Processing Old Kodachrome

I thought it might be nice to publish instructions about how to expose and develop leftover rolls of Kodachrome as black-and-white film, but after looking in to it, I don't recommend it. The reason is that Kodachrome has rem-jet anti-halation backing like motion picture negative films. You can expose Kodachrome at about half its ISO and develop in any continuous-tone developer such as D-76 and get a usable (even good) black-and-white negative image (the film can also be processed with reversal processes to achieve a monochrome positive), but the problem is that you still have to remove the rem-jet backing, which sounds like a fussy, messy, and labor-intensive project to me (it involves soaking the film in a borax solution and wiping away the rem-jet by hand, with sponges. According to those who've done it, you'll use about four sponges per roll, because they foul quickly). I've been a darkroom tech in the past and I wouldn't want to have to do it. Whatever money you save by using the old film would be more than offset by the labor involved in processing it.

So here's my considered recommendation as to what to do with leftover unexposed Kodachrome: throw it away (or take it to a lab that does silver recovery), and if you want to shoot some old-fashioned looking B&W, buy some fresh Plus-X and pull it. Sometimes the simple solution is the best solution.

The only reason to process old Kodachrome would be if it's already been exposed at some point in the past and you have reason to believe the information in the images might be valuable (a deceased relative, top-secret spy stuff, etc.). In that case I would recommend finding a good custom lab willing to take on the task (try a lab that handles motion-picture film), rather than attempting it yourself.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Paul Glover: "There are a couple of places which will develop Kodachrome as B&W, Blue Moon Camera and Machine being one of them if I recall correctly. [I have not confirmed this, as Blue Moon is closed for New Year's weekend. —Ed.]

"By the time you consider the relatively high cost of doing this vs. buying some new film and developing it yourself the only reason to bother at all would be to get at the images on already exposed film.

"As others have mentioned, I'd rather support those who are selling new film so they're more likely to continue making it, which is the same reason why I don't go for cheap expired film deals on auction sites."

Comments

[Jeff Glass]

I totally agree: buy that Plus-X, buy that Ektachrome, buy that Fujichrome and keep the living films alive!

[MJFerron]

This post has spawned thoughts I must express. First I've never shot Kodachrome. I would guess though most Kodachrome users that are still active shoot some digital.
I recently downloaded a trial version of DXO's Film Pack software and there is a setting for Kodachrome 25. I loaded a bright colored cityscape from my EPL1 and processed the image as Kodachrome 25. Film Pack did a great job and the original looked quite flat and dull in comparison. I tried duplicating the look in PS and couldn't do it.

A side note on the above mentioned Plus-x. Just put a roll through my old Rolliecord and developed it in Ilfosol-3. I most often use D76 but what nice results this combo gave me. Cloudy day, sunny 16 exposures @ISO 200 and the shadows were about perfect, highlights in check and nice fine grain. If I was ever going to do the one camera for a year thing this would be the camera/film developer combo I would use. (I think)

[Jeffrey Lee]

Thanks for this info, Mike. I'm hopeful my last roll made it in before the deadline yesterday, but if I get it sent back to me unprocessed, I was thinking I might be able to find some b & w process to at least rescue the images. Glad there's at least some possibility.

[Jeff Glass]

By the way, there's a current thread on APUG where an ex-Kodak chemist is discussing making a new, Kodachrome type film and processing old KR at home. Very intriguing but out of my league.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/85529-kodachrome-type-film-formula.html

Again, I advocate buying the new stuff so we don't have to say good bye to anymore lovely emulsions.

[Mike Johnston]

MJFerron,
I wonder if the "3" iteration of Ilfosol has solved the foaming problem? The original Ilfosol could create some very strange-looking uneven development that required lots of troubleshooting to identify, once upon a time.

Take a small amount of Ilfosol 3 in a bottle or jar and shake it vigorously. If it produces a noticeable amount of foam, I'd say stick with your D-76.

Mike

[Jay Carey]

What started me on to photography, I think, and not sure why, back in the 60s, was when perusing National Geographic magazine, at my grandparent's house, I noted that they labeled, in very small type, under most of the photos, whether Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or even Anscochrome.

[Tony Karp]

Some Kodachrome memories here:

http://www.timuseum.com/nvart2/nvart2-kodachrome-memories.htm

[WeeDram]

Removing the remjet may not be quite as labourious as indicated:

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20919&start=0

(read to the bottom, post by Richard P T)

[MJFerron]

Mike I mixed a small batch of Ilfosol 3 about 1-4 with water and shook it like a martini. No foam.

[Tim]

Oh, so cross-processing is possible. I tried looking for instructions / experience before the deadline, but drew a blank. Neat to know, at least.

MJFerron: I have DxO - bought it on the strength of the filmpack stuff. One of the first experiments I did was to compare the same shot with different film/camera emulations. In a montage of 29 variations, the K64 is the most outstanding, and - prior goth tendencies notwithstanding - not in a nice way.

(Must get on with processing the film that case back, properly, now...)

[Mike Johnston]

WeeDram,

That does seem like a better way....

Mike

[Rudy Mack "bokeh"]

Don't be ridiculous, just store it in a cool dry place where the box won't get crushed. In 40 years it will a really cool artifact from the "days of film". I have a collection of old film and old film containers and I'm probably not the only person on this blog who does. Throw it away indeed!

[Mike Johnston]

Rudy Mack is right--don't throw it away, just don't necessarily think it will be useful.

Heck, if you don't want it you can probably sell it on Ebay.

Mike

[Pak-Ming Wan]

By some other coincidence, I've been recently shooting some old rolls of Technical Pan which I had lying around in my freezer. I was only starting to dabble in black and white when I started using Tech Pan, so in the end I bought a brick of it and some Technidol, and shipped it with me when I moved to Paris.

It turns out shooting with a tripod was an entirely different and pleasing experience compared to using 400TX. There's a certain amount of care you take I suppose when you're using something that's just not available any more (especially more so when it is a film rated at ISO 25 and you have to use a tripod). Walking around Paris after midnight with a tripod and a film camera certainly got a couple of weird looks and questions...

Pak

[Josh wilkins]

I was wondering if anyone had specific data on the silver content per roll of Kodachrome 64, 36 exposure. Grams, grains, troy oz whatever units is fine.
Also, any do it yourself methods of recovery?
Anyone know of places that will do it?
Thanks very much
Josh