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

[RPC]

Those were the exact same arguments that were opposed to those who, "in spite of all evidence", insisted film photography still had a future while digital was taking over.

Such speculative arguments were based on a medium still in existence, with a demand, and its continued existence was feasible, for some indefinite period of time, despite such speculative opinions. Kodachrome is discontinued and obsolete with no demand. Its return highly problematic and unfeasible. Another illogical comparison.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm sorry but those who refuse to use reason are the ones who reject any potential return of Kodachrome based one what they believe is a definitive statement that it is a thing of the past which should never come back and who treat any other opinion as delusional and irrational. Those were the exact same arguments that were opposed to those who, "in spite of all evidence", insisted film photography still had a future while digital was taking over. It is sad to see such negative mindset is displayed by the same people who were laughed at by digital shooters for still believing in analog photography. If we have to give up the fight to promote a particular emulsion we should as well give up the fight for all analog photography altogether since we all know E6 film is on the verge of extinction, Fujifilm traditional film line is condamned to death in the near future and once the prices for silver and other harder to find componants keep rising, all film photography will be unaffordable for most people.

Lionel-

we did a survey here in response to one of several "bring back Kodachrome" threads. The survey still exists here - go take a look at it. The net result is that nobody who was interested in Kodachrome returning was willing to pay anything vaguely like what it would cost to revive it and process it on the greatly reduced scale that would exist in today's market. A somewhat realistic price point for a roll plus processing would be somewhere north of $50/roll for Kodak to make a profit and maintain quality standards. How many people do you know who would be willing to pay $50, $60, or even more PER ROLL to shoot Kodachrome?

 

[BrianShaw]

... but don't let facts crush the dream.

 

[Lionel1972]

And what was the quantity of people who did this? And what was the feasibility of them doing it?

Compare it with the demand necessary to revive Kodachrome, and the feasibility of doing it, as has been discussed to death. There is no comparison. Another illogical argument.

Thus, you still need to show why the non-existant demand for Kodachrome today would change in the future enough to make a revival feasible.

The feasibility is not my point (technical solutions can be found around what it used to take, given the investment and effort necessary). As for demande, it will change if we make it change (think Lomogaphy, Polaroid Originals,... did they sit and wait until the demand was there to start their project?). If we based our enthousiasm for film photography on the decreasing demand back when it droped by more 90% of what it used to be we would not be on this forum today.

 

[Lionel1972]

Lionel-

we did a survey here in response to one of several "bring back Kodachrome" threads. The survey still exists here - go take a look at it. The net result is that nobody who was interested in Kodachrome returning was willing to pay anything vaguely like what it would cost to revive it and process it on the greatly reduced scale that would exist in today's market. A somewhat realistic price point for a roll plus processing would be somewhere north of $50/roll for Kodak to make a profit and maintain quality standards. How many people do you know who would be willing to pay $50, $60, or even more PER ROLL to shoot Kodachrome?

That is the only valid argument against the success of a Kodachrome revival. Unfortunately things seem like it will someday be valid against the viability of all analog photography (hopefully as late as possible).

 

[RPC]

The feasibility is not my point (technical solutions can be found around what it used to take, given the investment and effort necessary). As for demande, it will change if we make it change (think Lomogaphy, Polaroid Originals,... did they sit and wait until the demand was there to start their project?). If we based our enthousiasm for film photography on the decreasing demand back when it droped by more 90% of what it used to be we would not be on this forum today.

The feasibility is the point. It is not feasible at all if there is no demand. Show otherwise with facts, not speculation.

 

[faberryman]

You said "we" but you don't even us

That is the only valid argument against the success of a Kodachrome revival. Unfortunately things seem like it will someday be valid against the viability of all analog photography (hopefully as late as possible).

But who knows? Just because people aren't willing to pay $50 or more per roll today doesn't mean they won't be willing to spend $50 or more per roll tomorrow. In fact, the price may be too low to generate the kind of demand necessary from people for whom exclusivity is key.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You said "we" but you don't even us

But who knows? Just because people aren't willing to pay $50 or more per roll today doesn't mean they won't be willing to spend $50 or more per roll tomorrow. In fact, the price may be too low to generate the kind of demand from people for whom exclusivity is key.

Wake up. People bitch when the price of gas goes up a little.

 

[BrianShaw]

Wake up. People bitch when the price of gas goes up a little.

Did you miss the sarcasm, or did I miss the point of your comment?

 

[faberryman]

Wake up. People bitch when the price of gas goes up a little.

Maybe for gas, but for Leicas? Gas isn't a velben good. Make Kodachrome a velben good. Do the same for Cibachrome. And then we can pretend it is the 1980s again. We could even bring back polyester leisure suits and disco. Just because there is no demand for polyester leisure suits and disco today doesn't mean there won't be a demand for them in the future.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did you miss the sarcasm, or did I miss the point of your comment?

Both, I guess.

 

[Lionel1972]

The feasibility is the point. It is not feasible at all if there is no demand. Show otherwise with facts, not speculation.

Again feasibility is not impossible, it's been done in the past and can be done again. What does impact the demand is the cost for the customer. But you keep speculating that the potential demand can not ever be increasing no matter how much promotion and marketing could evolve over it. Basically you say: it's too complicated and expensive to bring back Kodachrome so nobody will buy it because we will never put it on the market again. What I say is: let's propose to bring it back again, see how people react to the possibility of shooting Kodachrome again or for the first time, and let's find technical and financial solutions to supply this demand (if any).

 

[Lionel1972]

You said "we" but you don't even us

But who knows? Just because people aren't willing to pay $50 or more per roll today doesn't mean they won't be willing to spend $50 or more per roll tomorrow. In fact, the price may be too low to generate the kind of demand necessary from people for whom exclusivity is key.

Are you thinking Leica here? Maybe we have a valid business model here... LOL

 

[removed account4]

Wet collodion photography public mindset had faded into oblivion long ago when it suddenly became tendy to shoot wet plates. Why don't you show me the evidence that lead to this come back? You still have not shown any reason why Kodachrome cannot become trendy in the same manner that wet collodion process has. So your thinking is just as speculative as mine. That's a fact.

totally diffrent thing lionel1972
one might argue at the turn of last century when john garo brought gum overs and platinum / paladium prints back from the dead
or when john coffer brought wet plate photography or rockland colloid brought silver gelatin tintypes back from the dead it is the same, but none of them
are similar to bringing kodachrome back. no machines had to be remade, just chemistry purchased and technique reviewed
... polaroid, maybe ... it is expensive enough, and the machinery had to be remade similarly and sure
young people world wide all use instax cameras ( oops not polaroid but you know what i mean ) ..but
if tintypes cost 100$ each a 2x3 or $150 each 4x5, ... or a box of instax, impossible project or new 55 cost 1500$ ( 15 images @ 100 each ) then i am guessing no one would
be making tintypes, instax, impossible or new 55 images.

sure, it would be great to bring kodachrome back, even for a couple of months as a reprise, but the cost to do that would be immeasurable, and the cost passed on to consumers would be astronomical
and as a result, sure kodak would be praised, just before going straight out of business ... and after that happened and it became harder and harder and more expensive for other films and papers
to be made (because we need kodak and other companies to keep making film because when kodak goes $$$ for raw materials and avaiability for raw materials changes )
people might not be so happy kodachrome was re-released...

 

[RattyMouse]

Again feasibility is not impossible, it's been done in the past and can be done again. What does impact the demand is the cost for the customer. But you keep speculating that the potential demand can not ever be increasing no matter how much promotion and marketing could evolve over it. Basically you say: it's too complicated and expensive to bring back Kodachrome so nobody will buy it because we will never put it on the market again. What I say is: let's propose to bring it back again, see how people react to the possibility of shooting Kodachrome again or for the first time, and let's find technical and financial solutions to supply this demand (if any).

Demand for film dropped 96%. The infrastructure to produce film was optimized for volume that is massively higher than it is today. The increase in film sales that is undergoing today is absolutely tiny. Someone here posted Ilford's financial metrics. They are tiny, and barely growing.

What industry (industry, not company) has suffered a 96% drop in sales and recovered to anywhere near what it once was?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

An E6 faux-Kodachrome could be possible - assuming the re-introduction of Ektachrome is very successful. The overwhelming majority of people want the look of the film and don't care about the K-14 process (though I am fond of it).

Due to the complexity, the chemicals, and current lack of demand, the only hope for a true K-14 revival is if 50 million Chinese photographers develop a desire for the Kodachrome look and their government decides to duplicate the process.

 

[RattyMouse]

An E6 faux-Kodachrome could be possible - assuming the re-introduction of Ektachrome is very successful. The overwhelming majority of people want the look of the film and don't care about the K-14 process (though I am fond of it).

Due to the complexity, the chemicals, and current lack of demand, the only hope for a true K-14 revival is if 50 million Chinese photographers develop a desire for the Kodachrome look and their government decides to duplicate the process.

I doubt 50 million Chinese have ever even heard of Kodachrome.

 

[Lionel1972]

totally diffrent thing lionel1972
one might argue at the turn of last century when john garo brought gum overs and platinum / paladium prints back from the dead
or when john coffer brought wet plate photography or rockland colloid brought silver gelatin tintypes back from the dead it is the same, but none of them
are similar to bringing kodachrome back. no machines had to be remade, just chemistry purchased and technique reviewed
... polaroid, maybe ... it is expensive enough, and the machinery had to be remade similarly and sure
young people world wide all use instax cameras ( oops not polaroid but you know what i mean ) ..but
if tintypes cost 100$ each a 2x3 or $150 each 4x5, ... or a box of instax, impossible project or new 55 cost 1500$ ( 15 images @ 100 each ) then i am guessing no one would
be making tintypes, instax, impossible or new 55 images.

sure, it would be great to bring kodachrome back, even for a couple of months as a reprise, but the cost to do that would be immeasurable, and the cost passed on to consumers would be astronomical
and as a result, sure kodak would be praised, just before going straight out of business ... and after that happened and it became harder and harder and more expensive for other films and papers
to be made (because we need kodak and other companies to keep making film because when kodak goes $$$ for raw materials and avaiability for raw materials changes )
people might not be so happy kodachrome was re-released...

Again, as I said, the price argument is valid, but that was not what was opposed to me in the first place. People insisted that no one would ever be interested in shooting Kodachrome again because too many people prefered to shoot Velvia back in the day. How logical is this? I say it is irrational and based on invalid accepted ideas about what the market is and will be. Just like every "sensible" people claimed film was dead. How many years was that again? Seems like they were not completely right.

 

[Lionel1972]

I doubt 50 million Chinese have ever even heard of Kodachrome.

Maybe now is the time to promote it to them... how about an Avengers character shooting Kodachrome? Well it kind of worked with Star Lord promoting audio casette mix tape in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie!

 

[Lionel1972]

Demand for film dropped 96%. The infrastructure to produce film was optimized for volume that is massively higher than it is today. The increase in film sales that is undergoing today is absolutely tiny. Someone here posted Ilford's financial metrics. They are tiny, and barely growing.

What industry (industry, not company) has suffered a 96% drop in sales and recovered to anywhere near what it once was?

Do we need the film industry to get back that those hightest levels of production? Downsizing is the key.

 

[Helios 1984]

Do we need the film industry to get back that those hightest levels of production? Downsizing is the key.

I wonder if there would be a possibility for a new process which wouldn't involve sending your rolls to a lab half-way across the planet? K-14 dates from 1974, we've come a long way since.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Where are the companies going to get the capital to downsize?

PE

 

[cmacd123]

OK, those that would love Kodachrome back. 3M Dynachrome was a similar technology. I bet FILMferrania has a bunch of the needed technology in their files. Go drop a half Million Euros or so as an investment in FILMFerrania and get Dynachrome on their long range planning calendar. (in the meantime they can use the money to get an E-6 Movie stock back in production.)

 

[Lionel1972]

Where are the companies going to get the capital to downsize?

PE

Hasn't Kodak already been starting this downsizing process with the reintroduction of TMAX P3200 and the upcoming Ektachrome?

 

[RPC]

Again feasibility is not impossible, it's been done in the past and can be done again. What does impact the demand is the cost for the customer. But you keep speculating that the potential demand can not ever be increasing no matter how much promotion and marketing could evolve over it. Basically you say: it's too complicated and expensive to bring back Kodachrome so nobody will buy it because we will never put it on the market again. What I say is: let's propose to bring it back again, see how people react to the possibility of shooting Kodachrome again or for the first time, and let's find technical and financial solutions to supply this demand (if any).

Young consumers have no film cameras or projectors. Older consumers who had film cameras or projectors have, for the most part, gotton rid of them. The world is digital. Do you see a problem here? They are never going to invest money in these for the sake of something they know nothing about or have long ago forgotten, and having to project them to view them, as opposed to the convenience of digital images. Even film users rarely project slides any more. You simply fail to understand the public mindset.

It remains to be seen how much longer even existing E-6 films can survive, let alone revived Kodachrome.

I would hypothesize that if Kodak announced to the world they were selling and processing Kodachrome for free there would not be enough takers to warrant a revival even if the takers would pay for it.