KODACHROME a question for photo engineers.

PKM-25 · Feb 7, 2009

Alan,

In the name of the potential for better dialogue between all of us and Kodak, could you please delete the name and not do a direct quote of the person you reference in your post?

It's OK to be upset at Kodak for not being better at having an accessible liaison. But if we are to ever get any closer to having meaningful and actionable communication, we need to show them some respect by not publicly quoting messages by employees or reps gained in an otherwise private setting.

Thanks,

Dan

accozzaglia · Feb 7, 2009

Alan --

Channel your frustration productively, not antagonistically. Honey, not vinegar. Carrot, not stick.

alan doyle · Feb 7, 2009

ok.let's have a positive dialogue and keep the kodak bashing and the idea bashing out of the post.
let us consider ways to save k64 independent of kodak.
florian one of the guys behind the super popular lomo craze will be making polaroid 600 film next year in the netherlands.ilford are giving some technical help,he also has some of the original dutch polaroid team.
the lomographic society has made millions selling out dated re-badged film and bad russian cameras..they now have contracts in china making many different types of toy cameras.the lomo groups have never spent a penny on advertising.just a simple and efficient and very effective internet presence.they get members of the public to buy cameras and film and upload the results onto the site..fantastic free publicity.
clearly the week link is k64 processing.i believe refrema made two mobile kodachrome labs that were made for one of the olympic games.
anyone know where they went.
kodachrome it ain't over till it's over.

nickrapak · Feb 8, 2009

Honestly, I don't think we (or anyone else) can "save" Kodachrome. Kodachrome can (in a very long shot) have a "renaissance" that multiplies sales 10 times, but the sad truth is that once it is gone, it is gone.

Mr. Kaps is embarking on "The Impossible Project" because he realizes that people will pay $30/pack for SX-70 films. However, for as much as it is harder to develop an integral developing film, it is easier than Kodachrome. With SX-70 film, you build the pack and you're done. With Kodachrome, not only do you need the coating machines, but you need a full processing line of chemicals, some of which are used only for Kodachrome and will not ever be made again. People will pay $30/pack for 10 SX-70 exposures, but I don't know anyone that will pay $30/roll plus $30 processing for one roll of any currently made film.

I will shoot Kodachrome until it is gone, and then move on. I love the colors of Kodachrome, but when it is gone, it will be gone. There is a point at which one has to let go. Now is not the time, but the day that Dwaynes' K-14 reels stop spinning, that is the time.

alan doyle · Feb 8, 2009

i have a great idea..if you have a fatalistic,critical,negative doom ridden comment to make.
do not post here for a week.
why not pretend you are young again foot loose and fancy free. looking through chrome coloured spectacles.
the world is your oyster,so how about a positive for the most magical of positives.
look what the lomo guys have done through harnessing the power of the internet.
and they seem to be charging 6 dollars for a roll of out dated agfa film.
i understand as adults we are meant to give up childish thoughts,but why not think with a little more innocence.
why not come up with some positive ideas to save it.

AgX · Feb 8, 2009

nickrapak said:
However, for as much as it is harder to develop an integral developing film, it is easier than Kodachrome. With SX-70 film, you build the pack and you're done. With Kodachrome, not only do you need the coating machines, but you need a full processing line of chemicals, some of which are used only for Kodachrome and will not ever be made again.

What you say about Kodachrome comes true for SX-70 too.
You'll need those dye-developers, retarding material and its special coating technique and more special items.

PKM-25 · Feb 8, 2009

alan doyle said:
why not come up with some positive ideas to save it.

I am positive.

I'm positive that through slightly increased use and maybe a tiny bit of influence through my project, we have saved it.....for the time being. The film is still for sale, you can get it processed, you can get it scanned, we still have it.

If saving it is what you want to do, well then you have to employ some detached involvement in regards to the actual saving of it. If you look past the attributes and nuances of the journey with just the goal in mind, then you have already lost the battle.

It's simple, use the film...and it will / is sticking around longer than it might of had you not used it.

It is a marque product for Kodak with *Lots* of allies in the ranks of the company. If the newer management sees that not only does it have a loyal following but that they are getting closer to breaking even, then that will be viewed as something far better then some new far flung and expensive ad campaign.

It's really that simple, use it and show Kodak what you have got!

Chazzy · Feb 8, 2009

I would love to see someone in Kodak management act as a liaison to Internet users. It's the modern equivalent of the kind of customer relations which used to involve getting customer letters and answering them. No one writes letters anymore. It needs to be someone with a decent knowledge of the Kodak product line (I don't think that he has to be an expert), and someone who understands the nature of the Internet and the sort of bravado it brings out in some people. If, as some have said, Kodak is horrified at the way that people express themselves on the Internet, then they simply don't understand the nature of the beast. For those of us who have grown up with true flame wars on unmoderated Usenet newsgroups, moderated forums such as this one are a model of civility. I hope that the company can also understand that the passionate attachment some of us have to certain Kodak products is a compliment to the company, even if it sometimes involves some lamenting about items which have been discontinued. If Kodak expected that people would toss them a dozen roses for discontinuing their black and white papers, they don't understand much about human nature. But I don't think that bitching about some of the things that Kodak has done reflects real hatred of the company. I'm quite impressed with some of the things that the company has done lately, and Kodak should get credit where credit has been earned. But if they discontinue the last remaining black and white emulsion available in 220, I promise to howl like a banshee. I'm looking out for my interests. It's utterly unrealistic to expect me to look at these matters like some MBA in Kodak management.

TerryM · Feb 8, 2009

MikeSeb said:
... Kodak's management is better positioned than the pontificators here to know what those products are;
...
We can leave running Kodak to Kodak's executives, until Kodak's shareholders---through its board of directors---sees fit to replace them with new management.

The "majority shareholders" of the Eastman Kodak Company are Wall Street Mutual Funds. I don't think you realize the deleterious effects that Mutual Funds and Wall Street people have on the companies they control. They are only interested in plundering their companies of their profits! The Mutual Funds which control Kodak neither care about Film nor Digital -- only profits! I don't really blame the Executives at Kodak for bad decisions they make because, if they don't make those decisions, they will simply be fired by the Mutual Funds who control the Board of Directors. It is possible to make profit on any product as long as you charge enough money. Kodachrome would be more profitable if they offered it to ALL of their customers including 8&16mm Movie Customers. However, it wouldn't be a big money-maker, and Wall Street only likes big money -- including big bonuses paid by American taxpayer bailouts! I won't mention which Kodak employee, but this person once stated the following to me: "We appreciate the tremendous passion you have for Kodachrome 25 and for the healthy future of film. Many of us at Kodak feel similarly about film and we are dedicated to continue making great strides in keeping film a robust and vibrant part of the pro photographer's camera bag." The reference to 'many of us' tells you that Film people at Kodak aren't happy with many things, but they don't control the company -- the Mutual Funds do! Rather than get angry at Kodak employees, get angry at the money-grubbing Mutual Funds.

Photo Engineer said:
As for thickening layers, that decreases sharpness. It would no longer be K25 then, would it?

Isn't Velvia a thicker Film than most? Velvia is what ate into K25 sales.

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

Terry;

If Velvia is that good, then why don't people just shift to Velvia? It is because Velvia is not equal to the Kodachrome standard as anyone here who loves it can tell you. It is a good film however.

PE

Keith Tapscott. · Feb 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Terry;

If Velvia is that good, then why don't people just shift to Velvia? It is because Velvia is not equal to the Kodachrome standard as anyone here who loves it can tell you. It is a good film however.

PE

Velvia is probably the most popular of all the colour reversal films currently available but some people, myself included find the colours a bit too oversaturated. It is very sharp and fine-grained though.

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

Keith;

Thats just my point. In spite of all of its good features, Velvia is not a suitable replacement for Kodachrome in many many people's minds. So, I agree with you and what you said only underscores my statement and emphasizes it.

PE

accozzaglia · Feb 8, 2009

Velvia's more popular than Provia? Huh. I don't like Velvia, but even that surprises me as I thought Velvia was only sought after by landscape photographers while Provia and even Ektachrome EPR 64 or EPP 100 were used more broadly. In any event, this is off-topic. All apologies.

TerryM · Feb 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
If Velvia is that good, then why don't people just shift to Velvia? It is because Velvia is not equal to the Kodachrome standard as anyone here who loves it can tell you. It is a good film however.

Ron, I realize from the opinions of professionals that Velvia is not equal to Kodachrome -- which is yet another reason why I remain a devotee of Kodachrome!!! However, are the peculiarities of Velvia related to the fact that it has a thicker Emulsion? I don't think that the thickness of its Emulsions has anything to do with the specific complaints about Velvia. (The thickness is however a problem for using it with Super8.) The presence of Dye Couplers would have an impact on Velvia's look.

Likewise, if K25 Emulsions were made a tiny bit thicker in order to make the Film more viable to manufacture, I don't think the difference would be hardly noticeable. A photographer could always use 120 or Sheet if he wanted super-sharp and super-high colour from K25. Throwing out half of the K25 Stock was not a viable business situation, and if making it thicker could solve this problem, then so be it.

Photo Engineer · Feb 8, 2009

Thickness and the emulsion type cause scatter of light. Kodachrome uses older emulsion technology which causes more scatter and at the same time is thinner and has a relief image which improves sharpness while decreasing it at the same time. In the end, Kodachrome wins due to extreme thinness.

Velvia uses advanced technology that makes for good sharpness with thicker layers. I can't comment more as I obviously don't have the Fuji Velvia formula at my fingertips.

But, if you thicken K25, it may or may not coat better and it certainly would change somehow. It would have to be reformulated at least for the change in diffusion rate of processing chemicals through the coating.

So, the answer is actually a question: To what point have you directed your question, as it is an expensive proposition on a dead product?

PE

iamzip · Feb 8, 2009

First, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. Doyle. I tried my best to be as respectful as possible, but I realize that it is possible for things to be misunderstood over the internet. As I said in my original post, I did not mean to insult, belittle, mock or in any other way offend the OP.

It was never my intention to behave as an "internet grammar cop," or what have you. To be quite honest I do not personally care if his posts contain perfect grammar and punctuation. And I must also state that I have no problem understanding them either.

I was merely offering a possible explanation as to why he was being brushed off by Kodak. I know that a great deal of time and effort is spent on educating people on proper business communication. I know that there are entire college courses dedicated to the subject. So, is it not possible that a communication sent to Kodak, if composed in a manner similar to some of the posts seen here, might not be taken completely seriously?

It is my hope that we can put this matter behind us, and continue to productively discuss the joys, and agonies, of analog photography, without any further need for name calling. As for myself, I am awaiting the arrival of 4 rolls of Kodachrome from Freestyle. I hope, for myself and future generations, that Kodak continues to produce this film for as long as possible. Even though I grew up with film, it is only recently that I discovered slide film, and only within the last few months that I really discovered Kodachrome (although I'd obviously heard of it before). I will show my support of this product by using it now, and if the time and need arises, perhaps I will do more.

Heinz_Anderle · Feb 9, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Terry;

If Velvia is that good, then why don't people just shift to Velvia? It is because Velvia is not equal to the Kodachrome standard as anyone here who loves it can tell you. It is a good film however.

PE

The Fujichromes Provia 100F (professional film, old color couplers), Velvia 100F (pro film, new couplers) or Sensia 100 (amateur film, new color couplers) surpass Kodachrome 25 (Professional) in granularity and resolution, are on a par in contrast and color saturation - of course not in maximum density - however at today's standard speed.

PKM-25 · Feb 9, 2009

Heinz_Anderle said:
The Fujichromes Provia 100F (professional film, old color couplers), Velvia 100F (pro film, new couplers) or Sensia 100 (amateur film, new color couplers) surpass Kodachrome 25 (Professional) in granularity and resolution, are on a par in contrast and color saturation - of course not in maximum density - however at today's standard speed.

I see more apparent sharpness with KM25. The two Fuji films you mention look softer in edge contrast when held up to KM25 and yes, I have compared them.

The other thing about KM25 and KR64 is that the way the chromatic distribution of the colors are cast is very different than the other films. The Kodachrome family of films seem to have a more stark manner in which the colors relate to one another. There is just a luminance to Kodachrome in terms of color that I have never seen in other films.

The other films are nice, I use them too, but Kodachrome is just a trip in how it renders the world...

TerryM · Feb 9, 2009

iamzip said:
... It was never my intention to behave as an "internet grammar cop," or what have you. To be quite honest I do not personally care if his posts contain perfect grammar and punctuation. And I must also state that I have no problem understanding them either.
I was merely offering a possible explanation as to why he was being brushed off by Kodak. I know that a great deal of time and effort is spent on educating people on proper business communication. ...

Hi iamzip, I will defend you. Grammar is very important! :confused:

Alan, if you want Kodak to consider your request for buying a Master Roll of Kodachrome, then you would have to be prepared to pay them the full cost up front. I wouldn't be surprised if that amounted to $200 Thousand dollars or more! You need to tell them you're ready to write the cheque right now. I'm going to be trying to organize a Master Roll purchase of K64 with an outside Film House. You may wish to wait to join in with that.

Photo Engineer said:
So, the answer is actually a question: To what point have you directed your question, as it is an expensive proposition on a dead product?

Live in hope Ron! Live in hope! Quite frankly, rather than seeing K25 reformulated, I would prefer to see K10 revived. Every Kodachrome aficionado would love to have K10.

BTW, how thick are the RG&B Layers in K25 and K64?

Fredrik Sandstrom · Feb 9, 2009

TerryM said:
Quite frankly, rather than seeing K25 reformulated, I would prefer to see K10 revived. Every Kodachrome aficionado would love to have K10.

I'm sure you know this, but to avoid any confusion: There was never a product called "Kodachrome 10". Before K25 there was "Kodachrome II" (which was a 25 speed film), and before that there was "Kodachrome" at ASA 10 (and a few other speeds too).

Reviving the 10 speed Kodachrome would be quite impractical as it used the K-11 process that no one has performed since the 1960s.

PKM-25 · Feb 9, 2009

TerryM said:
I'm going to be trying to organize a Master Roll purchase of K64 with an outside Film House. You may wish to wait to join in with that. ?

Seriously? Do you realize how much film that is? You have the slitting and spooling ability? And what about K-14 supply? Kodak is only going to support it up to the last expiration date and when that happens, they will only supply as much chemistry as Dwayne's speculates it will need, after that it is done.

I admire that proposition, I would like to hear more about it...

Ron, what is the optimum shelf life of unused K14?

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2009

Offhand IDK what it would be. I would say at least 5 years frozen if not more. Of course the room temp life goes down commensurate with the lenght of time it is kept over the expiration date even if frozen. Once you thaw the outdated film, the expiration clock really starts ticking away.

Now, I'm speaking of Kodachrome and other older films. Remember that Kodachrome uses some of the older dopants and other addenda that became passe with the Portra and newer E6 films. That paints a whole new picture.

PE

PKM-25 · Feb 9, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Offhand IDK what it would be. I would say at least 5 years frozen if not more. Of course the room temp life goes down commensurate with the lenght of time it is kept over the expiration date even if frozen. Once you thaw the outdated film, the expiration clock really starts ticking away.

Now, I'm speaking of Kodachrome and other older films. Remember that Kodachrome uses some of the older dopants and other addenda that became passe with the Portra and newer E6 films. That paints a whole new picture.

PE

I meant the chemistry...;-)

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2009

Sorry, it did say K-14. My bad.

Well, you have an oxidant and a reductant mixture in the form of a coupler and color developer. They are at pH 11 - 12 or thereabouts. Unused, we used to keep it as a blank set of chemistry and add the color developer and coupler just before use. After that, if it was not used and replenished regularly it went bad quickly. It began turning respectively cyan, yellow and magenta for the 3 developers and pH began to fall.

So, once the developer and coupler are mixed, I give you months of usability with replenishment, but perhaps just a long weekend idle could do it in due to the above reasons. Kodahchrome is the least stable of all Kodak color processes. In this order RA, C-41, E6, Kodachrome. I believe RA and C-41 to be close to a tie as the best. Kodachrome is also the most expensive due to the couplers.

PE

TerryM · Feb 9, 2009

PKM-25 said:
Seriously? Do you realize how much film that is? You have the slitting and spooling ability? And what about K-14 supply? Kodak is only going to support it up to the last expiration date and when that happens, they will only supply as much chemistry as Dwayne's speculates it will need, after that it is done.
I admire that proposition, I would like to hear more about it...

The main purpose of this Kodachrome offering would be for 8&16mm Movie formats. It could also be offered in 120 and Sheet if Dwayne's has the ability to develop these formats. I imagine that Qualex still has a 120 developing machine somewhere. It wouldn't be necessary to offer it in 135 since this is already available from Kodak. Just to give you an idea of how much Film is used by Movie customers, one single 50 foot Super8 Cartridge uses the equivalent of 11.4 feet of 135! It wouldn't take long for Movie customers to use up a Master Roll of Film. If Kodak seriously wanted to keep Kodachrome viable, they would be selling it in all formats. Wittner has the ability to cut up and perforate Film, and package it in Super8mm Carts or 16mm Reels -- they wouldn't need to rely on Kodak to do this. The only problem is expense for European customers in sending Film to Dwayne's for processing. That Swiss Lab was really important for European Kodachrome users.

Fredrik Sandstrom said:
There was never a product called "Kodachrome 10". Before K25 there was "Kodachrome II" (which was a 25 speed film), and before that there was "Kodachrome" at ASA 10 (and a few other speeds too).
Reviving the 10 speed Kodachrome would be quite impractical as it used the K-11 process that no one has performed since the 1960s.

Hi Fredrik,
I was thinking of the old ASA 10 Movie Film. I'm not sure if it was offered as photographic Film. You're definitely more familiar with the specific names than me. :confused: I didn't literally mean reviving the 'original' 10 ASA Kodachrome. If I had to choose between 10 or 25 for a modern Kodachrome version, I would certainly prefer 10 ISO. It would be much better for 8&16mm users. :rolleyes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron, how thick are the RG&B Layers in K25 and K64? Also, what is the spoilage rate of K64?

KODACHROME a question for photo engineers.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency