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

[RattyMouse]

Today instead of my usual grande sized coffee I ordered a venti dark roast at Starbucks.

 

[Helios 1984]

Today instead of my usual grande sized coffee I ordered a venti dark roast at Starbucks.

A sign of Kodachrome's imminent return!

 

[RattyMouse]

A sign of Kodachrome's imminent return!

Damn! Even a coffee post can be corrupted by Kodachrome.

 

[Wallendo]

Today instead of my usual grande sized coffee I ordered a venti dark roast at Starbucks.

When I go to Starbucks, I insist on ordering "small", "medium", or "large" just to aggravate them.

Maybe next time I go, I'll ask for "Caffenol, hold the ascorbic acid and washing soda".

 

[Photo Engineer]

Where did it go wrong for Kodak?

From my position as a consumer (industry experts may well know better), it strikes me that like some other photographic companies....they simply were not able to maintain their presence once the market shifted over to digital. Kodak may have invented the digital camera and then produced some truly decent professional sensors but nobody seemed to want to buy them. Then in the early 2000s they were making competitive consumer digital cameras which performed decently but they never gained much market presence. The whole Kodak printer thing didn't really work either. That's where it went wrong....film and traditional photography revenues dried up, including those for Hollywood movies....and somehow Kodak ballsed up their entrance into the digital world.

It wasn't because the Kodak digital cameras were sub par, they definitely were good. I had two at work at one point. Somehow Kodak, Minolta and others got it wrong....while Sony and Samsung got it right.

None of this really relates to Kodachrome....which wouldn't be viable even if Kodak were kings of digital photography.

Many major manufacturers of digital equipment used Kodak sensors or licensed Kodak patents. The sensors and technology were among the very best. Kodak also made major strides in OLED technology. The trouble was that they didn't know what to do with it.

PE

 

[Helios 1984]

When I go to Starbucks, I insist on ordering "small", "medium", or "large" just to aggravate them.

Maybe next time I go, I'll ask for "Caffenol, hold the ascorbic acid and washing soda".

Once I was in the meat department at Colruyt (a Belgian supermarket), and the clerk asked my name so he could call me through the microphone. I said Johann Strauss.

 

[Kino]

When I go to Starbucks, I insist on ordering "small", "medium", or "large" just to aggravate them.

Maybe next time I go, I'll ask for "Caffenol, hold the ascorbic acid and washing soda".

Vendi Rodinal?

 

[Helios 1984]

Vendi Rodinal?

With 2 acutance and a cloud of grain, please.

 

[RattyMouse]

When I go to Starbucks, I insist on ordering "small", "medium", or "large" just to aggravate them.

Maybe next time I go, I'll ask for "Caffenol, hold the ascorbic acid and washing soda".

I like Starbucks, so I would not go out of my way to annoy the person working there. It's their job, part of their life so I don't see the need to make people miserable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please smother this thread...

Hey, it's become sort of a fun thread! It's like watching some sort of horrible mutated crippled drooling gasping monster shambling along, you never know where it will go or what it will do, you can post whatever inane idiotic drivel you like, because said drivel fades to invisibility in the glare of other drivel already posted, and now I have to get ready for lunch with Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Elvis, and some scaly green guys.

This thread has become as useful as the deleted thread!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Whatever happened to the "Deleted" thread? I haven't seen it in ages.

 

[BrianShaw]

Whatever happened to the "Deleted" thread? I haven't seen it in ages.

All of the participants were permanently banned. The thread hasn’t been seen for years either.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like Starbucks, so I would not go out of my way to annoy the person working there. It's their job, part of their life so I don't see the need to make people miserable.

If they get annoyed by people refusing to use their stupid pretentious terms for the overpriced swill they serve, good.

 

[BrianShaw]

I like Starbucks, so I would not go out of my way to annoy the person working there. It's their job, part of their life so I don't see the need to make people miserable.

+1

Life’s too short to be mean-spirited!

 

[1L6E6VHF]

A sign of Kodachrome's imminent return!

I guess a tall cup of coffee could make oneself a Type A personality!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

+1

Life’s too short to be mean-spirited!

Which is why I do not patronise $tarbuck$.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I guess a tall cup of coffee could make oneself a Type A personality!

But, only under tungsten lighting.

 

[RattyMouse]

If they get annoyed by people refusing to use their stupid pretentious terms for the overpriced swill they serve, good.

This is Trump's America....afraid of a few Italian words.

 

[Lionel1972]

The above statement and post #696 is a good example of why you need to re-read the thread. As I said in post#156 there is a huge difference in the feasability of bringing back Ektachrome vs. Kodachrome.

And you still do not understand that Kodak is in no position to invest in the return of Kodachrome, and no indication they will be in the future.
You still do not understand the problems connected with the manufacture and processing of Kodachrome and doing it reliably.
You still do not understand that the superiority of E-6 led to a significant downturn in sales of Kodachrome.
You still do not understand that the use of digital finally killed off Kodachrome, and the masses prefer that medium over film.
You still do not understand that the demand necessary to warrant its return and sustain sales is non-existant.
And you still do not understand that there is absolutely no indication that this will EVER CHANGE.

The above statements are based on facts. Your arguments are based on opinions, supposition, and wishful thinking, none of which carries any weight at all. Why don't you give it up?

You still do not understand my points which are :
- whatever led to the significant downturn in sales of Kodachrome in the past is NOT RELEVANT to what how much it could sell in the future. Polaroid film sales significantly dropped also to the point of discontinuation but it didn't stop Impossible Project and now Polaroid Originals to bring it back.
- the technical difficulties to produce and process Kodachrome again are huge but not impossible to overcome for a company like Kodak. Impossible Project had serious technical difficulties to overcome as well, and they too got told they could never make it.
- change do not always come announced with indications. Some people's will can start a change sometimes, some other just accept what they've been told what can and what cannot happen.

As you wrote : "the use of digital finally killed off Kodachrome, and the masses prefer that medium over film", so why don't you give up film altogether? All the so called "facts" you've been opposing to the potential return of Kodachrome have been used over and over to oppose the continuation of film photography as a viable medium, yet Kodak is bringing back T-Max P3200 and soon will bring back Ektachrome. How do those FACTS fit into your implacable reasoning?

 

[faberryman]

Of course, saying something is possible is not the same as something is likely, and is usually accompanied by a snicker from the audience.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Whatever happened to the "Deleted" thread? I haven't seen it in ages.

When there was a major upgrade in the website software, it was spread out over many servers and it was too hard for Sean to move. So he deleted it!

 

[foc]

This sums everything up:

 

[RattyMouse]

- the technical difficulties to produce and process Kodachrome again are huge but not impossible to overcome for a company like Kodak.

How is it possible you still do not understand how weak Kodak is today? This is NOT the Kodak of yesteryear.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I just got a statement of our pension plan from the residue of EKC. OMG!!!!!!!

PE

 

[RPC]

You still do not understand my points which are :
- whatever led to the significant downturn in sales of Kodachrome in the past is NOT RELEVANT to what how much it could sell in the future. Polaroid film sales significantly dropped also to the point of discontinuation but it didn't stop Impossible Project and now Polaroid Originals to bring it back.
- the technical difficulties to produce and process Kodachrome again are huge but not impossible to overcome for a company like Kodak. Impossible Project had serious technical difficulties to overcome as well, and they too got told they could never make it.
- change do not always come announced with indications. Some people's will can start a change sometimes, some other just accept what they've been told what can and what cannot happen.

As you wrote : "the use of digital finally killed off Kodachrome, and the masses prefer that medium over film", so why don't you give up film altogether? All the so called "facts" you've been opposing to the potential return of Kodachrome have been used over and over to oppose the continuation of film photography as a viable medium, yet Kodak is bringing back T-Max P3200 and soon will bring back Ektachrome. How do those FACTS fit into your implacable reasoning?

You still fail to reason out that the evidence against Kodachrome coming back, which has been shown in this thread by facts, vastly outweighs the evidence that it will return, of which there is none. You youself have failed to show any. Sure, it is theoretically possible that it can return, but that is not the issue. The issue is that there is no evidence that it ever will return, or is there any reason to, despite your continued opinions, suppositions and wishful thinking. Again, the evidence is STRONGLY AGAINST IT.

With such strong evidence, it is ludicrous for anyone to argue in favor of a revival the way you continue to do.