Popular Photography and Kodachrome

StephenM

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,607
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I read today on another forum that the American magazine Popular Photography has just ceased publication. It was a magazine I read in the 1960s (I read all the photo magazines I could find then) but hadn't seen it around for a long time. That's all by the way. The interesting thing for me was looking at their web site, and on glancing down the "News" found a potentially interesting piece which I haven't followed up (it will involve going to another site via a link to read) called Someone Figured Out a Process For Developing Kodachrome Film In Color.

It might be of interest to some here.
 
It's always sad when a part of our past is no more, with me in the late 70s early 80s it used to be a trip to the newsagents to buy Amateur Photographer, What Camera Weekly and Practical Photography. Full of adverts for Kodachrome and camera shops such as Fox Talbot, Mackinnons?, Eric Fishwick, etc. Thanks for posting, it's triggered some happy memories. :)
 
By the late 70s I wasn't reading the photographic magazines much - titles like "What Camera Weekly" were the new kids on the block. In the 60s, I remember "Amateur Photographer" and the other weekly, "Photo News Weekly" (newspaper format), and the monthlies "Good Photography", "35mm and subminiature photography" (a small page size to reflect the title!), "Photography", "Practical Photography" (some of the articles in that were sufficiently memorable that I can still recall them), "Modern Photography" (American). I'm sure that there were several more that have slipped my mind. Later titles were things like "Camera User", "Photo Technique", "Petersens Photographic" (American), and doubtless many more. My main recollection was that technical articles were more technical than nowadays, and the practical ones included things that required a home workshop to produce! They seemed to manage to go for years without noticeably repeating themselves, which isn't the case nowadays from what I've seen. They were giants in those days...

Mackinnons is correct - but the BIG one was Polysales whose catalogue was wonderful - as were their products, some of which I still have. I never pass the roudabout on the seafront at Worthing without recalling the small shop once occupied by another long time AP advertiser.

I'm really posting though because I missed putting in a link to the Kodachrome piece, so here it is.
 
I used to buy a selection of magazines but settled on Practical Photography in the early 90s, taking out a subscription because the articles were so useful. Very disappointed after 12 months, when it appeared that the new magazines were essentially repeating information from a year earlier, though I suppose there's only so many ways to take a photograph. Rarely bother with magazines now unless it's something like the BPJ or B&W Photography with a couple of interesting articles. Then I go online and forget to read them anyway. :rolleyes:
 
In one sense, there's only one way to take a photograph - point the camera in the right direction, focus as appropriate, set aperture and shutter speed and release the shutter. Job done. On the other hand...

Today, cameras are pretty much of a monoculture. They are either cameras you use at eye level with a viewfinder (DSLR or CSC) or that don't have a viewfinder and you use at arm's length (compacts). Back in the 60s there were more distinct types. Whether the more varied equipment gave rise to more varied approaches, I don't know (but strongly suspect it did). My recollection of magazine articles from the 60s is of a wider variety of types of article. Practical Photography had an article on the photographic uses of Dexion shelving (and proper creative uses of shelving, not as simply something to put equipment on); Modern Photography (I think - either that or Popular Photography) had an article titled "the colour odds are 10 to one against Tom (?) McCarthy", on how the photographer's creative and experimental approach meant that he only had about 3 keepers from each 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome. The surprise being that the number was so low. Translate that into modern practice.... Or how about how to get a (damp) print from conventional film five minutes after exposure (Practical Photography again - I still have the issue).

One big difference between photographic magazines then and now was that most articles were written by free lance contributors (or at least appeared to be such) rather than editorial staff. For all I can see, magazines like Practical Photography today rely on three or four people to write everything, so naturally there will be a lack of variety. The other big difference was that the publishers were happy with a small circulation that kept them ticking over, rather than massive market share. You could still write in and get a personal answer to photographic questions by post - not a paragraph in the magazine of readers' queries for a favoured few.

I read every photographic magazine I could find in the years from 1962/3 to 1967 when I went to university and other things then occupied my mind. I never noticed a recycling of ideas in individual magazines, or even overlap (apart from which equipment was reviewed) between different titles. Nowadays, it's not only ideas that are recycled, but also staff. Staff from magazine A will turn up at magazine B and so on.

I suspect magazines are doomed, in that they are owned by big publishers who demand big sales. You can't attract a mass audience with predominently "difficult" material, and you can only keep new readers coming on board by being heavy on "which camera should I buy" comparisons (how many reviews fail to compare the camera under review with others aimed at the same segment of the market - that never used to happen?) or elementary articles on how to produce photos with impact (and nothing more to be said in their favour) which will make someone pause for a couple of seconds before moving on to the next frame on flickr?
 
Was Kodachrome expensive to buy and develop back in the day compared to more universal processing? How much in today's money?
 
When 36 exposures of PanF cost just under £6, a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost £36 (my inflation adjustment on mid 60s prices). That's from memory - 5/8d compared to 36/-. PanF did not include processing or prints. I could provide a full list of actual prices from winter 1960/61 from an old catalogue I've had from new :D if you'd like them.
 
I think all the American photography magazines have been responsilble for their own demise.
I've read Popular Photography a few times in the past and apart from being over 50% ads (OK, I know they pay for the content) I've found a lot of the articles to be very simplistic and one thing that really annoys me is the "continued on page xxx" that nearly all articles seem to end with, where you have to thumb to one of the back pages and find the conclusion of the article you were reading.
From what I've seen elsewhere, most American togs seem to prefer the British magazines anyway, since the content is so much better and more up to date and relevant.
 
StephenM said:
When 36 exposures of PanF cost just under £6, a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost £36 (my inflation adjustment on mid 60s prices). That's from memory - 5/8d compared to 36/-. PanF did not include processing or prints. I could provide a full list of actual prices from winter 1960/61 from an old catalogue I've had from new :D if you'd like them.
Click to expand...
You're gonna hope you've got some keepers at those prices!!
 
rjbell said:
You're gonna hope you've got some keepers at those prices!!
Click to expand...
It certainly made you think twice before pressing the shutter.
 
Interesting... but I don't remember quite such a differential in 1970s Australia...
 
For those not old enough to remember, Kodachrome seemed expensive because it included a film mailing envelope, processing by Kodak and return postage in a plastic slide box. E6 slide film such as Ektachrome was significantly cheaper as it just included the film, so you had to pay for developing (and slide mounting) separately.

I think this price difference would be so significant today as to put most people off using Kodachrome if it was ever reintroduced along the same lines. I think a few people would try it initially for old time's sake or for novelty value, but after that I think the market for it would probably be a lot smaller than for Ektachrome if they reintroduced that?
 
I must admit I'm surprised that no-one has commented on the implications of being able to home process Kodachrome to give a colour result....
 
StephenM said:
a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost £36 (my inflation adjustment on mid 60s prices).
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't pay that today...but strange I did pay the price in 60's and 70's although only used it mainly for holidays or special occasions..
 
I doubt you'd pay 36/- (£1.60) today :D
 
StephenM said:
I doubt you'd pay 36/- (£1.60) today :D
Click to expand...

Well I rate everything now to the measly government's pension of £150/week :( Actually I give it all to wife for food so have nothing, so to get spending money for myself I stand on street corners with a begging bowl :D
 
Well, in 2009 I decided I needed to shoot some Kodachrome before they stopped processing it, so I shot 4 rolls, it would have been 5 but.....we won't go in to that.
I don't remember exact dates but it seemed that after I got them back from Dwaynes in the States, it was only a few months before the word was they weren't taking anymore film.
Anyway, it was 36 exp 35mm cos that's all there was, and it cost £12.99 a roll including processing and shipping both ways.
This was the arse end of Kodachrome, the only other processor which was in Switzerland, had already closed so it had to go to the US.

I'm not old enough to know the ins and outs of Kodachrome, its beautiful film, I know that, but it does seem odd to talk about now, they idea that something so popular could only be processed in 2 places on the entire planet, Kansas USA and Lausanne Switzerland just doesn't fit well with the 21st century.
Did they ever process it anywhere else ??
 
joxby said:
Well, in 2009 I decided I needed to shoot some Kodachrome before they stopped processing it, so I shot 4 rolls, it would have been 5 but.....we won't go in to that.
I don't remember exact dates but it seemed that after I got them back from Dwaynes in the States, it was only a few months before the word was they weren't taking anymore film.
Anyway, it was 36 exp 35mm cos that's all there was, and it cost £12.99 a roll including processing and shipping both ways.
This was the arse end of Kodachrome, the only other processor which was in Switzerland, had already closed so it had to go to the US.

I'm not old enough to know the ins and outs of Kodachrome, its beautiful film, I know that, but it does seem odd to talk about now, they idea that something so popular could only be processed in 2 places on the entire planet, Kansas USA and Lausanne Switzerland just doesn't fit well with the 21st century.
Did they ever process it anywhere else ??
Click to expand...

Do you mean in the old days? As IIRC mine went to Hemel Hempstead erm or was it Harrow (North W London)
 
I was always an Agfa then Fuji slide user, and the only time I ever used Kodachrome was when I was given maybe 20 or so which were OOD and had been badly stored in a pretty warm environment. I was impressed with the results, although some had obviously been affected by the heat. I wasn't so impressed by the cardboard mounts as I was used to plastic ones from Fuji and Agfa, but I guess that made them thinner and lighter for posting and storing. Raking through the film fridge a few weeks back I found a brick of OOD Fuji Sensia, but my pleasure turned to pain when I discovered Fuji stopped their process paid service some years ago.:eek:
 
Peter B said:
I was always an Agfa then Fuji slide user, and the only time I ever used Kodachrome was when I was given maybe 20 or so which were OOD and had been badly stored in a pretty warm environment. I was impressed with the results, although some had obviously been affected by the heat. I wasn't so impressed by the cardboard mounts as I was used to plastic ones from Fuji and Agfa, but I guess that made them thinner and lighter for posting and storing. Raking through the film fridge a few weeks back I found a brick of OOD Fuji Sensia, but my pleasure turned to pain when I discovered Fuji stopped their process paid service some years ago.:eek:
Click to expand...

My Agfa slides has faded slightly over the years but worse is Perutz.
 
excalibur2 said:
Do you mean in the old days? As IIRC mine went to Hemel Hempstead erm or was it Harrow (North W London)
Click to expand...
Hemel Hempstead was the address that I remember. I liked the cardboard mounts as they printed the date on them.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
My Agfa slides has faded slightly over the years but worse is Perutz.
Click to expand...

No doubt some or many of mine will have faded now as well. I also tried whatever could be bought cheap in the old days, plus I even tried developing my own at home. I can't remember the make, although the colours came out better than Ektachrome which I found to be a bit blue. Here's the one and only digitised example of my home processed E6.
516562-4a0afe64a07c6329.jpg
 
excalibur2 said:
Do you mean in the old days? As IIRC mine went to Hemel Hempstead erm or was it Harrow (North W London)
Click to expand...

yeah, I remember my mother sending me to post kodachrome for processing when I was knee high to a grasshopper, but that was only the 70's
it was unusual to have to post film off somewhere when there was a Boots on every street corner, I dunno where it went though.
 
I still have an unused roll of Kodachrome. My dad used slide film. I'm assuming it was normal Kodak as he's tight as a duck's proverbial.

I bought my Fuji x30 just because it had a Kodachrome setting but it seems rather garish and lacking in the mystery something film has. So it sits on the shelf ignored.
 
After looking through my slides, it seems by 1989 (probably earlier but I didn't use it that regularly) Kodak had started using plastic slide mounts for Kodachrome, and a flattish, yellow plastic box with the address label Sellotaped to it. The address you had to post it to depended on where you lived, in the 1970s and 80s I think it went off the Hemel Hempstead plant if you lived in the UK; but in the latter days, as this scan of a postage envelope from a roll with an 04/2008 expiry date shows, it had to be sent to Switzerland if you lived in the countries indicated (including the UK), but Stuttgart if you lived in Germany.

 
Last edited:
Ah the good old days of Kodachrome rated at 64 or 25 (Iso/Asa), none of this modern 400/800/1600 etc.
Beautiful emulsion it was, not sure home processing will work, certainly didn't back in the day.
Matt
 
Mr Badger said:
The address you had to post it to depended on where you lived, in the 1970s and 80s I think it went off the Hemel Hempstead plant if you lived in the UK;
Click to expand...

Box 14, Hemel Hempstead.

Kodachrome was unique in the way that the colours were developed, and I think it was as a result of this that it was the most stable transparency film.
 
StephenM said:
Box 14, Hemel Hempstead.

Kodachrome was unique in the way that the colours were developed, and I think it was as a result of this that it was the most stable transparency film.
Click to expand...

But with no 'mould retardant' :(
 
StephenM said:
Box 14, Hemel Hempstead.

Kodachrome was unique in the way that the colours were developed, and I think it was as a result of this that it was the most stable transparency film.
Click to expand...

As often mentioned it's good for over 100 years storage and even after that time there might be only a slight change in the yellow dye (some say 20% loss after 185 years o_O ). My slides have been stored for up to 50 years at room temp and in the dark and no change.
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Quite how they know that is a little beyond me, seeing as it's only been in existence since 1935.
Click to expand...

Extrapolation dear boy, extrapolation (or as I like to call it, guesswork) :D
 
MatBin said:
Ah the good old days of Kodachrome rated at 64 or 25 (Iso/Asa), none of this modern 400/800/1600 etc.
Beautiful emulsion it was, not sure home processing will work, certainly didn't back in the day.
Matt
Click to expand...
Home processing was never an option for Kodachrome.
Since it's demise there have been various reports of people getting hold of the processing machines and saying they are going to set up a processing facility, but the consensus seems to be that the chemicals involved are too exotic/expensive/polluting and generally environmentally unfriendly as to make the idea impractical.

excalibur2 said:
As often mentioned it's good for over 100 years storage and even after that time there might be only a slight change in the yellow dye (some say 20% loss after 185 years o_O ). My slides have been stored for up to 50 years at room temp and in the dark and no change.
Click to expand...
I think most of those films are likely to be around long after our "modern" digitally stored images are consigned to the recycle bin of history.
 
StephenM said:
I must admit I'm surprised that no-one has commented on the implications of being able to home process Kodachrome to give a colour result....
Click to expand...

it WAS the thing that struck me, but, not having any of the film stock in the fridge/freezer, I didn't take my musings any further...
 
chuckles said:
But with no 'mould retardant' :(
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is too true. I can vouch for the fact that my late father's transparencies, left in an unheated environment, have developed significant mildew growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top