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

[alanrockwood]

What was it that caused Kodachrome to fail? Several things have been mentioned, but I am looking for clarity.

Was it the difficulty/expense of processing Kodachrome, or the difficulty/expense of manufacturing Kodachrome, or some technical aspect of Kodachrome that was inferior to Ektachrome? I have a vague recollection that one factor was that Kodak halted development of Kodachrome, so could planned obsolescence have been a factor?

Could a big factor have been that people just lost interest in slide film, and Kodachrome was the first casualty?

I realize that one factor that could be cited is that Kodachrome could not be processed at home, but I doubt if even 1% of slide photographers ever processed E6 film at home anyway, so that particular aspect could not have been very important.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

What was it that caused Kodachrome to fail? Several things have been mentioned, but I am looking for clarity.

Was it the difficulty/expense of processing Kodachrome, or the difficulty/expense of manufacturing Kodachrome, or some technical aspect of Kodachrome that was inferior to Ektachrome? I have a vague recollection that one factor was that Kodak halted development of Kodachrome, so could planned obsolescence have been a factor?

Could a big factor have been that people just lost interest in slide film, and Kodachrome was the first casualty?

I realize that one factor that could be cited is that Kodachrome could not be processed at home, but I doubt if even 1% of slide photographers ever processed E6 film at home anyway, so that particular aspect could not have been very important.

Not enough people were buying it, it's that simple.

 

[RattyMouse]

What was it that caused Kodachrome to fail? Several things have been mentioned, but I am looking for clarity.

Was it the difficulty/expense of processing Kodachrome, or the difficulty/expense of manufacturing Kodachrome, or some technical aspect of Kodachrome that was inferior to Ektachrome? I have a vague recollection that one factor was that Kodak halted development of Kodachrome, so could planned obsolescence have been a factor?

Could a big factor have been that people just lost interest in slide film, and Kodachrome was the first casualty?

I realize that one factor that could be cited is that Kodachrome could not be processed at home, but I doubt if even 1% of slide photographers ever processed E6 film at home anyway, so that particular aspect could not have been very important.

E6 film is dying all over the world. Ferrania's effort is stillborn and so far, so is Kodak's, now 6 months behind schedule.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Every picture in the gallery here is digital, what is your point?

 

[Lionel1972]

Never denied a fact? Every post you make is denial!

A denial of what? That everything you think as true cannot be wrong? Not everyone who disagrees with you is in complete denial.
What don’t you quote a fact (not a conjecture) I have supposedly denied?

 

[Craig]

What was it that caused Kodachrome to fail? Several things have been mentioned, but I am looking for clarity.

Several things were factors. Part is format, for many years it was 35mm only, and had a 10 year stint in 120. Most commercial photographers who used slide films used larger format cameras, and if they did use 35mm or 120 there was typically 4 hour E6 processing available in any major center. Kodachrome was a week to send it off to Kodak. In a commercial situation there might not be a week to wait for processing. Then have the art director look at the photos and decide he wants something different and reshoot, wait another week for processing etc.

Another factor was around 1990 Fuji brought out Velvia and the higher saturated colours were very popular, again for advertising type photography. In comparison, Kodachrome was quite muted.

Yet another, is amateur tastes shifted from shooting slide film to C41 materials and getting local processing in a 1 hour minilab. Why wait a week when you have have it done while you do your shopping? C41 is far more forgiving of exposure errors, so much better suited to amateur use.

I've also heard there was a period about that time when Kodak outsourced/spun off (or something like that) their processing division and the quality suffered. Colours shifts, scratches, dirt etc on the processed film. I've read here that for many people that was the final straw and they shifted to other films and never went back.

 

[alanrockwood]

Several things were factors. Part is format, for many years it was 35mm only, and had a 10 year stint in 120. Most commercial photographers who used slide films used larger format cameras, and if they did use 35mm or 120 there was typically 4 hour E6 processing available in any major center. Kodachrome was a week to send it off to Kodak. In a commercial situation there might not be a week to wait for processing. Then have the art director look at the photos and decide he wants something different and reshoot, wait another week for processing etc.

Another factor was around 1990 Fuji brought out Velvia and the higher saturated colours were very popular, again for advertising type photography. In comparison, Kodachrome was quite muted.

Yet another, is amateur tastes shifted from shooting slide film to C41 materials and getting local processing in a 1 hour minilab. Why wait a week when you have have it done while you do your shopping? C41 is far more forgiving of exposure errors, so much better suited to amateur use.

I've also heard there was a period about that time when Kodak outsourced/spun off (or something like that) their processing division and the quality suffered. Colours shifts, scratches, dirt etc on the processed film. I've read here that for many people that was the final straw and they shifted to other films and never went back.

Informative. Thanks.

 

[alanrockwood]

E6 film is dying all over the world. Ferrania's effort is stillborn and so far, so is Kodak's, now 6 months behind schedule.

Apparently, even Fuji Film seems a little shaky on E6. When the dust settles do you think there will be any E6 left?

 

[removed account4]

16 xx RPM. Anyone ever hear of that one?

it was for spoken word.

 

[MattKing]

Part is format, for many years it was 35mm only, and had a 10 year stint in 120.

I'm going through my Dad's slides right now.
Lots of 135 Kodachrome, but also lots of 110, 126 and 828.
And I don't want to even think about the regular 8 and Super 8 Kodachrome movie films that I also need to go through.
It was the volume of movie film that probably made it most successful.

 

[RattyMouse]

Apparently, even Fuji Film seems a little shaky on E6. When the dust settles do you think there will be any E6 left?

No I do not think there will be any left. Fuji will close down and Kodak and Ferrania's efforts will be stillborn.

 

[removed account4]

ahh another film company to lash out at !
and to thnk fuji was your golden child

 

[Lionel1972]

Is Anyone here really thinking today’s market for film photography can be compared even remotely with how the market used to be in the days when professional photographers used tons and tons of E6 film and everyone else used C41 films and were getting every photos of a roll printed twice? Let alone those even older days when millions of families were shooting Kodachrome and projecting holiday slides? Let’s face it, film photography and particularly color slides barely survive today because of the film enthousiasts. Luckily those are convincing a growing number of young people that film photography is cool and some even get hooked too. That is the only future for film photography most possibly. Kodak knows it now and has started to find a way to scale down their production tools and try to cater the needs and desires of this new niche market. Weither or not you like Kodachrome, its iconic status makes it the most powerful marketing tool Kodak could ever dream of.

 

[Craig]

I'm going through my Dad's slides right now.
Lots of 135 Kodachrome, but also lots of 110, 126 and 828.

Was that all K14? I had completely forgot about 126 and 110 format. If it was K14, when would those formats have been discontinued?

 

[Craig]

Is Anyone here really thinking today’s market for film photography can be compared even remotely with how the market used to be in the days when professional photographers used tons and tons of E6 film and everyone else used C41 films and were getting every photos of a roll printed twice?

No, the market is completely different and vastly smaller. That's precisely why Kodachrome will never come back.

 

[MattKing]

Was that all K14? I had completely forgot about 126 and 110 format. If it was K14, when would those formats have been discontinued?

For 828 I think it was both K12 and K14, because my recollection is that Dad continued to use his Bantam RF after the switch-over from K12. The slide mounts don't tell you the process though.
110 would have been just K14 of course.
I'm not sure about 126, but it may have been just K14.
Unfortunately, the native 110 slide mounts don't have dates on them, so I'm doing lots of guessing! I've got a box of 110 Kodachrome in 2"x2" mounts in my hand right now - they have a May 1983 date on them.

 

[Craig]

Unfortunately, the native 110 slide mounts don't have dates on them, so I'm doing lots of guessing! I've got a box of 110 Kodachrome in 2"x2" mounts in my hand right now - they have a May 1983 date on them.

According to Wikipedia, (so take it with a grain of salt) K64 in 110 was discontinued in 1982. So that would make sense that your slides were processed a bit after that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I talked to a young man today who took photography as one of his courses at RIT. They told him that to understand digital, you must first understand all aspects of analog.

Kodachrome was also available in sheet film sizes, and as a print material called Kotavachrome.

PE

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Several things were factors. Part is format, for many years it was 35mm only, and had a 10 year stint in 120. Most commercial photographers who used slide films used larger format cameras, and if they did use 35mm or 120 there was typically 4 hour E6 processing available in any major center. Kodachrome was a week to send it off to Kodak. In a commercial situation there might not be a week to wait for processing. Then have the art director look at the photos and decide he wants something different and reshoot, wait another week for processing etc.

Another factor was around 1990 Fuji brought out Velvia and the higher saturated colours were very popular, again for advertising type photography. In comparison, Kodachrome was quite muted.

Yet another, is amateur tastes shifted from shooting slide film to C41 materials and getting local processing in a 1 hour minilab. Why wait a week when you have have it done while you do your shopping? C41 is far more forgiving of exposure errors, so much better suited to amateur use.

I've also heard there was a period about that time when Kodak outsourced/spun off (or something like that) their processing division and the quality suffered. Colours shifts, scratches, dirt etc on the processed film. I've read here that for many people that was the final straw and they shifted to other films and never went back.

I think you refer to the Qualex debacle.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Apparently, even Fuji Film seems a little shaky on E6. When the dust settles do you think there will be any E6 left?

Bluntly, no.

 

[Craig]

I think you refer to the Qualex debacle.

That could be it. In Canada the processing was done by Kodak, so I never experienced anything other than Kodak processing; and it always seemed to be good.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Not enough people were buying it, it's that simple.

It was doing very well for itself until Fuji-San happened along with Provia and Velvia. This film is what landscape/scenic and publishing photographers wanted: a film with bolder, brassier, punchier colours, not the pale, insipid Jane Austen-inspired palette of Kodachrome. When the first Cibachromes came out in exhibitions printed from Provia and Velvia, trouble knocked on PKL's big yellow door. But it still found a devoted following with adoring NatGeo photographers. Around the world, 'togs were wondering what the hell was on those little green boxes from Japan. Stampedes followed and sales boomed. Thus the legend was born. There were a couple of times in the late 1990s here in Australia (1996-1997) when there was a shortage of Velvia and Provia in all formats because it was selling so rabidly. No such thing happens today, saldy, with a pretty severe decline in E6 uptake and lab throughput.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What was it that caused Kodachrome to fail? Several things have been mentioned, but I am looking for clarity.

Was it the difficulty/expense of processing Kodachrome, or the difficulty/expense of manufacturing Kodachrome, or some technical aspect of Kodachrome that was inferior to Ektachrome? I have a vague recollection that one factor was that Kodak halted development of Kodachrome, so could planned obsolescence have been a factor?
Could a big factor have been that people just lost interest in slide film, and Kodachrome was the first casualty?
I realize that one factor that could be cited is that Kodachrome could not be processed at home, but I doubt if even 1% of slide photographers ever processed E6 film at home anyway, so that particular aspect could not have been very important.

It was the advent and progression of digital cameras for the masses from 2000, a phenomenon that continues today making photography easy and fun and much cheaper than it was when film was king. People need not concern themselves with sourcing/buying film (I'll bet there are folks out there who have never seen a roll of 120 film, or a 4x5 sheet film!), the cost of processing/turnaround, papers and chemicals... all they need is a computer (who doesn't have one nowadays!?) and a camera and maybe even a decent inkjet, and ...Bob's your uncle: satisfying photography right there in your home. No mixing, no mess, no waiting, no fuss or bother.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I talked to a young man today who took photography as one of his courses at RIT. They told him that to understand digital, you must first understand all aspects of analog.
...

PE

<*gasp*> Be careful Ron. The digital fanbois are loathe to be told that simple but rock-solid truth.They'd flame you until your arse was on fire...

 

[Lionel1972]

I talked to a young man today who took photography as one of his courses at RIT. They told him that to understand digital, you must first understand all aspects of analog.

Kodachrome was also available in sheet film sizes, and as a print material called Kotavachrome.

PE

I have the chance to own a couple of 4x5 Kodachromes from the early 50’s. Just wow. Even if I could afford to buy only one box of this stuff every 5 years’ and in spite of whatever technical flaws that vintage emulsion suffered from, I would not hesitate buying some. There is a book called Hollywood in Kodachrome by David Wills which displays some wonderful 8x10 Kodachrome publicity transparencies of famous Hollywood stars from the 40s. Stunningly beautiful.
PE, was Kotavachrome in any way similar to Cibachrome?
On a side note, does anyone think the revival of Kodak’s Ektachrome would be more successful if people could print color slides on Ilfochrome again?