How to nudge Kodachrome back into the consumer's eye

[Steve Roberts]

So, if you can, shoot two rolls per month whether you need it or not.

Errrr... use 24 rolls a year when you only really need, say, six of them - total expenditure @ $12 a roll = $288, cost per roll for six rolls would be $48. A rather expensive way of keeping the damned stuff alive if you don't actually use that much AND no guarantee that even that would keep it on Kodak's books. A case of chucking good money after bad if ever there was one. Better to see it dead and buried and just spend the money on Guinness instead.

Steve

 

[Schlapp]

If they stopped making it like Poloroid - they would sell out of KC overnight!

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Kodachrome demand II

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

You're right, Michael; what I meant was more like I wouldn't be as free with it as my B&W stock, as I process that myself. But it is an issue to get it processed; about CA$18 to send up to six rolls, and US$14 to have it shipped back. If I was going to shoot a roll, I might just as well shoot three or even four. Now, all I need is a personal project justify the cost.

 

[PKM-25]

Don't do us, photographic history or Kodak any favors.

You know, don't shoot it if you don't really want to. I mean really, this is getting stupid. If you want to shoot a few rolls a month, go for it, if you don't, stop complaining about how much it costs when you could be wasting far more money guzzling beer or other things and having nothing in return, nothing to look at 10, 20 even 50 years from now.

You either see the value in shooting it or you don't, plain and simple. Think about all the money that is wasted in stupid things like cable TV, bad meals, bad investments, trips to Vegas, losing lottery tickets and a huge list of other things that are far worse than trying your luck with Kodadchrome.

If you can't see the value in shooting this film, then you can't see it and that does not make you bad or wrong. But that does not mean that other people can't see the value. And if you think E6 is so much better, lets see what you can do with it then:

Come on now, show me those images that put Steve McCurry, Sam Abell, Alex Webb, Ernst Haas, David Alan Harvey, James Stanfield, Galen Rowell or Bill Allard to shame...I am all eyes folks so show me the goods, cause this I gotta see!

I have a feeling that for all the people complaining about the film, there is a bigger problem for them at hand. Lets just say they are complaining about the horses pulling the cart they are in when it has no wheels.

By the way, I am not trying to save Kodachrome, I am just trying to see to it that it does not go quietly. I hate to tell you naysayers, but it is working...

 

[PKM-25]

And I will say this one more time..

Film teaches you about light.

Slide film teaches you about the nuances of light.

Kodachrome teaches you about the subtle but profound nuances of light, color and tonal gradation.

I would not be the photographer I am today if I did not use Kodachrome. Like many other photographers, I made many mistakes, some awful, some brilliant.

I will end by quoting a *very* famous Kodachrome shooter who wrote me this last night:

"This was the film with which I learned about color photography and matured. It showed me so much and my mistakes were learning processes as well."

 

[CRhymer]

Canadian options

You're right, Michael; what I meant was more like I wouldn't be as free with it as my B&W stock, as I process that myself. But it is an issue to get it processed; about CA$18 to send up to six rolls, and US$14 to have it shipped back. If I was going to shoot a roll, I might just as well shoot three or even four. Now, all I need is a personal project justify the cost.

Terrence,

Where in Canada are you? You don't have to personally ship it to Dwayne's. I am in Fort Smith, NT (check an atlas or Google Maps) and my local drug store sends it out - processing costs less than $13.00 per roll total. Not as cheap as dropping off at Walmart in the US, but any Qualex affiliate in Canada should send it for you. Certainly not as cheap as B&W at home, but have you tried to get a roll of E-6 processed recently?

Cheers,
Clarence

 

[michaelbsc]

OK gang, I talked to Rich Kelley at Unique Photo today, richk@uniquephoto.com - http://www.uniquephoto.com, and their Kodachrome seems to be about the best price I can find anyway. It's $7.25/135-36. It's $5.70/135-24. That's not bad.

MB

 

[nickandre]

Does anyone mind if their kodachrome is a year out of date? Kodak could presumably keep producing the stuff and simply sell outdated film. As long as processing could be worked out.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak would never sell outdated film! That is unethethical. AFAIK, they have never done that.

PE

 

[Iwagoshi]

How to nudge Kodachrome back into the comsumer's eye?

More product placement.
This photo ran in most if not all N. Am papers last week:
Dead Link Removed

Scarlett Johnson, Woody Allen and a Leica M6.

I have no doubt Leica sales just went up. If she uses Kodachrome, another run is guaranteed, but it seems that Kodak does not have that kind of marketing sense, especially since they have their heads stuck shoulder deep up their....in the the digital sand.

Another observation: I just checked the Flickr groups. There are 760 members with ~6,000 photos posted, in 8 groups dedicated to Kodachrome. APUG has no group dedicated to Kodachrome, and it appears that I am the only one that has posted Kodachromes in our gallery since this thread started. Hmmm...14 pages of talk.

 

[gr82bart]

My avatar is a Kodschrome.

I have to admit that I have not shot a roll of Kodachrome in a decade or two. Ok, you've guited me enough, as a chrome photographer, to go out and buy several rolls.

As for the Flickr stats, you have to understand APUG reputation out there - we have some folks that drive away more film photographers. Especially those that shoot colour slides, whose workflow includes a computer. That said, I hope you stick around and participate in some of the great member organized events. If more chrome photographers participate here, maybe we can convince APUGers that film is more than just B&W.

Regards, Art

 

[eddym]

Scarlett Johnson, Woody Allen and a Leica M6.

I have no doubt Leica sales just went up.

I saw the movie. Penelope Cruz told Scarlett, you should use an old camera, it will make better pictures. Never did anyone say the word "Leica". Only someone who already knows what a Leica is (like us!) would recognize it. And we already know whether we want a Leica or not. How is seeing Scarlett shoot one going to convince us to buy one?

The movie might attract more people into the darkroom, though....

 

[nsouto]

Come on now, show me those images that put Steve McCurry, Sam Abell, Alex Webb, Ernst Haas, David Alan Harvey, James Stanfield, Galen Rowell or Bill Allard to shame...I am all eyes folks so show me the goods, cause this I gotta see!

been doing it for years:
Dead Link Removed
I can load the full size somewhere again if anyone wants to see what k64 35mm can do

 

[Iwagoshi]

How is seeing Scarlett shoot one going to convince us to buy one?

The movie might attract more people into the darkroom, though....

Why does the tobacco, beer, soda, automotive industries place such heavy emphasis on product placement? Because it works, its unregulated advertisements. When James Bond rode a BMW motorcycle, sales for that model spiked, although I do not know if Duracell stocks went up or down when Morpheus held up a copper-top battery in The Matrix.

Whether it's the new hipster badge of cool-ness IDNK, but what I've seen around Berkeley and Tokyo is a bunch of tweeners (18-29 years old) with film cameras around their necks. So if Kodak-Kodachrome had the forethought to target this demographic there might be another Levi success story in the making (IIRC didn't Levi almost tank in the 70's but then they targetted the hippy to yuppy segment that turned the company around, the same with Apple in the 80's?).

Terry

Terry
​

 

[Iwagoshi]

If more chrome photographers participate here, maybe we can convince APUGers that film is more than just B&W.
Regards, Art

Art,
Why is that, wrt APUG and chrome? I'm relatively new here and totally agree that film is more than B&W, but even BW400CN is often frowned on here.

Terry

 

[eddym]

Why does the tobacco, beer, soda, automotive industries place such heavy emphasis on product placement? Because it works, its unregulated advertisements.​

You missed my point, and your quote edited my post. NOBODY knew it was a Leica except those of us who already own or are familiar with Leicas! So as product placement goes, it was a pretty lame try.

Besides, most people's (OK, men's) eyes were not on the camera she was holding...

 

[dried_squid]

[ snip ]

Film teaches you about light.

Slide film teaches you about the nuances of light.

Kodachrome teaches you about the subtle but profound nuances of light, color and tonal gradation.

[ snip ]

I agree. I learned from transparency film. I'm still learning, so I still use transparency film. And Kodachrome is my mentor of choice.

And I fear many new photographers with only digital experience will only know how to fix their pictures, instead of make them.

Plus I suspect there are also many digital photographers who would rather not print their pictures.

I think the print is important. There's a difference between transmitted light like a computer display, and reflected light like a print. And I also believe people respond more deeply to a print than the computer display. Like the difference between a receiving a card or letter with a handwritten message, as compared to an email. One is more of a statement, or a caress.

This assumes no photographers take pictures only for themself. Ie. every photographer selects something to photograph for a reason larger than themself. (Even when I had to make it up.)

When I have given people prints, and I felt their gratitude, I felt good. It's not the same as broadcasting a URL. Putting a print in a person's hand is personal.

And for me, going to print from a transparency is the simplest and most manageable way. Especially when it comes to my time. With a transparency at hand, the photofinisher has a good starting point.

 

[kodachrome64]

You missed my point, and your quote edited my post. NOBODY knew it was a Leica except those of us who already own or are familiar with Leicas! So as product placement goes, it was a pretty lame try.

Besides, most people's (OK, men's) eyes were not on the camera she was holding...

I agree; I doubt even one Leica was sold because of that scene. Yes; it is product placement. But the brand is never mentioned, and the only ones who would recognize it right off are those who already know what it is. I imagine all those people either already have one or don't want one (or whatever) but I doubt anyone who didn't otherwise want a Leica would make a decision to get one just because it was hanging around Scarlett's neck. Even though the strap did get to touch her boobs. Unless someone bought that one.

But, back to the topic, if Kodachrome were somehow placed properly in the main stream then it may prompt people to go out and buy it again. I was shooting some Kodachrome at a family gathering this past weekend and some of my family were under the impression that Kodachrome was not on the market anymore. There may be a way to show people it's still there, but I imagine Kodak doesn't want to throw good money after bad, if that's the way they see it. In all honesty, would they get a return for spending a few million on advertising? Probably not.

 

[DBP]

If I were Kodak, I would be planning a big Kodachrome related splash for Photokina 2010, to mark the 75th anniversary. It would include a 2-electron update to the film, which with other advances over the last 20 years would possibly give us a K200 with the grain of K25. And maybe a new mailer to meet the new postal regs and automatically include a scan. Then do an advertising campaign with a slogan along the lines of "Kodachrome, for memories that last for lifetimes". The campaign would include archival footage so people can see just how well the slides last.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you were Kodak, you would lose your shirt on the deal and probably go out of business.

PE

 

[DBP]

If you were Kodak, you would lose your shirt on the deal and probably go out of business.

PE

I will defer to you on the research investment involved of course, but the rest of the work would be very cheap. So even if the don't do anything to change the film itself, they could do a marketing campaign using viral marketing and free press to capitalize on the 75th anniversary. Add to the anniversary all the archival footage they could offer to television and the web and quite a bit of impact could be achieved for little expense. The Lomography folks have shown how to do this with a product a lot less unique and valuable than Kodachrome.

I'm going to try a little experiment. I shot a couple of rolls of middle schoolers doing a skit over the weekend and plan to offer to show the results as a slide show. I'm interested to see the reaction of modern teens to seeing projected slides for the first time.

 

[michaelbsc]

If you were Kodak, you would lose your shirt on the deal and probably go out of business.

PE

I will defer to you on the research investment involved of course, but the rest of the work would be very cheap.

I'm not Kodak, but I do work in a small business where I'm responsible for generating income as well as setting customer expectations.

Without having a secret microphone into the Kodak decision making conference room, I'll bet the conversation about Kodachrome goes something like this:

Advocate: "Ya know, we could probably crank up the volume of Kodachrome by 500% if we did some of these things they talk about on APUG."

Marketing Guy: "Ya know, we lost a ton of market share to X, Y, and Z because we failed to follow through on A, B and C in the last decade."

Accountant: "Ya know, by raising customer expectations, we'll have to spend 16 times what it would cost us to let it just fade away, and we'll still fail to meet customer's expectations, so we'll loose a gajillion dollars in the end."

CEO: "Kodachrome? Never heard of the stuff. What's the outlook on this new ink jet paper?"

Now, I'll admit this breaks my heart, and I really hope I'm completely wrong. But if there's going to be a viral marketing campaign that rescues Kodachrome, it had better come from us, not Kodak. If *WE* make Kodachrome hit the limelight again in the marketplace, then the conversation I imagined will be very different, more on the order of the marketing guy going, "I got 9 months of preorders for Kodachrome and only 3 months of stock letft!! When in the hell are you guys going to get on the stick with this stuff?" But it's up to us. Kodak has already bet their money and moved on.

MB

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is more like, "We are getting outdated stock returned from most customers due to lack of sales of E6 and Kodachrome products. The single use and negative film sales hold strong in both B&W and color. Things look steady for negative color and B&W products."

PE

 

[michaelbsc]

Imaginary conversation edited, "... Things look steady for negative color and B&W products."

PE

Actually finding regular B&W film (not the C-41 stuff) is a chore these days unless you order it online or a few places like Ritz in the mall or the one remaining Photo Express in town have it on the shelf in 135 in small quantities. I can't think of any place I've seen an entire brick of 135 available except specialty stores in the larger market areas for a while.

I did notice that a CVS drugstore outside Raleigh, NC had two rolls of 135-24 Plus-X, which I bought just to make demand appear on the sales reports. I'm going to check the local CVS in my hometown to see if they also have B&W on the pegboard. I know all the Wal-marts and Walgreens have stopped carrying regular B&W. And forget 120 size; even the camera stores have stopped carrying 120 size in everything, B&W, C41 and E6.

MB

 

[PKM-25]

And yet B&H has sold over 900 rolls of K64 since the AP article came out.

I am getting a splitting headache....