KODACHROME a question for photo engineers.

BTW, on the "obsolescence" kick: Obsolete does not necessarily mean "useless", in Kodachrome's case, it means "no longer current". By this definition, Kodachrome is obsolete, but so is a 1969 Mustang, record albums, and the Brooklyn Bridge. Being obsolete does not mean that it should be thrown in the trash and destroyed: just that there is newer technology available.

I just called up my rep at Freestyle, they are actually running low now, 24 rolls left and will order more soon. Basically, an order for 1,000-6,000 rolls of *any* film is going to be more than any retailer except for B&H is going to have in stock at any one time.

So what I did is this, I asked the woman to contact her Buyer in AZ and see what it would take for me to get 2,000 rolls of consumer KR-64-36. The buyer contacts Kodak and checks supply. You pay 70%-100% up front, then they place the order. It's that simple....

You can't expect Kodak to tell you how much is in supply, that is proprietary business information and considering the fact that Kodachrome's last coating date is a hotly contested issue, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that info is going to be given to you, no?

So it really boils down to this: If you want 6,000 rolls of Kodachrome, you will find a way to get it, period. Considering Kodak's share price dropped to $4.19 or -6.80% today, I am sure they would love your business.

But maybe you are right too, what if there is only enough of the master roll for say, 8,000 rolls and you go and suck up 6,000 of them? What if this batch is the last to be offered and up until your enormous order, 8,000 rolls would easily take all of us into late next year?

Then you are right, there are possible allocation issues like me not being able to get a bottomless supply of Mobile 1 synthetic 5w-30w because the refinery was wiped out by a hurricane...

All of this speculating is interesting to a point and then it just gets in the way of making great images on Kodachrome, makes Kodak out to be a bad guy and does nothing to further the staying power of the product.

All I have are 800 rolls, that is all I can afford now. My girlfriend is working overtime at her job so I can keep on with the project because she knows not only how important it is to me, but how important it is to guys like the 14 year old who until hearing of the "Kodachrome Project" would never have thought to shoot a roll...

Alan, you have to work with what we have left. There is no sense in beating tomorrow into a pulp when we are beyond lucky to have today.

No offense, but do you really want 6,000 rolls of Kodachrome 64 or do you just want to see how much is left so we can debate that ad nauseam....?

dear mr iamzip sir,
well if my spelling offends your prep school sensibilities,i am sorry.
i had a terrible education and i have Dyslexia.
i have to admit i did start ranting a little at kodak,but how much time does it take to get some reliable info,to close a sale.
is fuji so much smaller,yet i can speak to them and email and get a reply.
kodachrome is a dead product sitting in a frozen warehouse.being hacked at for each batch cycle.
i will use it until it is done.
this year or next.
iamzip,maybe if your in the uk,we could do a trade you could give me english grammer lessons i can give you some kodak ektar i here it is better than kodachrome.
maybe on website's in 74 years time you will find Dyslexic's asking kojak pease don't take my ekta 100 away,but somehow i doubt it.

nickrapak said:

BTW, on the "obsolescence" kick: Obsolete does not necessarily mean "useless", in Kodachrome's case, it means "no longer current". By this definition, Kodachrome is obsolete, but so is a 1969 Mustang, record albums, and the Brooklyn Bridge. Being obsolete does not mean that it should be thrown in the trash and destroyed: just that there is newer technology available.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it also implies that things could be improved!

With proper R&D money invested, a new Kodachrome with modern technology would wow most Kodachrome lovers. I think it could retain all of the old good features and add some new ones that are sorely needed.

PE

would this r&d have to be done by an existing team within kodak.and what modern technologies could you impose on the new product..
and how epic would the r&d research have to be...

alan doyle said:

would this r&d have to be done by an existing team within kodak.and what modern technologies could you impose on the new product..
and how epic would the r&d research have to be...

Click to expand...

Ask Obama for a Kodak R&D stimulus is what I am guessing....

One of the "Obsolete" things about Kodachrome is the relief image causes problems in scanning. That relief image is also one of the things that makes Kodachrome so darn sharp. And yes, the cyan layer could be improved a good bit...

But honestly, this is so pie in the sky it is laughable. You are talking potentially in the millions of dollars from conception to supply on the shelves...

alan doyle said:

would this r&d have to be done by an existing team within kodak.and what modern technologies could you impose on the new product..
and how epic would the r&d research have to be...

Click to expand...

See post #38 for the details. I have already outlined them.

There is no Kodachrome team in KRL now so it would have to be assembled or taken from other projects. The cost would be in the millions and probably take at least 5 years if not more.

PE

accozzaglia said:

Perhaps a better analogy is the long play vinyl record: it continues to be produced, albeit in smaller batches with very artisan-like care. It's more expensive, but the quality is exceptional and one gets what they're paying for (and consumers willingly still pay for them).

Click to expand...

I believe that's not accurate. I can make an LP with a paper cup, needle, and old turntable. I cannot coat color film.

In a sense, perfecting manufacturing miniaturization. Maybe it's not possible with some emulsions, but at least the idea should be entertained when discussing a better way for long-standing film makers which are poorly-accustomed to thinking in scales of boutique or reserves marketing -- and doing so profitably, even if it is a low-yield profit.

Click to expand...

I believe that's what they're doing for films which are profitable. It requires a significant R&D investment; investing a million in reformulating kodachrome to work in smaller batches would not increase sales though and probably wouldn't benefit them in the long run.

Alan: Do you have any idea how much film is used to shoot a movie? 4.5 minutes is 400 feet of 35mm film. I believe the ratio of shot film to final cut is something like 600:1; so for a 1.5 hour movie they use 4,320,000 feet of film (not including inter negatives, release prints, or additional duplications). At 30 rolls wide x 5000 feet you only get 150,000 feet from a single minimum batch. That is a HUGE market. That's 29 master rolls per movie. They would use a master roll every month or less if there was only one movie in production at a time. One movie being shot is more than the use of kodachrome in the entire world by a factor of at least 18.

So why not convince the movie industry to shoot kodachrome?

wow..4,320,000 feet of film on a movie..
if your a dp or a director and your shooting ratio is 600.1..you must be really good friends with kodak cos you will be a major client. can you put in a good word for me..
but if you are freelance i guarantee you will be unemployed with that amount of film burn..
even kubrick never shot anywhere near a million feet.
shooting ratios more like 10.1 and rushes tend to be around 100,000-150,000 feet..
i know projects that have been happy with a 4.1 ratio..
or woody allens latest and clint eastwood average 3.1 ratios.

Tiberius is close. High speed photography in general eats film at a fierce rate. We had cameras that had transmissions (gear shifts) in them to get up to speed they were so fast. And, in addition, you cannot use reversal film in motion picture. Sorry.

PE

Tiberius is close with a statement that says movies use a 600.1 ratio.he is wrong..
i have used photosonics nasa high speed cameras 300fps and above..used for sequences only maybe the wachowski brothers. on the matrix are shooting silly amounts.
5239 reversal film has been used by filmakers spike lee and stephen soderbergh on proper films.
clockers i believe was about 75 percent reversal.
oliver stones film "U-Turn" (1997) was also shot on Kodak's 5239 by the great robbie richardson.

Alan;

Please look at the Journal of High speed Photography.

PE

Yes, you could (even if it's monaural), and you could also coat a glass plate with a crude layer of emulsion (even if it's not colour). Both technically work.

But like Kodachrome coating and equipment setup, finding A) a virgin vinyl supplier; B) a stamping press to handle heavier gauge platter blanks for pressing; C) high-quality lathes for master dies; D) a very high-pressure press to stamp the platter thoroughly; E) rigorous quality control; and F) an exceptional offset press to handle (in many cases) Pantone Hexachrome spot colours, embossing, die-cut sleeves, etc. for the sleeve liner, cover, and label requires a system beyond DIY. I'm sure I've missed a step or two there, not including remastering original source material for optimal sonic equalization for the medium.

And unlike a 40-year-old car model (incremental refinements excepted, à la Porsche 911), manufacturers still make vinyl records, Kodachrome, and the Rolleiflex.

tiberiustibz said:

I believe that's not accurate. I can make an LP with a paper cup, needle, and old turntable. I cannot coat color film.

Click to expand...

Photo Engineer said:

... They could make even better color and a more coatable product probably if they modernized it. Imagine a 400 speed Kodachrome with the grain and sharpness of a 100 or 25 speed Kodachrome.

Click to expand...

Ron, this doesn't seem the least bit possible to me. You can't get blood out of a stone. Slow Speed Films absorb more light which is why their Halides can be smaller and more numerous. How do you propose that a 400 Film could look like 100 or even 25 ISO? This would defy possibility.

Photo Engineer said:

... 3. Yeah, to what point. This is like making a model of a car out of gelatin. Looks like a car and might even have the same weight, but won't run. ...

Click to expand...

The only purpose I was suggesting for plain Gelatin coatings is just to get the Machine up and running properly. What's the point to wasting expensive Emulsion mixtures on calibrating the Coating Machine? Wouldn't plain Emulsions suffice -- and save money?
------------------------------------------------


The reason why Kodak doesn't seem to care about its customers is because it is controlled by a few money-grubbing Mutual Funds. Wall Street people ruin everything they touch. Everyone at Kodak must be constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of losing their job. I've recommended to Ilford Imaging (in Switzerland) that they buy out Qualex from Kodak, and also a number of discontinued Kodak Films as well as Kodachrome. Kodachrome can continue through Ilford, but I don't have any hope left in Kodak. Attached below are Letters I sent to Kodak on a sound way for them to make Kodachrome and niche Films more profitable, but they aren't the least bit interested. They were so rude that they never even responded. I hope Ilford will be interested. :confused:

:munch:

It's time.

Yeah, its time!

However, Terry, the new Ektar 100 is much the same in grain as the old Ektar 25, or even better and it is 2 stops faster! That is what can be done to Kodachrome using the same improved emulsion technology. I don't have to go any further than that to say that a 400 film today is much like a 100 film from about 20 - 30 years ago.

PE

Ron, this doesn't seem the least bit possible to me. You can't get blood out of a stone. Slow Speed Films absorb more light which is why their Halides can be smaller and more numerous. How do you propose that a 400 Film could look like 100 or even 25 ISO? This would defy possibility.

Click to expand...

It is entirely possible, shape of grains, different sensitising techniques all make emulsions more efficient. Just look at T Max 400 which has finer grain than Tri-x mostly down to grain shape. Also witness the new 2 electron sensitisation in Ektar films, the technologies that prevent recombination of photolytic silver making the emulsions more sensitive for a given grain size.
Photographic efficiency is not just down to grain size alone, there are a whole raft of different technologies that can make a difference.
Nothing is as simple as you suggest.

Photo Engineer said:

... the new Ektar 100 is much the same in grain as the old Ektar 25, or even better and it is 2 stops faster! That is what can be done to Kodachrome using the same improved emulsion technology. I don't have to go any further than that to say that a 400 film today is much like a 100 film from about 20 - 30 years ago.

Click to expand...

Ron, how recently were these improvements to Halide sensitivity developed? The past 5 years, 10 years?

Would that 400 ISO Film have the same colour quality as 100 ISO? The one area where a good Film can trump Digital is in colour quality.

Also, did the Kodachrome 400 you helped develop 20 years ago incorporate some of these modern improvements? Of all the Kodachrome Films, the Spectral Sensitivity Charts show K64 as having the most accurate colour -- even more accurate than K25.

Terry;

First, to clarify something, I did not work on the 400 speed Kodachrome nor any of the films, just the process and that only to a certain extent. More than most, less than some others....

Now, any film could be built to achieve a given color quality given an aim. Why not? As for halide sensitivity, the two electron sensitization was first developed about 15 - 20 years ago. It took about that much time to make it practical in a wide variety in film. After all, rockets were known in the days of Jules Verne but we didn't go to the moon until.... Well, you see my point?

Most of you do not understand that Research is a slow, painstaking, plodding effort that can take many many years.

PE

ron,we do understand but speed is important now..
i do not believe kodak will ever be fat with time and resources ever again.
i would love to know how many people work in the areas involved in new stocks,film improvements etc..
these depts must have suffered in the last 5 years..

Call them and ask them then!

PE

ha ha ha..........
i spent 5 days trying to put a bulk order in...trying to get information,trying to find someone that was not clueless..
i am sure they are all wonderful human beings,who are worse for wear because of uncertainty..
it seemed to me motion picture were the only ones that knew anything..
i will not be calling them again in a hurry..i will stick to my fuji rep in london.

accozzaglia said:

That said, Kodachrome. Yeah. What may not be technically possible though worth bringing up anyhow -- be it Kodak, Fuji, etc. -- is the optimizing of creating scaled-down engineering processes to effect the same product but in much smaller batches. So instead of a massive machine making one quantity from a master roll of x-size, a scaled-down optimization might be able to yield comparable quality control while yielding much smaller master rolls (say, 1/4x- or 1/8x-size). In a sense, perfecting manufacturing miniaturization. Maybe it's not possible with some emulsions, but at least the idea should be entertained when discussing a better way for long-standing film makers which are poorly-accustomed to thinking in scales of boutique or reserves marketing -- and doing so profitably, even if it is a low-yield profit. There remains a demand for products, and between miniaturizing processes and adopting a consumer-pull model of selling (rather than manufacturer-push), there should be a way to arrive at meeting that objective.

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

I'm still working my way through this thread -- someone on the Kodachrome list ordered me to look at it, and thanks to the miraculous effects of the flu, I haven't been able to get to it until now.

That out of the way, I'm basically not buying all the hand-waving about the uber-difficulty of making Kodachrome. Heck, it's the *simplest* film out there -- it was HARDER to make *Ektachrome*. I mean, what IS Kodachrome anyway, but, basically, Ektachrome without the couplers?

Find a way to rinse the couplers *out* of Ektachrome, and you'd be able to run it through K14.

Any company that can make an E6 film can *certainly* make a K14 film. It's not a question of ability -- it's a question of *will*.

Kodak has given every indication of wanting OUT of the traditional photography trade. Their CEO -- a *computer* guy, with no background in photography, and *clearly* no LOVE of the art, dreams of an "all-digital Kodak." (Reminds me of the wonderful fortunes enjoyed by Apple Computer when they handed over the reigns to a new CEO from *Pepsi* -- the Harvard MBO brand of managment -- the belief that "the business of business is business" -- completely divorces any grounding IN any particular *type* of business from the "management" OF said business -- and we're seeing the results, IMO.)

I wonder if that guy who bought the Polaroid factory, and is planning on starting production of SX70 type packs would be interested in doing the same for Kodachrome? I'd bet that the remaining coating facility held by the Agfa subsidiary in Belgium could do it on a contractual basis. One of those eastern European B&W houses could probably do it too, if given some grubstake and hand-holding -- as could China, Inc. (not to mention Fuji).

Kodak unceremoniously axed their entire B&W paper line, including Azo, and, after telling "Michael and Paula" that they'd be able to buy any remaining master roll stock when the product was discontinued, went and *destroyed* ALL of their existing master roll material.

So, M&P are now coating their own Azo replacement, and they sold out their entire first run *before* it was produced -- at a hundred forty bucks a box (100/8x10). Now tell me *Kodak* couldn't make money selling that stuff.

No, IMO they didn't WANT to make money selling that stuff, because the prissy rulers consider real photography ikky.

Dave in Kansas said:

Does Kodak produce another film that has the archival quality of Kodachrome, or does Fuji, or any other manufacture? If so, will somebody please list them so that I have a film to fall back on if Kodak discontinues Kodachrome? If there isn't one, then it still fills a valuable need and I'm not convinced it is really obsolete.

Click to expand...

Ilford made -- and maybe (hopefully?) still makes -- a microfilm version of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. When I researched it a few years ago I found one winding that would have worked for handloaded 35mm cassettes, but I could not find any way to *buy* it (at least not in "mere mortal" quantities).

As I recall, it was pretty slow -- something along the lines of ASA 1 in daylight -- slow, but not *too* slow for use by diehards.

I believe they had two or three contrast grades of the stuff.

It had *extremely* high resolution (microfilm, after all -- and fiche cards too), which leads me to suspect that they *could* beef up the speed by at least several stops without resulting in objectionable grain for pictorial use. Might very well be too much of a resolution loss for microfilm applications, but then, very few camera images are blown up 96x.

One advantage over Kodachrome (besides even *greater* archival characteristics) is that the processing is absurdly simple. Three chemical steps (Dektol-type developer, dye-bleach, and fixer) -- NO reexposure (let alone three critically timed/exposed filtered reexposures); anyone who can process a roll of B&W film could easily process their own Ciba/Ilfochrome slides.

accozzaglia said:

More to the point of what Alan's frustration drives home is that as a company, Kodak's reputation with its consumers is not so hot. But I am not convinced that Kodak cares about its consumers. If this were genuinely the case, then direct lines of communication to appropriate parties would not be as Byzantine and convoluted as what Alan and doubtless others have run against: aloofness, communication incompetence, and a general sense of pestering annoyance at what is the "small time" buyer: the individual consumer. The individual consumer (especially ones with no historical family ties to Kodak personnel) is what put them on the map originally. If trends seem to be a proper indicator, then the individual consumer (professional or personal) is what will keep them placed on the map, even if their placement is smaller than it once used to be. It's better than not being there at all.

Click to expand...

This is nothing new.

Back when I found out they were going to do "The Last Run" of 120 K14 processing in Wimbledon, England, I obtained some 120 Kodachrome, and began the ultimately surreal process of finding out how to have it processed.

I knew that 1) the Last Run would be on October 1, 2001, 2) in Wimbledon, England, at their lab, where they would set up one machine for 120, do the run, and then take the machine down permanently, and, 3) that any exposed 120 Kodachrome they received for processing in that run would be stored under refrigeration until the day of the run.

What I did NOT know was how to get my film to them FOR the run.

Now, silly naif that I am, I hearkened back to my prior life as a camera store owner/Kodak account, recalling how Kodak bent over backwards in terms of customer service (you could buy Kodak mailers, and then, instead of putting stamps on them and consigning them to the tender mercies of the postal service, you could simply drop them off at ANY Kodak dealer, who would accept the mailer and drop it into his daily pouch, which would be picked up by the route driver, taken to the lab, processed, and then mailed back to your home address; they do NOT do *that* anymore, of course).

So, I assumed that all I'd have to do is take it in to the closest location with a Kodak counter, have the clerk drop it in an envelope, and then Kodak would handle the routing to Wimbledon.

No, THAT wasn't going to happen.

So, after a few days on the phone, I found ONE outfit (IIRC it was Rocky Mountain Lab) that said they would take my rolls and get them to Wimbledon, for only $30 a roll, plus shipping.

Wow.

So, a few more days on the phone, this time to Kodak. This is where we pass through the looking glass.

My head still shakes in disbelief at how POORLY they handled "The Last Run."

After *days* of speaking with countless Kodakers in countless Kodak offices in THREE COUNTRIES, we *finally* got an address -- and the price (only $7/roll or thereabouts).

Mind you, this was NOT the *first* address we were given. However, it was the only *correct* address.

It's pretty sad when a major outfit like that cannot pull its head out of... the sand for long enough to recognize the need to NOT toss out BS nonsense when people are asking for *important* information. The people who gave us the bogus addresses had no clue. It was pretty obvious that they were giving us stock/scripted replies that did NOT pertain to "The Last Run."

During these several days in hell, we were referred from one Kodak office to another -- more than once sent in a great big circle -- and had pretty much given up any hope of being able to get our film processed.

But, I saved the best for last.

You may have noticed that the date of "The Last Run" was shortly after *another* very famous date.

You may also recall that right after that other event, international shipping was not available.

Even though we knew where to send our film, and when it had to be there, we had no way of *getting* it there.

We then called Kodak *again* and asked if, in light of the global situation, they would reschedule "The Last Run" so as to enable people to get their film there *for* The Last Run.

The answer was an immediate, terse, NO.

Okeydoke, thanks, Big Yeller. That stung -- and stunk.

Fortunately, Fedex restarted shippments just in the nick of time, and we were able to get *most* of our 120 Kodachrome processed.

"Most?"

Yeah. The time we *wasted* with the idiocy on the phone was time I'd *planned* on using out in the field, exposing my remaining 120 Kodachrome.

As a result I still have a few rolls of it in the freezer. Every so often someone makes noise about doing another run. As I recall it was that outfit in California -- A&W, is it? (I forget their name, but I still have a stack of their mailers -- they were kind enough to kill *their* K14 line right after I bought my mailers) was talking about possibly doing a run of 120 K14. Then there was some other lab. Now, of course, they're all gone, so I think maybe some day Dwayne's will decide to process 16mm slits that I respool into carts to shoot in my decent 110 cameras. Or, maybe some day I'll use it as a high-res B&W film.

Or, maybe some day I'll bite the bullet and cook up my own batch of K14 soup and do it myself. I wouldn't be the first -- but I doubt I'd be the fifth or sixth either. Or, maybe some day there'll be a scanner with sufficent smarts to probe the film layer by layer -- in which case all I'll need to do is process it as a B&W reversal.

Or, maybe I'll just keep it because we *all* need a burr under the saddle, right? <g>