How to nudge Kodachrome back into the consumer's eye

[Nigel]

I meant that Kodak would give up on this thread! And, it was meant to be a bit sarcastic because if the poll is not reliable or even useful, why have it or why look at it. If the people involved in the thread are not interested, then why should anyone at Kodak be interested?

PE

But in a self-selected group of more than 28,000 film users (APUG), less than 100 are indicating an interest in Kodachrome. We can discuss all we want, but Kodak is doing the market research. My guess, based on the indicators in this thread, is that Kodak's market research is telling them that although there is a group of very dedicated users, it is small, and with the price increases that will be required to maintain the profitability of the product line, the group will shrink. It may not be possible to turn Kodachrome into a profitable product.

 

[Michael W]

But in a self-selected group of more than 28,000 film users (APUG), less than 100 are indicating an interest in Kodachrome.

No - less than a hundred are indicating an interest in the poll.

 

[Nigel]

No - less than a hundred are indicating an interest in the poll.

:rolleyes:OK, more accurately, in more than 28,000 users, less than 200 (less than 100 posting in the thread and less than 100 participating in the poll, and no way to determine overlap) are participating in a discussion of Kodachrome.

We can assume for market estimating purposes, that many of those intersted in the existence of Kodachrome will participate. Lets be really generous here and assume 5 users for each participant - so less than 1,000 out of more than28,000 film users. So, less than 3.6% of the self selected film zealots care about Kodachrome (let alone use it). Without some very big price increases (which will cause the number of users and the number of rolls per user to fall), the product is likely not economically viable. No doubt, Kodak has estimated the number of rolls sold at various price points and currently prices somewhere near the maximum profit point.

So, I suspect that Kodak's market research indicates that Kodachrome is not economically viable. Kodak could choose to continue to produce it at a loss for many different reasons, but I wouldn't be betting the farm on it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

OK, you finally nudged me to vote. I selected "No." PKM (Kodachrome 25) was all I shot in 35mm for several decades. The absolutely perfect film for people. Never liked PKR, but used a bit of it in 120. Corresponded with Kodak CEOs at the time requesting 120 PKM but had no success. Even then, there wasn't enough demand to support that niche within a niche.

After moving up to large format, I was forced into using E-6, and for landscape work Kodachrome's red bias kills greens anyway. Despise Velveeta, but still lament the demise of RFP, Fuji's original ISO 50 Fujichrome. There hasn't been another transparency film like it since. Now that's a loss!

 

[dmr]

But in a self-selected group of more than 28,000 film users (APUG), less than 100 are indicating an interest in Kodachrome.

Not to come off like a total b*tch here, but there are nowhere near 28,000 active users on APUG.

The 28,000 number comes from the number of people who registered since the software was started. The quickie member list here doesn't seem to have a last post date or last login date, but if this site is in any way typical of these on-line BBS sites, the number of truly active users will be a small fraction of the number of users on the user list.

 

[michaelbsc]

:OK, more accurately, in more than 28,000 users, less than 200 (less than 100 posting in the thread and less than 100 participating in the poll, and no way to determine overlap) are participating in a discussion of Kodachrome.

Let me skew those numbers to be far larger than Nigel's assumptions, and then still be depressed about my numbers.

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think we can even use the replies and votes as an indicator, nor do I think the 28K users can be the baseline. The real baseline is probably the views, which right now stands at about 2.5K (this give us about ten-fold increase from Nigel's reasoning by shrinking the denominator). I think it is a safe assumption that the overlap between the votes and posts is tremendous, but one can say that the vote ratio is probably not terribly wrong. So using those numbers we have 48 people who care out of 2.5k, or (48/2500) = 1.92%. When I wrote the poll questions I tried very hard to make sure there was no BS option or misunderstanding for people not truly interested.

I dare say that no one, or at least very few, who has voted 'NO' can claim they never shot Kodachrome. My guess is that the no votes are people who have used it, and may or may not have loved it, but have moved on if they did love it.

Finally, even though I care, and I started the thread and the poll, I certainly can't say I'm going to throw out all my other film and shoot KR64 exclusively. Even if I were to say that 100% of my color film will be Kodachrome, that's still only 5% of what I shoot.

Ergo, if we take me as the absolute best case, then the 1.92% becomes 0.1% of film. Unfortunately that's a pretty small share of the market for a big company to support. One tenth of one percent of a shrinking market like film might be a big deal for a tiny startup, but Kodak *CANNOT* be run like a Mom and Pop startup.

So, let's hope for the boutique model with other's coming in to fill in the gaps in fact works if Kodachrome is to survive for the long term.

After all, nobody wrote songs about Ansco-color.

MB

 

[Photo Engineer]

MB;

Every time we visit this thread, the count increases. So, I have been on this thread just about every other time a post is made here and that means about 50 views of that count are repeat visits by me. It may be higher, as I have no way to know. So, if you have visited this thread 20 times, the count includes those 20 visits.

Sorry, I opt for the lower number just because of the way the APUG count works.

PE

 

[Nigel]

Let me skew those numbers to be far larger than Nigel's assumptions, and then still be depressed about my numbers.

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think we can even use the replies and votes as an indicator, nor do I think the 28K users can be the baseline. The real baseline is probably the views, which right now stands at about 2.5K (this give us about ten-fold increase from Nigel's reasoning by shrinking the denominator). I think it is a safe assumption that the overlap between the votes and posts is tremendous, but one can say that the vote ratio is probably not terribly wrong. So using those numbers we have 48 people who care out of 2.5k, or (48/2500) = 1.92%. When I wrote the poll questions I tried very hard to make sure there was no BS option or misunderstanding for people not truly interested.

I dare say that no one, or at least very few, who has voted 'NO' can claim they never shot Kodachrome. My guess is that the no votes are people who have used it, and may or may not have loved it, but have moved on if they did love it.

Finally, even though I care, and I started the thread and the poll, I certainly can't say I'm going to throw out all my other film and shoot KR64 exclusively. Even if I were to say that 100% of my color film will be Kodachrome, that's still only 5% of what I shoot.

Ergo, if we take me as the absolute best case, then the 1.92% becomes 0.1% of film. Unfortunately that's a pretty small share of the market for a big company to support. One tenth of one percent of a shrinking market like film might be a big deal for a tiny startup, but Kodak *CANNOT* be run like a Mom and Pop startup.

So, let's hope for the boutique model with other's coming in to fill in the gaps in fact works if Kodachrome is to survive for the long term.

After all, nobody wrote songs about Ansco-color.

MB

My numbers were posted, not to represent a definative estimate of the market size, but to stimulate thought about how Kodak will analyze the market. Feel free to tinker with my numbers to come up with your own market estimate. Outside of Kodak, we are all working with some pretty sparse data.

But, as you see, no matter how you slice up the market, the numbers on Kodachrome are pretty dismal. Using any sort of reasonable assumptions it becomes very difficult to argue that the economics of Kodachrome are attractive to Kodak.

I seem to recall that Ron (Photo Engineer) mentioned that Kodak had allowed the patents to lapse. So, there is the possibility that a small manufacturer could start manufacturing a Kodachrome clone. In fact, if Kodak were to abandon Kodachrome, some licensing deal might be struck to allow advertising it as the same formulation.

But even a niche player is stuck with the economics. A sizable capital investment in coating. Acquisiton of some specialized chemicals. Support of some sort of processing. It could happen, but you are looking at a price for Kodachrome that would be several times what it is now.

Alternately, perhaps Kodak sees value in Kodachrome (an ages old deal with Paul Simon and Nikon to prevent the lyric referring to Velvia and Canon?) that allows them to continue to manufacture the film for "strategic" reasons.

 

[PKM-25]

I just booked my flight, three weeks in Cambodia in November, all Kodachrome baby.

You guys keep playing with stats, numbers and all that jazz, I am going to shoot the film like I never have before...

 

[railwayman3]

I just booked my flight, three weeks in Cambodia in November, all Kodachrome baby.

You guys keep playing with stats, numbers and all that jazz, I am going to shoot the film like I never have before...

Well said, that's all that really matters.

I shall use it now for all my slide work for the foreseeable future (except the rare times I need extra speed), or until it finishes, and I don't think all the "playing with numbers" (including my own speculations somewhere above) will make a scrap of difference. We just don't know the figures, or Kodak's attitude to it as a prestige item, loss-leader or anything else.

If, or when, it finishes, I shan't then regret not enjoying it while I could, and doubtless I shall then quite happily get used to Astia or whatever.

I have an acquaintance who is suffering from a disabling illness and who can no longer grip a camera to take photos at all, Kodachrome, B&W, digital or anything else, which, to me, rather puts the whole issue into perspective.

 

[michaelbsc]

I just booked my flight, three weeks in Cambodia in November, all Kodachrome baby.

You guys keep playing with stats, numbers and all that jazz, I am going to shoot the film like I never have before...

OK, I've already pulled my last brick out of the freezer into the refrigerator except the roll currently in the camera. I'll order more as soon as that's gone in a few weeks.

I see two possibilities; 1) we make a difference by a hundred little things and a few big ones miraculously saving Kodachrome, or 2) fate wins out but, DAMN!, we had a good time and gave it our best shot.

The worst that can happen is that I get dozens of great shots in my private portfolio.

MB

 

[michaelbsc]

If, or when, it finishes, I shan't then regret not enjoying it while I could, and doubtless I shall then quite happily get used to Astia or whatever.

I forgot who said it, but I remember an old saw that goes, "In 20 years you will regret the things you did not do more than the things you did do."

MB

 

[lns]

... I see two possibilities; 1) we make a difference by a hundred little things and a few big ones miraculously saving Kodachrome, or 2) fate wins out but, DAMN!, we had a good time and gave it our best shot.

The worst that can happen is that I get dozens of great shots in my private portfolio.

MB

Totally.

Let's enjoy the heck out of the present and not worry about things we can't control in the future. Let's be doers. It's photography. It's fun.

-Laura

 

[bwfans]

A while ago, after Kodak discontinued Technical Pan, I discussed with one film manufacturing company the possibility to produce a batch of slow speed b&w film. I was told the minimum volume requirement. Considering the time needed to finish up this volume, and with rapidly shrinking film user base, I did not act on it.

By the same token Kodak may not want to arrange another production of Kodachrome. With film sales and usage volume dropping sharply how many incentives there to make Kodak to do it one more time? One weekend last month I went to a local Sam's Club to develop and print a test roll of color film. The assistant told me they processed a total of 17 rolls the day before.

For Kodachrome, the annual sales volume might be higher than 20,000 rolls. I bought almost 20,000 rolls Kodachrome 64 (KR) in one year and I don't believe that is close to Kodak's one year sales volume. Remember sales volume does not equal to usage volume. Even if it is sold 50,000 rolls that year, Dwayne may still process 20,000 rolls that year because many people store unused films in their freezers to be used in future.

Modern film can be stored well after the factory expiration date. There is one feasible way for fast shrinking volume. Kodak may consider to produce Kodachrome once every 5 years, or even once per 10 years to satisfy the volume production requirements, as long as the production date is marked and the master rolls stored well during that period. I don't think people will be very picky considering otherwise they need to pay a lot more for expired film. By the way I saw people buying expired or almost expired Kodak Ektachrome Infrared EIR slide film for close to $100 a 36 exposure roll on eBay.

Like it or not Kodachrome will be history in next few years. We probably cannot extend its life but at least we can use a little more Kodachrome starting now so when it is gone we can have less regret. When my kids were five or six years old I showed and taught them how to do Polaroid SX-70 image manipulation. Now SX-70 is gone I have very little regret because not only I have used the legendary artistic film myself, my kids also tried them. How many kids in this age knew and used SX-70 and its manipulations?

So give your kids a film camera and a roll of Kodachrome. If everyone is doing this and that lead to the continue production of Kodachrome, that is great. If not, that is fine too. At least your kids tried - the use of Kodachrome is just extended by one more generation.

 

[dmr]

One weekend last month I went to a local Sam's Club to develop and print a test roll of color film. The assistant told me they processed a total of 17 rolls the day before.

As another data point here in this complex equation ... A FOAF of mine who now runs the photo department at a local Wally World has stated on a local system that the criteria for discontinuing film processing at Wally World is an average of under 10 rolls per day over so many weeks. Two area shops have recently discontinued doing film because of this.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The local Ritz closed down about 2 years ago for just the same reason. Lack of C41 business. And, they would only take 35mm C41, no E6 and no 120. All of that was sent out and took 2+ weeks.

PE

 

[Nigel]

As another data point here in this complex equation ... A FOAF of mine who now runs the photo department at a local Wally World has stated on a local system that the criteria for discontinuing film processing at Wally World is an average of under 10 rolls per day over so many weeks. Two area shops have recently discontinued doing film because of this.

Tough to equate processing at Walmart to Kodachrome or, for that matter, E-6, and, I would argue, professional C-41. Walmart is catering mostly to those in the target market for a digital point and shoot. For quite some time, film has been the province of a dedicated core of (choose your description) zealots/traditionalists/fuddy duddies/artists. I live close to several pro-labs, and as I posted elsewhere recently, I suspect that the one I frequent is running about 150 rolls of C-41 daily. And this place does not sell film cameras or chemistry anymore (although they do sell film). And the price I am paying for c-41 processing (process only) is about the same as my M-i-L pays at Walmart for developing and double prints.

 

[michaelbsc]

...a local Wally World has stated on a local system that the criteria for discontinuing film processing at Wally World is an average of under 10 rolls per day over so many weeks. Two area shops have recently discontinued doing film because of this.

The camera shop in one of the local malls here has discontinued 1-hour processing, and I was coincidentally in the store when the regional manager was on the phone discussing it. He was willing to *GIVE* me the Fuji processor if I would haul it away to keep him from disposing of it. I told him, "No thanks; my Phototherm works great for a little guy like me."

Honestly I don't think the issue is truly Kodachrome, it's film in general. My wife likes fooling around with "alternative processes" so we have to make them ourselves for the most part. I think all film will be an "alternative process" in another 50 years, maybe sooner.

But I won't be here in 50 years, and I'm going to shoot it while I can.

MB

 

[eddym]

Ya know, I used to shoot Kodachrome, and it was the best slide film I ever shot. But I don't shoot slide film any more. I realized quite a few years ago who I am: I am a black and white photographer. So I don't shoot Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or any other color film, unless someone specifically hires me to do so (which does happen, but then it's usually color negative film).

So I'm very sorry, but I've read all these posts, but I have not participated in the poll. I would hate to see Kodachrome disappear, but I will not buy and shoot Kodachrome, because it does not represent who I am as a photographer. If I were a photographer who shot 35mm slide film, I would indeed shoot Kodachrome... but I am not.

I would hate to see Cadillacs disappear, but that does not mean I would buy a Cadillac.

 

[michaelbsc]

... I would hate to see Kodachrome disappear, but I will not buy and shoot Kodachrome, because it does not represent who I am as a photographer. If I were a photographer who shot 35mm slide film, I would indeed shoot Kodachrome... but I am not.

I would hate to see Cadillacs disappear, but that does not mean I would buy a Cadillac.

Touche, Eddy. As much as I like Kodachrome myself, I have no argument with your stance. After all, for me at least, this is a hobby, and I do what I like, not what someone says I should.

I don't shoot a lot of color, but I do shoot some, and have kept a frozen brick of Kodachrome around for special occasions for a while. My brother in law has wine, I have film. But just like he sometimes says, "What the hell, this is going to go to vinegar if we don't open it," the time has come to shoot Kodachrome.

So, everyone who *DOES* like Kodachrome, let's hope like hell it stays around, but if it does go out, let's make absolutely sure it goes with a glorious bang and not a whimper.

Ladies and Gentlemen, load your camera!

 

[accozzaglia]

Just ordered 8 rolls. Bring it.

 

[weststarflyers]

By personal experience I can say that Kodak never cared for the average consumer, pro or not. Traditionally Kodak cared more about government accounts. They drop the B/W paper material with little and short notices to the consumer. Asking that company to continue production of Kodachrome or any other sensitive material would be like asking a banana tree to give you potatoes. I would suspect that Kodak would say: 'one of the solutions is the Powerpoint presentations or similar applications in lieu of Kodachrome'. Any promise from that company are crackers.

 

[fschifano]

Kodak, and every other capitalist enterprise, must care about making a profit by selling what the customer will buy if they are to survive. It is that simple. They didn't stop making B&W paper to be mean spirited. They stopped making it because they could no longer get a sufficient return on the product to make it profitable. The same thing is true for Kodachrome and for any other product. If Kodachrome goes away, it will do so because it is no longer profitable. Perhaps it has lived as long as it has because it is a feather in Kodak's cap. But believe me, when the weight of carrying that feather around becomes too great, it will go.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Kodachrome demand

Kodak, and every other capitalist enterprise, must care about making a profit by selling what the customer will buy if they are to survive. It is that simple. They didn't stop making B&W paper to be mean spirited. They stopped making it because they could no longer get a sufficient return on the product to make it profitable. The same thing is true for Kodachrome and for any other product. If Kodachrome goes away, it will do so because it is no longer profitable. Perhaps it has lived as long as it has because it is a feather in Kodak's cap. But believe me, when the weight of carrying that feather around becomes too great, it will go.

You hit the nail right on the head, Frank.

PE's comment earlier on in this thread about every APUGger buying a roll makes perfect sense, too. I hope to be able to afford to buy 6 to 10 rolls, along with a friend who wants two rolls, and have them processed. Can you imagine if there was the demand for Kodak to make two master rolls--or more--per year?

For us Canadians, the problems, and expenses involved, are ginormous. But, I'm going to give it try, and for me, it means saving the Kodachrome for those very special occasions.

 

[michaelbsc]

You hit the nail right on the head, Frank.
...
But, I'm going to give it try, and for me, it means saving the Kodachrome for those very special occasions.

Yes, Frank is right, businesses are not "good" or "evil" as many want to attribute them. They are profit motivated, period. And the fact that Kodak allowed the patents to expire and no one took it up is telling.

I know this isn't the sense that Terrence meant "saving the Kodachrome for those very special occasions," but saving it up for special occasions is exactly what *NOT* to do. To get enough volume in the pipeline requires reasonable turnover. So, if you can, shoot two rolls per month whether you need it or not.

MB