Photographers and photographic companies struggled for over 150 years to end up with true 3-color. commercially viable photography. In the 1920s (or perhaps a bit earlier), they finally came up with something better than any alternative (hand dyeing prints, hand applied 2-color emulsions, etc.). It was complicated , it was difficult to deal with, but they had it. It was Kodachrome. And Kodak had it and was the first to have it- then we got Fantasia, and the world went "WOW".Kodachrome was the first to naturally be followed by new innovations. But ultimately it was complicated, and the new innovations (E-n, then digital) were easier to use and arguably as good or better. Many would say that Kodachrome was the best (and I won't argue, I shot it and it was great). Considering that practically anyone could process the alternatives, and very, very few could process Kodachrome (because it was the first commercially viable thing they got working; though complicated), it makes sense that ultimately the first technology gets retired. Tube amplifiers did get replaced by solid state; though some kept tubes alive, but not on a huge scale- and Kodachrome is all about "scale". Big scale to manufacture (like all films), but also to process (unlike most films). Digital is challenging all film on both scales.
My 2 cents. And that is not to say that if Kodachrome did come back I would not shoot it again!
My 2 cents. And that is not to say that if Kodachrome did come back I would not shoot it again!
Last edited: