies and modern Ektachrome, and I would like Kodak to produce a 400 ISO version. That would be useful.
@@artistjoh I do not think I'm being a dick for pointing out that Kodachrome is extolled on YT by many people who never used it and know nothing about it. (Passing along bullshit picked up from an earlier YT video is one of the most hurtful aspects of trying to learn the technical side of photography on YT.) I remember "Processing by Kodak", mailers. My primary memory is the disappointment of getting back slides from their NJ lab which looked like someone walked on them before loading the little yellow box. I left for college in 1964 and did little photography for the next 8 years, and no color. Thereafter, Plus-X in 35mm was my film, and I tried practically every developer on it until 1977, when I became addicted to Ektachrome again, because I could process it myself with the early DIY chemistry kits from Unicolor. I also joined the cult of Tech Pan, squeezing 16x20 inch prints out of 35mm negatives processed in POTA.(*) After building and equipping my first permanent darkroom in 1980, I shifted to photochemistry and started developing my own color and B&W chemistry for C-41, E-6, and the color paper process preceding RA-4. I ended up using mostly Kodak Gold 100 and Fuji Reala (didn't have to change the camera ISO settings). In the last 20 years or so, I've done little color and shifted back to B&W, nearly all in medium format, using HP-5 and FP-4, which works fine in the larger film format. Not obsessed with color accuracy, so much as tired of YT videos and comments praising characteristics and virtues of Kodachrome which never existed. IMO, by 1975, it's only remaining point of superiority was its resistance to fading, and E-6 pretty much made that irrelevant. (*) The cry for the return of Kodak Tech Pan is right up there with Kodachrome. For those folks, know that Adox CMS 20 has virtually the same characteristics and problems in use, including the ability to enlarge it until your sloppy technique starts showing. It has the added advantage that it lacks the nasty red sensitivity of Tech Pan, which made it look like every shot was made through a dark red filter.
I shot a lot of all three Kodachrome speeds back in the 80s. 25 for landscape, 64 pushed to 80 for most of my African wildlife and 200 for the golden hour. Nothing could match the 200 for capturing evening light! I used the professional series for colour consistently and the same day turnaround. Happy days!
Steve McCurry shot the last roll of Kodachrome that was manufactured. He began in NYC to shoot a few exposures of the 36 in his camera. He returned to his roots and traveled to India where he finished shooting the roll. There's a :30 minute documentary about it. The last roll of Kodachrome was processed by Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas. They received rolls and rolls of Kodachrome from all over the world. They had to stop processing because the chemicals to do so were discontinued and they processed until those chemicals ran out. Today camera makers strive to make sensors that can capture the fine graine of Kodachrome. The grain was so fine that the ability to make enlargements were nearly unlimited. In the 1930s film makers used potato starch which is ultra fine for use in emulsions. I doubt that anyone will make a sensor that could capture what the line of Kodachrome could.
When I started shooting film in high school -- 1980s with 1965 Nikon F -- I used TriX and Plus-X Pan and developed it at school -- loved the smoothness of the Plus-X....
I'm still amazed by the saturated reds in my Kodachrome slides from the 70's and the 8mm Kodachrome movie film from the 60's. No detectable fading 60 years on. And I was born in Rochester, so there is that.
When I heard that Kodachrome would be discontinued, I purcased every fresh roll I could find (about 30) and I criss-crossed the older neighbourhood of my birth town - dating from 1900ish - knowing that it, too, would soon disappear. I shot every street, making sure that every house woud be in at least one frame. Kodachrome has fantastic archival qualities (200+ years) and furthermore it is color-faithful unlike "better", more saturated film. I ended up with over 900 slides which I gave to official archives of the city (and they do have the proper vault for keeping them for along time). I dedicated a few rolls to document my own neighbourhood which dates from the '60s. Too bad the answer at the beginning of the video is "NO!".
@@Digital_Photog1995 I am in agreement with you, but let me have a little nostalgia. The people at Impossible Project and at New55 know how difficult it is to revive a film that has been discontinued for a certain time. . . and they did not have to cope with processing, ha! ha! This reminds me of people who say: « To go back to the Moon, NASA should just build another Saturn V, they still have the blueprints. » Nice, but the expertise is long gone.
Ok. Now I’m allowed to dream: E-6 versions (they used the E-4 process) of: Photomicrography, a 6 ASA emulsion with deep reds and blues that also made water look like gel and Infrared, of course. Unvaried: TRI-X, as you say and the all time Kodachrome 25.
My first 35mm I used Kodachrome 25. I was young in my teens and can't say I could see a difference between that and other films I used, but there is that bit of nostalgia for the 25 ISO film and the challenges it presented.
My father’s father’s 1941 Kodachrome slides still look vibrant without any fading or color shifts. Also, we appreciate the slides that he took of family and friends. The beautiful scenic pictures don’t have the same meaning to us.
I agree with you about Technical Pan. Beautiful film with super sharpness and contrast. How about Panatomic-X? Maybe slow down TMAX 100 to 35 and that could be the new Panatomic-X? Food for thought.
From the 70s through 90s I shot a lot of film. Never considered what my favorite was but I mainly used Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color. For black and white, it was Tri-X all the way. I didn't care about the grain, it makes pictures look good. The reason for Tri-X is that I worked on military newspapers and all we used was Tri-X. When I toured countries, I used Tri-X and Kodachrome 64. Now that you mentioned it, Kodachrome was hard to scan. Tri-X was easy, and I got a lot of good scans from it. Today, I don't care about film. I'm loving my digital cameras. Film is expensive, takes a lot of space for storage and the chemicals are toxic. But I had a lot of fun and enjoyment developing Tri-X and Plus-X and making prints up to 11X14. It's a new world we live in and we can't go back to way it was last century.
When E100 came back I was very hopeful that E100VS would be part of the return. Unfortunately not. So that's my vote. "Hey Kodak! Velvia 50 is nearly unobtainium these days. Bring back E100VS!"
@@steven3557 I think you are correct. There was a rumor a few years ago that Fuji was just selling cuts off of a large final batch. I remain hopeful, but watching B&H and others makes me think that it is unfortunately over.
I’ve been similarly hoping for a return of E100VS . I honestly think it’s not an altogether unreasonable hope, given a few factors. For one, there’s a need in the film market for a high-saturation color positive film now that Velvia 50 and 100 are virtually unobtainable (and possibly near discontinuation). Second, releasing a new E-6 film would tie in nicely with Kodak’s production agreement with Photo Systems, Inc. to reintroduce Kodak-branded E-6 chemistry later this year. And third, it’s a film that Kodak already knows, at least in theory, how to make. E100 is nice and all, but there was something really special about E100VS - high saturation and contrast, but without the magenta cast of Velvia. Awesome film.
@@steven3557 fuji won't reply to customers, especially in English, they are a business-to-business company and anyone who could give you a good answer would speak only Japanese
I would definitely bring back Neopan 400 & 1600. Oh how I loved that stuff. I’ve got years worth of street work shot on Neopan 400 shot at 800/1600 and love looking at that work. What great negs to work with too, all of it devd in Ilford ddx. So reliable, it never let me down using that combo.
I wish Kodak would bring back the old Portra line, especially Portra 100T and Portra 400 BW. Maybe even 400 Ultra Color. I know that you can get the same look as 400 UC with modern scanning methods, but I really like the way the emulsion looks.
I really like the old Tri-X that I used in the 1980’s. It seems to have had better tonality and richness. Now I underexpose by a stop or two and it does help. Kodachrome was great in its day, the look is amazing, but as you mentioned it’s not easy to scan. I always found Kodachrome to have a lot of reciprocity failures. When the shots were good, they were good. I don’t think we will ever get Kodachrome back again, it’s too expensive and complex to manufacture and develop. I think we can be thankful at least we have Ektachrome 100.
Panatomic-X for me! 😊 Yes, I realize it was ASA-32; but man shooting an old steam-engine, with puffy-clouds in the background above, on a tripod with a #25 filter was life-changing! 😮 And yes, absolutely they need to bring film prices down, or they will extinguish their own industry, this time forever! 😢
I'd like to see the old Agfachrome CT18 return. This film was sold with a mailer for return to Agfa for processing in its own formula. While not the finest-grained transparency film, Agfachrome yielded what Lenny Lipton described as "Dutch Masters colors." My slides shot in the early 1970s have held up well, carefully stored in archival materials.
I am that weirdo that wants to see Aerochrome come back. I can get decent results with my digital IR camera, and sort of Aerochrome ish results with Rollei IR in trichromes. I am glad that Harman is developing new film, and that some decent films are still available. Glad that the interest in film photography is on the rise. Karen from Greenbelt MD.
I used to shoot K64 in the 80's when I was in the US Navy with a Canon AE-1. Fantastic film, of course. Nowadays I shoot Kodak Vison3 250D and develop it myself. While it's not slide film and may not be K64, it's an extremely nice film that resembles K64 a lot! I highly recommend you try it if you haven't.
I really miss the old TriX. I’ve just been looking at some photography annuals from the 1970s and virtually all the shots were taken on TriX. A very popular film with photo artists. My favourite transparency film was Ektachrome 64 sheet film a real favourite with studio photographers. The halcyon days.
I acquired a bunch of rolls of Verichrome Pan (127, 120, 620) from FB Market Place earlier this year. The rolls expired in the late 70s and early 80s. I've shot several rolls of it, and I've been impressed with the results. I've had the best results so far with H110 at 1:119, semi-stand (68/20) for 45 minutes. This is a film that I never shot back during the film era, but it is one now that I'd like to see Kodak start making again.
I am an old Tri-X fan, but thanks to the Hunt Brothers, high-silver emulsions are not in the Kodak catalog of modern films. I am in love with the new resurgence of high-quality silver-content films like Ferrania's P30. Both the P30 and the newer P33 are gorgeous and are a testament to the analog renaissance. Although I am primarily a B&W shooter (Tri-X & Rollei 80S), I recently used the new Kodak E100 (G) in 4x5" format and found it to be AAAmazing! It made me forget about Kodachrome forever! I miss the Fuji Neopan films, I used both the 400 and 1600. The Acros II is exceptional, but there is something to be said about the old Tri-X Pan. Ol' TX In Acufine and Diafine made low light shooting easy and it had and extraodinary look to it.
In my 1970's days, I estimated Kodachrome 25 and 64 much more than Ektachrome films, and until now, colour rendition and sharpness have been still remained properly.
Yeah, but Kodachrome is so good. I love Ektachrome 100. I only wish they would bring back Cibachrome paper back. I personally love PlusX 125. It had such good tones and dynamic range and fine grain. I’m not one for grainy film. I agree the cost of film is a factor. Film should be cheap as well as processing in order for people to give it a chance in the digital world. I worked at a one hour photo lab. I figure with 21st century technology, this could be made more efficient and cheaper with a digital copy as well as prints.
Ektar 25 made the best images I ever shot on my Praktica B200 back in the early 1980s... I was poor back then and even though I worked in a photography shop (Dixons) I couldn't shoot much as a student, but it was amazing.
A conversation I had with the former head of Kodak Film back when Ektar 100 came out stated that it is really Ektar 25 with more speed- based on the resolution of that film I believe him! Did quite a bit with 25 back in the early 90’s.
Absolutely TechPan .. 👌 I participate in 5x7 orders, managed by Steve Canham. Perhaps TechPan could be available via a similar plan, but many of us who knew it have fallen off their perches. Kodak have said, with regard to special orders, they will make anything we want, providing they have the emulsion and the film base, the material, providing also that order is large enough. Reintroducing a discontinued emulsion is another story. I will use Ilford PanF in as large a format as possible. Ilford run their seasonal, special large format project, to order. I want to get a bunch of 70mm DP II, if others will join me. FP4 or HP5 We'll see.
Best Kodak black and white films were Super XX in 4x5, and Verichrome Pan ( in 120 ). Verichrome Pan was a black and white film that my late friend Peter Gowland used for years for his "cheesecake" model images. I got incredible black and white photos with Verichrome Pan when I bought my first 120 camera in 1953. Tri-X from the 1960s ( when I first used it) was the best film for 35mm. Developed it in Microdol X and I got incredible grain less 8x10s with that developer diluted 1-3 for 15 mins at 68 degrees. Still use the grand old D76, All those items fell victims to laws banning high silver content in films and certain chemical bans for developers. DK 50 developer was great for portrait black and white negs in 4x5 and 8x10 negs.
I knew Peter Gowland - he made a very nice wide TLR in the last few years of his amazing life. I loved Super XX and I loved BerggerFR version of it years back for my 4x10 camera.
Its true, if the cost of film doesn' t go down by 1/3 ill just shooting digital. And i really miss Plus-X film and the original Tmax 400. Things aint what it used to be....but it should.
They definitely need to bring back plus x and panatomic X, and personally I’d love to see Verichrome pan. Or work with Ilford to make new versions of them.
Loved Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic X the most. For street, it was Tri-X the most often. I’m finishing up a 100ft roll of Tri-X from 1985 right now. The grain is wonderful!
One that I really miss was the Polaroid 35mm Hi-Def film that I used to get cheap at K-Mart stores. It wasn't the best for true to color but if you wanted to see fine detail, say for documenting something, or to show textures, boy was it sharp in detail.
Well...since you asked. Back in the day Ha, Ha summers of 1966 & 67 when I was living and working in Glacier National Park, Ektachrome 64, hands down reproduced the Park, and in particular the different shades of rock layers very close to what the eye saw. I soon switched from Kodachrome and shot nothing but Ektachrome 64 the rest of the 66 season and all of the 67 season. And for most everything I shot for years later. I stumbled on your post, thanks for the memories.
I bet with t-max it could be various barely detectable fluctuations of some chemicals that might've been in previous building or/and in new building, in the very structure of the buildings I mean
I believe their new coater works differently, anyone who has seen SmarterEveryDay's video about it can see that the curtain coating head is an incredibly complicated machine. And that's just part of the whole building that is the coater. Even though the goal of the coating head is to apply a uniform exact thickness of emulsion on a base in an extremely precise and controllable way, that's just not the case. It's uniform, precise and controllable, sure. But it also, no matter what you do to it, will imprint some of its own characteristics on the film. And what exactly causes them, could be chemicals in the air, could be vibrations, or lack thereof, of the resonant frequencies of any microscopic vibrations that do occur. Or it could be slight flow during the drying. Or in reality, probably a mix of all of the above and other factors. It just gets too complicated to try and make a model of all the factors, all you can do is make sure that all the "imperfections" are consistent so that your coat will be the exact same from one day to another.
Its not just the price of filmstock,the processing cost is also too high.I have a variety of films in my refrigerator waiting to go,but I have to plan carefully when to shoot them because on a UK state pesion there is little room for luxuries.Ilford Delta was one film that seemed to expose itself correctly all of the time.............................
The only thing I don't miss about Kodachrome is having to send the film off and waiting 5-7 days to see how badly I screwed up! With digital I know instantly!
Man, that title is click-bait if I ever saw an example. However, quoting Paul Simon: "Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away!" I might add, the K25. It's not one to use for sports or kids darting around the room, I admit. But those glorious colours! I don't care if they are "correct", neither did many of the great painters. It's there to create art, and when it went out of production, photography lost a very valuable tool. I feel lucky to have a camera (Canon G12) that enables me to at least catch the spirit of the K25 in post, even if it is quite modest otherwise.
I've scanned old Kodachrome slides using VueScan on an Epson V600 bed scanner. The fine grain and resolution surpassed almost all of my E6 slides, although two or three -- out of hundreds -- had color-matching problems. Most of my scanned slides are various E6 Fujichromes and Ektachrome VS. However, if I could go back in time and know that scanning technology would one day exist, I would shoot Kodachrome exclusively.
As someone at the age of 17 who started 2 years ago and never shot kodachrome (hardly any discontinued films except Fuji C200). From what I've seen, what I would like to see return are some true IR films, not just near-ir superpanchromatic stocks. But as far as I understood things. Kodak could mix an emulsion with similar properties to HIE, but I think their new factory where all the film is made nowadays uses deep IR cameras and lights to oversee the coating process. So they couldn't coat it without fogging it. Not sure about EIR or aerochrome though, don't think that was sensitive to quite as deep IR as HIE, but I don't know.
The Agfa Chrome RS / RSX line of films were amazing but flew under the radar as everyone was gaga for Velvia at the time. I regularly rant about how I wish that formula of Agfachrome would comeback.
And another thing…..I was always at the mercy of the developers with their automatic machines that were never cleaned and the crystals scratched my rolls of negatives plus averaging out any Cokin filters I used🤯. They said it was my (Nikon) equipment! There’s no way back. I gave away all my 35 mm equipment🤷🏻
Kodachrome had weak shadow detail and is a challenge to scan. I always bought the Pro versions since the 'fresh' amateur stuff had a distinct red cast, while nearly out-of-date (old) stock had a green cast. Kept it refrigerated, too.
Double-X is still basically the same emulsion as when it first came out. It’s quite close to that original Tri-X and has that slightly better, silvery tonal reproduction you’re thinking about.
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Do you mean CineStill BWXX? Because I can get some hand rolled Double-X for a little less than what Tri-X costs. I’m sure somebody is doing that in the US too. Or you can always do it yourself if bulk rolling is your thing.
Yep. There are cheaper options for all bulk rolled films but direct from manufacturers is a more expensive cost but an amazing film- and it comes in 120 which I love!
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Well CineStill isn’t directly from the manufacturer. They get cut and rolled by other companies. I think Ilford does it at the moment. Used to be Foma.
They are purchasing at a very large volume so it is as close as you can get and regarding cutting and packaging the 120 XX is not available by anyone else so as close to manufacture as possible in my opinion-- it’s great film- did extensive article on FR 1.0 on its release
Kodakchrome 25, or Kodakchrome 16, I am not 100% sure of the second one, but it was for sure under the 25 version. Incredible stuff,. 64, 25, or the lesser asa one.
Thank-you, what an interesting discussion. Very cool. My fantasy film is Fuji Provia. Used it for years. I liked Neopan. TMax and HP5 are in my bulk loaders though. Liked, shared and sub'd.
I loved Trix shooting and developing in 1959. I love the selection of films we have. Now color I only shoot portra 160/400 but b&w, different stocks for 35 mm , 645 and 67. Actually, 2/3 of the cost is developing. I got mine down from $25 inc shipping a roll to about $1. Wanna reduce costs, develop and scan yourself. And the turnaround time is 3 hours and no extra charges for push/pull. So I don't care about film costs, my developing cost even for portra about $2.5 0 a roll makes shooting affordable. I was doing b&w at age 12 so if 12 yr old can do it way before the internet , anyone can. Although a couple years later did get a 99 on the NY State chemistry regents exam. When my dad gave me his complete prewar professional dark room, he also took me 90 miles to tour the Kodak plant. It was an actual city at the time. And at 14 my best line... lets step into my darkroom and see what develops. It worked. Now to find some 75 year old women and install a red bulb in the night light in my developing bath room and give it another try. Photography been berry berry good to me.
I love shooting onto Kodachrome like PKR and PKL, but I did enjoy the Kodak Ektachromes like the E6 with the warmer emulsion like 64X, 100X, and 400X that really cover the shadows really beautiful warm tones than the Old E6 Film that left with a Blue or cold tone, and also let's not forget the Kodak C41 press films like Ektapress 100, 400, and 1600 in which the grain structure was the TMAX grain as meant for the photo journalism field as the film is process, and then scanned, and sent through the wire service, after Ektapress came Kodak Supra Film in which i shot ALOT of the 400, and 800 film speed, and talk about FINE GRAIN, and good color pallet tones, then came Portra(YECH) Very flat, and it the reason in why I see alot of shooters OVER EXPOSING to get the contrast. Finally Kodak introduce Ultracolor films in 100, 400, and 800 as the grain was TMAX, and color was very good. But I wish that Kodak would bring back the E6 Etachromes in 64, 100, 200, and 400 speed. Oh yes you said that it is hard to scanned Kodachrome? My scanner Has profiles on Kodachrome, and Ektachrome, and Fuji, and Agfa Slide film profiles.... And you also forgot that the Chemistry for Kodachrome WAS VERY HAZARDOUS!! TO THE ENVIRONMENT!! That was the reason we were seeing the chemical dumping at the Marsh lands of the San Francisco Bay Area as were seeing Dead Birds, and Birds with no Beeks. EPA Shut down Kodak Processing lab at Palo Alto, California.
If Fuji doesn't want to make Velvia which killed Kodachrome, they should bring back. and I don't know what you mean about it being difficult to scan, I have great scans from my childhood.
Compared to modern C41 films it is more difficult due to the dynamic/ contrast range- on my Imacon it is not an issue but on some flat bed scanners it can be hard to hold the full range.
I love TMAX. If there is one film that I want brought back it would be Tech Pan. Like you I thought this was a magical film and it was my preferred film for 35mm
Both from FIGITAL Revolution 1.0 Some articles I did on E100- figitalrevolution.com/2019/12/10/kodak-ektachrome-e100-is-back-in-120-and-4x5-full-review/ figitalrevolution.com/2020/05/20/cinestill-cs6-creative-slide/
Fantasy film that I could bring back? Since Kodachrome is out of the question, I would have to say...pack film. I've never had the opportunity to just take a picture, wait a couple of minutes, and then peel apart the paper to reveal a sharp vividly colored picture. Such a thing would be magnificent.
It’s fun but also a pain in the A&$ as the material is damp for quite a while and in the field it is easy to scratch or damage an image- but having said that yeah I miss the pack film I shot with for decades
Since you asked, 4x5 Type 55 P/N Polaroid. I was sorry the attempt to reproduce it some years ago failed. If I had, as they say, won the lottery, I would have funded it to success and made as much as I could then afford available at a reasonable price, with restrictions on bulk buying, simply so that others could use it. Its negative was beautiful, albeit a stop slower than the print.
I think film prices have actually gone down from what I’ve seen. Or maybe I’m just catching a lot of sales. It’s still more expensive than a few years ago, but it’s down from what it was earlier this year or late last year.
If you look up film prices in the early 1960s, then apply the tables showing inflation in the value of the dollar over the interim, you'll find that the price of normal films today is about the same "cost". By "normal", I mean to exclude silly price mark-ups and gouging, such as Cinestill.
Yes Tech Pan in 35mm was as good as it gets, i really like 100 TMAX and E100 transparency and mostly used Ektachrome over Kodachrome back in the 70's 80's and 90's for no special reason.
My fantasy film I would like back which is so impossible it wouldn't even be funny would be Kodak Instant Film. Since Fuji adapted their instant technology from Kodak, a re-release of Kodak's original instant film would not only allow us to use old Kodak Instant cameras again, it also would likely mean we could probably move film into Fuji packs and shoot with Fuji's lineup of instant cameras before instax. But like I said, crazy impossible.
What I would really love is if they actually made a new C-41 film with less perfect dyes so that the color is more "vintage", less pure. But if I had a magic wand, I would bring back the old Agfa Ultra 50 with it's over the top colors... that stuff was fantastic.
Would love a film with a Technicolor feel- the new but elusive Adox color film looks nice but is so limited I have yet to get a roll or two for testing.
I cut my teeth on Tri-X film in the 70’s! Easy to use and develop and we could push it to ASA1000 from 400. In the 90’s I used Fuji Film color and had great results with it. Don’t know if it’s still available today here in the EU. There were three shops that had Fuji color film processors they the had hauled off to trash. I wish I had known about that, I would have picked up on all three and sat on them if chemistry was still available. Now we have to send film 78 Km to the East to the capitol of the island and wait a week to get the results. I do miss same day processing and printing. Funny they kept the machines to print from negatives. I also found out that Kodak never ceased production of Super 8 movie film, instead they turned to marketing it to universities that teach cinematography to up and coming cinematographers. Processing costs a lot but they also provide you with a digital copy of the film. For a while Sams Clubs would also provide you with a digital CD ROM of the photos along with negatives and prints. I found it great to spend the extra dollars to get the film back on disk as well.
As someone who has only gotten into film in the last two years and never got to experience such film, I'd much rather have a 1600 or 3200 iso color film come back.
I worked in the National Geographic photo labs on the second floor of the 17th St. Headquarters building in Washington, DC from 1974-77 when all the photographers shot on Kodachrome. It was a dye transfer process in which the dye were put into it during processing, why it was so complicated to make and process (14 different steps) but allowed the use of more permanent dyes and resulted in finer grain since the silver was removed and replaced with the dyes.
NGS was Kodak’s biggest single customer for Kodachrome. Samples from batches would be sent to the NGS Color Lab for testing and then NGS would buy the batch with the best characteristics train box car loads it stored in a large freezers. Incoming film from the photographers would be split into two batches for processing: one batch in Rochester and the other in a processing plant Kodak built in Gaithersburg, MD to service NGS,
NGS also used a lot of Ektachrome it processed in house for working copies of the photos it would publish. The originals would be copied on a camera stand that cost more than my house. Prints were made from the slides by creating 4x5 or 8x10 internegatives which were used in an enlarger which ran on tracks on the floor projecting the image onto a wall where the color photo paper up to 50” wide was held in place by vacuum.
There was a B&W lab which created the layout story boards the editors used on the walls of their office for laying out the magazine.
I worked in the photomechanical lab which primarily worked with the Cartography department in the production of the maps on lithographic film for printing. But we also reproduced B&W photos with halftone, duotone and CYM tritone sepia and did color separations for map relief. One of the process cameras I operated filled an entire room and had a 6 x 8 foot copy board and 40 x 48 inch film back. The other had a 20 x 24 inch film back.
It was an amazing place to work which led me into a side gig teaching college classes in photo reproduction in the evenings and then a career in managing web offset magazine and book production.
Thank you for your post-what an interesting job you had. Is it true that there were only 2 or 3 labs around the country that were dedicated to processing Kodachrome?
Thank You for this great information;-))
@@davidtverberg2606 AFAIK, Rochester and Gaithersburg, MD were the only two locations which processed Kodachrome. I recall it being sold to consumers with a pre-paid mailer addressed to Kodak in Rochester for processing.
Thank you for this incredible history!
@@TeddyCavachonthat’s not true. There was also a Kodachrome lab in Dallas, and for a brief period in the 1980s, there was NewYork Film Works in Manhattan (New York City) which not only processed Kodachrome but where you could buy an entire run and have them tweak the color as well as push or pull process Kodachrome to your specifications. I used and got a tour of New York Filmworks in 1984 during a visit to New York for a client, and in 1988 when I move. To ew York Citg briefly to work as Peter B. Kaplan’s (look him up kids!) first assistant for Peter B. Kaplan, we used them.
Two of the reasons K’chrome was discontinued was the expense of manufacturing it and the amount of polluting effluents (arsenic and heavy metals mostly) produced by both manufacturing and processing it.
Kodachrome was an archival film. I saw some 60 year old Kodachromes without a trace of fading. Not true of other films.
@@lloovvaallee That was due to how the dyes were put into film during the processing replacing three separate silver emulsion layers with RGB filters. A similar process was used to make dye transfer prints.
The lack of colorfastness of prints is why it took studio portrait and wedding photography so long to switch to color. Back in 1970 when I graduated high school the senior photos were still being shot in B&W and then colored with transparent oil paints because the color print paper available then would fade in less than a year if exposed to any direct sunlight. Prior to working at the NGS photo labs I apprenticed with top wedding photographer Monte Zucker who would occasionally sell large dye transfer color prints to his rich clients. As a marketing strategy he decorated his client waiting and consultation rooms with 24 x 30 and 30 x 40 dye sub prints which made the 11x14’s included in the standard wedding contract seem puny by comparison. When a client asked about the bigger one’s he’d explain they were very difficult to make and very expensive - probably more than they’d want to pay - using reverse psychology to set the hook. 😀
I have Kodachrome slides and they still look great
Ditto. I had Kodak scan them to Kodak CD back in the late 90's.
The most beautiful film ever created was KODACHROME 25. 😥 Jim in Las Vegas, NV.
Does that make Kodachrome 64 the second best? I used a ton of Kodachrome 64 back in the day. Loved it. K 25 is too slow, unfortunately.
I'm old enough to be able to say that I remember Kodachrome 10 for the pain in the ass it was. I remember when Kodachrome II, then Kodachrome 25, was introduced. Nearly all of those who praise it as a mystical super-film almost certainly never shot a roll of it. It had too much contrast, and its color pallet was inaccurate by modern standards. Colors in the blue-purple range were a mystery to Kodachrome. So, why was it so popular at the time? When you're the only game in town, what's better? Options? Anscochrome, Agfachrome, Perutz(? sp), which later reappeared though 3M as Dynachrome. All were based on proprietary chromogenic processes, like Kodak's 1950s Ektachrome, which was just as bad. Now there was some ugly color slide film. Agfachrome improved a lot, and Kodak's new E-4 process and Ektachrome-X finished off the rest in the 1960s. Over time, Ektachrome advancements also killed Kodachrome, being cheaper, had better contrast, and more accurate colors. So Virginia, neither Santa Claus nor Kodachrome are coming back. Neither is the unicorn.
@@jimcook3882 I have to admit to being old enough to have been a Kodachrome 25 user. It produced absolutely gorgeous colors.
@@randallstewart1224 No need to be a d*ck. Just because you didn't like Kodachrome does not mean that those of us who did like it "never used it." I used a lot of Kodachrome 25. It produced beautiful greens and golden colors. It liked lots of light but was also perfect for dappled light on tree leaves in the street. I never thought it had any mystical quality about the colors, but it produced colors that I liked a lot.
I also shot a lot of Agfachrome in the early 60's. A lot more contrast than Kodachrome. Darker greens would skew toward black. Reds were super punchy. I prefered Kodachrome for landscape, Agfachrome for people, although Agfachrome was ideal for gardens with flowers. I agree with you on Ektachrome. It leaned towards magenta and brownish tones around 1962 when I first tried it. I remember Kodak would advertise it with lots of beach photos. I hated it. Preferred Kodachrome at the beach.
I remember the mailer you would pay for when buying the Kodachrome. Writing in my return address. I didn't mind waiting for the slides to come back, but what I did not like was that Kodak insisted on using those crappy cardboard mounts that were prone to jamming in the projector, while Agfa used plastic mounts that never gave any projector problems.
Back in those days I shot mostly black and white. Mostly TLR 6x6, but also 4x5 on the Speed Graphic, but it was when Speed Graphics were on their way out. 135 was still regarded mostly as amateur film, not for serious use, and I only used it for personal use, and 6x6 for work. I still have my Speed Graphic. Even have a half dozen flash bulbs in its case. I still have a couple of Minolta Autocords. I wore out two of them years ago. I proved that you can wear out the internal brass gears. But the two I have left work, although the lubrication is a bit stiff these days.
My first 135 camera was a used Exakta Varex VX, then moved on to the Pentax MX, and then Nikon FA in the 80's. I pushed a lot of film through all those cameras. I still have the majoritry of the cameras I ever bought and most of them still work, but some better than others.
It is obvious that Kodachrome will never return, and neither will the color palettes of any of those older films. You might be obssessed with color accuracy, but I prefer a more artistic use of color. I enjoy Lomography Metropolis, and like the various repackaging's of Aerocolor. I like them because they give me a taste of when colors were not perfectly true, but had a more creative style about the palette.
However I do like transparencies and modern Ektachrome, and I would like Kodak to produce a 400 ISO version. That would be useful.
@@artistjoh I do not think I'm being a dick for pointing out that Kodachrome is extolled on YT by many people who never used it and know nothing about it. (Passing along bullshit picked up from an earlier YT video is one of the most hurtful aspects of trying to learn the technical side of photography on YT.)
I remember "Processing by Kodak", mailers. My primary memory is the disappointment of getting back slides from their NJ lab which looked like someone walked on them before loading the little yellow box. I left for college in 1964 and did little photography for the next 8 years, and no color. Thereafter, Plus-X in 35mm was my film, and I tried practically every developer on it until 1977, when I became addicted to Ektachrome again, because I could process it myself with the early DIY chemistry kits from Unicolor. I also joined the cult of Tech Pan, squeezing 16x20 inch prints out of 35mm negatives processed in POTA.(*) After building and equipping my first permanent darkroom in 1980, I shifted to photochemistry and started developing my own color and B&W chemistry for C-41, E-6, and the color paper process preceding RA-4. I ended up using mostly Kodak Gold 100 and Fuji Reala (didn't have to change the camera ISO settings). In the last 20 years or so, I've done little color and shifted back to B&W, nearly all in medium format, using HP-5 and FP-4, which works fine in the larger film format.
Not obsessed with color accuracy, so much as tired of YT videos and comments praising characteristics and virtues of Kodachrome which never existed. IMO, by 1975, it's only remaining point of superiority was its resistance to fading, and E-6 pretty much made that irrelevant.
(*) The cry for the return of Kodak Tech Pan is right up there with Kodachrome. For those folks, know that Adox CMS 20 has virtually the same characteristics and problems in use, including the ability to enlarge it until your sloppy technique starts showing. It has the added advantage that it lacks the nasty red sensitivity of Tech Pan, which made it look like every shot was made through a dark red filter.
I shot a lot of all three Kodachrome speeds back in the 80s. 25 for landscape, 64 pushed to 80 for most of my African wildlife and 200 for the golden hour. Nothing could match the 200 for capturing evening light! I used the professional series for colour consistently and the same day turnaround. Happy days!
I LOVED Kodachrome!!! Scanning and printing Kodachrome was HELL.
Kodak Lumiere. I shot with that film a lot in the 90s and liked it.
Steve McCurry shot the last roll of Kodachrome that was manufactured. He began in NYC to shoot a few exposures of the 36 in his camera. He returned to his roots and traveled to India where he finished shooting the roll. There's a :30 minute documentary about it.
The last roll of Kodachrome was processed by Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas. They received rolls and rolls of Kodachrome from all over the world. They had to stop processing because the chemicals to do so were discontinued and they processed until those chemicals ran out.
Today camera makers strive to make sensors that can capture the fine graine of Kodachrome. The grain was so fine that the ability to make enlargements were nearly unlimited.
In the 1930s film makers used potato starch which is ultra fine for use in emulsions.
I doubt that anyone will make a sensor that could capture what the line of Kodachrome could.
When I started shooting film in high school -- 1980s with 1965 Nikon F -- I used TriX and Plus-X Pan and developed it at school -- loved the smoothness of the Plus-X....
Would love to see Plus-X make a come back. It was discontinued before I started photography.
I have some frozen- it’s nice for portraits for sure.
Yes, Plus-X had wonderful contrast that brought it to life.
Used to have a Pentax K1000. Took a college photography class where we processed B&W. Was a lot of fun...
I'm still amazed by the saturated reds in my Kodachrome slides from the 70's and the 8mm Kodachrome movie film from the 60's. No detectable fading 60 years on. And I was born in Rochester, so there is that.
When I heard that Kodachrome would be discontinued, I purcased every fresh roll I could find (about 30) and I criss-crossed the older neighbourhood of my birth town - dating from 1900ish - knowing that it, too, would soon disappear. I shot every street, making sure that every house woud be in at least one frame. Kodachrome has fantastic archival qualities (200+ years) and furthermore it is color-faithful unlike "better", more saturated film. I ended up with over 900 slides which I gave to official archives of the city (and they do have the proper vault for keeping them for along time). I dedicated a few rolls to document my own neighbourhood which dates from the '60s. Too bad the answer at the beginning of the video is "NO!".
Kodachrome was a great film, to resurrect it and make processing available would be great. No processing and it’s a big no for me.
@@Digital_Photog1995 I am in agreement with you, but let me have a little nostalgia. The people at Impossible Project and at New55 know how difficult it is to revive a film that has been discontinued for a certain time. . . and they did not have to cope with processing, ha! ha! This reminds me of people who say: « To go back to the Moon, NASA should just build another Saturn V, they still have the blueprints. » Nice, but the expertise is long gone.
Ok. Now I’m allowed to dream: E-6 versions (they used the E-4 process) of: Photomicrography, a 6 ASA emulsion with deep reds and blues that also made water look like gel and Infrared, of course.
Unvaried: TRI-X, as you say and the all time Kodachrome 25.
My first 35mm I used Kodachrome 25. I was young in my teens and can't say I could see a difference between that and other films I used, but there is that bit of nostalgia for the 25 ISO film and the challenges it presented.
I agree--
My father’s father’s 1941 Kodachrome slides still look vibrant without any fading or color shifts.
Also, we appreciate the slides that he took of family and friends. The beautiful scenic pictures don’t have the same meaning to us.
I agree with you about Technical Pan. Beautiful film with super sharpness and contrast.
How about Panatomic-X? Maybe slow down TMAX 100 to 35 and that could be the new Panatomic-X? Food for thought.
From the 70s through 90s I shot a lot of film. Never considered what my favorite was but I mainly used Kodachrome and Ektachrome for color. For black and white, it was Tri-X all the way. I didn't care about the grain, it makes pictures look good. The reason for Tri-X is that I worked on military newspapers and all we used was Tri-X. When I toured countries, I used Tri-X and Kodachrome 64. Now that you mentioned it, Kodachrome was hard to scan. Tri-X was easy, and I got a lot of good scans from it. Today, I don't care about film. I'm loving my digital cameras. Film is expensive, takes a lot of space for storage and the chemicals are toxic. But I had a lot of fun and enjoyment developing Tri-X and Plus-X and making prints up to 11X14. It's a new world we live in and we can't go back to way it was last century.
When E100 came back I was very hopeful that E100VS would be part of the return. Unfortunately not. So that's my vote. "Hey Kodak! Velvia 50 is nearly unobtainium these days. Bring back E100VS!"
@@steven3557 I think you are correct. There was a rumor a few years ago that Fuji was just selling cuts off of a large final batch. I remain hopeful, but watching B&H and others makes me think that it is unfortunately over.
I’ve been similarly hoping for a return of E100VS . I honestly think it’s not an altogether unreasonable hope, given a few factors. For one, there’s a need in the film market for a high-saturation color positive film now that Velvia 50 and 100 are virtually unobtainable (and possibly near discontinuation). Second, releasing a new E-6 film would tie in nicely with Kodak’s production agreement with Photo Systems, Inc. to reintroduce Kodak-branded E-6 chemistry later this year. And third, it’s a film that Kodak already knows, at least in theory, how to make.
E100 is nice and all, but there was something really special about E100VS - high saturation and contrast, but without the magenta cast of Velvia. Awesome film.
@@scottbadham2926 All agreed. But I wonder if VS used ingredients that haven't been available since 2012.
@@lanatrzczka- Good question. I wonder how responsive Kodak would be to a question like this from a customer.
@@steven3557 fuji won't reply to customers, especially in English, they are a business-to-business company and anyone who could give you a good answer would speak only Japanese
I would definitely bring back Neopan 400 & 1600. Oh how I loved that stuff. I’ve got years worth of street work shot on Neopan 400 shot at 800/1600 and love looking at that work. What great negs to work with too, all of it devd in Ilford ddx. So reliable, it never let me down using that combo.
I have a fair amount of 400 in my freezer -- some future project 😄
I wish Kodak would bring back the old Portra line, especially Portra 100T and Portra 400 BW. Maybe even 400 Ultra Color. I know that you can get the same look as 400 UC with modern scanning methods, but I really like the way the emulsion looks.
I really like the old Tri-X that I used in the 1980’s. It seems to have had better tonality and richness. Now I underexpose by a stop or two and it does help. Kodachrome was great in its day, the look is amazing, but as you mentioned it’s not easy to scan. I always found Kodachrome to have a lot of reciprocity failures. When the shots were good, they were good. I don’t think we will ever get Kodachrome back again, it’s too expensive and complex to manufacture and develop. I think we can be thankful at least we have Ektachrome 100.
Velvia 50 in large format. Greatest film of all time.
Panatomic-X 32 in HC110! I’m glad I still have a few rolls in my freezer. But you’re right about Tri-X, especially the 320 stuff.
Kodachrome was wonderful but expensive. I used tons of Ektachrome 64 which I liked a lot more than the newer 100
Panatomic-X for me! 😊
Yes, I realize it was ASA-32; but man shooting an old steam-engine, with puffy-clouds in the background above, on a tripod with a #25 filter was life-changing! 😮
And yes, absolutely they need to bring film prices down, or they will extinguish their own industry, this time forever! 😢
Yep!
The movies I made on Kodachrome super 8 in the 1970's through mid '80's. Those films still look great.
Yep!
I'd like to see the old Agfachrome CT18 return. This film was sold with a mailer for return to Agfa for processing in its own formula. While not the finest-grained transparency film, Agfachrome yielded what Lenny Lipton described as "Dutch Masters colors." My slides shot in the early 1970s have held up well, carefully stored in archival materials.
Awesome.
I am that weirdo that wants to see Aerochrome come back. I can get decent results with my digital IR camera, and sort of Aerochrome ish results with Rollei IR in trichromes.
I am glad that Harman is developing new film, and that some decent films are still available. Glad that the interest in film photography is on the rise.
Karen from Greenbelt MD.
E100VS aka EBX aka Elite Chrome 100 Extra Color, favorite E6 slide film, great saturation like Velvia but with good skin tones too
I used to shoot K64 in the 80's when I was in the US Navy with a Canon AE-1. Fantastic film, of course. Nowadays I shoot Kodak Vison3 250D and develop it myself. While it's not slide film and may not be K64, it's an extremely nice film that resembles K64 a lot! I highly recommend you try it if you haven't.
I have tried it and yes it is quite nice indeed!
I really miss the old TriX. I’ve just been looking at some photography annuals from the 1970s and virtually all the shots were taken on TriX. A very popular film with photo artists. My favourite transparency film was Ektachrome 64 sheet film a real favourite with studio photographers. The halcyon days.
Panatomic-X and Tech Pan
I acquired a bunch of rolls of Verichrome Pan (127, 120, 620) from FB Market Place earlier this year. The rolls expired in the late 70s and early 80s. I've shot several rolls of it, and I've been impressed with the results. I've had the best results so far with H110 at 1:119, semi-stand (68/20) for 45 minutes. This is a film that I never shot back during the film era, but it is one now that I'd like to see Kodak start making again.
I am an old Tri-X fan, but thanks to the Hunt Brothers, high-silver emulsions are not in the Kodak catalog of modern films. I am in love with the new resurgence of high-quality silver-content films like Ferrania's P30. Both the P30 and the newer P33 are gorgeous and are a testament to the analog renaissance. Although I am primarily a B&W shooter (Tri-X & Rollei 80S), I recently used the new Kodak E100 (G) in 4x5" format and found it to be AAAmazing! It made me forget about Kodachrome forever! I miss the Fuji Neopan films, I used both the 400 and 1600. The Acros II is exceptional, but there is something to be said about the old Tri-X Pan. Ol' TX In Acufine and Diafine made low light shooting easy and it had and extraodinary look to it.
In my 1970's days, I estimated Kodachrome 25 and 64 much more than Ektachrome films, and until now, colour rendition and sharpness have been still remained properly.
Iconic kodachrome going back to produce it, it would be amazing. Too bad it wont happen...😢
Yeah, but Kodachrome is so good. I love Ektachrome 100. I only wish they would bring back Cibachrome paper back. I personally love PlusX 125. It had such good tones and dynamic range and fine grain. I’m not one for grainy film.
I agree the cost of film is a factor. Film should be cheap as well as processing in order for people to give it a chance in the digital world. I worked at a one hour photo lab. I figure with 21st century technology, this could be made more efficient and cheaper with a digital copy as well as prints.
Love Cibachrome! E100 is quite good indeed!
I am one of those who misses Kodachrome and the old TriX.
Ektar 25 made the best images I ever shot on my Praktica B200 back in the early 1980s... I was poor back then and even though I worked in a photography shop (Dixons) I couldn't shoot much as a student, but it was amazing.
A conversation I had with the former head of Kodak Film back when Ektar 100 came out stated that it is really Ektar 25 with more speed- based on the resolution of that film I believe him! Did quite a bit with 25 back in the early 90’s.
Absolutely TechPan .. 👌
I participate in 5x7 orders, managed by Steve Canham. Perhaps TechPan could be available via a similar plan, but many of us who knew it have fallen off their perches.
Kodak have said, with regard to special orders, they will make anything we want, providing they have the emulsion and the film base, the material, providing also that order is large enough. Reintroducing a discontinued emulsion is another story. I will use Ilford PanF in as large a format as possible. Ilford run their seasonal, special large format project, to order. I want to get a bunch of 70mm DP II, if others will join me. FP4 or HP5
We'll see.
I use to have a Canham 4x10 that I really loved….
I think we have what we need. Especially in B&W, it's usually lack of insight in how developers work that make the final image lacking.
I agree that BW is pretty solid-- color could use a bit more diversity of manufacturing
GAF 500, push to 3000ASA grain the size of footballs and a red shift. Amazing for live bands back in the day.
Lovely film for punchy saturation!
Damn I want 8 X 10 Kodachrome sheet film.
Best Kodak black and white films were Super XX in 4x5, and Verichrome Pan ( in 120 ). Verichrome Pan was a black and white film that my late friend Peter Gowland used for years for his "cheesecake" model images. I got incredible black and white photos with Verichrome Pan when I bought my first 120 camera in 1953. Tri-X from the 1960s ( when I first used it) was the best film for 35mm. Developed it in Microdol X and I got incredible grain less 8x10s with that developer diluted 1-3 for 15 mins at 68 degrees. Still use the grand old D76, All those items fell victims to laws banning high silver content in films and certain chemical bans for developers. DK 50 developer was great for portrait black and white negs in 4x5 and 8x10 negs.
I knew Peter Gowland - he made a very nice wide TLR in the last few years of his amazing life. I loved Super XX and I loved BerggerFR version of it years back for my 4x10 camera.
Its true, if the cost of film doesn' t go down by 1/3 ill just shooting digital. And i really miss Plus-X film and the original Tmax 400. Things aint what it used to be....but it should.
And Portra 400UC, later renamed Ultra Color 400
Really interesting video! You cleared up so much speculation from CZcams photographers.
They definitely need to bring back plus x and panatomic X, and personally I’d love to see Verichrome pan. Or work with Ilford to make new versions of them.
Loved Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic X the most. For street, it was Tri-X the most often. I’m finishing up a 100ft roll of Tri-X from 1985 right now. The grain is wonderful!
I’d love to see Fuji Reala and Velvia 50 come back. Those were some lovely films that I shot 20 years ago.
Reala is wonderful in mixed lighting.
Velvita was way too color saturated for outdoors.
One that I really miss was the Polaroid 35mm Hi-Def film that I used to get cheap at K-Mart stores. It wasn't the best for true to color but if you wanted to see fine detail, say for documenting something, or to show textures, boy was it sharp in detail.
Well...since you asked. Back in the day Ha, Ha summers of 1966 & 67 when I was living and working in Glacier National Park, Ektachrome 64, hands down reproduced the Park, and in particular the different shades of rock layers very close to what the eye saw. I soon switched from Kodachrome and shot nothing but Ektachrome 64 the rest of the 66 season and all of the 67 season. And for most everything I shot for years later. I stumbled on your post, thanks for the memories.
I bet with t-max it could be various barely detectable fluctuations of some chemicals that might've been in previous building or/and in new building, in the very structure of the buildings I mean
They spent millions and had like a bus load of PhD’s a never figured it out --definitely speaks to the complexity of film!
I believe their new coater works differently, anyone who has seen SmarterEveryDay's video about it can see that the curtain coating head is an incredibly complicated machine. And that's just part of the whole building that is the coater.
Even though the goal of the coating head is to apply a uniform exact thickness of emulsion on a base in an extremely precise and controllable way, that's just not the case. It's uniform, precise and controllable, sure. But it also, no matter what you do to it, will imprint some of its own characteristics on the film. And what exactly causes them, could be chemicals in the air, could be vibrations, or lack thereof, of the resonant frequencies of any microscopic vibrations that do occur. Or it could be slight flow during the drying. Or in reality, probably a mix of all of the above and other factors. It just gets too complicated to try and make a model of all the factors, all you can do is make sure that all the "imperfections" are consistent so that your coat will be the exact same from one day to another.
Its not just the price of filmstock,the processing cost is also too high.I have a variety of films in my refrigerator waiting to go,but I have to plan carefully when to shoot them because on a UK state pesion there is little room for luxuries.Ilford Delta was one film that seemed to expose itself correctly all of the time.............................
Yep- I try to keep developing costs low by doing in house and using developers that are not prone to exhaustion
The only thing I don't miss about Kodachrome is having to send the film off and waiting 5-7 days to see how badly I screwed up! With digital I know instantly!
😂
Man, that title is click-bait if I ever saw an example. However, quoting Paul Simon: "Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away!" I might add, the K25. It's not one to use for sports or kids darting around the room, I admit. But those glorious colours! I don't care if they are "correct", neither did many of the great painters. It's there to create art, and when it went out of production, photography lost a very valuable tool. I feel lucky to have a camera (Canon G12) that enables me to at least catch the spirit of the K25 in post, even if it is quite modest otherwise.
I've scanned old Kodachrome slides using VueScan on an Epson V600 bed scanner. The fine grain and resolution surpassed almost all of my E6 slides, although two or three -- out of hundreds -- had color-matching problems. Most of my scanned slides are various E6 Fujichromes and Ektachrome VS. However, if I could go back in time and know that scanning technology would one day exist, I would shoot Kodachrome exclusively.
As someone at the age of 17 who started 2 years ago and never shot kodachrome (hardly any discontinued films except Fuji C200).
From what I've seen, what I would like to see return are some true IR films, not just near-ir superpanchromatic stocks.
But as far as I understood things. Kodak could mix an emulsion with similar properties to HIE, but I think their new factory where all the film is made nowadays uses deep IR cameras and lights to oversee the coating process. So they couldn't coat it without fogging it.
Not sure about EIR or aerochrome though, don't think that was sensitive to quite as deep IR as HIE, but I don't know.
I'd love it if pan-x came back. I still ahoot kodachrome and process it in HC110. Amazing in black and white.
Yes indeed!
The Agfa Chrome RS / RSX line of films were amazing but flew under the radar as everyone was gaga for Velvia at the time. I regularly rant about how I wish that formula of Agfachrome would comeback.
My favorite film was kodachrome 25 and for b&w I liked panatomic-x when using a tripod and tri-x for hand held.
I never got a chance to shoot pack film. I would have liked to have tried that.
It looked great but was a pain when the humidity was up and the Polaroids took forever to dry!
I thought that the chemicals for Kodachrome were particularly nasty and today the EPA would have a fit.
They would loose their mind 😅
And another thing…..I was always at the mercy of the developers with their automatic machines that were never cleaned and the crystals scratched my rolls of negatives plus averaging out any Cokin filters I used🤯. They said it was my (Nikon) equipment! There’s no way back. I gave away all my 35 mm equipment🤷🏻
I don't care, bring it back.
I loved technical pan too.
Kodachrome had weak shadow detail and is a challenge to scan. I always bought the Pro versions since the 'fresh' amateur stuff had a distinct red cast, while nearly out-of-date (old) stock had a green cast. Kept it refrigerated, too.
Double-X is still basically the same emulsion as when it first came out. It’s quite close to that original Tri-X and has that slightly better, silvery tonal reproduction you’re thinking about.
XX is actually closer to TXP than TX- but it is also the most expensive option- but having said that I use it a lot.
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Do you mean CineStill BWXX? Because I can get some hand rolled Double-X for a little less than what Tri-X costs. I’m sure somebody is doing that in the US too. Or you can always do it yourself if bulk rolling is your thing.
Yep. There are cheaper options for all bulk rolled films but direct from manufacturers is a more expensive cost but an amazing film- and it comes in 120 which I love!
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Well CineStill isn’t directly from the manufacturer. They get cut and rolled by other companies. I think Ilford does it at the moment. Used to be Foma.
They are purchasing at a very large volume so it is as close as you can get and regarding cutting and packaging the 120 XX is not available by anyone else so as close to manufacture as possible in my opinion-- it’s great film- did extensive article on FR 1.0 on its release
I'd love to see Panatomic-X coming back. I know, not gonna happen. As you said, they are struggling as it is. Great video. I just subscribed.
Thank you!
Kodakchrome 25, or Kodakchrome 16, I am not 100% sure of the second one, but it was for sure under the 25 version. Incredible stuff,. 64, 25, or the lesser asa one.
I shot many rolls of Kodachrome 10 in 1961 and later. They look as fresh as the day they were processed.
Yes indeed!
Throwing the obvious Aerochrome into the ring.
And I want Fujifilm back but not being film from Kodak.
Thank-you, what an interesting discussion. Very cool. My fantasy film is Fuji Provia. Used it for years. I liked Neopan. TMax and HP5 are in my bulk loaders though. Liked, shared and sub'd.
I loved Trix shooting and developing in 1959. I love the selection of films we have. Now color I only shoot portra 160/400 but b&w, different stocks for 35 mm , 645 and 67. Actually, 2/3 of the cost is developing. I got mine down from $25 inc shipping a roll to about $1. Wanna reduce costs, develop and scan yourself. And the turnaround time is 3 hours and no extra charges for push/pull. So I don't care about film costs, my developing cost even for portra about $2.5 0 a roll makes shooting affordable. I was doing b&w at age 12 so if 12 yr old can do it way before the internet , anyone can. Although a couple years later did get a 99 on the NY State chemistry regents exam. When my dad gave me his complete prewar professional dark room, he also took me 90 miles to tour the Kodak plant. It was an actual city at the time. And at 14 my best line... lets step into my darkroom and see what develops. It worked. Now to find some 75 year old women and install a red bulb in the night light in my developing bath room and give it another try. Photography been berry berry good to me.
I love shooting onto Kodachrome like PKR and PKL, but I did enjoy the Kodak Ektachromes like the E6 with the warmer emulsion like 64X, 100X, and 400X that really cover the shadows really beautiful warm tones than the Old E6 Film that left with a Blue or cold tone, and also let's not forget the Kodak C41 press films like Ektapress 100, 400, and 1600 in which the grain structure was the TMAX grain as meant for the photo journalism field as the film is process, and then scanned, and sent through the wire service, after Ektapress came Kodak Supra Film in which i shot ALOT of the 400, and 800 film speed, and talk about FINE GRAIN, and good color pallet tones, then came Portra(YECH) Very flat, and it the reason in why I see alot of shooters OVER EXPOSING to get the contrast. Finally Kodak introduce Ultracolor films in 100, 400, and 800 as the grain was TMAX, and color was very good. But I wish that Kodak would bring back the E6 Etachromes in 64, 100, 200, and 400 speed. Oh yes you said that it is hard to scanned Kodachrome? My scanner Has profiles on Kodachrome, and Ektachrome, and Fuji, and Agfa Slide film profiles.... And you also forgot that the Chemistry for Kodachrome WAS VERY HAZARDOUS!! TO THE ENVIRONMENT!! That was the reason we were seeing the chemical dumping at the Marsh lands of the San Francisco Bay Area as were seeing Dead Birds, and Birds with no Beeks. EPA Shut down Kodak Processing lab at Palo Alto, California.
Nah man. Kodachrome ain’t coming back.
Let’s just be glad we got ektachrome which isn’t actually Kodachrome. But it’s close… enough.
Yeah interesting. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
I think Hefner shot the centerfolds for the magazine using Kodachrome on an 8 by 10.
@@michaelcase8574 maybe in the 1950s but mostly it was Ektachrome
@@ellisvener5337 Correct. Thx
If Fuji doesn't want to make Velvia which killed Kodachrome, they should bring back. and I don't know what you mean about it being difficult to scan, I have great scans from my childhood.
Compared to modern C41 films it is more difficult due to the dynamic/ contrast range- on my Imacon it is not an issue but on some flat bed scanners it can be hard to hold the full range.
Great information, Thank you.
I love TMAX. If there is one film that I want brought back it would be Tech Pan. Like you I thought this was a magical film and it was my preferred film for 35mm
I made some huge silver prints with my Xpan (sold 🥲) and that film- looked great also in C41 replenished- got like a solid 50.
Tech Pan best film ever
I just wish someone would introduce a 400 speed slide film.
Both from FIGITAL Revolution 1.0
Some articles I did on E100-
figitalrevolution.com/2019/12/10/kodak-ektachrome-e100-is-back-in-120-and-4x5-full-review/
figitalrevolution.com/2020/05/20/cinestill-cs6-creative-slide/
The original Acros line
Wouldn’t that be nice!
The kids today also don’t shoot film with a speed less that ISO400 😉
Fantasy film that I could bring back? Since Kodachrome is out of the question, I would have to say...pack film. I've never had the opportunity to just take a picture, wait a couple of minutes, and then peel apart the paper to reveal a sharp vividly colored picture. Such a thing would be magnificent.
It’s fun but also a pain in the A&$ as the material is damp for quite a while and in the field it is easy to scratch or damage an image- but having said that yeah I miss the pack film I shot with for decades
Since you asked, 4x5 Type 55 P/N Polaroid. I was sorry the attempt to reproduce it some years ago failed. If I had, as they say, won the lottery, I would have funded it to success and made as much as I could then afford available at a reasonable price, with restrictions on bulk buying, simply so that others could use it. Its negative was beautiful, albeit a stop slower than the print.
I used a lot of Type 55 in my early commercial career and it was indeed beautiful.
I think film prices have actually gone down from what I’ve seen. Or maybe I’m just catching a lot of sales. It’s still more expensive than a few years ago, but it’s down from what it was earlier this year or late last year.
If you look up film prices in the early 1960s, then apply the tables showing inflation in the value of the dollar over the interim, you'll find that the price of normal films today is about the same "cost". By "normal", I mean to exclude silly price mark-ups and gouging, such as Cinestill.
Kodachrome 25, please. Failing that, I'd settle for XP2 in large format.
That would be very cool!
Yes Tech Pan in 35mm was as good as it gets, i really like 100 TMAX and E100 transparency and mostly used Ektachrome over Kodachrome back in the 70's 80's and 90's for no special reason.
My fantasy film I would like back which is so impossible it wouldn't even be funny would be Kodak Instant Film. Since Fuji adapted their instant technology from Kodak, a re-release of Kodak's original instant film would not only allow us to use old Kodak Instant cameras again, it also would likely mean we could probably move film into Fuji packs and shoot with Fuji's lineup of instant cameras before instax. But like I said, crazy impossible.
My favorite film is digital for three reasons the cost is manageable the process is quick and the colors are real
Only one I agree with is the speed of the process--
I would pick Ektachrome 400 :)
Bring back Panatomic x.
What I would really love is if they actually made a new C-41 film with less perfect dyes so that the color is more "vintage", less pure. But if I had a magic wand, I would bring back the old Agfa Ultra 50 with it's over the top colors... that stuff was fantastic.
Would love a film with a Technicolor feel- the new but elusive Adox color film looks nice but is so limited I have yet to get a roll or two for testing.
Lomo metropolis.
I cut my teeth on Tri-X film in the 70’s! Easy to use and develop and we could push it to ASA1000 from 400.
In the 90’s I used Fuji Film color and had great results with it. Don’t know if it’s still available today here in the EU. There were three shops that had Fuji color film processors they the had hauled off to trash. I wish I had known about that, I would have picked up on all three and sat on them if chemistry was still available. Now we have to send film 78 Km to the East to the capitol of the island and wait a week to get the results. I do miss same day processing and printing. Funny they kept the machines to print from negatives.
I also found out that Kodak never ceased production of Super 8 movie film, instead they turned to marketing it to universities that teach cinematography to up and coming cinematographers. Processing costs a lot but they also provide you with a digital copy of the film. For a while Sams Clubs would also provide you with a digital CD ROM of the photos along with negatives and prints. I found it great to spend the extra dollars to get the film back on disk as well.
What about a (never seen, even there were workarounds) black and white slide film?
I can do an article on that- Dr5, Scala, Kodachrome in BW… more soon!
Agfa Dia Direct. Discontinued many years ago.
@@nextsibling ISO 32, was it for film documentation?
As someone who has only gotten into film in the last two years and never got to experience such film, I'd much rather have a 1600 or 3200 iso color film come back.
Portra 400 pushes so good to 1600 and 3200 and is still fine grain- give it a try!
@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Do people know about pushing and pulling? Cross processing? Flashing?
Fuji FP3000B & FP100C Peel-Apart Packfilm! And 126 Instamatic film.
I wish they’d bring back high-speed infrared, HIE.
Yeah that can’t happen due to the new film facility-