bad Kodachrome processing ?

Post by **filman** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:32 pm

hello everybody
i just received my first K 40 (3/2006) from Lausanne, (after years of shooting in 16mm), and i am very disappoint : the film look as faded, with coarse grain and a very flat color dynamic range. This cartridge has been put before in a Nizo 800 then in a Nalcom 1000, with the new metallic pressure plate from Andec. May be that Kodak Lausanne lab is saving on processing ?
Regards

Post by **tlatosmd** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:14 pm

Was your cart outdated perchance?

Post by **filman** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:22 pm

the date is 03/2006 !

Post by **onsuper8** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:16 pm

It can happen - I had a cart which was actually shot at a very close freinds wedding (to officially chronicle the day) which was really damaged in processing. The whole editing process became stressful to say the least...

Post by **Poliestere** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:35 pm

i just received my first K 40 (3/2006) from Lausanne, (after years of shooting in 16mm), and i am very disappoint : the film look as faded, with coarse grain and a very flat color dynamic range. This cartridge has been put before in a Nizo 800 then in a Nalcom 1000, with the new metallic pressure plate from Andec

I shoot in S.8 K40 from 1985. In 20 years I have shot about 450 cartridge of K40, and never I have an problem. Also K40 expired (max 6 months and kept in refrigerator): In 20 years no problem.
Now I process K40 in lab of Lausanne, and till now all ok, very fine work!

Have you impressed correctly the film? 8)

Post by **filman** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:17 pm

if i impressed correctly the film?!?!?
Well, i live of my job ( a cine-video production house), i become to shot 30 years ago with regular 8mm (Kodachrome), then single 8 with the marvelous ZC 1000, then super 16 . I developed also slides and i know very well when a slide isn't well processed ( i apologize for my english).
Anyway, this was only a test, my idea was to replace ,for some shots, the super 16 for super duper8, so i have deliberately over and underexposed some shots, but also when correct exposure, the image isn't acceptable.
Now i will test Double super (duper)8 and let us hope well.
Regards

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:36 pm

filman wrote:hello everybody
i just received my first K 40 (3/2006) from Lausanne, (after years of shooting in 16mm), and i am very disappoint : the film look as faded, with coarse grain and a very flat color dynamic range. This cartridge has been put before in a Nizo 800 then in a Nalcom 1000, with the new metallic pressure plate from Andec. May be that Kodak Lausanne lab is saving on processing ?
Regards

Incorrect exposure is the most likely cause. Any chance the unprocessed film got x-ray exposure from airline security, which would cause fogging and increased grain?

Post by **super8man** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:21 pm

I had this happen once when I used to go through Fuji for processing (I think they went through Dwaynes). This was back in 1998. However, like the above posters, it was a one time deal. Of course, the footage that was affected was from a vacation I had made so the footage was partially lost (from the looks of things, I believe the film was broken (or the reel ahead or behind mine) while in the tanks). The footage I got back was heavily grainy, huge chroma problems and dirty dirt dirty...incredible. But like I said, it was the one and only time in my years of shooting. And at least I got something back...

Don't fret over it, just shoot more film. It's done and nothing can replace your footage so you may as well move on to a later stage of grieving: acceptance or reconciliation.

Post by **Poliestere** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:55 pm

Ciao Filman,
la mia era solo una prima considerazione, dato che non ho capito come e dove l'hai girato, stÃƒÂ² cartdridge di K40. Per la mia esperienza, molto S.8 e ultimamente anche 16mm in Kodachrome, come giÃƒÂ detto mai nessun problema, ad essere pignoli in un'occasione c'ÃƒÂ¨ stato un certo ritardo nella consegna di un 16mm K40, ma tutto poi si ÃƒÂ¨ risolto bene.
Come ha ipotizzato John Pytlak, potrebbe trattarsi di esposizione sbagliata (generalmente io espongo il K40 a 50 Iso, in caso di riprese con condizioni d'illuminazione scarse espongo a 40), per quanto riguarda il danneggiamento della pellicola a causa dei raggi X non credo che produca dei danni cosÃƒÂ¬ evidenti su un'emulsione da 40 Iso (il problema ÃƒÂ¨ per i materiali con piÃƒÂ¹ alta sensibilitÃƒÂ )...
C'ÃƒÂ¨ anche l'ipotesi di un errore di laboratorio, certo la probabilitÃƒÂ ÃƒÂ¨ veramente bassa, perÃƒÂ² c'ÃƒÂ¨ sempre, e puÃƒÂ² riguardare qualsiasi materiale sensibile, non solo il Kodachrome (anzi, essendo il trattamento collaudato da circa 70 anni penso che fornisca una grandissima affidabilitÃƒÂ ).
Continua tranquillamente a girare con il Kodachrome, ÃƒÂ¨ la miglior pellicola invertibile sul mercato, sia per la qualitÃƒÂ delle immagini che per la durata delle stesse nel tempo, ÃƒÂ¨ l'unica pellicola a colori che fornisce splendide immagini con "resistenza d'archivio"...
Ciao
Poliestere

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:59 pm

La pellicola puÃƒÂ² avere nebbia dai raggi X.

Post by **filman** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:03 pm

thanks everybody for your answers, i am shure the Kodachrome is the best film ever made in the world, i still use it for 16mm. I am shure also of the exposition of my S8 K40 film, i can estimate when there is an error in the exposition (!) and in any case if the exposition is correct, what is this coarse grain? . If the processing was correct, another possibility are the X-rays in the custom-airport. What can i do ? To cover the cart with lead ?
Regards

Ciao Poliestere
non cantare a mÃƒÂ¨ le lodi per il Kodachrome, sono io il primo sostenitore di questa incredibile pellicola,ho iniziato ad utilizzarla ben trenta anni fÃƒÂ , ed a parte una breve parentesi con il single 8, ho continuato ad utilizzarla fino ad oggi con il 16mm ed a scattare foto con le diapositive K25. La conosco come le mie tasche, ormai non uso piÃƒÂ¹ neanche l'esposimetro.Mi sono convinto ad utilizzare il S8 poichÃƒÂ¨ nel mio laboratorio riverso in video tantissime bobine di kodachrome Super 8, e vedendo i colori e la risoluzione di questa pellicola ho voluto fare una prova. Si vede che sono stato sfortunato, farÃƒÂ² un altro tentativo, speriamo bene.
Ciao
Roberto

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:05 pm

At least in USA airports, the Transportation Security Administration rules specifically allow requesting a hand inspection for ALL motion picture films, regardless of speed. NEVER put unprocessed film in checked baggage, and ask for hand inspection if you carry it on the plane.

Post by **freddiesykes** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:57 am

Le lingua italiana ÃƒÂ¨ molto simile a spagnolo. Devo imparare piÃƒÂ¹..Voglio filmare il Colosseo.

Ciao

Post by **tlatosmd** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:05 am

Well, who woulda thought, our dear John speaks Italian! ;)

And Freddy, the reason why Italian is a lot like Spanish is because both are Italian languages. Something interesting regarding that I found lately is this, being even easier to understand than Interlingua: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione.

Post by **gianni1** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:57 am

European Airports still X-Ray film, even if you ask them not to. Last month, flying out of Geneva airport, the security only hand checked my 1600 films, and X-ray'd my 800 and 200 (35mm films). I had prepared all the unshot films in a clear plastic bag, but the guards simply picked out the fast films for hand check, and chucked the slower films onto the X-Ray conveyer belt.

I had asked them nicely several times to hand check it all, but since it was just leftover rolls and my photoshoot was processed locally, I didn't complain. Maybe I ought to have asked in Francais or Italiano?

Gianni

Filmshooting