A brief history of Kodachrome

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Enjoy!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I thought that Kodachrome was dead. Did I sleep through something again?

 

[Paul Howell]

Still dead, quick history, good historical information for those who don't know much about Kodachrome. I think that some folks don't understand is that Kodachrome is more than a film, it is a system. To bring Kodachrome back requires not only film, the highly specialized processor as well. From what I understand Dwayne's had the last processor, when he closed down the line he developed the last roll, a roll he shot himself, Tim Curry wanted to be last, but not to be. The unit was scrapped. My Kodachrome slide dating back to the 60s are holding up, while my ANSCO and GAF slides are starting to fade. I think my first roll of Koadchrome was outdate roll I got a Rexall drug store for .25C it was rated at ASA9, came out perfect.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The most valuable part of that video was that it demonstrated someone properly handling artifacts with nitrile gloves rather than cotton ones. The latter leave fibers and permit skin acid/oils to pass through.

 

[mshchem]

The early Kodachrome, pre Kodachrome II is the best. ASA 10. I don't wish for Kodachrome, but if there's a way to get a similar look with E6 or even a C41 film, bring it on.

 

[George Mann]

Long live Kodachrome!

 

[Nitroplait]

I like the "kodaslide" box - never seen that before. Probably not really suited for archival storage but an interesting object by itself.

 

[GabrielC]

The early Kodachrome, pre Kodachrome II is the best. ASA 10. I don't wish for Kodachrome, but if there's a way to get a similar look with E6 or even a C41 film, bring it on.

I really hope they'll be able to achieve an E-6 Kodachrome, I never got to shoot it since I'm quite young, but I love the colors of the several Kodachrome II my grandpa shot in the 50s, would love to shoot it myself. I dont think K-14 will come back however

 

[AgX]

I think that some folks don't understand is that Kodachrome is more than a film, it is a system. To bring Kodachrome back requires not only film, the highly specialized processor as well.

Nevertheless a system that various film manufactures all over the world applied.

 

[falotico]

Oh No! We're not going to start the Kodachrome Wars again, are we? The discussion about bringing back Kodachrome raged for years on APUG and everybody admitted that it was a beautiful film stock--BUT THAT IT WOULD NEVER COME BACK!

First, towards the end of its run Kodak itself couldn't give the stuff away. The company manufactured film in bulk on twenty foot high spools which were 40 inches wide. These were slit and perforated to make the 35 mm rolls of retail film canisters which photographers use. For popular films Kodak had dozens of these twenty foot spools in stock which were up to five miles long. At the end they only had one spool of Kodachrome on hand because nobody wanted the film. The last ad for Kodachrome that Kodak published was for the 1992 Olympics. Kodachrome produced a direct positive color slide or 16 mm/8 mm movie transparency. Photographers began to prefer color negs.

Second, the film is very difficult to process. Each roll has to be developed four times to produce the final image: 1) a black and white developer is used to neutralize the exposed grains so no trace of a negative image will appear in the final product; 2) the film is exposed through the base with red light and then dipped in a color developer containing a CYAN dye coupler to produce the CYAN (sky-blue) element; 3) the film is exposed to blue light and then dipped in a color developer containing a YELLOW dye coupler to produce the YELLOW element; 4) the film is chemically exposed with stannous chloride and then dipped in a color developer containing a MAGENTA dye coupler to produce the MAGENTA element; finally the film is treated with Blix and stabilizing solutions.

Third, the film is very hard to copy. They had an old saying, "The only thing Kodachrome can't photograph is another piece of Kodachrome". Kodak's paper prints tended to fade and Cibachrome was very expensive.

That said, Kodak gave away all of its patents and proprietary rights for Kodachrome to the public. So if you want to bring the film back there is nothing stopping you, except you can't use the name "Kodachrome" which is protected by trademark.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't anyone on this thread is saying that Kodachrome will make a comeback, far too small of a market for such a large investment. I shot a stray roll of Kodachrome in the 90s, by that time I was shooting Ektachrome which I could get next day processing. When working on the wires we always shot E-6 when the job called for transparencies, the papers and the wires had in house E 6 processors. Tim Curry shot Kodachrome until the bitter end, by that time Nat Geo had gone digital. Personally the other factor, for prints I shot color negative film, that's what is designed for prints, transparencies are for projection, that's what slides are designed for. I shot a roll of Exkachrome when Kodak brought in back, just for the heck of it, had few prints made, Ektar 100 or Porta160 is much better for prints.

 

[AgX]

That said, Kodak gave away all of its patents and proprietary rights for Kodachrome to the public. So if you want to bring the film back there is nothing stopping you, except you can't use the name "Kodachrome" which is protected by trademark.

What did Kodak give away? They did not hold a respective patent, "to give to the public".
This seems a further mythification of Kodak.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodachrome made some muddy gray skies. I talked with PE about that problem that took them a while to get rid of.

 

[markjwyatt]

Hey, maybe they will bring Kodachrome back!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey, maybe they will bring Kodachrome back!

BARFF

 

[Craig]

What did Kodak give away? They did not hold a respective patent, "to give to the public".
This seems a further mystification of Kodak.

Perhaps a better way of saying it is all of the patents that protected Kodachrome have long since expired. From an intellectual property point of view, there is nothing stopping anyone from reintroducing a Kodachrome type material.

 

[Cholentpot]

I heard they're bringing it back.

/ducks

 

[Paul Howell]

Yeah, I'm starting a $10,000,000 kickstart for a production run of 500 rolls.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps a better way of saying it is all of the patents that protected Kodachrome have long since expired. From an intellectual property point of view, there is nothing stopping anyone from reintroducing a Kodachrome type material.

Actually, Eastman Kodak abandoned the patents. To maintain the enforceability of a patent you must periodically renew them, and pay a fee. Even while the latest applicable Kodachrome patents were capable of being renewed, Eastman Kodak elected not to spend the money.

 

[Craig]

Actually, Eastman Kodak abandoned the patents. To maintain the enforceability of a patent you must periodically renew them, and pay a fee. Even while the latest applicable Kodachrome patents were capable of being renewed, Eastman Kodak elected not to spend the money.

I don't like the word "renew" and the connotations that brings. Part of the reason is I spent most of my career in IP, and a patent cannot be renewed. There need to be periodic maintenance payments to maintain the patent's validity, and if those payments are not made then the patent expires for reason of non-payment of the fees, rather then reaching the end of it's term. A trademark can be renewed, a patent cannot. A patent holder can elect to maintain their patent's validity, or not. Renewing (especially in the case of trademark) means that the validity can be extended indefinitely, whereas a patent has a maximum term of validity that cannot be extended.

Whether Kodak elected to abandon the patents and let them laps for non-payment of fees, or they reached the end of their natural term, the net effect is the same: anyone could now make a Kodachrome type emulsion without infringing any Kodak patents.

 

[AgX]

Actually, Eastman Kodak abandoned the patents. To maintain the enforceability of a patent you must periodically renew them, and pay a fee. Even while the latest applicable Kodachrome patents were capable of being renewed, Eastman Kodak elected not to spend the money.

The idea of a patent is that of win-win situation. The patent holder gains legal protection on his idea gfor a while, whereas others can learn about, and from, his idea at once, and finally even take it over at will. The longevity of a patent varied strongly in the past, but never went beyond 20 years, which is the general limit today.
If anyone can show me a Kodachrome-specific patent that was still valid when Kodachrome was cancelled, I would be grateful.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, I'm starting a $10,000,000 kickstart for a production run of 500 rolls.

Even NFTs sound better than restarting an obsolete film that no one can properly process. $20,000 a useless roll is a bit half cocked.
bit

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Craig for the correction to my use of the terminology - maintained rather than renewed it is.
But the decision to not maintain them is important because it reflects the fact that there was no market reason to infringe them when Kodak elected not to maintain them.

 

[Craig]

But the decision to not maintain them is important because it reflects the fact that there was no market reason to infringe them when Kodak elected not to maintain them.

Agreed, there was no market reason to maintain the patents as by the late 1990's there wasn't anyone who was likely to infringe the patents. The return on investment to maintain the patents simply wasn't there.

 

[Craig]

If anyone can show me a Kodachrome-specific patent that was still valid when Kodachrome was cancelled, I would be grateful.

If by cancelled, you mean the 2009 discontinuance, my gut feel says there won't be any. That would mean that any patents would have to have been filed in 1989 or later. By that time, Kodachrome 200 and 120 format had been introduced, so no patents from that. There is a possibility of some patents for the K-lab processor though. PE had mentioned that there was research into using T grains in Kodachrome, but there was no enthusiasm from the focus groups. Kodak may or may not have filed some patents on that, but doubtful they would have maintained them once the decision not to proceed to a product launch was made.

It would actually be very difficult for someone not very technically knowledgeable about the structure and chemistry of Kodachrome to do an effective patent search and determine if a particular patent related to Kodachrome or not.