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.
why not come up with some positive ideas to save it.
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.... 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.
Isn't Velvia a thicker Film than most? Velvia is what ate into K25 sales.Photo Engineer said:As for thickening layers, that decreases sharpness. It would no longer be K25 then, would it?
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.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
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.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.
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.
Hi iamzip, I will defend you. Grammar is very important! :confused: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. ...
Live in hope Ron! Live in hope!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?
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).Quite frankly, rather than seeing K25 reformulated, I would prefer to see K10 revived. Every Kodachrome aficionado would love to have K10.
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.?
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
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.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...
Hi Fredrik,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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?