What Films Would You Like To See Kodak Re-Introduce Again? And why?

[DREW WILEY]

I lost track with NG. I canceled my subscription when they went over to matte paper and almost entirely digital imagery with an overall flat look, including quite a bit of PS Tomfoolery (though noted as such when present). I also got tired of the new internally P-correct heavy-handed editorial presence (it wasn't a matter of either agreeing or disagreeing with their particular viewpoint, but it sheer predictability, and that I don't want to hear it there; the magazine had become something it formerly wasn't - more of a diatribe).

For many, the writing on the wall for Kodachrome was when Kodak turned over the processing to a subcontractor
called Kodalux, and blemishes in processing, including scratches, started frequently showing up. But back then,
E-6 frames still couldn't compete in either detail or nuanced tonality with K. It took awhile. But E6 was already ahead in convenience.

 

[FredK]

As someone who worked on the K-200 & K-100 & K-400 program back in 1986, where only one K-200 was commercialized, I'll throw my hat into this ring as to why Kodachrome was still around to the near end. But first, Alan, all silver halide is sensitive to blue light, even when dye sensitized to a different spectral color. So, a yellow filter layer must be within a three-color film in order to keep blue light from adding unwanted exposure to the green and red records.

As K-64 user, the color response of Kodachrome was strikingly different than that of any Ektachrome. As a reversal, the film's design is to make the smallest & mid sized grains capture the least information in the negative stage but when reversed, the image as a positive becomes sharper because it is those small and mid-sized grains which the dye couples with to produce tiny dye clouds. As good as E-6 and the green box film became, they couldn't surpass the K-25 for sharpness. The fact that K-25 would not coat well when it was attempted to move into Building 38 was its demise...the costs to rebuild were not justifiable for the volume demand.

As for the process, the Kodak mini-lab K-14 process equipment, which a number of major labs had moved to, were not built robust enough for a 30 year lifetime and a number of the tanks formed leaks way too soon, leading labs to have less reliability while tanks were repaired and increasing their costs. Dwaynes was one of the few labs which had not changed over to a mini-lab so it made sense that they would be the last lab in the business (other than Kodak's older large tank machine).

From what I heard (I'm no Chem E.) The manufacturing of the dyes was a difficult and potentially harmful thing (caustic). US suppliers dropped out of the manufacturing of the components and production was moved overseas and whenever materials are moved overseas the inventory pipeline increases. Eventually, costs to manufacture, changes to the acceptable Health & Safety chemical hit-list, and lower sales volumes put the nails into the beloved K-64.

I'd love to see it come back but I know that studies were done ten years ago and the E100 was the winner of what reversal to bring back.

 

[MattKing]

National Geographic used it almost exclusively for a long time

Perhaps because they had their own lab. In fact, ther in-house lab had the highest volumes for 35mm slide film of any Kodak supported lab in the woirld.
Most of those labs processed more movie film than 35mm slide film.

 

[chuckroast]

Perhaps because they had their own lab. In fact, ther in-house lab had the highest volumes for 35mm slide film of any Kodak supported lab in the woirld.
Most of those labs processed more movie film than 35mm slide film.

Their Leica M + Kodachrome images will live forever.

 

[Milpool]

I'd love to see it come back but I know that studies were done ten years ago and the E100 was the winner of what reversal to bring back.

Current E100 is great. Expensive but a terrific film.

 

[chuckroast]

I also got tired of the new internally P-correct heavy-handed editorial presence (it wasn't a matter of either agreeing or disagreeing with their particular viewpoint, but it sheer predictability, and that I don't want to hear it there; the magazine had become something it formerly wasn't - more of a diatribe).

+100

I used to go to NG for great stories and photographs.

If I need help, I go to my friends for advice, great books for context, and church for inspiration.

NG (and for that matter LFI which I've also dropped for slightly different but related reasons) are nowhere on the Chuckroast Improvement List.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I guess it makes sense that those who believe one can tell the difference between two things that science isn't able to distinguish from each other would dislike a publication that it so highly rated for being based on science.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

That was the case in Kodachrome's heyday.
But that heyday was long past.
Both E6 and C41 technologies surpassed it decades ago.
When Kodachrome was fully viable - due to the volume of it shot as home movies - it was wonderful. But the technical limitations inherent in its components meant that it couldn't be substantially improved. Those limitations weren't present in E6 and C41 materials, so that is where the R&D leading to further improvement went.

What do you mean, surpassed? Not at all! What do you mean, could not be improved? The green sensitizer used in K64 was replaced with a better one in about 1987. The new one was more stable. The red layer in K25 was revised in about 1976 because it gave too much red color, causing a loss of detail.

 

[MattKing]

1987 was past the heyday - when the labs were closing and the market was shrinking precipitously.
And while work on Kodachrome was just about over by then, the work on E6 and, more importantly, C41 was giving really robust improvements.
After 50 or so years, every improvement that was reasonably possible had been considered, and either incorporated or rejected as being too small, and too expensive for a film whose sales were plummeting could justify.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

1987 was past the heyday - when the labs were closing and the market was shrinking precipitously.
And while work on Kodachrome was just about over by then, the work on E6 and, more importantly, C41 was giving really robust improvements.
After 50 or so years, every improvement that was reasonably possible had been considered, and either incorporated or rejected as being too small, and too expensive for a film whose sales were plummeting could justify.

No, 1987 was probably the peak. I remember! C41 films had improved, and were soon to become much more of a factor. All reversal materials slowed down after about 1994.

 

[Scott J.]

I lost track with NG. I canceled my subscription when they went over to matte paper and almost entirely digital imagery with an overall flat look, including quite a bit of PS Tomfoolery (though noted as such when present). I also got tired of the new internally P-correct heavy-handed editorial presence (it wasn't a matter of either agreeing or disagreeing with their particular viewpoint, but it sheer predictability, and that I don't want to hear it there; the magazine had become something it formerly wasn't - more of a diatribe).

Ditto both points. Nat Geo in the 1980s (when I was a kid) was a major reason why I ended up pursuing science as a career and photography as a hobby. Awe-inspiring stuff. The quality of the printed images (IMO) seemed to begin to drop off in the mid-to-late 2000s, and I think Drew is onto something when he identifies flatness as a contributing factor. The magazine also seemed to adopt a new preference for "technical photographs" instead of images that felt personal and inspiring, which might reflect how digital cameras allowed for a reprioritization of what photographers were aiming for in their essays. The thing that really did it in for me, though, was (again, to echo Drew) the very class-centric moralizing of the well-heeled editorial staff (really overt in the 2010s). It just became gimmicky and eyeroll-inducing. On the bright side, the magazine got a new editor a few years ago (the old editor was widely regarded as the primary factor in the magazine's "drift"), and that seems to be an encouraging sign that it's trying to recover some of that old spirit of exploration and discovery.

Regardless, in its heyday, the magazine was probably the greatest accidental evangelist the photography industry ever had. That Ektar 25 ad in the September 1989 issue is legendary.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar 25 was still quite idiosyncratic. The present Ektar comes much closer as a replacement to the chrome look,
provided one understands the importance of K value color balance filter corrections to avoid crossover issues.

As far as NG now relying heavily on digital capture, it's apparently an attempt to standardize the majority of their workflow just like they relied on Kodachrome at one time. Then there were the old days, when standard equipment included toting around red sweaters for models in the scenes.

 

[MattKing]

No, 1987 was probably the peak. I remember! C41 films had improved, and were soon to become much more of a factor. All reversal materials slowed down after about 1994.

Kodak Canada started closing the labs in 1983.
Home Video killed Kodachrome.

 

[Craig]

Kodak Canada started closing the labs in 1983.
Home Video killed Kodachrome.

Time too, by the time a roll was shipped to Kodak, processed and returned it was usually a week. If could get my E6 film into my local lab by 8:30 in the morning it was done by noon.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Home video killed Kodachrome? The same neighbor that nearly killed you with boredom with a 2- hour slide show of their last vacation certainly didn't make things better with a grueling 3-hours long video version.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Time too, by the time a roll was shipped to Kodak, processed and returned it was usually a week. If could get my E6 film into my local lab by 8:30 in the morning it was done by noon.

Most large camera shops in the US had daily pick-up and delivery. If you got your film in before the pick-up, you usually got it back the next day. This was Columbus, Ohio. The lab was in Findlay. Ohio. Chicago had one, New Jersey had one, etc.

• Rochester, New York: The global headquarters for Kodak research and a primary high-volume processing hub.
• Atlanta, Georgia: Handled significant volume for the Southeastern US.
• Dallas, Texas: Served the South-Central region.
• Chicago, Illinois: A major midwestern processing center.
• Hollywood, California: Handled both still film and professional motion picture film processing.
• San Francisco, California: Served the West Coast.
• Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Provided processing services for the Northeast.
• Honolulu, Hawaii: Serviced the Pacific region.

 

[Dr. no]

It's been publicly said that at the end they coated the minimum size mater roll they could and the film cut from that roll wasn't selling before the expiry date.

...I was talking about NG using Kodachrome into the '90s, well into the Fujichrome and C41 era, not ten years later.

I lost track with NG. I canceled my subscription when they went over to matte paper and almost entirely digital imagery with an overall flat look, including quite a bit of PS Tomfoolery (though noted as such when present). I also got tired of the new internally P-correct heavy-handed editorial presence (it wasn't a matter of either agreeing or disagreeing with their particular viewpoint, but it sheer predictability, and that I don't want to hear it there; the magazine had become something it formerly wasn't - more of a diatribe).

Non-coated paper was "ok", not the best presentation but ecologically understancable, but moving from subscription-only to newstand also, with flashier covers and content, along with the dumbing-down that preceded and then accelerated after the Disney acquisition--I was a subscriber from 1975 till then...it usually had only one or two articles worth reading at that point, and the photography was largely pretty average. I am pretty liberal, but it was turning into mass-market drivel.
(And I missed the yellow border on the cover!)

I guess it makes sense that those who believe one can tell the difference between two things that science isn't able to distinguish from each other would dislike a publication that it so highly rated for being based on science.

National Geographic made, and kept, it's reputation for its humanist/social coverage of biologic and soft sciences (anthropology), and the coverage of hard science was upper general interest, not journal articles and statistical analysis.

Nat Geo in the 1980s (when I was a kid) was a major reason why I ended up pursuing science as a career and photography as a hobby. Awe-inspiring stuff. The quality of the printed images (IMO) seemed to begin to drop off in the mid-to-late 2000s, and I think Drew is onto something when he identifies flatness as a contributing factor. The magazine also seemed to adopt a new preference for "technical photographs" instead of images that felt personal and inspiring, which might reflect how digital cameras allowed for a reprioritization of what photographers were aiming for in their essays. The thing that really did it in for me, though, was (again, to echo Drew) the very class-centric moralizing of the well-heeled editorial staff (really overt in the 2010s). It just became gimmicky and eyeroll-inducing. On the bright side, the magazine got a new editor a few years ago (the old editor was widely regarded as the primary factor in the magazine's "drift"), and that seems to be an encouraging sign that it's trying to recover some of that old spirit of exploration and discovery.

Regardless, in its heyday, the magazine was probably the greatest accidental evangelist the photography industry ever had. That Ektar 25 ad in the September 1989 issue is legendary.

I have a rejection letter signed by Noel Grove from around 1990 (material shot on Tri-X, to keep this in-topic). I don't think it was stamped, or if my submission made it far enough to get rejected by a top editor (I'll remember it this way, though).

 

[MattKing]

Home video killed Kodachrome? The same neighbor that nearly killed you with boredom with a 2- hour slide show of their last vacation certainly didn't make things better with a grueling 3-hours long video version.

It killed the economics for the labs, because a huge proportion of the film going through those Kodachrome machines was home movie film.

 

[MattKing]

Most large camera shops in the US had daily pick-up and delivery. If you got your film in before the pick-up, you usually got it back the next day. This was Columbus, Ohio. The lab was in Findlay. Ohio. Chicago had one, New Jersey had one, etc.

• Rochester, New York: The global headquarters for Kodak research and a primary high-volume processing hub.
• Atlanta, Georgia: Handled significant volume for the Southeastern US.
• Dallas, Texas: Served the South-Central region.
• Chicago, Illinois: A major midwestern processing center.
• Hollywood, California: Handled both still film and professional motion picture film processing.
• San Francisco, California: Served the West Coast.
• Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Provided processing services for the Northeast.
• Honolulu, Hawaii: Serviced the Pacific region.

None of which would have been of much use to Craig in Canada.
The Kodak Canada Kodachrome (and Ektachrome) lab in North Vancouver BC served Western Canada. And Customer Service was provided by those whose work was managed by my Dad. And his staff coordinated all that excellent pick-up and delivery service across that half of the country.
Dad retired in 1983 as they were in the process of shutting the plant down. It was finally fully closed by 1984 .
I'm not sure if both Brampton and Toronto had Kodachrome lines. In any case, Kodachrome processing in Canada didn't last much longer than 1984.
And by the way, I don't think anyone anywhere in the Kodak world ever referred to the lab in Northern California as being in San Francisco. It was always Palo Alto. It took me many years to realize that Palo Alto wasn't a single word .

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Agfa and Ansco for many years used a simple mail-in system for their chrome films, and I think Kodak could do it that way again, now that the consent decree of 1954 has been vacated. That decree did not apply to them, only to Kodak. It was an absurd decision to begin with.I believe that a 100-speed T-grain Kodachrome could be made that would be every bit as good as K25.

 

[MattKing]

Eastman Kodak are completely and entirely out of that business, and have been so for about 1/3 of a century. They have no people or any other infrastructure to possibly make that happen.

 

[Andrew H]

Yet another vote for Plus-X – in 35mm and sheet.

 

[Dr. no]

I believe that a 100-speed T-grain Kodachrome could be made that would be every bit as good as K25.

 

[Dr. no]

We just need the next Amazon trillionaire to have an interest in the best possible color photographs of Mars.

("Best possible" is an obvious non-quantifiable)

 

[David Lindquist]

None of which would have been of much use to Craig in Canada.
The Kodak Canada Kodachrome (and Ektachrome) lab in North Vancouver BC served Western Canada. And Customer Service was provided by those whose work was managed by my Dad. And his staff coordinated all that excellent pick-up and delivery service across that half of the country.
Dad retired in 1983 as they were in the process of shutting the plant down. It was finally fully closed by 1984 .
I'm not sure if both Brampton and Toronto had Kodachrome lines. In any case, Kodachrome processing in Canada didn't last much longer than 1984.
And by the way, I don't think anyone anywhere in the Kodak world ever referred to the lab in Northern California as being in San Francisco. It was always Palo Alto. It took me many years to realize that Palo Alto wasn't a single word .

Oh yes, Page Mill Road, Palo Alto. Palo Alto, sorta home to Stanford University, my alma mater's arch rival.
David