 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2003Q: processing Kodachrome 25 color slide to get B&W?
I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as a B&W slide instead. A process that I could probably do with the right chemicals. Does anyone know if this is true, or even possible? I can have MANY more rolls of this film if I can get this to work out for myself, other wise it's not worth getting the additional film. Thanks in advance for any advice/help. Steve Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I already get too much spam. >I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have >been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I >already get too much spam. I don't know anything about processing K14 (Kodachrome process) film as B/W but it may be possible, as there is no actual pigment in K14 film...it's washed in during the processing stages. As for being able to do it yourself...probably not. Very few people do Kodachrome processing at home or in their studio darkrooms. There are only a handful of labs in the country (US that is) that even do K14 processing. It's a little more involved than the E6 (Ektachrome/Fujichrome/Agfachrome/etc) slide film processing, which can be done at home as long as you maintain your temperatures well. But if you're looking for advice...Get all the Kodachrome 25 film you can get your hands on and freeze it promptly! Kodak stopped making Kodachrome 25, so you're getting something that a lot of the rest of us would love to have, feel lucky! It's WELL worth getting the additional film! Believe me. > I don't know anything about processing K14 (Kodachrome process) film > as B/W but it may be possible, as there is no actual pigment in K14 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (Ektachrome/Fujichrome/Agfachrome/etc) slide film processing, which > can be done at home as long as you maintain your temperatures well. NOBODY does Kodachrome at home. It requires very expensive machinery and training to operate it. If it says K14 then kodak will process it, plz dont waste it as BW Ill buy and kodachrome 25 you have as long as its K14. If its not k14 then your only option is BW or to not shoot it at all. -Lyle > > I don't know anything about processing K14 (Kodachrome process) film > > as B/W but it may be possible, as there is no actual pigment in K14 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > NOBODY does Kodachrome at home. It requires very expensive machinery > and training to operate it. >> I don't know anything about processing K14 (Kodachrome process) film >> as B/W but it may be possible, as there is no actual pigment in K14 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > NOBODY does Kodachrome at home. It requires very expensive machinery >and training to operate it. I'm sure there's some elitist photographer out there who doesn't have financial limitations who's set up to do this privately, but it's not common, that's for sure. In fact, it seems to be getting rarer and rare to find photo labs that even do it. I think most everyone's sending back to Kodak these days, except for one or two places that I've heard about. No, there is no way to process Kodachrome at home. > >> I don't know anything about processing K14 (Kodachrome process) film > >> as B/W but it may be possible, as there is no actual pigment in K14 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sending back to Kodak these days, except for one or two places that > I've heard about. > No, there is no way to process Kodachrome at home. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > sending back to Kodak these days, except for one or two places that > > I've heard about. Sometime back in the mid-80's I processed a roll of outdated K25 in Dektol and got some odd orange-tinted negatives. I never tried to print them, but I do recall that they were transparent and that there was an image.  SignatureSean Elkins RKBA Owenton, KY >Sometime back in the mid-80's I processed a roll of outdated K25 in Dektol and got some odd orange-tinted negatives. Back in the late-50's, I ran some ASA 10 Kodachrome through whatever developer I was using in those days - perhaps Microdol. I bracketed, and came up with an ASA of no more than 1. I probably still have them somewhere. I can't recall whether or not I tried to print them, either. Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western Massachusetts Remove nojunk. >>Sometime back in the mid-80's I processed a roll of outdated K25 in Dektol and >got some odd orange-tinted negatives. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ASA of no more than 1. I probably still have them somewhere. I can't recall >whether or not I tried to print them, either. I did something like that with an Anscochrome; I think I used D-76. There were images with all the tones in the scene in the correct color balance; just very flat and dense in the slide. I used a Glycin based developer for some Ektachrome another time and got viewable images that were very Blue. Using Gehret's formulas as a beginningand some of Crawley's developers, I worked out a very useable divided developer process. The first series was used on Ansco duplicating slide film. That one also worked on E-4 Ektachrome, although the color balance was a bit different. The Ansco was dead on. Later experiments worked on the E-6 filmsso well that I used it for more than a year for Fujichromes, Ferrania and ET-160. Thereare a lot of alternatives in darkroom work Some of it is a lot of fun. >Pete Schermerhorn, in the glorious Berkshire hills of western Massachusetts I'm in the Funky Poconos of northeastern Pennsylvania. >Remove nojunk. Garbage goes out Wednesday night on my street. Regards, Robert Vervoordt, MFA I think that would depend upon the size of one's home and wallet! There's always a way, or it couldn't be done anywhere else. >No, there is no way to process Kodachrome at home. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> sending back to Kodak these days, except for one or two places that >> I've heard about. > I think that would depend upon the size of one's home and wallet! > There's always a way, or it couldn't be done anywhere else. I bet you could not do it at home even if you had a very large wallet. Unless you set up in the processing business. Even if you had a copy of the machines Kodak has at Fair Lawn (big bux), I doubt you could supply enough film to keep the machines running 24/7, and if you could not, maintaining quality control would be quite a problem. When I visited the plant many years ago, they had a full-time chemist at hand all the time measuring pH, etc., and a sensitometrist measuring control strips that they spliced into the rolls of film going through. But if you shut down the system, you would probably have to run a lot of stuff through it to get everything working again within the limits required for the process. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 9:00am up 23 days, 18:26, 2 users, load average: 2.06, 2.08, 2.11 > I think that would depend upon the size of one's home and wallet! > There's always a way, or it couldn't be done anywhere else. No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation you presume. It is difficult, but not "rocket science". So, do some research before you just spout off such absolutes! > > I think that would depend upon the size of one's home and wallet! > > There's always a way, or it couldn't be done anywhere else. > > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! > Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been > several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation > you presume. > > It is difficult, but not "rocket science". So, do some research before you > just spout off such absolutes! When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s, it was largely the same complicated process that it is today. You CANNOT process Kodachrome at home. It requires extensive machinery, chemistry not available to you and me, and a number of highly trained people to do the whole thing. Ektachrome - yeah you can do that. I've done it several times. But not Kodachrome. >> Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been >> several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ektachrome - yeah you can do that. I've done it several times. But >not Kodachrome. Well, "When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s" they did it in a bathroom. The picture was published in a photo magazine somewhere. Having read recent descriptions and talked to independent operators in the past, I have come to the conclusion that it IS difficult, but doable, if there is a will. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Well, "When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s" > they did it in a bathroom. The picture was published in a photo > magazine somewhere. Having read recent descriptions and talked to > independent operators in the past, I have come to the conclusion that > it IS difficult, but doable, if there is a will. Well, your conclusion is wrong. >>Well, "When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s" >>they did it in a bathroom. The picture was published in a photo [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, your conclusion is wrong. Not exactly wrong, but so impractical as to be useless. M&G did do enough of their work in a bathroom (violinists, IIRC) to convince Kodak to support the effort in better facilities. Also, the bathroom would not yield sufficient quality control to make a go of it. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:00pm up 26 days, 8:25, 2 users, load average: 2.31, 2.24, 2.19 >>>Well, "When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s" >>>they did it in a bathroom. The picture was published in a photo [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not exactly wrong, but so impractical as to be useless. Add that to the difficulty, of course. >M&G did do enough of their work in a bathroom (violinists, IIRC) to >convince Kodak to support the effort in better facilities. Also, the >bathroom would not yield sufficient quality control to make a go of it. None of what I wrote is in disagreement with your additional info and conclusions. I merely wanted to point out the differences between what could be possible from what some other folks were dismissing as utterly impossible. Thanks for the extras, JD. Robert Vervoordt, MFA >> Well, "When Mannes and Godowsky invented the process back in the 30s" >> they did it in a bathroom. The picture was published in a photo [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well, your conclusion is wrong. Not wrong, but perhaps a bit too far sighted and optimistic of other folk's capabilities. And will. Your conclusion about my conclusion is ... yours. Robert Vervoordt, MFA So where do you get the chemistry, the million dollar machinery, and the people to run it. Kinda expensive for a couple rolls of film don't you think? >So where do you get the chemistry, the million dollar machinery, and >the people to run it. Kinda expensive for a couple rolls of film don't >you think? Yep. I never said it was a very good idea. I was pointing out that it was "possible" if one were committed enough to pull the resources together. Kodachrome isn't magic. It is still a silver negative emulsion at heart. It my have may layers, but the first developer is quite conventional and the following steps, though tedious and many, are still based on some fairly well understood principles. There are many substitutions that can be made for the specific Kodak chemicals and formulae. None of it HAS to be done by machine or at exactly the time and temperature that Kodak has specified. It is always possible to do something in an alternate fashion, Take Kodak's patent on using Borane to speed up the development of the Magenta layer in Kodachrome. Since the development of the Magenta layer is one discrete step in the overall process, and this project is being supported by someone who doesn't have to make money off it, forget the Borane and develop the Magenta layer longer. A lot of it can be simplified, substituted or both and that is why it IS possible. Practicality is not a factor in this discussion as J.D. Beyer pointed out. Regards, Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have > been several people in the past that did it at home, and without the > automation you presume. I really doubt that several people have processed Kodachrome as color reversal film at home. Kodak has never released a processing kit, nor has anyone else. The chemicals are not readily available, since some of the steps are quite toxic. Further, it is a difficult process, with something like 20 processing steps, including three secondary developers, tight temperature requirements, and the need for pure blue and red lights for two of the re-exposure steps. I recall reading a post from a Kodak employee who felt he was the only person who had ever processed Kodachrome outside of the Kodak processing labs. He had access to the chemicals, and knew how to use them. I found his post in a Google search. Here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/ngge As a further example, there are a couple of labs that specialize in recovering images from film that require outdated processes. They will process old Agfa, C-22, and a number of other types of outdated color films as color images, but they do not process older Kodachrome (K-11 or K-12) in color. Instead, they process them as B&W negatives, scan the result, then electronically reverse the images and save them as B&W video. > Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been > several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation > you presume. You can 'process' it, but you cannot process it as it was intended, at home. Yes, you can run it through D-76 or something, but you have to get Kodachrome chemicals from Kodak, and you need a special machine, costing a couple million. > It is difficult, but not "rocket science". So, do some research before you > just spout off such absolutes! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! > Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been > several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation > you presume. > > It is difficult, but not "rocket science". So, do some research before you > just spout off such absolutes! You can 'process' it, but you cannot process it as it was intended, at home. Yes, you can run it through D-76 or something, but you have to get Kodachrome chemicals from Kodak, and you need a special machine, costing a couple million, to end up with Kodachrome slides properly processed. > > > I think that would depend upon the size of one's home and wallet! > > > There's always a way, or it couldn't be done anywhere else. > > > > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature control because it only works if the developer diffuses a very precise distance into the emulsion, and no farther, before it is neutralized, and it must do this three separate times. I suspect making a rocket would be a lot easier. David Foy By the way, did you know Kodachrome was invented by two musicians? > Simply NOT true. Just read the continued thread below. There have been > several people in the past that did it at home, and without the automation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! >You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with >success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature >control because it only works if the developer diffuses a very precise >distance into the emulsion, That was the earlier Kodachrome color development process. Probably just in the 1930s. The later process was a conventional color coupling development and was a great improvement in many areas. >and no farther, before it is neutralized, and it >must do this three separate times. I suspect making a rocket would be a lot >easier. I have to express admiration for both. Processing Kodachrome preceded the moon landings, so, perhaps Rocket Science is somewhat harder. ;-/ >David Foy >By the way, did you know Kodachrome was invented by two musicians? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly >> > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! Robert Vervoordt, MFA "David Foy" <nospam@thisaddress.please> wrote in part: > You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with > success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature > control because it only works if the developer diffuses a very precise > distance into the emulsion, and no farther, before it is neutralized, and it > must do this three separate times. I suspect making a rocket would be a lot > easier. The original Kodachrome introduced in 1935 relyed on diffusion control. The film had fat interlayers between the color layers to allow for some variation. Process control technicians routinely used a microtome to cut crossections of the filme to view under a microscope. In 1938 Kodak introduced the "selective re-exsposure" process. In this process, there were red and blue re-exposure lights to make these layers developable prior to the separate cyan and yellow developers. The magenta developer (last one) had a chemical fogging agent. The re-exposure lights would be the tough parts of the process to do at home. It is not impossible, but it is well beyond the capability of the typical home darkroom enthusiast. You would also need to find a source for the raw chemicals and mix your own solutions. > David Foy > By the way, did you know Kodachrome was invented by two musicians? Yep. Both were named Leopold. Here are more details: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0398/geduld1.html Fascinating! I much appreciate your contribution. DF > "David Foy" <nospam@thisaddress.please> wrote in part: > > You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yep. Both were named Leopold. Here are more details: > http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0398/geduld1.html I doubt if you could find the chemicals to do K-14 processing at home. They are exotic and expensive, and they are made for machine processing. You also need a way to re-expose the film to the right colored light in the reversal process and a way to remove the rem-jet backing from the film. Commercial labs will still process K25. It uses the same process as K64. > You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with > success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > No, the machinery is extremely expensive and it requires several highly > > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! I agree. Those among us who might do it are also those who could source some fairly exotic chemistry. DF > I doubt if you could find the chemicals to do K-14 processing at home. They > are exotic and expensive, and they are made for machine processing. You [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > highly > > > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT HOME!!! It's my understanding that the processing machine is about 80 feet long for one thing...try explaining that to your wife. Also, I'm told the QC manual is about 5 inches thick...sounds like K-25 processing needs to left to the pros... > I agree. Those among us who might do it are also those who could source some > fairly exotic chemistry. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > > > trained people to run it. YOU CANNOT PROCESS KODACHROME AT > HOME!!! >It's my understanding that the processing machine is about 80 feet long for one thing< I've been reading the many posts on processing K-14 at home with several good chuckles. First of all, if the processor is 80 feet long, it's because it was designed to run high volumes of film at a high speed, not because that size machine is needed to process Kodachrome. If you looked at large high speed C-41 and RA-4 processors at the large labs, they would also be close to or in excess of 80 feet in length. You can't run paper and film at 130 feet per minute for the proper time without large deep tanks, and several of them. Kodaks small Klab K-14 minilab is about the size of a typical medium processor. Secondly, if the QC manual is 5" thick, it's because it isn't a typical QC manual like the C-41 and E-6 manuals you can read on the Kodak web site. Kodak doesn;t make chemicals for K-14, so the manual has to describe how to mix the chemicals from scratch, and also give analytic tests and procedures to verify the chemicals are in control. Also, Kodachrome is comprised of B&W emulsions, the color couplers which form the image dye are in the developers (separate developers for each color) rather than in the emulsion. So you can remove the Remjet backing and process it for a B&W negative in traditional B&W developer and fixer, if that is your intent. Don;t ask for recommendations, I've never been interested in wasting my time on such an undertaking. If I need to shoot good quality B&W, there are several tried and tru film/developer combinations which will provide known results. As far as sourcing exotic chemicals, yoou would specific color developing agents as well as the color couplers, not to mention special color filters for the reexposure of the red and bue sensitive emulsions which need to have very specific wavelenghts if they will work properly. Bernie >not to mention special color filters for >the reexposure of the red and bue sensitive emulsions which need to have very >specific wavelenghts if they will work properly. Not only that, but the front of the film needs to be reexposed without exposing the back off the film. A very big problem doing by hand. Larry The easiest way is to process normally, scan the film and then convert to digital backend. John >You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with >success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >David Foy >By the way, did you know Kodachrome was invented by two musicians? I hope you're not going to say Simon and Garfunkel! > >You can process Kodachrome at home as a color film, but not likely with > >success, roll after roll. It requires extremely precise time and temperature [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I hope you're not going to say Simon and Garfunkel! No-one can say 'Simon and Garfunkel'. >> >David Foy >> >By the way, did you know Kodachrome was invented by two musicians? >> >> I hope you're not going to say Simon and Garfunkel! > >No-one can say 'Simon and Garfunkel'. Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away! > I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have > been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I > already get too much spam. No, you cannot do what you want to do. Kodachrome films have a special anti-halation backing that is NOT water-soluble (E-6 and C-41 have water-soluble antihalation layers). This anti-halation layer has to be removed with the K-14 processing machine: it will not come off in ordinary processing. This anti-halation layer gives Kodachrome films better anti-halation properties than E-6 films. >> I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have >> been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >ordinary processing. This anti-halation layer gives Kodachrome films >better anti-halation properties than E-6 films. Actuially, he can do what he wants. Firstly, as another poster pointed out, if this is K-12 process, it can only be done as BW these days. IF K-14, there is no need to waste it in a BW process. The first developer for Kodachrome that I saw either online or in a Dignan newsletter was pretty conventionallooking. An E6 developer might suffice with some testing. The anti-halation layer that is applied to Kodachrome is, as you say, not water soluble and is on the back of the film base, rather than being within the emulsion, between the lowest layer and the film base. This is much the same as the "RemJet" backing of motion picture films and can be removed in hand processing, after development is complete and stopped, at most any stage. In machine processing, it is handled by a very rapid pre bath of high alkalinity and by scrubbing the rear surface along with washing, usually of a spray variety. Sinc e this is not likely to be the method employed, I can say that the backing can be easily removed somewhere between the stop bath, or fixing, and the final wash. All it takes is a little wetting agent and some alkalinity; possibly Sulfite will be enogh. When I did MP cor negative strips by hand for DeLuxe labs speed boost project in NY, I was able to remove the backing with finger rubbing after development and and stop. I've heard that Kodachrome has a "backing" that has to be removed in the processing. Is this what you are talking about below and is this "backing" light tight? In other words could you run 35mm Kodachrome through a red window Bantam camera without paper backing? > Kodachrome films have a special > anti-halation backing that is NOT water-soluble (E-6 and C-41 have > water-soluble antihalation layers). In rec.photo.darkroom steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote: : I've heard that Kodachrome has a "backing" that has to be removed in the processing. Is this what you are : talking about below and is this "backing" light tight? In other words could you run 35mm Kodachrome : through a red window Bantam camera without paper backing? I've never tried it, but I'm sure that Kodachrome would be fogged under the circumstances that you mention. The backing on Kodachrome used in old Standard 8mm movies cameras was light-resistant, but not light-tight. You would reverse the film after shooting one side of the 16mm wide roll, and in this process a few turns of the reel would be slightly fogged. You always tried to go past those before shooting any scenes you really wanted to record. Warren B. Hapke wbhapke@prairienet.org :> Kodachrome films have a special :> anti-halation backing that is NOT water-soluble (E-6 and C-41 have :> water-soluble antihalation layers). > In rec.photo.darkroom steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote: > : I've heard that Kodachrome has a "backing" that has to be removed in the processing. Is this what you are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > :> anti-halation backing that is NOT water-soluble (E-6 and C-41 have > :> water-soluble antihalation layers). I thought the rem-jet anti-halation backing was used only on the movie films. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:25am up 22 days, 19:51, 2 users, load average: 2.13, 1.91, 1.55 > I thought the rem-jet anti-halation backing was used only on the movie > films. Nope. Kodachome films have it. That's part of the reason for their superior sharpness. > I've heard that Kodachrome has a "backing" that has to be removed in the processing. Is this what you are > talking about below and is this "backing" light tight? In other words could you run 35mm Kodachrome [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > anti-halation backing that is NOT water-soluble (E-6 and C-41 have > > water-soluble antihalation layers). Kodachrome has a backing of a material called Remjet. This is a combination anti-halation and anti-static layer. Its used on several types of motion picture film although Kodak seems to be getting away from it in its newer MP films. Remjet, as the name suggests, is removed by a high pressure water jet at the entrance to the processing machine. It can be removed manually by treating the film in a mild carbonate solution and swabbing it off. If allowed to go through a processing machine which does not have means for removing it it becomes a sort of tar which is hard to get out. I don't know why this backing was used on Kodachrome. I think Kodak would like to discontinue Kodachrome but it has unique qualities which have kept it around for nearly seventy years. Home processing is not impossible but is impractical. The Kodachrome process is very complex and some of the solutions are very toxic. I have posted details of the process to the group a couple of times in the past. I don't know if the formulas for the current K-14 process are available anywhere (I suspect they are) but the preceding K-12 formulas are available in _Modern Photographic Processing_ Grant Haist for those who are curious about it. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com I'm puzzled. Again, I'm away from my bookshelf and can't provide a reference, but I believe it is discussed L.F.A. Mason, "Photographic Processing Chemistry." Mason was Ilford's chief scientist and published his book in about 1960. Focal Press, of course. According to Mason, these backings are added to films meant to be processed on long-roll processors which have a large number of spools ("bobbins") over which the film must pass. Complex processes like Kodachrome and early movie films involve many immersions and the film has to be carried through a relatively large number of tanks. The backing's main function appears to be protecting the film from abrasion. Anti-static and anti-halation properties are bonuses. I believe the original backing of the type was a layer of colloidal silver, which was probably long ago replaced with something cheaper. So this raises a question: is the water jet situated somewhere far downstream in the process? Does it achieve its purpose by washing off a backing which has already been loosened by contact with alkaline developers? If the backing is washed off at the outset, then Mason's explanation is nonsense. David Foy > > I've heard that Kodachrome has a "backing" that has to be > removed in the processing. Is this what you are [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > available in _Modern Photographic Processing_ Grant Haist > for those who are curious about it. >I'm puzzled. Again, I'm away from my bookshelf and can't provide a >reference, but I believe it is discussed L.F.A. Mason, "Photographic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >colloidal silver, which was probably long ago replaced with something >cheaper. I don't think the above is true. I always heard that the backings and silver layers were for anti halo effects. >So this raises a question: is the water jet situated somewhere far >downstream in the process? I'm not sure what you mean by "dowmstream". Ordinarily, "downstream would indicate further from the source and ,therefore, indicate nearer the end of the process. If that is what you meant, then it is "upstream". >Does it achieve its purpose by washing off a >backing which has already been loosened by contact with alkaline developers? No. >If the backing is washed off at the outset, then Mason's explanation is >nonsense. That is the case. It is a part of pre-development, in which the film is put through a very alkaine pre-bath of wetting agents and anti-foggants, This weakens the bond of the RemJet backing extremely quickly. The bath is just 10 seconds in duration, so as to minimize affecting the basic development characteristics of the film. It is followed by a spray wash and soft scrub to the rear of the film base, the REmJet area to remove the pre-bath and any remaining backing. I heard this about Kodachrome, but read it in manuals describing the machine processing of Eastman Color Negtive motion picture film. Several long time laboratory men confirmed this about both processes. RemJet removal precedes development. >David Foy > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> available in _Modern Photographic Processing_ Grant Haist >> for those who are curious about it. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > I heard this about Kodachrome, but read it in manuals describing the > machine processing of Eastman Color Negtive motion picture film. > Several long time laboratory men confirmed this about both processes. > > RemJet removal precedes development. There's a document on Kodak's web site that describes the Kodachrome processing steps. The very first step is the removal of the Remjet backing. The description is as follows: Backing Removal Solution - The alkaline backing removal solution converts the rem-jet antihalation backing on the film base into a water-soluble form. This backing is removed in the backing removal wash. Backing Removal Wash - This wash performs two functions: 1. It removes the backing removal solution from the film. 2. It completely removes the solubilized antihalation backing from the base by a combination of water action and mechanical buffing. The next step is the first developer. The backing is removed early in the process, so it does not protect the film back during processing. My understanding is that rem-jet is primarily an antihalation coating. It is excellent for that purpose. The usual formulation isn't very effective as an anti-static coating, although some variations were tried for high-altitude and space recon film for a while. BTW. the entire K-14 process has been published, and a summary, including formulas, appeared in the February 1975 Dignan Newsletter. > >I'm puzzled. Again, I'm away from my bookshelf and can't provide a > >reference, but I believe it is discussed L.F.A. Mason, "Photographic [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA > I'm puzzled. Again, I'm away from my bookshelf and can't provide a > reference, but I believe it is discussed L.F.A. Mason, "Photographic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > David Foy Rem Jet backing was historically referred to as an anti-halation backing. It also: protects the back side from abrasion BEFORE processing reduces static by providing conductivity (contains carbon) provides lubrication (like graphite, especially important for motion picture film) requires a special processing step for removal makes a big mess if you put it in a process without this special step. The rem jet removal is normally the first step in the process, so it doesn't provide protection during processing. The binder is soluble in alkaline solutions such as developers so it must be removed before the first developer. > I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have > been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I > already get too much spam. If the film is not too old, and is 35mm, it can be processed to color transparencies by one of the labs which currently do Kodachrome. There is a list of them somewhere on the Kodak site. Also, A&I labs in Los Angeles still do K-14 Kodachrome, do a Google search for them. I am not sure when Kodak switched from process K-12 to process K-14 but its been quite a long time so its likely this film will be K-14 process. I think Film Rescue can process K-12 to B&W. Kodachrome differs from other color films in that there are no dye couplers incorporated in its emulsions. Essentially, it has three black and white emulsions and a yellow filter layer made of exteemely finely devided silver. The film is developed by a complex process: A first development of all three layers into negatives. Then, three subsequent second developments in developers with the appropriate color couplers to form the right color dyes. The ability to confine the second, or reversal and color development to only one layer at a time is accomplished by using a first developer which does not destroy the red sensitivity of the layer closest to the base. This allows using red re-exposing light to fog only the lowest layer. After that has been re-developed the top layer is re-exposed by using blue light. Since the yellow filter layer remains in place below the top emulsion layer the blue light can not reach the middle emulsion layer. After the top layer is re-developed the film is treated in a chemical which fogs the middle layer and it is redeveloped. The last step is removing the silver images from all three layers. This step also removes the yellow filter layer. The film is hten washed and finished. There are actually more steps because there are wash steps inbetween the others. If Kodachrome is developed in a standard B&W developer it will come out as a negative. This can be reversed by a standard B&W reversal process but the yellow filter layer will remain. I am not certain it can be completely removed without bleaching out at least some of the image silver. If develped to a negative the film can be printed onto panchromatic paper which will not be affected by the remaining filter layer. If this is old film which has been exposed, and not K-14 try Film Rescue at http://www.filmrescue.com/ However, I'll bet it is K-14 and you can use regular Kodachrome processing to get color slides from it. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com The dr5 lab (www.dr5.com) will reverse Kodachrome 25. It will probably cost more than their normal processing (which is more expensive than E6 or Scala). You might want to contact them for more details. David Wood, the owner, told me that B&W reversed Kodachrome has the look of reversed TechPan. > I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have > been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I > already get too much spam. > I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and > have been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it > turns out as a B&W slide instead. A process that I could probably > do with the right chemicals. > > Does anyone know if this is true, or even possible? Yes, it's possible, but a major pain. It is rather impractical, unless you want to do it for the technical challenge, or have images on the older K-12 or K-11 emulsions, that cannot be processed as color slides. > I can have MANY more rolls of this film if I can get this to work out > for myself, other wise it's not worth getting the additional film. If the film is K-14, I can't imagine wasting it for B&W uses. Kodak recently stopped making it, and it would be more valuable as a color slide film. It was once considered the standard for all color work, since the colors were considered very true, the grain was exceptionally fine, and it has good long term stability when stored in the dark. It fell out of favor because of its relatively slow speed. If you are determined to process it as B&W, here is a link to a site that describes processing K-12 movie film, which should give you a general idea of the chemicals and steps required: http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/k12bwnegdev.html The same procedure would work for K-14, but you would have to adapt the times and chemical concentrations if you were processing 35mm film in a tank. >> I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and >> have been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >times and chemical concentrations if you were processing 35mm film in a >tank. Good link, James and your post may help to get more of the answer that the original poster requested. Looking at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, it is apparent that he is talking about processing to a negative, If it were a BW reversal that is desired, the T-Max reversal kit might suffice. Testing would be needed to get the right times and temperatures, but the chemistry of most reversal processes is quite similar. Even E-6 or older Ansco and Kodak color revesal formulae will work, except for the bleach, If a color revesal process bleac is used on Kodachrome of any sort, blank film will result. For this to work, a BW reversal bleach has to be used. Formulae abound in the literature, Just for the sake of financial considerations, most pictorial films are similar in composition and manufacture. This has enabled Cinematographers to do quick and dirty exposure tests on the set using DK-50 in a bucket in a dark toilet or closet. Funny, I know. I had to do that a few times. I think Eastman even advised some of the guys to do this in a pinch. It worked for Eastman Color Negative and Fuji Color Neagative, I tried it twice for color reversal strips. It worked out then, too. Not to knock the folks who strive mightily to "get it right", but there is a lot of latitude and tolerance in some aspects of photography. This is one of them and should not be ignored in getting results for the original poster. Robert Vervoordt, MFA I know, I'm posting at myself. :-/ This is a link provided by John Walton in another thread about BW reversal formulae. This should complete the info needed to get Kodachrome processed as a BW transparency. Link: http://www.tech-diy.com/reversal_formulas.htm Enjoy! >>> I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and >>> have been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >Robert Vervoordt, MFA Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Looking at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, it is apparent that he is > talking about processing to a negative, If it were a BW reversal that > is desired, the T-Max reversal kit might suffice. Yes, but one would still have to contend with the Remjet backing, and the yellow filter layer. Those steps would just have to be added into the reversal process. Photographer's Formulary also offers a reversal kit, specifically designed for TMax, that might work as well. >> Looking at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, it is apparent that he is >> talking about processing to a negative, If it were a BW reversal that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the yellow filter layer. Those steps would just have to be added into >the reversal process. In an earlier post, I addressed this issue. The procedure under consideration is hand processing, not machine processing. This makes it easy to remove the RemJet backing "after" development. In machine processing the RemJet must be removed "before" any further processing, or it can become embedded in the emulsion. The yellow filter layer will probably be dissolved by the solvent in the first developer or by its alkalinity. Martin's site has a description of removing the RemJet during use of the Morse G-3 tank. The priciples can be transferred to hand processing of the short strips used in still cameras. Here's my earlier quote: ============================================= >Actuially, he can do what he wants. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >DeLuxe labs speed boost project in NY, I was able to remove the >backing with finger rubbing after development and and stop. ======================================================= >Photographer's Formulary also offers a reversal kit, specifically >designed for TMax, that might work as well. There are many choices. That will probably work quite well. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >> Looking at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, it is apparent that he is > >> talking about processing to a negative, If it were a BW reversal that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The yellow filter layer will probably be dissolved by the solvent in > the first developer or by its alkalinity. My understanding is that the yellow filter layer will persist after processing, and needs to be removed with citric acid mixed in Rapid Fixer, typically by inspection. My intent was to address the original poster's questions about the practicality of processing Kodachrome as B&W on a large scale. The hassles of dealing with the Remjet and yellow filtration layers make it questionable for casual use. >> >> Looking at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, it is apparent that he is >> >> talking about processing to a negative, If it were a BW reversal that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >processing, and needs to be removed with citric acid mixed in Rapid >Fixer, typically by inspection. Sounds doable. >My intent was to address the original poster's questions about the >practicality of processing Kodachrome as B&W on a large scale. I don't see that in the original posters message. ===================================================== >I have been given a few rolls of Kodachrome 25 color slide film and have >been told that they heard of a way to develop it so that it turns out as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Please post answers/responses here as the email is bogus because I >already get too much spam. ========================================================== The >hassles of dealing with the Remjet Not a big problem, even in machine processing it's just a dip in a solution and a spray rinse with scrubbing. Look at Martin W. Baumgarten's site, he lays it out for a Morse G-3 processor, which is a real pain to use. and yellow filtration layers make it >questionable for casual use. What, one more solution? That's no big deal. He is doing hand processing, after all. Let him take the advice given and do what he wants. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >My intent was to address the original poster's questions about the > >practicality of processing Kodachrome as B&W on a large scale. > > I don't see that in the original posters message. I interpreted his comment about being able to get many more rolls if K25 as intent to make regular use of the film for B&W slides, rather than just do a couple of rolls. > > The hassles of dealing with the Remjet > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Let him take the advice given and do what he wants. Exactly. I'm not arguing, just suggesting that he would likely get better results from Technical Pan and a reversal kit, and further not have the hassle of the extra steps. He will certainly do what he wants. >> >My intent was to address the original poster's questions about the >> >practicality of processing Kodachrome as B&W on a large scale. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >as intent to make regular use of the film for B&W slides, rather than >just do a couple of rolls. I put it in the context of my shooting habits from decades ago and assumed hand processing. We're not talking thousands or even hundreds of rolls per day here. >> > The hassles of dealing with the Remjet >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >better results from Technical Pan and a reversal kit, and further not >have the hassle of the extra steps. He will certainly do what he wants. I think you're right about that, as they have been designed to fit together. Still the freedom to screw up allows for some pleasant surprises as well. He will definitely do as he plaeses. Regards, Robert Vervoordt, MFA |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.