Kodachrome article

Thomas Bertilsson said:

One reason could be that the process to get Kodachrome developed is toxic as hell, and why focus has been shifted to other types of color films.

PE - any insight in that matter? I forget what it was about Kodachrome that was nasty.

- Thomas

Click to expand...

Thanks, Thomas. Nicely done...

Ken

PKM-25 said:

So I have an idea: How about YOU show them how committed to the film YOU are by ordering that 20 rolls:

Click to expand...

Very good point. If there is a market for it, and Kodak (or anybody) can make money servicing that market, they will continue to make it.

I got the link for a section of the Kodak Z manual for processing Kodachrome from good old wikipedia. Its the overview for operating a K lab. Its not a simple table top E6 in a paterson tank!

I've included this for interest, as its a bit user friendlier than the patent!

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf

There are 10 PDF's in all, just change the URL from z50_03 to z50_01, z50_02, z50_04, etc etc etc

Ahhh yes, the good old trouble bucket.

Looks like they may have gotten rid of the toxic fogging bath unless it is incorporated into the magenta developer. And, at 40 roll / day x 365 days this is a capacity of about 14,000 - 15,000 rolls per day. So, draw your own conclusions from this.

PE

What's that supposed to mean? I'm stating a fact about the film that could well be a reason why they shifted away from it. Today environmental concerns should be especially considered, in my opinion.
I guess that's all I can think of if in every other way people find Kodachrome superior to regular transparency film. Thought on that, perhaps?

- Thomas

Ken Nadvornick said:

Thanks, Thomas. Nicely done...

Ken

Click to expand...

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry8300/4.5.0.55 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

I thought about a new E6 film, but then remembered the comment from the new Ektar 100 FAQ that indicated it was intended as a replacement for E6 films. I trust what PE says and also doubt myself that EK is working on an E6 Kodachrome replacement, even though the thought of such makes me drool. Even though a transparency film would be nice, maybe a C41 replacement is the most likely. Who knows?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

What's that supposed to mean? I'm stating a fact about the film that could well be a reason why they shifted away from it. Today environmental concerns should be especially considered, in my opinion.
I guess that's all I can think of if in every other way people find Kodachrome superior to regular transparency film. Thought on that, perhaps?

- Thomas

Click to expand...

It means that beyond your primary observation, which I agree with, you also (apparently unwittingly) changed the direction of this thread for the better. And that's a good thing.

My original point was that in order for me to "gear up" for the commitment of (again) becoming a larger scale user of Kodachrome, I would need to invest a fair amount of money. I no longer have a lightbox slide sorter, a projector, a film scanner for online sharing, or even simple slide storage pages.

In order to justify the outlay for these things, I simply observed that it would be nice to have some sort of positive reference regarding Kodachrome's future. Absent that in the upcoming article, I would find it difficult to make such an investment at this time. But if such a positive statement were to be made, I would be willing to do so, including an immediate film order.

And while environmental concerns may well have played a part Kodak's deprecated interest in Kodachrome, I've always felt that their lack of advertising played an even larger part in its marginalization. After all, the soft drink companies currently make millions and millions of advertising-driven dollars selling Dasani, a commodity I spend about $40/month/1100 cubic feet to purchase in bulk.

Companies don't simply respond to demand for their products. They actively create it. Such is the power of advertising.

Ken

Consider that the slides last a long, long time after processed and that you could easily shoot 100-200 rolls between now and the time the end of the line is announced even if it is in a year which I doubt. That is 3,600 to 6,400 frames of Kodachrome.

All the peripherial equipment you mention can be obtained after the fact and you could share it all later.

The bottom line is that if you started shooting it next week, you could spend at least 18-24 months if not longer enjoying it before you can no longer get it processed if that timeline even happens.

You either want to shoot it and have that opportunity now, or you don't. It is pretty simple really.

I started the idea for my project in late 2004. I started really shooting it a lot in 2006 and now I shoot it nearly every day.

Just put a great lens in front of it via your choice of camera and shoot a few frames a day until it is gone. I think you will be glad you did and you will realize after a few rolls how silly it is to wait for some sign of commitment when this film and this era known as "Kodachrome" is never to be repeated.

Go ahead now, order three rolls from Freestyle and shoot them with a good lens in on a decent camera and use a hand held meter at 80 and be right on the money with what the meter tells you.

Just do it man, life is too short for deliberating and I really hate to see people looking back in regret.

Ken Nadvornick said:

It means that beyond your primary observation, which I agree with, you also (apparently unwittingly) changed the direction of this thread for the better. And that's a good thing.

My original point was that in order for me to "gear up" for the commitment of (again) becoming a larger scale user of Kodachrome, I would need to invest a fair amount of money. I no longer have a lightbox slide sorter, a projector, a film scanner for online sharing, or even simple slide storage pages.

In order to justify the outlay for these things, I simply observed that it would be nice to have some sort of positive reference regarding Kodachrome's future. Absent that in the upcoming article, I would find it difficult to make such an investment at this time. But if such a positive statement were to be made, I would be willing to do so, including an immediate film order.

And while environmental concerns may well have played a part Kodak's deprecated interest in Kodachrome, I've always felt that their lack of advertising played an even larger part in its marginalization. After all, the soft drink companies currently make millions and millions of advertising-driven dollars selling Dasani, a commodity I spend about $40/month/1100 cubic feet to purchase in bulk.

Companies don't simply respond to demand for their products. They actively create it. Such is the power of advertising.

Ken

Click to expand...

I just got back 3 rolls from Dwayne's...it still blows my mind HOW good Kodachrome looks. Even my bad photos made me say wow. The funny thing is that I cannot for the life of me figure out what it is about Kodachrome that knocks my socks off, but it does it to me EVERYTIME. The one downfall for me is that it's only 35mm. I've always had a bit of trouble with 35mm, maybe it's my big nose and glasses. I can honestly say that if Kodachrome was available for 120/4x5 and had the same quality of the 35mm I would never shoot E-6 (and I work in an E-6 lab!) All that being said, I am ordering a brick of the Kodachrome Professional because I am down to my last couple of rolls. Kodachrome=magic!

I had the fortune of shooting it in 120 in a Hasselblad in the early 90's. I now shoot it in Leica and a Hasselblad XPan. The latter is 24x65mm, pretty incredible especially KM-25.

Pull the trigger on a XPan if you ever see one for, well, cheap-er. It rocks for Kodachrome.

tjaded said:

I just got back 3 rolls from Dwayne's...it still blows my mind HOW good Kodachrome looks. Even my bad photos made me say wow. The funny thing is that I cannot for the life of me figure out what it is about Kodachrome that knocks my socks off, but it does it to me EVERYTIME. The one downfall for me is that it's only 35mm. I've always had a bit of trouble with 35mm, maybe it's my big nose and glasses. I can honestly say that if Kodachrome was available for 120/4x5 and had the same quality of the 35mm I would never shoot E-6 (and I work in an E-6 lab!) All that being said, I am ordering a brick of the Kodachrome Professional because I am down to my last couple of rolls. Kodachrome=magic!

Click to expand...

PKM-25 said:

Consider that the slides last a long, long time after processed and that you could easily shoot 100-200 rolls between now and the time the end of the line is announced even if it is in a year which I doubt. That is 3,600 to 6,400 frames of Kodachrome.

All the peripherial equipment you mention can be obtained after the fact and you could share it all later.

The bottom line is that if you started shooting it next week, you could spend at least 18-24 months if not longer enjoying it before you can no longer get it processed if that timeline even happens.

You either want to shoot it and have that opportunity now, or you don't. It is pretty simple really.

I started the idea for my project in late 2004. I started really shooting it a lot in 2006 and now I shoot it nearly every day.

Just put a great lens in front of it via your choice of camera and shoot a few frames a day until it is gone. I think you will be glad you did and you will realize after a few rolls how silly it is to wait for some sign of commitment when this film and this era known as "Kodachrome" is never to be repeated.

Go ahead now, order three rolls from Freestyle and shoot them with a good lens in on a decent camera and use a hand held meter at 80 and be right on the money with what the meter tells you.

Just do it man, life is too short for deliberating and I really hate to see people looking back in regret.

Click to expand...

In 1973 I purchased my first 35mm SLR camera. A Nikon F2. The original F2 where you have to "index" each lens when mounted. The first roll of film loaded into that camera? Kodachrome. When the transparancies came back from Kodak, the compositions were pedestrian, but I was stunned by their beauty. Didn't own a projector, so I used a magnifying glass with a sheet of notebook paper behind. I had never seen anything quite like that before. I resolved that day to make photography my passion through retirement.

Well, I'm not quite at the retirement point yet. But that very same camera, not a later replacement, but the exact same one, is sitting this very moment on the counter downstairs in my darkroom. Even happens to have the same 55mm f/1.2 lens mounted that I originally purchased with it that long ago day. Care to ask what film is currently loaded in it as I type this?

As for purchasing three rolls, that will have to wait until I finish the eight I already have. Three down, and five more currently waiting in the produce drawer of the refrigerator. But I'd rather make the next purchase 20 rolls instead of three. And start using it as heavily as I did 35 years ago. Just say something positive so I can justify the expenses.

In years past I have used Kodachrome. I've recommended Kodachrome. I've sold Kodachrome. I've professionally custom-printed Cibachromes from Kodachrome. I happen to think Kodachrome is Kodak's high-water mark as a photographic company. Photographers in this country say they use Kodachrome to record Americana? Hell, Kodachrome *is* Americana. So maybe just a little something positive, OK?

My late father's transparancies from the early 50s are still pristine. My behind-the-scenes transparancies from the 70s and 80s when I was in college and worked at Disneyland for tuition money are still pristine. And those that have more recently come back from Dwayne's have all been pristine. And returned in 5 days roundtrip, no less.

And I'm mortified that Kodak is slowly, but inexorably, walking away from Kodachrome. PE tells us that Kodachrome is hanging on by the thinnest of threads. He's the best source of information I have, so I believe him. And I'm mortified.

It's not too much to ask for a simple positive statement of some kind, if they really want to continue selling Kodachrome.

Really, it's not...

Ken

OK, I hear you my friend, I really do.

And I know for a fact that there are people who care about Kodachrome in the ranks of Kodak. Think about this for a moment.....Kodachrome IS Kodak. It is the greatest achievement ANY film, camera, lens or memory card company will ever have produced. Nothing will come close to the impact that Kodachrome has had, nothing. It will all be increments that get lost in the mainstream, but Kodachrome, the film and the era will live on as long as human beings walk this earth.

When I was 9 years old, I got my own camera and started taking photos in 126 format. By age 13, I asked the lady at the counter what was the sharpest film ever. That sweetheart pointed me at a box of Kodachrome 25. I would be photographing the first landing of the space shuttle Columbia. It came out incredible, I was hooked. By age 15, life was rough. I was somewhat homeless, dropped out of high school and had two jobs to get me by. One night, in a delusional state, I attempted to shop lift 12 rolls of KM-25 from a grocery store. I got busted. The manager was ticked at first but then was very curious as to why film instead of food, booze or the usual items to go into a teenager's coat. She let me go and that was the first and last time I ever tried shoplifting. So Kodachrome is in my blood, I know it better than any medium I have ever used and I shoot a LOT of photos, upwards of a quarter million a year in many formats professionally.

Look, no one knows for sure what is going to happen sooner rather than later, but we all know what is going to happen eventually if business logic prevails in the pessimistic outlook. At some point, Kodachrome will not be produced anymore. It may be next year, it may be in the next 20 years, who knows? If Kodak had not gotten beaten like a red headed step child in going into the damned digital crap, this might not be so dire. But the fact of the matter is, we are coming upon a time in American history that is not unlike the very chapter in which Kodachrome started being heavily used by the photographers of the FSA / OWI. The economy is lousy and people have their noses buried in digital this and that. So with that in mind, they, Kodak, may simply run out of money as will a lot of other companies in this tumultuous time.

It's all a big darn secret too, no one knows the numbers of how much Dwayne's soups per day and what that looks like in the grand scale. Photo Engineer is doing the best he can to keep us abreast of the situation, but I know for a fact that this is now a very hush-hush thing, the future of Kodachrome.

Unless it comes well after the 75th anniversary of the film, the day Kodak discontinues Kodachrome will be one of the most negative PR stories of their history. If the news we hear from AP is simply a story of just how far and wide and powerful the Kodachrome era is and nothing from Kodak, then that is a good thing to a degree, it will be much needed publicity for the film.

And if the story is that Kodak is putting out special 75th anniversary packaging for Kodachrome then that is good too.

But if the story is instead news of it being discontinued, then man, shoot it like hell, because Kodachrome is not as much about Kodak as it is about you and me and the way we want to frame our lives, our friends and our vision with the most amazing medium to ever grace the photographic life.

I want to hear something from Kodak too, but I am not waiting around for that, it is still here, it still looks brilliant, I am getting better at shooting it, my forum is taking off and gaining new members. What I have done in committing to the film, the project and the site is getting more people to shoot it. I am doing the best I can, this has all been out of my pocket.

I am trying to be the voice that gets through to you, I am trying to BE Kodak for you right now. We, Kodachrome, and what will be the last chapter of the Kodachrome Era needs you!

That is what I am trying to tell you. That *IS* the positive right now, look around you, the positive answer you seek as to why you should shoot it is right here, among us.

I think you know this. Send your self out on assignment to shoot something like you have never shot before. bring along Kodachrome and show your SELF what you can do with that F2 and 55 1.2.

Start beating the drum man, because they are going to hear it, and then they will tell us something.

Ken Nadvornick said:

And I'm mortified that Kodak is slowly, but inexorably, walking away from Kodachrome. PE tells us that Kodachrome is hanging on by the thinnest of threads. He's the best source of information I have, so I believe him. And I'm mortified.

Click to expand...

By the way, this is where you need to be positive. As far as I can tell, Kodak is not walking away from Kodachrome. In a time of huge losses and a uncertain future, I think Kodak is actually doing the best they can to keep it alive.

I wish there were one or two more labs so people around the world did not have to risk loss by shipping it, but what we have is in my mind, a miracle given the circumstances.

I think the next year or two is going to be very telling as to the future of Kodachrome.

Hello to all,

I think here it is :
"Is the rich-hued Kodachrome era fading to black?"
Article by Ben Dobbin, Associated Press

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=236240

Regards,

Stephane

What a depressing article. :|

The article allows comments. If there's something in the article you take issue with, or you want to give your side of the story, or just use it as some advocacy for Kodachrome, now's your chance.

Incidently I found this statement interesting: "...all volumes (of color film) are down,..." . It either means B&W volumes are stable (or increasing ) or the spokeman isn't qualified to comment on B&W.

PKM-25 said:

Go ahead now, order three rolls from Freestyle and shoot them with a good lens in on a decent camera and use a hand held meter at 80 and be right on the money with what the meter tells you.

Click to expand...

Do I understand you right here, that you use Kodachrome 64 at 80 in general?

crispinuk said:

Incidently I found this statement interesting: "...all volumes (of color film) are down,..." . It either means B&W volumes are stable (or increasing ) or the spokeman isn't qualified to comment on B&W.

Click to expand...

I just read yesterday on a german forum that b&w sales have been stable in the last two or three years while film sales are decreasing, but slower than have been.
I am not sure if those numbers were for Germany, Europe or worldwide.

To me the article tells nothing new, but is about what has been discussed here in the last week. Nobody really knows what will happen and of course it might happen that Kodachrome will disappear. We all knew about that already.

I just ordered some fresh rolls again. Keep shooting it as long as it will be around.

The article states Master rolls produced a least a year apart producing 20,000 rolls of Kodachrome. If that figure's accurate then that's not even enough film for every member of APUG to shoot 1 film a year, there's 28,297 members !!!

So the writing has to be on the wall. Realistically Kodachrome will soon become history. It's better that Kodak support photographers by improving and consolidating their other film products.

Black & White is quite different , when the management buy out of Ilford took place the company stated that they expected B&W sales to drop slightly further then stabilise. At that time no-one expected that there would be further casualties in the market, Kodak pulling out of B&W paper manufacture, Agfa closing (only some smaller volumes resuming in various guises), Forte faltering then closing too, that has taken a lot of over capacity out of the market and must help the remaining companies far more viable.

Ian

Putting 20,00 rolls a year into further perspective the article quotes a medical photographer shooting 10-15 rolls of Kodachrome a week, assuming his low figure it would only need 40 photographers shooting 10 rolls a week/500 a year to use the lot.

Unfortunately Kodachrome went into a nose-dive when all European processing ceased, and I'd guess when many of theIndependant US labs ceased processing too. The turn-around on processing went from slow to snail speed for non-US photographers.

Ian

I read it as well. Sorry to see those figures. Color reversal is way down, color negative is rather stable as is B&W. B&W sales leveled off last year somewhat. I think I posted that elsewhere here recently. Anyhow, here is another reference:

http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080920/BIZ/709209974/-1/category=PHOTOS

PE

Ian Grant said:

Unfortunately Kodachrome went into a nose-dive when all European processing ceased, and I'd guess when many of theIndependant US labs ceased processing too. The turn-around on processing went from slow to snail speed for non-US photographers.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is precsely what I meant when I said I'd like to see some commitment from Kodak.
I can accept low volume and no k25/200, but for me in Australia it's darn hard to send K65 over to one lab on the other side of the world.

If only Kodak had kept a lab somewhere a lot handier. Didn't need to be in Australia: Singapore, Indonesia, Philipines, even Japan, would have been reasonably fast. US-only means weeks waiting for the blessed things to come back...

Still: I'm looking at B&H to see if I can make ends meet for at least a few more orders...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=236240

I hope (against all hope) it sticks around for a long time. Buy some Kodachrome today.

Regards, Art.

Threads merged.

Already posted, but this is the official AP story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5in4VpwG7V6nuy_6KRV525YJYzlzAD93BA0F00