KA: Kodachrome "just not practical to try to replicate in today's market."

[Photo Engineer]

I’m sorry to let you know that the ignorance is just as much on your side than mine as you have no way to know how well would Kodachrome sell if it were revived today. Based on your reasoning since vinyl discs sold miserably « at the end of their life » when CD took over, then there were no chance at all it would be sold all over again today. We both know it is unrealistic to apply that reasoning as a ganeral rule with no exception.

Vinyl records are vastly easier to produce than even the simplest film.

PE

 

[Lionel1972]

I said that the chemicals were not worse, but the problem is getting them. They are hard to get and very expensive. Mixing the chemistry is difficult and the solutions are unstable! That needs a lot of throughput to turn the chemistry over with fresh replenishment.

As for "many" I was somewhat sarcastic there and had in my mind the proportion of supporters here on APUG(error intended). The 3 or so are what we know about here on APUG and does indeed comprise many when compared to how many people are "approving" of Kodachrome on this thread.

PE

So the problem is merely on a technical and rentability aspect. Nothing to do with what many people think about harmful chemicals that must be banned at all cost. I think the environmental excuse is too often put in front of the public to hide the real motives behind some business decisions. So much easier to get people’s approvement once you invoque « we gottta save the planet » reason that ends all arguments.

 

[Lionel1972]

Vinyl records are vastly easier to produce than even the simplest film.

PE

I know that, but what does it have to do with how we could have foreseen their coming back?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I know that, but what does it have to do with how we could have foreseen their coming back?

Firstly, vinyl never went away, it just shrunk a great deal.
Secondly, has it occured to you that vinyl "came back" because there IS A MARKET FOR IT? Have you read the title of this thread?? Truly, you lend new dimensions to the meaning of the word "obtuse".

 

[Lionel1972]

Many people here insist to think that since not enough people wanted to buy Kodachrome in 2009, it means that it could never ever be back in fashion again. People thought the same about vinyl discs. Regardless of the technical difficulties and cost to make it again, let’s imagine it would be magically back on sale tomorrow (which is always the case for a lot of people when they buy a product without knowing how it got made), on a marketing point of view there is no difference in selling a outdated technology like vinyl discs which didn’t sell well enough 25 years ago than selling an outdated technology photo product like Kodachrome that didn’t sell enough in 2009.

 

[Lionel1972]

Firstly, vinyl never went away, it just shrunk a great deal.
Secondly, has it occured to you that vinyl "came back" because there IS A MARKET FOR IT? Have you read the title of this thread?? Truly, you lend new dimensions to the meaning of the word "obtuse".

Now there is a market for vinyl records, but I bet that 10 years ago you would have insisted there was no market in 1995 for vinyl discs any more which « proved » that there will never be a market for them ever again.
Vinyl records shrunk so much that almost everyone thought they had disapeared, marketing wise it is just about the same.
I’m sorry but these are simple logical arguments I m pointing to you, I’m afraid I’m not the one being obtuse here.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Many people here insist to think that since not enough people wanted to buy Kodachrome in 2009, it means that it could never ever be back in fashion again. People thought the same about vinyl discs. Regardless of the technical difficulties and cost to make it again, let’s imagine it would be magically back on sale tomorrow (which is always the case for a lot of people when they buy a product without knowing how it got made), on a marketing point of view there is no difference in selling a outdated technology like vinyl discs which didn’t sell well enough 25 years ago than selling an outdated technology photo product like Kodachrome that didn’t sell enough in 2009.

And you are wrong again. Vinyl is not outdated, it actually has some advantages (if your playback gear is up to the task) over the compact disc.

 

[faberryman]

And you are wrong again. Vinyl is not outdated, it actually has some advantages (if your playback gear is up to the task) over the compact disc.

The film vs digital debate is tiresome enough. No need to pile on with a vinyl vs digital debate. Let's leave that one to the audio forums.

 

[removed account4]

lionel

i have a feeling if the current music being sold on vinyl
( which used to be 3.99 and is now 25.99+ where i live ).
if the cost of a record cost 100x what it did when it was 3.99
no one would buy it. just like if kodachrome was re-introduced
and cost 300$, guessing, that no one would buy it ...
it is true, they probably could reformulate the emulsion for small batches
( R+D =$ )
they could probably source the "expensive and unstable when mixed chemistry that needs to be replenished &c "
( R+D = $ )
they could probably make new machines &c ...
( R+D=$ )
but would the price point be feasible and would people buy a roll of film that cost a fortune even if it was kodachrome ?
maybe i am clueless, but on this forum alone
there are people who incessantly complain about chemicals going up by a few dollars, or film costing 200% more than it did 10 years ago
do you really think if kodachrome was re-released people would really buy it at a 50$ o r100$ or 300$ / roll ?
"back when i was using xyz it cost ¢40 a roll ! now this new stuff is 8.00, i won't buy it !"
look at the thread from when the type 55 film was re-released, it cost like 10$/sheet , sure some people bought it ( maybe still do ? )
but the lions share of people, while they smiled that it was available again, never bought the film ...
maybe you should start a website to revive kodchrome and a go fund me page, and a kikstarter page and an indigogo page
and see if there is enough interest and maybe you can PAY kodak to re release it ... cause i think that might be the only way it will happen

 

[Lionel1972]

The film vs digital debate is tiresome enough. No need to pile on with a vinyl vs digital debate. Let's leave that one to the audio forums.

Agreed. Another way to try to prove me wrong without replying to my original point.

 

[BrianShaw]

The film vs digital debate is tiresome enough. No need to pile on with a vinyl vs digital debate. Let's leave that one to the audio forums.

Thank you.

 

[faberryman]

Agreed. Another way to try to prove me wrong without replying to my original point.

Not trying to prove you wrong. I edited a high-end audio site for seven years and have had enough of the vinyl vs digital debate. Both mediums have their benefits. Arguing about which one is best is pointless. Just as pointless as the film vs digital debate. No reason to double up here.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

PE seems to imply that processing Kodachrome is not an impossible task (and that even some people achieved it on their own). He also wrote in an old post that as far as he knew, the chemicals involved in coating Kodachrome were not worse than current films made today. So what is truly the reason everybody seems to think it would be so impossible to revive except that old feeling that what was once a commercial failure should be left dead for ever?

There's a huuuuuuge difference between a handful of people coming up with some DIY method of processing old Kodachrome film and reviving the manufacture of that film. Huuuuuuge. Not to mention selling enough of it to recover recurring, not to mention start-up non-recurring, cost.

Reality sucks, but it's real.

 

[Agulliver]

It was possible for vinyl records to make a significant comeback because production of records and turntables at all price points never stopped. So it was possible for the remaining companies to ramp up production in the first years of the recovery. Then in the last couple of years we've seen new vinyl presses being manufactured for the first time since the 80s and Matsushita bring back the Technics SL1200 - two things which required a lot of investment. But by that point, it was pretty clear the investment would be recouped.

Kodachrome is a different kettle of red herrings. Don't get me wrong, I loved Kodachrome. I shot the film, have the Paul Simon 45 and the Dwayne's t-shirt. I'd love for it to come back. But I accept that the infrastructure simply does not exist. Kodak could probably make the film again with a significant but not bankrupting investment. But there's nobody able to process it. The K14 process is a bigger problem. Unlike all current photo processes, it cannot be done in the home with a few chemicals and a small tank...or even a rotary processor. It requires a very complex 14 step process by a machine that no longer exists anywhere in the world. The last hope was probably Dwayne's, and sadly they scrapped theirs. Sad but it's the truth. Kodachrome is highly unlikely to come back.

Vinyl records never quite went away. I might have no love for hip-hop but that music kept some presses running...and several turntable manufacturers survived the wilderness years.

It might be more comparable to look at cassette tape, also seemingly making a small comeback. But there are no decent cassette decks on the market. Nobody manufactures a good quality cassette mechanism any more....and doing so would likely cost a LOT of money. Ergo there has been no decent quality cassette deck on the market for over a decade, as nobody has made one since Yamaha stopped circa 2004. The offerings from Tascam/Teac and Pyle all use the horrible Tanashin transport with audible wow & flutter among other issues. There is a huge stumbling block to cassette making a real comeback because there are no decent decks, and likely never will be again. Analogous to the Kodachrome K14 processing issue. The only person in the world who's managed to process the stuff made it clear how difficult it was and that he couldn't give any guarantee as to the longevity of the processed images.

I'd love Kodachrome....but it's gone. And the market would have to change a LOT for it to come back.

 

[BrianShaw]

Not trying to prove you wrong. I edited a high-end audio site for seven years and have had enough of the vinyl vs digital debate. Both mediums have their benefits. Arguing about which one is best is pointless. Just as pointless as the film vs digital debate. No reason to double up here.

If we keep this topic going can we please also fight over linear tracking versus standard tonearms? Or tube versus solid state amplifiers?

 

[Lionel1972]

lionel

i have a feeling if the current music being sold on vinyl
( which used to be 3.99 and is now 25.99+ where i live ).
if the cost of a record cost 100x what it did when it was 3.99
no one would buy it. just like if kodachrome was re-introduced
and cost 300$, guessing, that no one would buy it ...
it is true, they probably could reformulate the emulsion for small batches
( R+D =$ )
they could probably source the "expensive and unstable when mixed chemistry that needs to be replenished &c "
( R+D = $ )
they could probably make new machines &c ...
( R+D=$ )
but would the price point be feasible and would people buy a roll of film that cost a fortune even if it was kodachrome ?
maybe i am clueless, but on this forum alone
there are people who incessantly complain about chemicals going up by a few dollars, or film costing 200% more than it did 10 years ago
do you really think if kodachrome was re-released people would really buy it at a 50$ o r100$ or 300$ / roll ?
"back when i was using xyz it cost ¢40 a roll ! now this new stuff is 8.00, i won't buy it !"
look at the thread from when the type 55 film was re-released, it cost like 10$/sheet , sure some people bought it ( maybe still do ? )
but the lions share of people, while they smiled that it was available again, never bought the film ...
maybe you should start a website to revive kodchrome and a go fund me page, and a kikstarter page and an indigogo page
and see if there is enough interest and maybe you can PAY kodak to re release it ... cause i think that might be the only way it will happen

Yours is the only valid argument against the success of a Kodachrome revival. It is essential that the selling price of a revived Kodachrome and processing be affordable. But you know if you drive a cab which got its tank emptied, the only way for you to make a living out of it is to buy some gas first to fill it up again. At first your regular fares will not make you earn any money but once you get the money of the gas back you can make profits again.

 

[faberryman]

It was possible for vinyl records to make a significant comeback because production of records and turntables at all price points never stopped.

There are scores of turntable manufacturers at all price points from a couple of hundred dollars to six figures. Yes, six figures. And a market for them.

 

[RattyMouse]

I’m sorry to let you know that the ignorance is just as much on your side than mine as you have no way to know how well would Kodachrome sell if it were revived today. Based on your reasoning since vinyl discs sold miserably « at the end of their life » when CD took over, then there were no chance at all it would be sold all over again today. We both know it is unrealistic to apply that reasoning as a ganeral rule with no exception.

I'm listening to experts, former Kodak experts, who say the idea is beyond stupid. Utterly stupid. Completely stupid.

It. Will. Never. Happen.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodachrome isnt even worth bringing back. It's completely superfluous.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The film vs digital debate is tiresome enough. No need to pile on with a vinyl vs digital debate. Let's leave that one to the audio forums.

My point was that comparing Kodachrome to vinyl is not valid.

 

[Lionel1972]

It was possible for vinyl records to make a significant comeback because production of records and turntables at all price points never stopped. So it was possible for the remaining companies to ramp up production in the first years of the recovery. Then in the last couple of years we've seen new vinyl presses being manufactured for the first time since the 80s and Matsushita bring back the Technics SL1200 - two things which required a lot of investment. But by that point, it was pretty clear the investment would be recouped.

Kodachrome is a different kettle of red herrings. Don't get me wrong, I loved Kodachrome. I shot the film, have the Paul Simon 45 and the Dwayne's t-shirt. I'd love for it to come back. But I accept that the infrastructure simply does not exist. Kodak could probably make the film again with a significant but not bankrupting investment. But there's nobody able to process it. The K14 process is a bigger problem. Unlike all current photo processes, it cannot be done in the home with a few chemicals and a small tank...or even a rotary processor. It requires a very complex 14 step process by a machine that no longer exists anywhere in the world. The last hope was probably Dwayne's, and sadly they scrapped theirs. Sad but it's the truth. Kodachrome is highly unlikely to come back.

Vinyl records never quite went away. I might have no love for hip-hop but that music kept some presses running...and several turntable manufacturers survived the wilderness years.

It might be more comparable to look at cassette tape, also seemingly making a small comeback. But there are no decent cassette decks on the market. Nobody manufactures a good quality cassette mechanism any more....and doing so would likely cost a LOT of money. Ergo there has been no decent quality cassette deck on the market for over a decade, as nobody has made one since Yamaha stopped circa 2004. The offerings from Tascam/Teac and Pyle all use the horrible Tanashin transport with audible wow & flutter among other issues. There is a huge stumbling block to cassette making a real comeback because there are no decent decks, and likely never will be again. Analogous to the Kodachrome K14 processing issue. The only person in the world who's managed to process the stuff made it clear how difficult it was and that he couldn't give any guarantee as to the longevity of the processed images.

I'd love Kodachrome....but it's gone. And the market would have to change a LOT for it to come back.

Again, those are technical obstacles that may or may not be overcome. The only issue would be the selling price. This would also be a strategic business decision which should be based on the overall benefits on the Kodak brand as a whole contributing to shape a new market.

 

[MattKing]

Kodachrome is a different kettle of red herrings. Don't get me wrong, I loved Kodachrome. I shot the film, have the Paul Simon 45 and the Dwayne's t-shirt. I'd love for it to come back. But I accept that the infrastructure simply does not exist. Kodak could probably make the film again with a significant but not bankrupting investment. But there's nobody able to process it. The K14 process is a bigger problem. Unlike all current photo processes, it cannot be done in the home with a few chemicals and a small tank...or even a rotary processor. It requires a very complex 14 step process by a machine that no longer exists anywhere in the world. The last hope was probably Dwayne's, and sadly they scrapped theirs. Sad but it's the truth. Kodachrome is highly unlikely to come back.

+1
The nature of Kodachrome (colour being added at the processing stage rather than the manufacturing stage) means that for viability it requires much higher processing volumes than E6 requires.
In its heyday, the Kodak processing machines were the size of a smallish city bus. They ran at high speed, used a lot of energy. The operators attached leaders and trailers that were approximately one mile long to about a mile of spliced together customers' films, and then ran the three mile long package continuously through the machine. During busy times, the labs ran three 8 hour shifts, and the machines were essentially used continuously..
A high percentage of Kodachrome film was movie film.
Even the latest version of the processors was about the size of a minivan.
When volumes were high, it made sense to have many of the processes that result in colour slides (and movies) occur at the processing stage.
With the volumes available today, it is necessary that the E6 approach be taken - add the colour at the film manufacturing stage, and make the processing simpler and more suitable for small operations.

 

[removed account4]

Yours is the only valid argument against the success of a Kodachrome revival. It is essential that the selling price of a revived Kodachrome and processing be affordable. But you know if you drive a cab which got its tank emptied, the only way for you to make a living out of it is to buy some gas first to fill it up again. At first your regular fares will not make you earn any money but once you get the money of the gas back you can make profits again.

thanks, i like to be validated, i get free parking and a cup of coffee that way
yeah i agree you gotta spend money to make money,
but my unprofessional, and uneducated guess is its more than a small amount of money.
certainly there are thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of peope who be buyers, but ..
in order for somethng to be viable those thousands or hundreds of thousands would have to buy it regularly
and at a high price point i think it would be a "special occasion" thing, people would have it in their cameras forever
because the film will be RARE and EXPENSIVE and they will not shoot it much .. and it would take even longer to buy a new roll ..
and that doens't even take into account the trickle of people needing it processed in unstable and expensive chemistry ...
now ... if they released a MASK to expose onto their ektachrome film when it is processed which TWEEKS the color palette of this film
that already exists, and because it is flashed onto the film it is PART of the film ...
that might be worth it, or have a FILTER they sell to put ON THE CAMERA that does it at the time of exposure ...
unfortunately kodachrome might extinct like a passenger pigeon or do-do bird, but that doesn't mean kodak can't release a way to have
what they DO sell to emulate what some of their customer base wants ...

YMMV

 

[RattyMouse]

Again, those are technical obstacles that may or may not be overcome. The only issue would be the selling price. This would also be a strategic business decision which should be based on the overall benefits on the Kodak brand as a whole contributing to shape a new market.

The CEO of Kodak has specifically stated that film is NOT a core product of Kodak. WHY would film be part of ANY strategic decision?

 

[Lionel1972]

Kodachrome isnt even worth bringing back. It's completely superfluous.

That is your opinion. Many people still think analog photography is not worth bringing back since it’s been made complete superflous by today digital photography. I think I have the right to disagree to both statements.