KODACHROME Film: Interview with Kodak's President Jeff Clarke 2/20/2017

[Photo Engineer]

The Kodadachrome will be on the shelf right next to the Cubichrome - a film that will simultaneously show all facets of the subject.

I thought it would be 3D.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you said, but would that still be a standard E6 process? Is a changed colour developer ( I assumed that's what CD is) mean a modified (i.e. non-standard) E6 process?

I have no idea whatsoever.

 

[keenmaster486]

I doubt that Kodak would bring back Kodachrome as E-6 if they brought it back at all - for the very simple reason that much of their potential Kodachrome customer base would drop out simply because "it's not real Kodachrome" and they would probably prefer Ektachrome or Velvia if they bought E-6 at all.

 

[Lionel1972]

As much as I wish I could home process a Kodachrome look-alike film, I'm very much afraid that the negative impact of not bringing back "the real Kodachrome process" would deconstruct the huge positive wave Kodak has managed to rise recently with their spectacular announcements.

 

[Agulliver]

I think there are three aspects to Kodachrome...at least for me.

1. The look. *nothing* else ever looked like Kodachrome. Can this be replicated with an E6 film? Doubtful but they can get close.

2. The longevity. As another poster showed, photos taken 30,40,50,60,70+ years ago look like new with Kodachrome. This cannot be achieved with E6, to the best of my understanding. Didn't Kodak once reckon that Kodachrome had a life of around 300 years?

3. The fact that it is different....difficult to use, difficult to process...yes this appeals. If a new "Kodachrome" comes along that looks like K'chrome but can be processed in my kitchen sink and is more forgiving than K25 or K64 was...then it's not the same experience at all.

If they produce something that is processed the E6 way but looks like Kodachrome, I think Kodak would be wise not to call it "Kodachrome". It would be great to have a new film but unless it actually follows the same basic method as previous K'chromes then it simply isn't K'chrome. It's another E6 film...nothing wrong with that...but it's ersatz K'chrome. And people might not be happy with that. Kodak is winning hearts and minds with the relaunch of Ektachrome (though note the naysayers and people demanding various speeds, formats etc). Ditto with the super 8 camera. Don't blow it by releasing a product called "Kodachrome" that bears only superficial resemblance to Kodachrome.

 

[Lionel1972]

On a side note: anyone noticed the tilt-shift effect on Jeff Clarke's portrait in this article? Could he actually be handing journalists a portrait of himself shot on large format Kodak film? I wouldn't be too surprised since last year he was handing out his business card at Las Vegas CES made from a piece of 35mm cinema print film. This guy is pretty cool in my book.

 

[BMbikerider]

At least in the interview it was not dismissed out of handby the Kodak rep. Being possible that it could be a modified E6 process does seem to make it almost possible.

 

[afriman]

I don't think an "ersatz" Kodachrome would necessarily be difficult to market, provided it's distinguished from the "real thing", e.g. by calling it something like "Kodachrome-E6". Then it could be abbreviated to KE6, and if a modified E6 process is required, it could also be called that! Most users probably won't care that it's not the original process and, as other posters have said, many will welcome the fact that it can easily be home processed. It's mainly the "look" that people want, and that is how it should be marketed - as a new product that is reminiscent of the old Kodachrome. A kind of nostalgia trip, if you will. That should tie in nicely with the view of many young "converts" that film is a cool "old-school" thing.

 

[Agulliver]

Yes, they could get away with calling it something other than "Kodachrome". A name such as "Kodachrome-E6" or similar would sufficiently distance a new product from the real thing. But if they announce, with much fanfare, that Kodachrome itself is reborn and back...but actually have an Ektachrome like film....a lot of people won't be happy with that.

I'd wager that while the look is the reason why people used Kodachrome....the vast majority of users were aware that the process was very different to other films. There are, surely, patents describing what Kodachrome is and why it's different from other films. Releasing a product called "Kodachrome" that has none of these unique properties (while looking a lot like Kodachrome) would not be wise...in my humble....

 

[mynewcolour]

I'm waiting to see if they got it right about super 8 before raising my hopes regarding a new film.

 

[RattyMouse]

I wish they would bring back 120 T-max!!!

Brutal. But spot on.

 

[RattyMouse]

It's gone?

TMAX 100 in 120 size hasnt been available in about a year.

 

[RattyMouse]

Is that a Freudian misspelling? Are you predicting a Dadaist E-6 film that rejects the logic, reason and aestheticism of K-14?

Nope, just a regular misspelling. I think there isnt any way possible that today's Kodak would ever attempt to bring back K-14 processing. It simply cannot happen. Just like NASA today can't bring back the Saturn V rocket. The time for that technology has passed and the cost to bring it back would be beyond massive, and not able to earn any return on that investment.

 

[Cholentpot]

TMAX 100 in 120 size hasnt been available in about a year.

Is 400 still around?

To quote Men In Tights, 'This is TERRIBLE news!'

 

[bvy]

Is 400 still around?

To quote Men In Tights, 'This is TERRIBLE news!'

This needs some context. T-Max 100 in 120 has NOT been discontinued. It has been unavailable due to (according to Kodak) issues with the backing paper. This has been the case since around last spring (2016). ETA's for availability keep getting pushed out.

 

[faberryman]

Is paper backing really such a tough nut to crack. We didn't have a problem for a century or more, and now we are well on a year trying to "solve" an issue that other manufacturers don't seem to have.

 

[bvy]

Is paper backing really such a tough nut to crack.

Yes, it is.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, it is.

REMJET instead of paper?

 

[BrianShaw]

Has anyone seen any evidence of anything new from Kodak... other than talk? A colleague of mine was at CES last month and checked out the Kodak booth for me. No samples, no examples, no nuthin. She didn't even bring back literature... which doesn't mean it wasn't there but I think she would have brought something if it were available. I'm keeping positive, but also keeping a grip on reality. It isn't real until someone sees something.

 

[mike c]

Kodak still has 400 trix and 400tmy out and selling, it has to be the same paper.

 

[faberryman]

Yes, it is.

Why? Kodak didn't have the problem for a century. Now it does. Other 120 film manufacturers don't have the problem. Just Kodak. It appears that 120 film is such a low volume item its not worth their time and resources to resolve. A year. Really?

 

[mynewcolour]

It isn't real until someone sees something.

It isn't real until it's on the internet.

;-)

 

[RattyMouse]

Is paper backing really such a tough nut to crack. We didn't have a problem for a century or more, and now we are well on a year trying to "solve" an issue that other manufacturers don't seem to have.

For some it is a huge problem. For others, it's not an issue at all.

 

[RattyMouse]

Is 400 still around?

To quote Men In Tights, 'This is TERRIBLE news!'

Yes, still around, but also still having problems with backing paper. Just recently a supposedly "fixed" lot of TMAX400 has come back with numbers imprinting onto the film. The problem has still not been corrected.

 

[Berri]

If it does come on the market I hope it'll be E6 film with a kodachrome look, but it has to be standard E6, I don't want to buy C41, E6 and E7!