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

[trendland]

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.

That would be a real real smart procedure. If you have technical parameters to design such procedure get save to hold a patent on this procedure.
After this come in contact with manufacturers - because till today there is no way on that production method.
Your idea would save enormious money and would indeed revolotionize film production. But it seams to be not possible. To change the type of film, to change just the emulsion during coating process is indeed the most expansive point. If a machine is running with best parameters (after optimized calibration) it is the cheapest way to let it run as long as possible. This is the reason of exploding cost during production from my point.
(to stop emulsion backing after some days [ and not after a run of 185 days 24/7 - with inspection and maintenance ]
with regards

 

[AgX]

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

Aside of Kodak six other manufacturers made Kodachrome-type films.
They all cancelled those long time before Kodak.

 

[Lionel1972]

2012 : Ektachrome is dead, get over it!
2018 : Ektachrome is being tested in chosen labs. Ektachrome is coming back. Get over it!

2009 : Kodachrome don't sell. Kodachrome is dead, get over it!
2018 : Kodachrome wow.. what a legend of a film, I would love to buy it. Kodachrome didn't sell, so you are not allowed to wish you could buy it. Get over it!

 

[Uncle Bill]

I really don't get Kodak's reintroduction of Tmax P3200, I can push either Tri-X or Tmax 400 and get similar results. Of course, everyone is waiting with baited breath for the rebirth of Ektachrome 100, what I would like to see is Plus X 125. That makes more sense to me.

They're more interested in bringing back things like P3200, apparently. There were better films than that to bring back which would mean instant market share for Kodak.

Kodak's business decisions are a mystery wrapped in an enigma, contained in a riddle, for sure.

But yes, I guarantee you that Kodak never gave even 10% of a single thought to bringing back Kodachrome. They wouldn't bring it back if the year 1957 came and bit them in the face.

 

[Lachlan Young]

OK everyone, what specific aesthetic qualities of K-14 Kodachrome was it that you liked & why? And what of those cannot be matched by E6 or C-41 films appropriately handled?

 

[RPC]

2012 : Ektachrome is dead, get over it!
2018 : Ektachrome is being tested in chosen labs. Ektachrome is coming back. Get over it!

2009 : Kodachrome don't sell. Kodachrome is dead, get over it!
2018 : Kodachrome wow.. what a legend of a film, I would love to buy it. Kodachrome didn't sell, so you are not allowed to wish you could buy it. Get over it!

The return of Ektachrome, although unlikely, was never out of the question. E-6 films are still being produced, and processed by labs, and it can be processed at home.

Kodachrome is a whole different animal. No one is prepared to manufacture it, it was difficult to manufacture, many needed chemicals are no longer made, re-startup costs would be very high, and technical quality was inferior to today's E-6 films. Processing it is no longer done, was quite complex, very exacting, and again re-startup costs would be very high. For all intents and purposes, its return is out of the question, unlike Ektachrome, whose success remains to be seen.

The number of people who want Kodachrome to return is a drop in the bucket compared to the number that would be needed to warrant its return. Kodachrome is, and will remain, a thing of the past.

 

[bvy]

For that matter, I wonder why E-6 didn't kill Kodachrome long ago...

 

[Photo Engineer]

For that matter, I wonder why E-6 didn't kill Kodachrome long ago...

For the same reason we see interminable threads on Kodachrome today. It just will not die even when beat to death with an ugly stick.

PE

 

[Craig]

For that matter, I wonder why E-6 didn't kill Kodachrome long ago...

In terms of volumes, it did in the 1990s. Don't forget by the end of Kodachrome Kodak couldn't sell a single master roll before the expiry date of Kodachrome. I personally think Kodak kept it limping along on life support so they could say it was made 75 years.

 

[cmacd123]

In terms of volumes, it did in the 1990s. Don't forget by the end of Kodachrome Kodak couldn't sell a single master roll before the expiry date of Kodachrome. I personally think Kodak kept it limping along on life support so they could say it was made 75 years.

It of course was also something that was impractical for Fuji to emulate, and for many many years the relationship between Kodak and Fuji was akin to war.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In terms of volumes, it did in the 1990s. Don't forget by the end of Kodachrome Kodak couldn't sell a single master roll before the expiry date of Kodachrome. I personally think Kodak kept it limping along on life support so they could say it was made 75 years.

Bingo! You broke the code. Do not let anyone in on the dirty little secret.

 

[AgX]

It of course was also something that was impractical for Fuji to emulate, ...

???

They did.

 

[Europan]

Kodachrome was predominantly amateur motion-picture film, since 1935. EKC sold KM in 16, Double-8, 9.5, DS-8, and Super-8 by the thousands of miles. It was even sold as long rolls 35mm to Hollywood producers. KM for stills was a fraction of that. Then people bought video equipment. Later people bought digital video equipment. Film projection is no longer the fashion, that is the problem. Kodak hasn’t made the slightest move in that respect, total silence about film projection. Ektachrome is a reversal transparency film, too, yet not a word about projecting it. Kodak seems to assume projectors still work flawlessly. I enquired about the availability of spare parts to the announced Super-8 camera. Not even a reply. Simon Wyss, Film-Mechanik, Rixheimer St. 35, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; simon-wyss@gmx.net

 

[RattyMouse]

In terms of volumes, it did in the 1990s. Don't forget by the end of Kodachrome Kodak couldn't sell a single master roll before the expiry date of Kodachrome. I personally think Kodak kept it limping along on life support so they could say it was made 75 years.

Of course E6 killed off Kodachrome. That is easy to see.

 

[trendland]

OK everyone, what specific aesthetic qualities of K-14 Kodachrome was it that you liked & why? And what of those cannot be matched by E6 or C-41 films appropriately handled?

The discussion is indeed a bit outdated.K14 method is real old.But it has shown in some parameters extrem superiority characteristics instead its age.The task today would be a reformulation with high tech methods because on basis of K14 I personaly see a big potential. Investments would justify the higher pricing - don't forget the infrastructure wich has to be build up.
Notice : Every new product has automaticaly a task group wich would buy it - just if people will think they must have it.
To imagine :"This product I urgent must have " comes 50% from other people who afford this product and from other 50% from advertising, image campaign, marketing conception.
So if a product today is "cool" no one can tell you why - lots of people want it.
So if a new Kodachrome with outstanding characteristics becomes "cool" people will buy it. If from there would come a hype around such product
you might have big amounds in sellings.
You might be right from argumentation :
"Nobody of us will spend such money for Kodachrome we all don't need this "
But the conclusuion - Kodachrome is still dead has nothing to say for the future.
Because other people meanwhile out there never knowing a special film - could become consuments of film.
Never forget you are the remaining rest (1 - 1,5 %) of a yesterdays demand.
Manufacturers are still interisted in new consuments.
with regards
PS : So many products today - no one has a real need - have massive amounds of demand - why not a modernest type of K14 film? Who can say? But the prerequisite is a company with money...

 

[trendland]

For the same reason we see interminable threads on Kodachrome today. It just will not die even when beat to death with an ugly stick.

PE

Well - PE this let me remember:"The Hound of the Baskervilles" - it is a bit simular indeed?
with regards

PS : Nobody shall know wich kind of curse you remember at EK during you serve Kodachrome
So we should call : Sherlock Holmes?

 

[1L6E6VHF]

OK everyone, what specific aesthetic qualities of K-14 Kodachrome was it that you liked & why? And what of those cannot be matched by E6 or C-41 films appropriately handled?

One, the remjet backing and, I suspect, some antihalation properties in the front of the film layer. Anytime I shot a nightscape time exposure where lights were in the picture, Kodachromes (at least, 25 and 64) had pinpoint sharpness. Even with my best lenses, lights were rendered as big fuzzballs when using E6 films.

I have never seen an E6 slide with such a deep Dmax black as I generally got with Kodachrome 25. Granted, E6 films were catching up with Kodachrome products before the reversal film market collapsed.

Only at the very end of the slide projection era were E6 films showing the image permanence qualities that Kodachrome had achieved in the mid-1950s (interestingly, old Ektachromes from the era run the gamut from totally washed out, through magenta-only image, to some that still have only slightly faded images), Anscochrome, Agfachromes and consumer-grade slides printer from color negatives, forget about it!!
Some of my more vivid Sensia 100 slides of the mid-1990s are slightly showing age.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Hmmm...
Though I could edit a post here. I had saved what I did. I guess this will have to be the continuation.

I certainly see the problems Kodachrome did have. Many people mention that Kodachrome fades more quickly than substantive films as they are actually being projected. However, I usually don't project one slide in a static display (in one exception I have seen the fading effect: a 1982 scenic view of a town (Honor, MI) from a hill that overlooks it, which I use in "before and after" comparison. It has spent a total of about four hours a few centimeters from a hot DAT. It is noticibly more cyannish than the slides before and after it (it is not an issue in movie projection - each frame is in the light for <35mS. One would have to show the movie thousands of times, by which time the cellulose base would have turned to dust).
I had several rolls of Kodachrome that came back either undersaturated with a cyan cast or undersaturated with a purple cast. I don't know if it was from older film, poor processing, or both. It was bad enough that I had shunned Kodachrome for several years (oddly enough, when I returned to it, it was more reliable.)

I must say I don't like where this thread is going. I know and understand the many reasons that there is no market for Kodachrome and that it will not come back, but people here seem to be denigrating the products. It really was a great product line, it (more than any other product) transformed photography from monochrome to color (additive color plates were a small niche market), it left us with many beautiful still and motion images that far outlived the lives of its users that took the images.

 

[AgX]

One, the remjet backing and, I suspect, some antihalation properties in the front of the film layer. Anytime I shot a nightscape time exposure where lights were in the picture, Kodachromes (at least, 25 and 64) had pinpoint sharpness. Even with my best lenses, lights were rendered as big fuzzballs when using E6 films.

No film has antihalation properties at the front of the film layer. Simply as halos only originate from the base.

 

[trendland]

Hmmm...
Though I could edit a post here. I had saved what I did. I guess this will have to be the continuation.

I certainly see the problems Kodachrome did have. Many people mention that Kodachrome fades more quickly than substantive films as they are actually being projected. However, I usually don't project one slide in a static display (in one exception I have seen the fading effect: a 1982 scenic view of a town (Honor, MI) from a hill that overlooks it, which I use in "before and after" comparison. It has spent a total of about four hours a few centimeters from a hot DAT. It is noticibly more cyannish than the slides before and after it (it is not an issue in movie projection - each frame is in the light for <35mS. One would have to show the movie thousands of times, by which time the cellulose base would have turned to dust).
I had several rolls of Kodachrome that came back either undersaturated with a cyan cast or undersaturated with a purple cast. I don't know if it was from older film, poor processing, or both. It was bad enough that I had shunned Kodachrome for several years (oddly enough, when I returned to it, it was more reliable.)

I must say I don't like where this thread is going. I know and understand the many reasons that there is no market for Kodachrome and that it will not come back, but people here seem to be denigrating the products. It really was a great product line, it (more than any other product) transformed photography from monochrome to color (additive color plates were a small niche market), it left us with many beautiful still and motion images that far outlived the lives of its users that took the images.

I still agree with you 1L6E6VHF - but we don't should say Kodachrome is dead.
Kodachrome is still sleeping for a while from my point. It will return (from the graves as some say) because the interest on Kodachrome is still there.If K14 would not as much complicate as it is - remember the lab support it would need - I am quite sure Kodak had intruduced it again meanwhile (perhaps instead Ektachrome).
And think about 2012 - who would have been expected at this time we can see Ektachrome again ever.
I realy expect a rebirth of Kodakchrome but it will be different (much better) in concern of the well known types in the past.Kodak has to change some raw substances in any way of reformulation.
Why not use the technical state of Art of post 2000 era instead of pre 1950 origin then?
So it is not a question if - it is just a question when!
with regards
PS : I realy know some may beat me therefore - but I will come back later when we hear about introduction of a brand new film on basis of Kodachrome type with phantastic unexpectable characteristics never seen before.
Of cause this film will be expensive then - but who cares about......

 

[Europan]

I liked Kodachrome and still do when I project it. Nothing compares to it, especially Kodachrome II, my favourite.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak's announcement about the "demise" of Kodachrome did say it was being "retired".

PE

 

[trendland]

Kodak's statements changed from time to time didn't it? They also retited complete E6 films.
with regards

 

[trendland]

damned : "retired" sorry smartphone don't belive me......
with regards

 

[AgX]

Kodak's announcement about the "demise" of Kodachrome did say it was being "retired".

Is this post intended to trickle a discussion on semantics?

Then first we would have to discuss how careful Kodak was with their wording so far.