Where can you get Kodachrome developed? [EXIF data available.

>>2932332

Anon...

>>2932332
Boy I hope you're ready to hear that you've got black and white slide film on your hands

Ignore the image btw, just ripped it off google because I'm too lazy to take photos

>>2932341
Welcome aboard! Enjoy your stay.

File: Kodachrome.jpg (341KB, 1000x726px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1000x726px

>tfw got to shoot one roll of kodakchrome before it was canceled.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Nexus 5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:06 19:17:09
Exposure Time	12503077/500000000 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
ISO Speed Rating	235
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	3.97 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	726
White Balance	Auto

>>2932332
paul simons film emporioum

Will kodak ever licence Kodachrome?

>>2933093
Even if they do no one'll bring back the dev chems and there's basically no one who'll want to touch that toxic shit.

>>2933093
kodak is dead

File: deLorean.jpg.838x0_q80.jpg (47KB, 644x364px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 644x364px

>>2932332
Give me some plutonium and I'll go develop it.

what's stopping someone from making something like it (or better)? besides money

>>2933093
how much would it cost

>>2933120
>what's stopping someone from making something like it? besides money

- the exact formula is Kodak's trade secret
- you can't just say "besides money", no one is going to put millions into maintaining film production equipment and all the dirty chemicals to make a few thousand rolls a year.

>(or better)?

Better how? Kodachrome was prized for its specific imperfect rendition of color. If you want better in technical terms, shoot digital.

>>2933124
>If you want better in technical terms, shoot digital.

lmao

>>2932332
Probably at your nearest chem engineering lab

might cost you a few grand per roll, though.

>>2933124
>- the exact formula is Kodak's trade secret
lolno

meh, i shot about 10 rolls each of both kodachrome 25 and 64. never really liked the stuff. there are a number of other positive emulsions i preferred shooting.

What happened to that one anon who was about to purchase an entire film processing unit (for kodachrome) about a year or two ago? Did he get shot by JK Imaging and its agents for trying to revive Kodachrome?

>>2933095
What's so toxic about kodachrome chemicals?

>>2933143
What's the formula?

>>2933125
>>2933143
Top quality discussion m8

>>2933120
Dye transfer film development is really hard, most lab technicians need a lot of training to learn how to do it, takes a long time, more expensive
Agfa used to make a film that was essentially the same transfer process as Kodachrome, only the Agfa version was lower quality.

>>2933143
All of kodaks film stocks are proprietary

>>2932332
Do what this guy did - it's hard, but not impossible.

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/reports-of-colour-kodachrome-home-processing-emerge-from-sydney.88518/

File: 1412448508239.png (252KB, 421x389px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 421x389px

>>2933275

>>2933273
I think he was asking about making Kodachrome film itself, not just development. That's a whole new can of worms.

File: 2042501949_061cc915f3_o.jpg (60KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x427px

to my surprise it can be done
my guess though it would take a small personal fortune and a lot of hours + trial and error, invested to build such a machine.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX *ist DS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	87 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Vertical Resolution	1053 dpi
Image Created	2005:12:31 12:37:42
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	58.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2932332
I know my local photo store still does it. They send it to some lab. I would go to a regular place that used to do it and ask.

>>2933124
>- the exact formula is Kodak's trade secret
Hardly, Fuji and several other brands use the exact same chemical for development of their stocks.

>>2934051
ur wrong brother. last roll developed was 2009: http://petapixel.com/2013/01/13/the-end-of-an-era-steve-mccurry-shoots-the-final-roll-of-kodachrome-film/
you may be thinking of fujichrome or ektachrome, both of which use a different process and are therefore still possible to develop.

>>2934053
That's for development. I meant the film itself.

>>2934082
>>2934053
>>2934051
>>2933143

ITT people who think Kodachrome is E-6

>>2934104

Yeah... this is kind of shocking. New /p/ is real and terrifying.

File: Shot on the last roll of kodachrome.jpg (71KB, 910x609px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 910x609px

>>2933120
Kodak willing to dig up and sell the rights to make the chemicals (if they even still have it on file), the money to re-engineer the chemicals, and money to rebuild all of the developing machines since all of them were scrapped after 2010.

>>2934112
New /p/ is basically just the people banned from dpreview.
Thems the breaks.

>>2934127
And people on Dpreview are very interested in analog chemical processes?

>>2934077
kk, I concede I was wrong.

>>2934186
Considering that they think the threaded format of their forums is a good idea, and that the flat view is too complicated/convoluted tells me that they'd be all about bringing back old and imperfect methods back from the dead.

>>2934207
Dude, flat is far older than threaded.

>>2934104
Nope, I know that Kodachrome is Kodachrome. The idea that its makeup is some magical secret is hilarious though.

It's like thinking that Pepsi doesn't know what's in Coke or Popeye's doesn't know the 11 herbs and spices of KFC -- which actually isn't even half of how stupid it is because neither of those have to have MSDSs filed.

>>2934225
sure, the polaroid process is also a trade secret that got fuji a hefty lawsuit over their instax and peal apart film. Impossible also knows the polaroid process but cant use it because of licensing.

>>2934225
Do you realize the difference between "trade secret" and plain secret?

>>2934125
this pic is spoopy
why is the light on the roof not lining up with the table lamp?

>>2934559
Yes I do. I also realize that the only trade secrets involved here are the processes used to manufacture the film, not the chemistry, and even those are protected by patents. Just because something is complicated and not well known does not mean it's a "trade secret".

>>2934439
Impossible can't use the Polaroid process because the materials and supply chain Polaroid used was destroyed with the company's exit from the industry. When Polaroid shut down, those materials were also discontinued for environmental reasons - the chemistry was only still in production under grandfather clauses.

I'm not sure where Fuji and Polaroid stand regarding Instax, etc.(fuck, Polaroid has their own, rebranded version of the Instax Mini camera and film) - however I do recall Polaroid licensed their packfilm patents to Fuji back in the early-90s. The big lawsuit you're thinking of was actually with Kodak in the mid-80s, which Polaroid won and forced Kodak out of the instant business.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x358px

OK, so I kinda feel retarded because I was asking where I can get kodachrome developed in b/w, not color. Also, what modern film looks the most like Kodachrome 64?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	480
Image Height	358

File: 25265462022_b02987361a_c.jpg (325KB, 800x716px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 800x716px

>>2936476
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cinestill-medium-large-format-film-camera-photography#/

Brand new secret. Shhh. Its going to be the Donald Trump of popular films soon.

If you shoot medium format or above you can gain that sharpness of kodchrome. Also look at this ektar shot on Pentax 67 with 55mm. Look at the sharpness and color. Looks remarkably like it here.

>>2933275
yeah shame I can't develop my Portra 400 with any regular C41 chems.


literally go kill yourself anon

File: photo wankery.jpg (78KB, 394x525px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 394x525px

>>2936759
>325 KB, 800x716
>Look at the sharpness

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:04:22 21:11:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	394
Image Height	525

>>2932557
Okay. That's mildly amusing. I'll acknowledge your joke that most people here are probably too young to get.

>>2933113
>48 replies so far
When this thread hits 88 replies, you're gonna see some serious photography shit.

>>2933298
You know, there's actually a way to prove this guy wrong, other than memeing. All you have to do is just show us the formula. Or, you know, you could just keep shitposting.

this board is ridiculous.

>>2934033
>think: that's interesting
>i wonder what his results are like
>click on other albums
Oh, God.

>>2936877

whats wrong with it.

>>2936882
His other pictures are atrocious. They're laughably bad.

>>2936884

you are a cuck.

>>2936912
Ah, I get it. That's your shitty flickr site.

Yeah, you're photos are embarrassingly bad.

>>2936783
Sorry you need glasses you cross eyed fuck. The IQ is obviously very good.

>>2932332
>>2932332
>Literally a meme film