Using Kodachrome

[K R Cope]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I used Kodachrome when I first became interested in photography, then drifted away into other makes, notably Fuji.

 

Latterly (and mainly through seeing this list), I've started using K64 again....I like the results (scanned, rather than projected, though I do have an old projector which I might get repaired and serviced when I get round to it).   And I quite like anything "retro" so will probably use K64 while it's available.

 

K64 seems quite readily obtainable here in the UK from the specialist mail-order film suppliers, and I was pleased to see it for sale a few weeks ago in a larger branch of the Boots retailers (for those abroad, that's a large UK chain store, pharmacy, cosmetics, household, etc.).   I think it was about £10 ($20) for a 36 exp process paid...it's about £7 to £8 mail order.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[WJM]

On 28 Apr 2008 at 17:26, K R Cope wrote:

> I used Kodachrome when I first became interested in photography, then drifted
> away into other makes, notably Fuji.
>
> Latterly (and mainly through seeing this list), I've started using K64
> again....I like the results (scanned, rather than projected, though I do have an
> old projector which I might get repaired and serviced when I get round to it).  

Unless you are emotionally attached to that projector, or it is still state-of-
the-art high-end, you might be better off buying one on Ebay....even high-end
projectors can be had for a penny & a song....;))
(only a shame those nice twin-dissolving projectors from Rollei are not too
reliable mechanically)

(but the larger shame of course is that I never got around in having multiple
rolls of Kodachrome 120 deloped, most of which are even taken as Noblex
50x120mm frames....and I even have the projectors for it....;((
(currently deliberating whether I should buy a second hand Noblux 4x5"
projector....the Leitz Diaskop IV-BL projectors do 'only' 11x11cm in stock
dress (or better: 11cm circular), the Noblux 118mm....:))

Willem (but I would have to search another life-time before finding a second
Noblux, for dissolving as well....;)) Jan
(and it is only 500W, instead of the Leitz 1000W....:))
(or 1500W with the Large Lecture Hall Epidiaskop IIIs....Mr. Goetschmann said
he might even be able to squeeze a Xenon light unit into one of these....will
remind him on the PhotoKina....:))


--                
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand

<w.j.markerink@...>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Ron Schwarz]

I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's your
Joke of The Day!<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special" projector.

It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to
harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the powerhouse
projection bulbs), a 50/1.4 Nikkor used as a projection lens (each stop
being equivalent to doubling the lamp output), and, a white card "screen"
inside of a hooded enclosure. (It's all done with mirrors! :)

This will result in a "console" unit, with a nice-sized display, perhaps
16x20 or thereabouts, a very sharp lens, and no harm to the slides while
viewing them.

(I'd considered doing it rear-projection style, with a groundglass, but
realized that unless I used a fresnel lens *or* a *gigantic* "field lens"
the image will be horrible -- a central hot-spot, and very dim everywhere
else. Since the fresnel lens would degrade the image, and the "giant field
lens" is not anything obtainable for someone lacking NASA's budget, that
means I use front projection, onto a matte white card.)


09:50 PM 4/28/2008 +0200, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
 

>On 28 Apr 2008 at 17:26, K R Cope wrote:
>
>> I used Kodachrome when I first became interested in photography, then drifted
>> away into other makes, notably Fuji.
>>
>> Latterly (and mainly through seeing this list), I've started using K64
>> again....I like the results (scanned, rather than projected, though I do have an
>> old projector which I might get repaired and serviced when I get round to it).  
>
>Unless you are emotionally attached to that projector, or it is still state-of-
>the-art high-end, you might be better off buying one on Ebay....even high-end
>projectors can be had for a penny & a song....;))
>(only a shame those nice twin-dissolving projectors from Rollei are not too
>reliable mechanically)
>
>(but the larger shame of course is that I never got around in having multiple
>rolls of Kodachrome 120 deloped, most of which are even taken as Noblex
>50x120mm frames....and I even have the projectors for it....;((
>(currently deliberating whether I should buy a second hand Noblux 4x5"
>projector....the Leitz Diaskop IV-BL projectors do 'only' 11x11cm in stock
>dress (or better: 11cm circular), the Noblux 118mm....:))
>
>Willem (but I would have to search another life-time before finding a second
>Noblux, for dissolving as well....;)) Jan
>(and it is only 500W, instead of the Leitz 1000W....:))
>(or 1500W with the Large Lecture Hall Epidiaskop IIIs....Mr. Goetschmann said
>he might even be able to squeeze a Xenon light unit into one of these....will
>remind him on the PhotoKina....:))
>
>
>--                
>Bye,
>
>Willem-Jan Markerink
>
>      The desire to understand
>is sometimes far less intelligent than
>     the inability to understand
>
><w.j.markerink@...>
>[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Kodachrome mailing list
>Kodachrome@...
>http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome
>

--
  Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir

  Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
                    to fear."

  Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical;
              a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.)
_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[WJM]

On 28 Apr 2008 at 18:05, Ron Schwarz wrote:

> I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's your
> Joke of The Day!<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special" projector.
>
> It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to
> harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the powerhouse
> projection bulbs), a 50/1.4 Nikkor used as a projection lens (each stop
> being equivalent to doubling the lamp output), and, a white card "screen"
> inside of a hooded enclosure. (It's all done with mirrors! :)
>
> This will result in a "console" unit, with a nice-sized display, perhaps
> 16x20 or thereabouts, a very sharp lens, and no harm to the slides while
> viewing them.
>
> (I'd considered doing it rear-projection style, with a groundglass, but
> realized that unless I used a fresnel lens *or* a *gigantic* "field lens"
> the image will be horrible -- a central hot-spot, and very dim everywhere
> else. Since the fresnel lens would degrade the image, and the "giant field
> lens" is not anything obtainable for someone lacking NASA's budget, that
> means I use front projection, onto a matte white card.)

Assuming you mean a condensor lens, this reminds me of an even more
megalomanous project on my list, based on the condensor lens from a Leitz
Roentgen Projektor, meant for projecting 28x28cm slides (also available as an
'under-table' option within a Leitz Large Lecture Hall Epidiaskop IIIs).
The sad thing is that despite having seen about a dozen of IIIs units[*] over
the last decade, none of them had the Roentgen option....even sadder is the
fact that I did find it's condensor, but the projector itself (presumably a
complete IIIs) had been dismantled many years ago (a common fate of any IIIs,
since most German museums already have one, and some of these are even cemented
into place, without any transport rollers (having *steering* rollers on one
side is already a luxury option....:))
And this is a condensor with a diameter of nearly 50cm; twin lenses, about 15cm
thick....:))
(just as sad is the fact that they apparently had thrown away the matching
spherical reflector, behind the lamp, for maximum light efficiency)

[*] even managed to drag 3 of these monsters home (about 400kg each, up to
221cm tall (and no, indeed, that doesn't go through any doorway, it must be
partly disassembled, and only a horse-trailer offers both the height and the
low floor plus easy ramp.....:))


It also reminds me that this was one of the reasons to venture into the field
of Xenon military searchlights....these come straight from the factory with a
collimated beam, although not an even/homogenous one....but HID/Xenon with 700W
(European/AEG/Leopard) till 2800-4000W (USA/ANVSS) sounds like the appropriate
amount of light for any superpanorama slide, whether or not as collimated
beam....:))

PS: did you know that Noblex also prototyped a continuous roller system, for an
endless loop of 120/220 film, around the projector?....:))
(one was sold in the USA a few years ago, apparently some distributors got one
to test the waters (but it never made it into serial production....apparently
the projector itself never made it beyond 50 units either))





--                
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

      The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand

<w.j.markerink@...>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Ron Schwarz]

04:01 AM 4/29/2008 +0200, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
 
>On 28 Apr 2008 at 18:05, Ron Schwarz wrote:
>
>> I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's your
>> Joke of The Day!<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special"
projector.
>>
>> It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to
>> harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the
powerhouse
>> projection bulbs), a 50/1.4 Nikkor used as a projection lens (each stop
>> being equivalent to doubling the lamp output), and, a white card
"screen"
>> inside of a hooded enclosure. (It's all done with mirrors! :)
>>
>> This will result in a "console" unit, with a nice-sized display, perhaps
>> 16x20 or thereabouts, a very sharp lens, and no harm to the slides while
>> viewing them.
>>
>> (I'd considered doing it rear-projection style, with a groundglass, but
>> realized that unless I used a fresnel lens *or* a *gigantic* "field
lens"
>> the image will be horrible -- a central hot-spot, and very dim
everywhere
>> else. Since the fresnel lens would degrade the image, and the "giant
field
>> lens" is not anything obtainable for someone lacking NASA's budget,
that
>> means I use front projection, onto a matte white card.)
>
>Assuming you mean a condensor lens,

Nope.  I was actually thinking of doing away with the condensor lens (a
PITA to do it "just right" for even illumination -- a simple piece of opal
glass would provide *very* even illumination with very little effort, and
nice, soft light, minimizing scratch and dust artifacts in the projected
image).

The "field lens" I mentioned was the type that is sometimes used above the
focusing screen of a camera in lieu of a fresnel lens -- it provides the
same effect (even corner to corner image brightness -- *without* the
scribed lines (which *can* be minimized if the fresnel lens is cut to
perfectly match the focal length of the objective, but even at that,
there's still the central spot to deal with, which is not an image with a
"real" field lens).

Due to weight, space, and cost factors, they're not very common. I believe
the Contaflex SLRs used the, as did (IIRC) the Ikoflex III (a
way-ahead-of-its-age TLR, damned to functional obscurity due to Herr
[s]Hitler taking all the brass for muntions, leaving the Zeiss folks to
build a camera with highly stressed gears etc. built of very soft
aluminum.  Talk about doomed from birth!

Anyway, a "plain" groundglass screen -- no fresnel, no field lens -- will
provide a bright hotpot, and very dim "rest of the image" -- not very
useful for stuff being viewed for enjoyment.  (It's one thing to endure it
for something like focusing an image (i.e., old Rolleiflex), but it's
something entirely different to try to live with it in an image display
system.)


--
  Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir

  Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
                    to fear."

  Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical;
              a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.)
_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Otto Mellar]

Cool thinking, but how much UV would come from the light source?

Regards,

Otto Mellar

0413 074 161

otto@...

Oscans Film Scanning

otto@...

www.oscans.com

1300 138 970

On 29/04/2008, at 9:05 AM, Ron Schwarz wrote:

I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's your

Joke of The Day!<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special" projector.

It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to

harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the powerhouse

projection bulbs), 

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Ron Schwarz]

06:55 PM 4/29/2008 +1000, Otto Mellar wrote:

 

Cool thinking, but how much UV would come from the light source?

<<<<<<<<


Not much, I'd think.  White LEDs are really blue LEDs, with a yellow
phosphor that converts the blue to white.  LEDs tend to be very narrow
bandpass type devices -- it's going to put out a bright spike at its blue
wavelength, and the phosphor's yellow output, and nothing else.  Actual
UV LEDs are very difficult to manufacture, and tend to be expensive (the
longer the wavelength, the easier it is to make an LED.  It took forever
for them to be able to reliably/consistently manufacture blue LEDs, which
is why there weren't any white LED devices until that time.)


I'd think a fluorescent light would be a worse offender in that
department -- they *are* UV emitters, with a phosphor "mix" that converts
the UV to visible light.



>>>>

<excerpt>


 Regards,


Otto Mellar

0413 074 161

<<mailto:otto@...>otto@...


Oscans Film Scanning

<<mailto:otto@...>otto@...

www.oscans.com

1300 138 970


 

On 29/04/2008, at 9:05 AM, Ron Schwarz wrote:

<excerpt>I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's
your

Joke of The Day!<<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special"
projector.


It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to

harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the
powerhouse

projection bulbs), 

</excerpt>_______________________________________________

Kodachrome mailing list

Kodachrome@...

http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome 


</excerpt><<<<<<<<




--

  Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir


  Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing

                    to fear."


  Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical;

              a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.)

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Mark J Shields]

I use an ordinary 49mm glass UV filter in my fluorescent-lit slide viewer.

Mark Shields


_________________________________________________
I disagree with the services and products offered
in some of the commercials below, which are added
by the Internet service provider.
 -Tandemcat/Mileposter

-- Ron Schwarz <rs@...> wrote:
06:55 PM 4/29/2008 +1000, Otto Mellar wrote:

 

Cool thinking, but how much UV would come from the light source?

<<<<<<<<


Not much, I'd think.  White LEDs are really blue LEDs, with a yellow
phosphor that converts the blue to white.  LEDs tend to be very narrow
bandpass type devices -- it's going to put out a bright spike at its blue
wavelength, and the phosphor's yellow output, and nothing else.  Actual
UV LEDs are very difficult to manufacture, and tend to be expensive (the
longer the wavelength, the easier it is to make an LED.  It took forever
for them to be able to reliably/consistently manufacture blue LEDs, which
is why there weren't any white LED devices until that time.)


I'd think a fluorescent light would be a worse offender in that
department -- they *are* UV emitters, with a phosphor "mix" that converts
the UV to visible light.



>>>>

<excerpt>


 Regards,


Otto Mellar

0413 074 161

<<mailto:otto@...>otto@...


Oscans Film Scanning

<<mailto:otto@...>otto@...

www.oscans.com

1300 138 970


 

On 29/04/2008, at 9:05 AM, Ron Schwarz wrote:

<excerpt>I think that when I get caught up with everything else (there's
your

Joke of The Day!<<g>) I will build myself a "Kodachrome Special"
projector.


It will use a high-efficiency 3 Watt white LED (not enough light to

harm the slides -- a tiny fraction of the amount put out by the
powerhouse

projection bulbs),

</excerpt>_______________________________________________

Kodachrome mailing list

Kodachrome@...

http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome 


</excerpt><<<<<<<<




--

  Photos: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/picsdir


  Modern "Privacy": "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing

                    to fear."


  Suggestion: Watch "Cabaret!" (It's a documentary, not a musical;

              a portrait of the end-game of a decadent culture.)
_____________________________________________________________
Don't stay in a roach motel.  Click here to find great deals on hotels.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nLmLATynykoeFdCPkTJhjrEIPMWfjtxmRtaMrLHS8qlT6DR/?count=1234567890


_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Ron Schwarz]

I smell the stink of "trial balloon" being raised...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/tec_kodachrome_s_demise


_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Daniel S. Hammond]

The following Associated Press article was published in a Toronto ON Canada
paper

September 22, 2008 at 5:34 PM EDT


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080922.wgtkodak0922/BNStory/Technology/

Is Kodachrome fading to black?

pls note my posting to the paper:

(Dan Hammond, from Port Bolster ON, Canada) wrote: Hear of Harley-Davidson?
Anyone remember when Harley was controlled by AMF? Harley almost rode off
into the sunset. Same problem with Kodak and the Kodachrome brand. For
Kodachrome to prosper it requires people that actually know how to nurture
and market this iconic product. A processing service that provided
high-resolution scans would also be helpful. 100,000 (instead of 10,000)
units per year would be attainable, then re-introduction of Kodachrome
versions trashed by Kodak's digitally enthralled management would be next.
Then every Harley-Davidson would be recorded for posterity on archival
Kodachrome and not files on some DVD that may be un-readable in 20 years.

  a.. Posted 22/09/08 at 10:03 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Schwarz" <rs@...>
To: <kodachrome@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:39 AM
Subject: [Kodachrome] R.I.P?

>I smell the stink of "trial balloon" being raised...
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/tec_kodachrome_s_demise
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kodachrome mailing list
> Kodachrome@...
> http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome
>

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

[Robert Johnson]

That's an Associated Press (AP) story!  You can't spell cheAP without
the AP!

Robert Johnson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Schwarz wrote:

>I smell the stink of "trial balloon" being raised...
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/tec_kodachrome_s_demise
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Kodachrome mailing list
>Kodachrome@...
>http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Kodachrome mailing list
Kodachrome@...
http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome