**Kodachrome 200 gone**

[PKM-25]

It is official, Kodak has discontinued Kodachrome 200 as of November, 2006.

According to my contact at Kodak, they decided to make the announcement to vendors and labs only. I saw an ebay ad for KL-200 from Dwayne's and called them today. B&H is already out ( I ordered 200 rolls in the last few days ) and it is uncertain how much is actually left at Kodak.

Dwayne's does have a good supply that might last awhile if you need it.

We do have at least a couple years to get this stuff souped so have a go with it. I hope I have enough time to shoot and process what is now some 1,600 rolls of all speeds.

Sorry to break it to you, but it is the real deal..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, sorry to see any variety of Kodachrome go, but I never really cared for K200.

 

[dmr]

Hmmmm ... why is it that Kodak chose to keep this somewhat hush-hush?

 

[Moopheus]

To keep away the angry mobs with the pitchforks and torches.

I didn't even realize there was a Kodachrome 200. Whenever I used it in the past I just used either 25 or 64. I guess I've been out of the loop for a while.

 

[copake_ham]

To keep away the angry mobs with the pitchforks and torches.

I didn't even realize there was a Kodachrome 200. Whenever I used it in the past I just used either 25 or 64. I guess I've been out of the loop for a while.

Not sure about the mobs - but I do think you otherwise "nailed" it.

K-200 was never on my radar screen either. 25 became mythological - but 64 was my "bread and butter" chrome for many years.

There's another current K-chrome thread here going around right now - guess it's a Kodachrome night!

 

[Steve Roberts]

Well, sorry to see any variety of Kodachrome go, but I never really cared for K200.

That's putting it mildly. I was always puzzled why a firm that produced the excellent K25 and K64 would wish to sully the name by marketing the 200 ASA version. Specifically, I found it too grainy, less specifically I found it lacking in punch and never liked the colour rendition. Perhaps the advantages of "proper" Kodachrome still applied, though, in terms of archival qualities. Personally, I much prefer(red) the Fuji 200 films and Kodak 200 E6's.

Still, as David says, it's sad to see any Kodachrome go, or indeed any film, and no doubt many liked it or it wouldn't have been on the shelves!

Steve

 

[naturephoto1]

That is unfortunate. Though I can not remember ever shooting with Kodachrome 200. Most of my transparency film has always been between ISO of 25 and 100 and in the last 15 years between 50 and 100.

Rich

 

[Uncle Bill]

Pity, but I have never seen Kodachrome 200 on the shelves here in Toronto. I am going to continue using Kodachrome 64 until its gone, then back to E-6.

Bill

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to give all of the information here, the final development cycle of Kodacrhome included the ISO 400 version that never was, but it also included some revisions to the other versions.

Due to decreasing sales, all of these 'improved' versions of the current Kodachromes were cancelled. Why fix what isn't selling? That was true even in 1988.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One of the attractions of K200 was supposed to be for indoor sports. If you pushed it to 500 (this was a standard Kodachrome push) the color shift nicely balanced typical gymnasium lighting. I've seen some good examples of that, but have never really shot sports myself.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron's comment about 1988 is apt, by then Fuji's 50D (and 100D) had really begun to eat into the Kodachrome market.

The advantages were films which could be processed quickly, with superb colour rendition, tonality and sharpness. Unlike the US, which had a number of processing labs, in Europe Kodachrome processing was slow and most photographers needed the film processed within 24hrs.

The other advantage of the new Fuji films was they were available in all formats.

Since the release of 50D and 100D I've only used Fuji films E^ or C41 for my colour work.

Having said that Kodachrome 25 slides do have that unique edge. If only the'd make LF Kodachrome again . . . I seem to remember seeing some by Weston or Adams at an exhibition a few years ago.

Ian

 

[Matt5791]

I used some K200 on and off over the last few years and while it was really quite grainy (especially printed) I thought it had a lovely romantic quality for certain applications.

So I rather liked it.

 

[aldevo]

I didn't use Kodachrome 200, but I have seen a lot of it over the years through the display of slides shot on the stuff by my father.

Kodachrome 200 does produce a pretty good level of apparent sharpness when projected through low/medium quality projector lenses. That impression, in my opinoin, is diminished when the slide is projected via a lens of very high quality.

Is it possible that this was one of the design goals? Given that it was a high speed slide film for the times - was it optimized to give high relative apparent sharpness on "mainstream" lens systems?

Perhaps Photo Engineer knows...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron's comment about 1988 is apt, by then Fuji's 50D (and 100D) had really begun to eat into the Kodachrome market.

The advantages were films which could be processed quickly, with superb colour rendition, tonality and sharpness. Unlike the US, which had a number of processing labs, in Europe Kodachrome processing was slow and most photographers needed the film processed within 24hrs.

The other advantage of the new Fuji films was they were available in all formats.

Since the release of 50D and 100D I've only used Fuji films E^ or C41 for my colour work.

Having said that Kodachrome 25 slides do have that unique edge. If only the'd make LF Kodachrome again . . . I seem to remember seeing some by Weston or Adams at an exhibition a few years ago.

Ian

Ian;

I looked into this a bit and found that it was E6 film in general that cut deeply into Kodachrome sales. AAMOF at that time, Fuji had only just begun selling an E6 film, and their first sale of it was pretty bad as it was incompatible with E6 to some extent. This was a headline cover article in 1990 in Darkroom Techniques.

Fuji actually seems to have withdrawn it from the market for a time.

In addition, an extremely inept, and to some offensive, series of ads by Fuji early on, turned public opinion against them. They were withdrawn with apologies, so there is no need to repeat them here.

Kodachrome 200 was not designed for any particular lens. It was tested routinely with a series of Kodak Carousel projectors. We used to watch them in the screening room of B-59, on the first floor where they had a complete projection studio with many types of projectors and screens.

PE

 

[Neanderman]

PE, I've always wondered and never seen it directly answered: is (was) K200 an high aspect ratio film?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please define your understanding of "High Aspect Ratio".

PE

 

[Neanderman]

Let's put it this way: did Kodak use the same emulsion technology used in the TMax family to make K200?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Kodachrome 200 was extremely good for push processing with a colour balance change, as David says.

We had access to the Kodachrome processing by Kodak Australia. It was usual practice for us to test early am and have film back on a light box around lunch time.

Motor vehicle advertisements using large format in which a fully loaded articulated truck (with a freezer container on the back for instance) could fit into our giant studio, were all done on Kodachrome pushed between 2 & 3 stops.

Food shoots also used Kodachrome quite well with different light temperature sources used in one shot, for a look that was unusual to say the least, but it went over very well with the advertising companies.

The demise of Kodachrome, was also helped along by the rise and rise of the Jobo developing systems being used inhouse, by commercial photographers.

The Jobo ATL machines, really kick started inhouse E6 developing. This was fully supported by Kodak (at least in Australia) by the release of various E6 developing kits in various sizes from 2 1/2 litre through to 10 litre. These were perfect for one shot developing of Kodak's own E6 films.

By 1990 or thereabouts, Kodachrome was on the wane. Not because it was a bad film, but the rise of E6 films and the diverse look that each film had, coupled with inhouse high quality E6 processing done at a far cheaper cost, won the day.

Another nail in the coffin was a Kodak portable E6 processing van. This van which was present at major sporting events, really changed the landscape forever.

Mick.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Let's put it this way: did Kodak use the same emulsion technology used in the TMax family to make K200?

The terminology then would be 'high aspect ratio emulsion'. Your usage would imply a thinner film.

To answer both terms then, Kodachrome is the thinnest color film manufactured and the most difficult to manufacture due to its thinness.

AFAIK, no t-grains were ever used in current Kodachrome films. The 400 speed Kodachrome and the rest of that generation which was never sold, did contain t-grains and had exceptional grain and sharpness.

PE

 

[PKM-25]

B&H now has KL-200 in stock, about 600 rolls.