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

[E. von Hoegh]

Hey Joe! You want slide? I sell you Kodacrom! Fi' dollah - color last long time!


(you have to be from a certain era to get that)

 

[tomfrh]

But it is also no longer accurate. The last series of Ektachrome was better for archival purposes than Kodachrome.

Really?

I have Kodachromes from the 50s that look like they were shot yesterday. I have E-6 from the 90s, including Ektachrome, and they're already faded more than the old kodachromes. They're still ok (nothing like as faded as the old agfas), but it just doesn't seem as robust as kodachrome.

 

[tomfrh]

Do you think there'd be a viable market at $50/roll...$60 ???

I'd buy it for that, but would only use it minimally. Maybe a roll a year.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Really?

I have Kodachromes from the 50s that look like they were shot yesterday. I have E-6 from the 90s, including Ektachrome, and they're already faded more than the old kodachromes. They're still ok (nothing like as faded as the old agfas), but it just doesn't seem as robust as kodachrome.

Stability varies with processing. Kodachrome processing had to be very exact, but Ektachrome was more tolerant, but just for image quality, not for stability. I have images from the 80s and 90s that are just fine.

PE

 

[1L6E6VHF]

In days past, I would sometimes find slide trays in thrift stores with the slides still in them.

In those trays, it was not uncommon to see more than one roll of Ektachrome in the same tray, processed by the same lab, in the same month - and one roll will have faded much more than the other.

On the whole, the Kodachromes withstood the test of time better.

On the other hand, Kodachrome seemed to have some rolls come back poorly saturated, with a magenta cast, or, less likely, poorly saturated with a greenish cast - and these rolls had the problem from the beginning.

Though I still regularly see slide trays for sale at thrift stores, I haven't seen one with slides in it for about 8 years.

 

[alanrockwood]

I have some old Ektachromes shot in the late 1960s and 1970s that are very badly faded. The Kodachromes look like they were shot yesterday. Of course, the Ektachromes were not E6. Too bad I shot mostly Ektachromes back then.

 

[kb3lms]

Would not remotely surprise me to find that they've switched things to a slower speed coating line with shorter take up and tailings on the film runs.

I doubt that they are using a smaller, slower line. What I hope is that they have found ways to produce multiple emulsions in the same coating run. Instead of coating an entire 6000 foot roll of, say Tri-X, they coat 1000 feet of the roll as Tri-X, 1000 feet as P3200, 1000 feet as TMY and so on. I could imagine this being done by concentrating on a core set of "grains" and dyes and then switching them in and out as necessary. These films are all multi-layer today so possibly they could assign "grain type" to layers and mix and match. No doubt there would be waste between the emulsion switches but surely that could be managed.

I could also guess that they could produce B/W films on a roll and color films on a roll but no combine the two. Have often wondered if part of the delay with Ektachrome has been to rework Ektachrome to use may of the same materials as used by Vision, Portra and Ektar but make them into a reversal film.

 

[removed account4]

What if Kodak were able to sell Kodachrome(say PKR135-36) processing included w/mailer. Do you think there'd be a viable market at $50/roll...$60 ??? PKM135-36?

there are no machines left to process the film. they would have to rebuild machines from scratch, even to do the processing in-house ,,
which would be nearly impossible since they dismantled the photo finishing arm of their company IDK almost 20 years ago.
the best way to make kodachrome these days is to expose 3 RGB negatives and either contact print them in a darkroom
on color paper or do "modern" trichromes by scanning and stacking RGB files in photoshop. $50-$60 a roll for processing
would last about IDK 10 minutes until people decided it wasn't worth the $$ to have a roll of film developed only to scan it to share
with their friends anyways .... then it would have basically paid for about .0001% of the R+D costs to redevelop the machine
and maybe put the company back on the chopping block or turn its once valuable stock into penny stock ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt that they are using a smaller, slower line. What I hope is that they have found ways to produce multiple emulsions in the same coating run. Instead of coating an entire 6000 foot roll of, say Tri-X, they coat 1000 feet of the roll as Tri-X, 1000 feet as P3200, 1000 feet as TMY and so on. I could imagine this being done by concentrating on a core set of "grains" and dyes and then switching them in and out as necessary. These films are all multi-layer today so possibly they could assign "grain type" to layers and mix and match. No doubt there would be waste between the emulsion switches but surely that could be managed.

I could also guess that they could produce B/W films on a roll and color films on a roll but no combine the two. Have often wondered if part of the delay with Ektachrome has been to rework Ektachrome to use may of the same materials as used by Vision, Portra and Ektar but make them into a reversal film.

Do you have any idea how expensive and wasteful that idea is? Do you have any understanding of industrial processes?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Look folks there is no point in arguing about this. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THIS FILM IN TODAY/S MARKET. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Rochester locuta est, causa finita est!

 

[kb3lms]

LOL. Yes, I do understand how wasteful that could be. My point was that wondered if and hoped that the engineering at EK had solved the wastefulness issue and so could produce smaller lots in an on-demand process rather than super big production runs.

I work at a place where we make small numbers of many different specialty products. Granted, it isn't chemical type production but electronics. A quantity of 1000 of a device per year qualifies as high volume. Costs and inventory are managed by constantly using a controlled number of same bits and pieces of raw materials and work cells that can produce multiple items. Simply wondering if Kodak had found a way to apply the same sort of idea film production.

 

[NJH]

Surely the problem then would be cost? All film manufacturers had R&D facilities, coating machines for small run development purposes etc. To use such facilities for product runs would surely result in eye wateringly expensive output.

 

[cmacd123]

Stability varies with processing. Kodachrome processing had to be very exact, but Ektachrome was more tolerant, but just for image quality, not for stability. I have images from the 80s and 90s that are just fine.
PE

and in the US, their were many labs besides Kodak that (thanks to consent decrees) were competing with Kodak to Process Kodachrome. in the rest of the world, Kodachrome was almost always sold with Processing included, and so went to a Kodak controlled processing station. Either Kodak owned, or run by the local Kodak distributor. (used to be two in Canada, which at the time only had a population of under 20,000,000 people)

 

[MattKing]

Actually, there may have been three labs in Canada at one time - Toronto and North Vancouver certainly processed Kodachrome, and Brampton may have.

 

[cmacd123]

Actually, there may have been three labs in Canada at one time - Toronto and North Vancouver certainly processed Kodachrome, and Brampton may have.

I know that there was a lab at the warehouse in Brampton. (visited that building once) but figured that is was a relocation of the Toronto lab. By then the courier service was well established and so I had not mailed in a roll for some time.

 

[MattKing]

The Brampton lab might have been colour print materials only - I don't know.
Brampton was the shortest lived of the three locations - it was set up long after North Vancouver was.

 

[jtk]

and in the US, their were many labs besides Kodak that (thanks to consent decrees) were competing with Kodak to Process Kodachrome. in the rest of the world, Kodachrome was almost always sold with Processing included, and so went to a Kodak controlled processing station. Either Kodak owned, or run by the local Kodak distributor. (used to be two in Canada, which at the time only had a population of under 20,000,000 people)

In the 70s/80s in San Francisco (and probably Dallas and Paris) Kodak offered same day service on Kodachrome as a courtesy to professional photographers who otherwise relied on 3 hour turn-around on E4/E6 from one of several exceptionally good pro labs for their routine work (like my large format food work). Kodak also offered push/pull within a one-stop range on Kodachrome but that sometimes delayed processing by one day...push looked good, pull not so much.

One local photojournalist shot over 100 rolls of Kodachrome on a National Geographic assignment, brought them all to Faulkner Color Lab and paid nothing extra for Kodak's 100% reliable pickup service, delivered back to Faulkner for him next day.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I hesitate to post in a Kodachrome revival thread, but some might find this bit of trivia interesting.

Even during the 70s and 80s, Kodachrome processing variability was an issue. Given that pre-paid Kodak mailers required the same number of stamps irrespective of which U.S. lab one sent them to, I tried every one. In my experience, Kodak's Fair Lawn, New Jersey lab provided the most consistent results. Not that others got close to the off-color dreck some independent labs produced with Kodachrome, but Fair Lawn always returned spot-on balance and physically clean mounted slides.

 

[mshchem]

Here's a radical idea. Get Ektachrome and a 5L E-6 kit on the market at a reasonable price. Kodak is going to need to make the film, but there's nothing stopping Alaris from making a decent 5L kit with separate bleach and fixer. Tetenal makes Kodak and Ilford sundries, and Kodak (Alaris?) China is making Flexicolor C-41 chemistry. Fuji is the only company left that has everything in house.

If Kodak wants to keep the Kodachrome brand alive come out with ISO 25 E-6, C-41 and Black and White. Kodachrome has been commercially non-viable for 30 years.

Sometimes lost in this mess is,.... WE HAVE, lovely slide films, in the current Fujifilm offerings. This is what should be saved! Volume is the key. If people keep buying the film, Fuji will keep making it.

I have always been a avid user of Kodak products. Right now I have concerns about keeping what we have, Kodak, Ilford and Fuji (and Foma too). Fomalux , contact speed paper is gone, I would rather have that back then Kodachrome.

Bring back Kodachrome, sure, and have Sylvania start making 25B flashbulbs to go with it.


Best Mike

 

[Lachlan Young]

and Fomalux , contact speed paper is gone, I would rather have that back then Kodachrome.

I'd give Adox Lupex a shot - I think Foma made a batch of Fomalux (off the back of a previous Lodima make?) & it sold too slowly to make another batch worthwhile - lovely stuff though.

 

[George Mann]

Ektar reversal film sounds like a winner!

 

[Arklatexian]

Do you have any idea how expensive and wasteful that idea is? Do you have any understanding of industrial processes?

We are speaking of a film that came out during the "Great Depression" and I doubt it made sense to manufacture it "then". Before we move on, I think we should pay close attention to the word "today's". Conditions can and do change, big money is still out there to be invested and while there certainly doesn't seem to be a place for Kodachrome or a far better similar film, don't bet on it not happening. Would there have been such a long production run for Kodachrome without the National Geographic? Stranger things have happened, just don't hold your breath until it does because YOU will not live to see it if you do.............Regards!

 

[George Mann]

What about a film like Dynacolor? Could such a film be viable today?

 

[RattyMouse]

We are speaking of a film that came out during the "Great Depression" and I doubt it made sense to manufacture it "then". Before we move on, I think we should pay close attention to the word "today's". Conditions can and do change, big money is still out there to be invested and while there certainly doesn't seem to be a place for Kodachrome or a far better similar film, don't bet on it not happening. Would there have been such a long production run for Kodachrome without the National Geographic? Stranger things have happened, just don't hold your breath until it does because YOU will not live to see it if you do.............Regards!

Kodachrome is not coming back. Ever. Deal with it.

 

[George Mann]

I want vintage color slide and print film, not the sterile modern junk so many cling to!