How to nudge Kodachrome back into the consumer's eye

[Pupfish]

With only one processing facility for Kodachrome in the entire universe, only a fool would shoot a commercial job with it today. If Dwayne's gets hit by a tornado or burns down, That's All, Folks...

Kodachrome lost credibility when Kodak decided to outsource it's processing to Qualex labs in the late 80's. Quality control went into the toilet. Later when they took it back under their roof again, it was processed in either Fairlawn NJ, or Dallas TX. Then, sometimes K64 came back looking like Kodachrome 400, exhausted developer, perhaps. Likely it sometimes sat out on the tarmac in Dallas. I used to hold onto it and wait for cooler weather, or try to specify that it was going to Fairlawn, due to this.

Along came Fujichrome Velvia with a similar grain structure and resolution to K25. Also overly contrasty and would either block up shadows or burn out highlights. But it eclipsed K25 for the convenience of E6 processing and push/pull for the studio guys. So many/most pros moved on.

Some of us nature guys hung in there with K64 for it's longer dynamic range. Improved 100 speed films like Lumiere and Ektachrome 100VS looked promising but had some strange color crosses with Ilfochrome printing. Later Provia proved to be a worthy replacement even though it went blue in the shadows, mattered little when scanning.

Astia III put the final nail in the Kodachrome coffin for many of us, me included. Dynamic range every bit as good as K64. Takes a 1 stop push. Scans beautifully. These latter E6 emulsions have much finer grain structure than K64 and give up nothing to K64 in sharpness.

Archival qualities of K64 in my opinion are over-hyped. All of the archival properties go out the window when Kodachrome is projected. My E6 stocks of Velvia from 1990 still look perfect, incidentally.

Seriously, if you liked K64, you should try a brick or two of Astia 100F (RAPIII). As well, if your Art Director says very nice look, but I need it in 6x7cm or 4"x5", Astia F is available (and you're not SOL as you'd be with K64).

 

[PKM-25]

I have no problems in using Kodachrome for commercial work. Many of the art directors are interested in what I do and welcome it if the timeline and budget allows. I could very well be as exposed to loss if the lab I just dropped off my E-6 to just burst into flames with my film under the roof, that is what liability clauses and insurance are for.

The arguments you are making are no different that those you would find in a digital versus film debate, all calculations, measurements and technical related topics. What you must always remember is that photographers choose a given medium for a number of reasons and not always for convenience and fiscal purposes. The more successful ones often get to choose a medium based on what they feel like shooting, on their terms.

And can we see some of your work?

I have some hunches I would like confirmed....

With only one processing facility for Kodachrome in the entire universe, only a fool would shoot a commercial job with it today. If Dwayne's gets hit by a tornado or burns down, That's All, Folks...

Kodachrome lost credibility when Kodak decided to outsource it's processing to Qualex labs in the late 80's. Quality control went into the toilet. Later when they took it back under their roof again, it was processed in either Fairlawn NJ, or Dallas TX. Then, sometimes K64 came back looking like Kodachrome 400, exhausted developer, perhaps. Likely it sometimes sat out on the tarmac in Dallas. I used to hold onto it and wait for cooler weather, or try to specify that it was going to Fairlawn, due to this.

Along came Fujichrome Velvia with a similar grain structure and resolution to K25. Also overly contrasty and would either block up shadows or burn out highlights. But it eclipsed K25 for the convenience of E6 processing and push/pull for the studio guys. So many/most pros moved on.

Some of us nature guys hung in there with K64 for it's longer dynamic range. Improved 100 speed films like Lumiere and Ektachrome 100VS looked promising but had some strange color crosses with Ilfochrome printing. Later Provia proved to be a worthy replacement even though it went blue in the shadows, mattered little when scanning.

Astia III put the final nail in the Kodachrome coffin for many of us, me included. Dynamic range every bit as good as K64. Takes a 1 stop push. Scans beautifully. These latter E6 emulsions have much finer grain structure than K64 and give up nothing to K64 in sharpness.

Archival qualities of K64 in my opinion are over-hyped. All of the archival properties go out the window when Kodachrome is projected. My E6 stocks of Velvia from 1990 still look perfect, incidentally.

Seriously, if you liked K64, you should try a brick or two of Astia 100F (RAPIII). As well, if your Art Director says very nice look, but I need it in 6x7cm or 4"x5", Astia F is available (and you're not SOL as you'd be with K64).

 

[Photo Engineer]

A short history of color products

With all respect, but Gert Koshofer gives in his three-volume book "Farbfotografie", Munich 1981, the follwing history of Fuji's color reversal films:

In 1948, a Kodachrome-type film "Fujicolor-R" was introduced, but already replaced in 1961 by an Ektachrome-type film "Fujicolor R100" (proprietary Process CR-52). The "Fujichrome Professional" film of 1972 was E-4-compatible. Also the Dynachrome films were changed into Agfacolor-type technology (from Ferrania) already in the 1960s, as well as the Sakuracolor films (by Konica, starting in 1940!) to Agfacolor and then E-4.

Kodachrome I had - as I could see from slides from 1959 - good colors, but a very harsh contrast. Kodachrome II was definitely easier to handle.

Koshofer judged the Kodachrome clones as inferior and inconsistent in quality, compared to Kodak's original. It seems that the multi-step processing was by far too complicated, while the Agfacolor- or Ektachrome-type films could even be processed at home.

Heinz;

I visited a Kodachrome processing plant in Tokyo in 1960 and it was processing a mix of several brands of Kodachrome (ASA 10) compatible films. I have several rolls of Fujichrome (the Kodachrome type) that were exposed at ISO 10. It came in 12 exposure, 20 exposure and 36 exposure rolls with processing included. Kodachrome with processing included was $10 / roll most places and almost impossible to get except at US military bases. I took Fujichrome with me on a climb up Mt Fuji in 60 and on a visit to Kamakura. Sakura (Konishiroku) made a Kodachrome type film that was very grainy but otherwise quite good. I have examples of that as well.

In the 70s, Fuji introduced the E4 compatible film and in 1980, I was assigned the testing of this film and Agfacolor at Kodak to compare it with Ektachrome and Kodacolor film. I was working on the design of Gold 400 and also Ektaflex print materials at that time. I still have both 35mm and 4x5 examples of the films of that era that I used for test purposes. My job was to adjust the spectral sensitivities of our print materials to allow good prints to be made from competitor products.

The picture of the Daibutsu in my gallery is on the Fujichrome that is a Kodachrome work alike, and makes outstanding prints up to 11x14 even via an internegative.

Fuji did have a quite inferior series of Ektachrome type films that sold poorly throughout the far east but not at all in the US until the late 70s and early 80s. In the time frame of about 1990, they introduced an E6 compatible film which was very poor and was withdrawn from the market until it could be redesigned to fit properly through E6, but even today it is not quite right and Fuji suggests a different time in the first developer. This E6 film and its problems made headlines in the photo magazines at the time of the recall.

Dynachrome, AFAIK, made only the original Kodachrome 10 film using the second process with 3 reexposures and no differential bleach. But, when the new Kodachrome 25 came out, they could not compete and gradually went bankrupt. You see, they were founded by ex-Kodak people who made Kodachrome and they hoped to just keep making the original film forever due to the loyal following, but could not innovate as they had no R&D. The film was almost an exact copy of the original Kodachrome 10 product. IDK of any instance that they were able to make coupler incorporated film, as they couldn't use Kodak technology.

As for using Agfa or Ferrania technology, both of these companies used the original Agfa (Fischer) technology until multislide coating became possible, and this excluded the use of Fischer couplers. Both companies converted to Kodak type couplers in about the 1970 - 1980 time frame. I remember getting old style materials in the 60s and in the early 70s getting the new style samples only being sold in Germany but not the US. In fact, I still have an old paper kit from the 60s that would not work with the new paper.

I was unable to examine Ferrania products except under the 3M label, but I have had many cross sections and other analyses done on the Agfa products from about 1965 - 1985. They underwent many many changes. Fuji and Konica did the same. I still have print samples of papers from all 3 companies along with Oriental, Unicolor and similar companies trying to come out with competing products. I had sample kits from every company trying to make color processing chemistry that was compatible with everyones films. Kikuchi products come to mind as quite good examples.

At that time as well, all of the companies had proprietary negative films, most all of them unmasked. It was not until the mid 60s that they began converting to masked color negatives with Kodak type couplers. I have samples of many of these as well.

My historical material comes from the Vice Presidents of Fuji, Konishiroku, Agfa and the president of Kikuchi. Some of my samples came directly from the hands of these people. It also comes from direct testing and experimentation. The weakest information that I have is on Dynachrome products as they were considered obsolete by Kodak when I joind the company. We never did any investigation of their products AFAIK except to confirm that they used no patented technology.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Heinz;
Fuji did have a quite inferior series of Ektachrome type films that sold poorly throughout the far east but not at all in the US until the late 70s and early 80s. In the time frame of about 1990, they introduced an E6 compatible film which was very poor and was withdrawn from the market until it could be redesigned to fit properly through E6, but even today it is not quite right and Fuji suggests a different time in the first developer. This E6 film and its problems made headlines in the photo magazines at the time of the recall.
PE

Your time-frame is out on the Fuji E6

I first used Fujichrome E4 films and compared to Ektachrome E4 they had far better colour rendering particularly for greens, and were less contrasty. I used the Kodak & Fuji E6 films on their release and both were OK, many UK professional photographers at the time preferred the Fuji films. I've never heard of a problem with Fuji E6 films in UK/Europe, but have vague recollections of a US issue.

However it was the introduction of Fuji 50D and 100D about 25 years ago that really heralded the break through in E6 technology and these were the first films to seriously challenge Kodachrome with their sharpness,ultra fine grain and superb colour fidelity. My sister shot Fuji 100D in Australia, India and China just a few months after it's release, thats before she had 5 children, and her eldest are 23 now

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

I'm not sure that it is wrong, it may merely be the introduction dates around the world. I do have E4 Fujichromes dated in the 80s, and had saved the issue of Darkroom Techniques in which Fuji had the recall. It was in about 1990 that this took place and that was their first introduction of the E6 product. I put it in such a safe place that I can't even find it now! I went looking!

I don't dispute the quality of the Fuji products since the recall. In fact, most professionals that I know agree that the Fuji reversal films are superior to the Kodak equivalents just as they say that the Kodak negative films are superior to the Fuji equivalents. I'll give them that. I have not tested them side by side since the 80s and then, the reversal films were about on a par, and we had no samples of masked Fuji or Konica negatives. I have lots of Oriental, Agfa and Konica unmasked negatives that are very stable even today and made excellent pictures.

I have been examining slides (Fuji and Kodak) that I have here, and the relief image on Fujichrome (called Fujicolor on the box) is present in the 60s. I have no Fuji examples from the 70s. In the 80s, Fuji film has no relief image and is compatible with the Kodak films of the time (E4 in this particular case).

Interestingly enough, I have many slides processed by Dynacolor with Kodachrome mounts, Technicolor processed slides with Technicolor mounts and Pavelle processed slides with Pavelle or generic mounts. Unless I cut them apart, I can't tell what the film really was, but then edge marking was sometimes sporadic back in the early days.

Slides from generic far east processing plants are popping open and slides have fallen out of the mounts so I have a loose pile of Sakura, Fuji and Ektachrome slides that were in other types of mounts. The dark keeping of slides I processed myself, or that I had processed in the far east are deteriorating badly, but those done by Kodak are holding up well.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron (PE), I just know that by the late 80's Fuji were already on the second, possibly third generation of their Professional E6 films, and the Polaroid packaged Fuji E6 100 D was available in their version of Ready Loads.

I'm sure your date of 1990 is 10 years out, E6 was introduced in 1976, I never processed much E4 - I started using it in 72 (at University) and started doing my own E4 processing around 74/75 and the switch to E6 was not that long after. By the late 70's I was definitely using Fuji E6 films in the UK.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hmmm, well I have to find the magazine. I wish my memory was better.

The recall of the Fuji product was in about 1990 when it went bad, so perhaps the date is related to a Fuji E6 product revision. I had roughly dated 1980+ as the introduction of E6, as Kodak was still making E4 kits in the 70s and I have some of those kits. There was a long crossover. I remember the approximate date because it was also when Kodak published the last Kodachrome ad, and when I first began getting Darkroom Techniques.

The major problem was that I did not take notes. I never knew it would become of any interest or importance. I have actual kits and documentation here showing an overlap of E3 and E4 from 1967 to about 1973, and the earliest reference to E6 is in my kits purchased in 1983. I have Fujicolor (a Kodachrome workalike) dated through 1964 and then there is a gap until 1980-1983 where I began working with Fuji and Agfa products again.

I'm sorry if I have mixed up those particular dates, but the Fujicolor and Sakuracolor Kodachrome types did exist through '64 at the least and there appears to have been a rather large overlap between at least the E3 and E4 kits and the E4 and E6 kits. I checked my samples of slides from the 80s and they are not identified as to whether they are E6 or E4, but the Fuji and Kodak are all in Kodak mounts with the words Fuji written over the label on the Fuji samples. On the Fuji film the edge marking is "Fuji > RD" that is all there is, and it was done in 1980. With the overlap in E4 - E6, I cannot identify the process except that the Agfa reversal film had to be sent out for processing but Kodak processed the Fuji and Ektachrome.

To be fair, all film was purchased across the counter from the shelf of a local dealer. So, the samples were commercially available professional and consumer products from 1980.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Getting back on-topic, if I reduce this to one important fact related to Kodachrome, I would say that Fuji and Sakura as well as Agfa bailed out of all proprietary processes or any Kodachrome type films as soon as E6 came along! That is the bottom line for Kodachrome film. With the passing of at least 3 compatible films (Fujicolor, Sakuracolor and Dynachrome), and the introduction of a new Kodachrome and Ektachrome process, process demand around the world decreased for Kodachrome type materials. This took place over the late 80s and the ad I posted previously that appeared in 1990 marked one of the last ad campaigns for Kodachrome.

PE

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

To PE: It is a great honor to discuss with one of the K-14 inventors, a Kodachrome veteran.

I do not know about any other "troublesome" Fuji E-6 slide films than Velvia (50, RVP, 1990 - current) and the "new improved" Fujichrome RD100/Provia 100 (RDPII)/Sensia 100 (I, RD) (1992/3 - 1997/99), apparently based on Velvia technology, which gave similar rich saturated colors, but also orange flesh tones, and showed an apparent lower speed if processed in Kodak chemistry. The original RD100 of 1978 was a very good film at its time, very close in grain and color to Ektachrome 64, as a comparison test in 1981/1982 by a German photo magazine showed, and much better than the competitors' products.

Today's Ektachrome 100G(X) = Elite Chrome 100 (introduced in 2003) is an excellent slide film with neutral colors and a natural contrast, and available here in Europe as a "private label" film at a very reasonable price (that's why I have filled my refrigerator with it). But it took Kodak four years to match Fuji's Provia 100F (RDPIII, 1999) in this speed class, and in the 400 ASA category Fuji always has been ahead since the introduction of the RH400 in 1980.

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

Also back to the topic: Kodachrome (I) was available in 828 film format (unperforated 35 mm roll film for the Kodak Bantam), and Kodachrome-X and later Kodachrome 64 in 126 format, the latter also in 110 format. But most 126 and 110 cameras were quite entry-level models. I myself have tried to scan some results of attempts with 126 format Kodachrome-X at a wedding reception in the 1960s. Imagine 64 ASA with a flash cube.

No, slide film is for a good reason the master class in color photography.

 

[dried_squid]

The average person couldn't care less about photography, much less Kodachrome.

To them, it was just a means to an end: pictures of Ronnie and Mildred's wedding, memories of little Johnny's first birthday, snaps of their vacation to Bognor Regis, and so on.

// Is this like the insertion of fast food in our lifestyle? //

[ snip ]

The value of photographs to the average Joe has slumped to near worthlessness. This part explains why there are so many poor photographers The photographs people take are as disposable as the cameras they were taken with. Digital has made deleting a photograph as easy as actually taking it. Hundreds or thousands of precious memories may be cast away when they upgrade their awful camera phones or replace their PCs.

// Perhaps technology, despite all it's beneficial uses for education, culture, and personal growth, has been misused for convenience. Yes, more people can take pictures, but "Do a larger percentage appreciate a good picture?". Not perfect or great, just good. Or are all pictures good enough? Are people, ie. the market, discerning enough to want to take better pictures? //

Any advertising campaign pushing photographic products (as a whole, not just film) must focus on preserving memories to instill value in photographs.

// Many people want more. It's cheaper. But managing more is not cheaper. So many just assume it will be there. Or that, they can find it later. Just look on the average Joe's hard drive(s), jump drive(s), and digital assistant(s). And compare to the pictures they have on the wall or next to communication technology. Do I want everything soft-copy? @ No. //

Your "disposable Kodachrome camera" is a non-starter unless the camera has the ability to meter and expose at sane exposure values.

// Agreed. Exposure and film are independant. Tweaking them is the fun. Compared to the flexibility of RAW, manufacturer identity, and personal computer environment, starting with a predictable constant like film and processing weighs against "fast". So from my perspective, auto-everything and digital-everything is overkill. For some, too much ... to fast. //

[ snip ]

Firstly, affluent middle-class middle-aged men who were in their late teens or twenties during the golden age of popular photography around the late 1960's and the 1970's, who on being reminded might be tempted to get their old Pentax Spotmatic down from the attic and slap in a roll of Kodachrome for old times sake.

// (I don't have my Spotmatic anymore. But I have two Nikon FE's.) I disagree, to me, Kodachrome in particular, and all printed photos, are for those who want to give something they made themselves. A real something, not a virtual digitized reality. I can do both, but they are different. And although employing the choice may be only a pigment of my imagination, if I give you a print, it means more to me than an Internet post. //
// So I think "affluent middle-class middle-aged men" believe they can't "afford" to care. //

Secondly, youngsters already interested in the "alternative culture" of shooting analogue film. The types who might normally shoot digital but like or want to shoot something else to set them apart from their mates and everyone else. There is scope for cashing on the new "retro" trend amongst youngsters. If you can make Kodachrome into a Holga/Diana-like fad like someone mentioned above, you've hit the jackpot.

// "interested in alternative culture" ? ... analogue .... vs. the matrix? //
// I like "cooking" too. With film, with anything analog, including recipes (twice-removed) and sheet music, analog is a starting point. The rest is up to individual. Like a bolt of cloth, the user makes it their own, and the journey ends with something real. //

A small, passionate website extolling the virtues of Kodachrome (similar to choose-film.com?) could be the nexus of the entire marketing strategy. Some favourable press talking about the "revival" of Kodachrome would help to drive sales.

// I suspect in this day and age, with so many market vectors, and the same old 24-hour day, Kodachrome may best be served by people who appreciate it as valuable for it's look. I intend to visit an Adobe forum and ask about scanning parameters for Kodachrome when planning a layout in FrameMaker 8. Reaching out to the perimeter for a respectful audience. //

Kodak should seriously consider this. It wouldn't eat much out of their advertising budget, and may also help to stem declining sales amongst existing users by implying a firm commitment to production of Kodachrome in the medium term. [ snip ]

// Why not advertise as American, well-respected, and technologically superior? Or more efficient for the busy user. My appeal with film, Kodachrome in particular, is workflow. I get interrupted. There are too many technological things which I must work start to finish. (Stop-and-go is disallowed, unless I sit down and program the process, which is not always allowed. Because that was not the intention. Do it all Now, or Not-at-all.) I don't need or want everything fast. For all things velocity, there are concessions. Like work. //
// Sometimes I want something stable I can return to later. I have twenty year old images which I'm still "planning". The image remains, a road not taken, but still there ... waiting. //

// I try to participate at
http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/index.php
because taking pictures with Kodachrome is distinctive.
I don't have a digital camera. And I am afraid it's too time-consuming and learning intensive. //

In closing, I enjoy picture taking with Kodachrome, and digital as post-processing. Primarily for distribution. For me, ISO by film, aperature, and shutter speed are enough flexiblity. So allow me to take pictures without requiring my computer ... please.

I believe that with a durable camera and a consistent film and processor, I can devote my energies to taking pictures, as compared to learning how to run the machine(s), update(s), and patch(es).

Brian Kim
amateur average person with a Vista

 

[railwayman3]

Also back to the topic: Kodachrome-X and later Kodachrome 64 in 126 format, the latter also in 110 format. But most 126 and 110 cameras were quite entry-level models. I myself have tried to scan some results of attempts with 126 format Kodachrome-X at a wedding reception in the 1960s. Imagine 64 ASA with a flash cube.

I have my late Mother's entry-level Instamatic 126 camera (model 233) which she used in the 1960's and early 1970's. Fixed shutter speed and exposure adjusted by the aperture being set against little icons of bright sun, "cloudy bright" etc., with quite a small aperture for the brightest conditions.

There are also two or three boxes of Kodachrome slides with it (I'm sure she must have bought the films by mistake for print film, since she had no interest in using slides! ). The pictures are holiday scenes and family groups in sunny conditions (hence a small aperture), and are remarkably sharp and well-exposed.

Used within their limitations these simple cameras could produce everything
Joe Public needed. And after 40+ years, this one still works perfectly.

(Sorry, slightly O.T., but to do with Kodachrome.)

 

[michaelbsc]

I have my late Mother's entry-level Instamatic 126 camera (model 233) which she used in the 1960's and early 1970's. ......

There are also two or three boxes of Kodachrome slides with it (I'm sure she must have bought the films by mistake for print film, since she had no interest in using slides! ).

Here we have an example of why I think the paradigm change may help the cause. Like you say, your mother had no use for "slides" when she wanted pictures. But today many, many people want the CD. You can get a CD back with your Kodachrome just as easily, although not just as cheaply or quickly, as you can with C-41. And like I originally said, there are boatloads of pretty good automatic focus point and shoot 35mm cameras out there in the world just waiting for a new set of batteries.

The box of slides people don't look at are no different than the sleeves of negatives people don't look at. What will be different is the quality of the scans from a professional processor and the Kodachrome transparencies vs the C-41 stuff processed and scanned by a minimum wage teenage guy trying to hit on the girl across the counter.

Are teenagers going to buy this? Not a chance; they'll use their cell phone (except for the lomography crowds). But people 40-70 who aren't photo enthusiasts but do want damn good results from important family events just might. After all, we're talking about "Kodak moments" here.

But how do you tell these people where to buy Kodachrome in the first place? Like I said earlier, it's like trying to find particular ethnic food from the old country. And how do you explain to them how to get it processed correctly at the Wal-mart or Walgreens send out counter instead of ruined by the same minimum wage teenage guy mentioned above?

MB

 

[railwayman3]

^^^^MB

Actually the pictures "accidently" taken on Kodachrome by my Mother (she'd probably just picked up the first box in the shop which said "Kodak Instamatic Color Film" ) are far superior to her Kodacolor prints from the same era. And, of course, are still as fresh and bright as the day they came back from Kodak UK, while the prints are showing their age.

They are, in fact, as you suggest "Kodak Moments".

 

[Photo Engineer]

Heinz;

I had very little to do with Kodahcrome but a lot to do with CD6. I've mainly watched it being processed and made recommendations. Thanks anyhow.

I thought I knew the ins and outs of this, but it appears that due to a variety of factors I cannot precisely pin things down and Ian has been quite generous and courteous in pointing out these failings. I am looking into all of the information I might have, and have been unable to locate my copy of the article on Fuji E6 product failure. In any event, I'll update this when I can and I agree that both you and Ian have some excellent points of view.

PE

 

[budrichard]

Digital is here, film is dead, Kodachrome will soon be a fond memory.
This comes from a person that started with Kodachrome in 1958 with a Contaflex SLR and still uses K64 with Leica M7's/motors with a kit of ASPH lenses that could have purchased a mansion a while ago. Weddings I did in the 1960's and 1970's with K25 are brilliant to this day.
Kodak is NOT going to continue to produce Kodachrome anything with continuing slump in demand. If Dwaynes (I hope thier faciity is rebarred concrete) is gone, then you and I are stuck with the K that we have as shelf ornamants. Its called change, its inevitable and those that deal with it survive.-Dick

Me, I'm finally going to one of the Digital Medium formats which I have targeted as the format that will eventually win out for Professional work other than news/sports where the FX format should be the standard.

 

[Ian Grant]

Digital is here, film is dead, Kodachrome will soon be a fond memory . . . . . . .

Me, I'm finally going to one of the Digital Medium formats which I have targeted as the format that will eventually win out for Professional work other than news/sports where the FX format should be the standard.

So why are you posting on APUG ?

 

[IloveTLRs]

I got excited about Kodachrome until I shot it and saw the results. I found it a very difficult film to use, much more than any other slide film (Velvia, Provia, Astia, Trebi, E100, etc.) I suppose in 50 years when my slides still look the same (i.e. unfaded) it will be cool, but it currently costs $30 and a month to have a roll developed. Any other E-6 film here can be done overnight for $5.

Sorry, but I shall shed no tears.

 

[kraker]

Yes, Kodachrome fills a specific need or desire for me that I care about.

I don't shoot it often, but I do shoot it regularly. It's something special. Once or twice a year I decide that a certain subject (project, circumstance, ...) needs Kodachrome. In one or two days, I shoot 4 or 5 rolls, and send them off to Kodak. Then there's the anticipation, and then the reward.

And that for someone who hasn't even got a 35mm projector...

I'll certainly keep buying and shooting Kodachrome while I can.

 

[budrichard]

So why are you posting on APUG ?

Go here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Just because I can see the future and am going to eventually adopt Digital doesn't mean that I still can't use analog methods. Up until this point in time analog (Kodachome with Leica M and Nikon SLR for me) have proved superior to Digital. But that is going to rapidly change. When film is no longer manufactured or commercially viable, I will be ready.
What are you going to do for the future?-Dick

 

[ssloansjca]

I have left Kodachrome behind. It is now in my past and I have shot my last roll of it. Yes, for me Kodachrome is a fond memory. I have shot many thousands of rolls of it. I still have a bunch of Kodachrome 40 (KPA) and 120 (KPR) in my freezer but I have no use for any of that film anymore. When Kodak stopped processing the 120 that was the beginning of the end, the death of Kodachrome 25 was the last nail in the coffin.

Kodachrome has just become too hard to use and get processed. The E6 films are great and will last my lifetime. If I want archival I shoot black and white.

For me, Kodachrome has become like an old football player who does not know when to retire. I have moved on.

~Steve Sloan

 

[Palantiri7]

Well, for my part, I put up something in my 'What's New' section here: Dead Link Removed

So far, 47 people have clicked through to Amazon.com's Kodachrome order page. Better than nothing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Go here: Just because I can see the future...ll 3 major palyers manufacturing film. Ian

 

[Michael W]

Me, I'm finally going to one of the Digital Medium formats which I have targeted as the format that will eventually win out for Professional work

What are you going to do for the future?-Dick

The future is now & tomorrow. I'm halfway through a roll of K200 in my little Nikon & I'm thinking that tomorrow I'll shoot some Tri-X & some Polaroid 600.

Reading about what digital camera a professional intends to use is about as interesting to me as hearing what brand of toilet plunger the local plumber works with.

 

[accozzaglia]

May I ramble? You may skip it if you want.

I honestly don't see the point why a couple of people on this thread are treating this like a minor pissing contest of wits, experience, and technical mastery. There are other areas on APUG where those kinds of superiority fests can go down.

Like others who advocate it for their own photography, I use Kodachrome as a creative tool. It's like what another said about a painter using different paint bases for different purposes. Fewer and fewer people around today are even aware of the distinguishing characteristics of Kodachrome, much less the Velvias, Ektachromes, and Astias of the world. These distinctions are often the domain of the photography geek.

But look around: people are again regularly walking around with SLR cameras slung over their necks. They're digital, sure, and yet this is the gateway to foster interest in used film SLRs (plentiful and cheap by comparison, with less generational obsolescence than the cycle of DSLRs, and as applied craft-making goes, it's really cheap). Marketers of film have yet to entice these new SLR users in that direction. It's a niche, sure, but a niche capable of securing a fresh infusion of photographers who will be around for a long time to come.

With regard to people disregarding Kodachrome because it's a slide film (and thus not ideal for prints), that may have once been relevant. Today, for the everyday user, Kodachrome (and other E-6 chromes) is no longer impeded by this. Get the roll scanned where you drop off your K-14/E-6 rolls. The typical C-41 lab using a Noritsu machine can and does scan K-14/E-6 just fine for everyday purposes. Then you take that CD with all the scans, walk up to a Kodak kiosk to make your own prints, and let the system invert the image to a negative (or whatever it needs to do to ready for instant printmaking). People want convenience, and to be perfectly frank, it's also easier to look at a strip of chromes than negatives when the CD might not be handy. You also sell the value of longevity assured only by having a backup of film.

Chromes are not marketed and merchandised in this manner, even though the infrastructure to make prints like this -- the DIY kiosks -- is now remarkably common. This is an unintentional oversight, one not out of malice to chrome films.

The other obstacle to Kodachrome is a self-perpetuating one in part by Kodak.

By slashing and reducing the quantity, location and terms of processing labs, the decline of Kodachrome is as much a self-perpetuating fait accompli on Eastman Kodak's behalf as it is a change in the way how people create their visual memories with digital imaging now. If people know it's harder to do something, then they're less likely to rely upon or consider it.

It's the corollary to that challenge we hear hydrogen vehicle advocates raise all the time: hydrogen-powered cars could work, but there are too few refuelling stations. When a photographer in one of the three largest economic markets is passed over -- Brazil, India, or China (much less Japan, Australia, or elsewhere Kodachrome actually used to be quite common) -- and cannot reliably, if not practically, consider Kodachrome (or even E-6 in some locales) because the infrastructure to have the film processed is not there, was never there, or simply no longer present, then it's absolutely no surprise to hear how Kodachrome sales continue to dwindle to nothing.

Kodachrome's utility has changed: not from common use to obsolescence, but from common use to boutique. Planned and managed accordingly, a boutique product can and does demonstrate financial viability. Profit may not be on a grand scale like one point in the past, but a profitable product is a profitable product.

Further, while patents for the processing chemistry and technique for Kodachrome may be open to anyone to repeat on their own, the existing equipment -- once made and now phased out by Kodak -- is of little utility to most labs today, particularly independent ones, when there's no support for them.

In the oeuvre of film products, Kodak would benefit to assume an agency of consultancy to facilitate small labs with the practical know-how to accommodate boutique processing of film like Kodachrome. Kodak's many expired patents may be open to all, but without past experience to achieve consistency in processing, the independent lab's knowledgebase is an impediment.

Enter Kodak's role as a paid consultant (think of IBM now) to advise and facilitate managing this obstacle. Kodak itself only provides its aggregated research knowledge and techniques for other parties who handle the rest on their own. In this sense, Kodak operates the way an open-source software company provides tailored support for customers who use their product: the raw knowledge/resource is openly available for anyone who wants to DIY it, but the know-how is a value-added service provided for a nominal fee to help overcome (or just skip) that steep learning curve. Knowledge here is the product. I don't know of Kodak using this business model.

How does this affect Kodachrome? An independent lab -- say, in Australia -- wants to provide Kodachrome processing but due to reasons of procuring chemicals, setting up equipment or lab to handle the multi-step process stages novel to Kodachrome, and the like, cannot do it entirely on their own. Enter Kodak as a consultant. The lab hires Kodak to advise on how to set up the Kodachrome-ready lab by using available, on-the-shelf equipment (or from third parties able to manufacture proprietary parts otherwise unavailable -- licensed by Kodak, with fees on licensing those proprietary parts as another line item of revenue). Kodak then works on behalf of the lab to establish connections with in-region/in-country chemistry vendors to custom-produce the couplers and dyes specific to K-14. Kodak's consultancy role helps facilitate communication and technical advice with the chemistry vendors to produce and provide what the lab wants to purchase. The lab pays the chemistry vendor for the product. Kodak is paid by the lab for being the consultant.

With increased ways to process Kodachrome, it also opens people back up to an assumed-as-lost-to-time film product. And like another person wrote on here, marketing Kodachrome could work as simply as taking the idea to Urban Outfitters or the like and selling a trio of K64 rolls along with a Holga or Lomo kitsch camera. Kodachrome marketed as kitschy? Hence the boutique. For the purists and veterans out there, try not to be offended. Only through this unconventional merchandising in an atomized consumer world may a whole new audience discover that Kodachrome goes beyond mere kitsch.

So like, there. It's a new way of doing old things, but those old things are still wanted by consumers, both old and -- if cards are played smartly -- new. Find a way to both promote and advocate for it while making money. As infrastructure improves, it also offers an avenue for renewed demand for a boutique master roll on a slightly more frequent basis. Kodak could even work with a third party interested in producing the complicated film elsewhere, using its consultancy role to facilitate that process, and thus unloading this manufacturing overhead to outside its walls.

In any event, I've rambled on more than enough.