Kodachrome article

michaelbsc · Sep 24, 2008

OK, so where is the best place to buy it these days. I used to pick up a roll at the local Photo Express every few weeks for about $6 (KR, not PKR) but they don't have it on the shelf any more. (In fact, I'm not sure they'll make it past the end of the year, but that's a whole other thread.)

I think we may as well accept the fact that the dwindling hobby market can't keep Kodachrome going forever, but we can certainly "manage" the ramp down if we try. What's the best way to show usage to Kodak? Buying 2 rolls at a time, or buying a brick? Sorry, I can't afford to buy more than that at once.

And like other, I can get E6 fast and cheap, so a $8.50 per roll plus the Wal-mart 4.88 processing we're looking at $13/ea. I will admit, however, that the few rolls i shoot always make me look twice when I open the container. It never ceases to amaze me that my first reaction is always, "Wow, these look really good."

MB

PKM-25 · Sep 24, 2008

You can get it from Freestyle for $8.09 a roll. B&H is a bit more.

It's not expensive...it is priceless!

Photo Engineer · Sep 24, 2008

PKM;

Excuse me, but I did not post that. Sorry.

The processing will probably cease sometime shortly after the expiration date of the last film to be sold, whenever or if ever that may be, and plenty of notice will be given.

PE

PKM-25 · Sep 24, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
PKM;

Excuse me, but I did not post that. Sorry.

The processing will probably cease sometime shortly after the expiration date of the last film to be sold, whenever or if ever that may be, and plenty of notice will be given.

PE

Ah, I see what happened, I will correct it...

ny_photog · Sep 24, 2008

As an old K-64 freak who finally realized it was time to "let go" I would simply note that Velvia 50 is available.

A_T · Sep 25, 2008

7dayshop are out of stock of Kodachrome. Will be interesting to see what the expiration date of their new stock will be. Latest I have seen in the UK is 10/2009 (1558).

Paul Howell · Sep 25, 2008

PKM-25 said:
You can get it from Freestyle for $8.09 a roll. B&H is a bit more.

It's not expensive...it is priceless!

Any ideas what Kodak net is of the $8.09?

Nigel · Sep 25, 2008

Paul Howell said:
Any ideas what Kodak net is of the $8.09?

Net is a tricky number from an accounting point of view. Does that include depreciation? After all, the equipment has been in service for a long time and has probably run past its expected life. Then again, perhaps repairs and maintenance should have been capitalized but were expensed. And then the allocated overhead; the bulk of that would be incurred regardless of the running of Kodachrome lines, so perhaps it shouldn't be included. And then there is the capital (money) tied up in the product line, should there be a capital charge assessed for its use, and if so, should it be weighted toward the equity or debt that the company uses to fund operations? R&D would have been treated as a period cost, but it should be allocated back to the product line and include a charge for unsuccessful projects.

My point, if I had one (and I'm not sure that I did) is that asking for the net involves a lot of assumption and estimates and very few facts. If indeed you can even decide on a common definition of "net".

And now an estimate (ah, the joy of working in a data-free environment!). Of $8.09, 25% goes to the distributors, 50% to material costs including silver and oil derived products. 15% to overhead including a share of plant costs and corporate costs (head office salaries, pensions etc.). And finally, despite a lack of advertising, money is still spent on branding and promotion; things like packaging design, defending trademarks etc. So I would guess less than 5% or less than $0.40.

Colin Corneau · Sep 25, 2008

It would be nice if they could keep that product on, even as a 'vanity' effort.

I mean, it IS the film's 75th anniversary and one that's synonymous with Kodak. I respect them branching out in new directions, but corporations take on personal pet projects and 'brand builder' endeavours all the time.

PKM-25 · Sep 25, 2008

Colin Corneau said:
It would be nice if they could keep that product on, even as a 'vanity' effort.

I mean, it IS the film's 75th anniversary and one that's synonymous with Kodak. I respect them branching out in new directions, but corporations take on personal pet projects and 'brand builder' endeavours all the time.

It is entirely possible that is what they are doing ( 75th ), that is why I am trying to meet them 1/2 way with the project, find a book publisher, etc.

Photo Engineer · Sep 25, 2008

For net, assume no R&D, and assume all new equipment or nearly so. Remember that this is coated in the new facility and IDK how the depreciation on that is.

Kodak is not making a fortune on Kodachrome. It is probably breaking even. MHO.

PE

Pupfish · Sep 25, 2008

About $.80 or $.10 on the dollar would be my guess as to what Kodak grosses on each roll, from what I know of manufacturing. There's only room on the shelves and good margins in retail products that are popular, these days. K-mart stopped carrying K64 hereabouts a dozen years ago. To still carry Kodachrome in their catalogs and on their inventories when it's a product with an actual shelf life and an expiration date, may end up costing more than it's worth given the other more profitable lines, nowadays.

Nearly two decades ago, we were told that one of the primary motivations for Kodak weaning everyone away from Kodachrome was that it's not as environmentally friendly as more modern formulations.

It's possible that Kodak is perhaps keeping Kodachrome alive purely because of the negative publicity it will generate to finally finish it off. (Personally, the day they do I'll probably get a little misty on hearing of its demise.).

mabman · Sep 26, 2008

I think Kodachrome is still alive because it's still economically viable on a smaller scale (eg, producing 1 or 2 master rolls a year). No hard numbers available, but when someone asked Dwayne's directly in 2006 they were told approx. 1000 rolls/day were being processed (ref. here) - anecdotal, yes, and no way to tell how many of those rolls are fresh vs. expired or old frozen stock, but that's still a decent number, and on the processing side I can see how that volume could sustain 1 company.

Hopefully Kodak still makes money on it - by the sound of it this particular emulsion hasn't changed in some time, so on the accounting side I would imagine the R&D costs have been amortized over the many years of its existence, leaving the production costs (but I'm not an accountant, and who knows for sure).

eddym · Sep 26, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
For net, assume no R&D, and assume all new equipment or nearly so. Remember that this is coated in the new facility and IDK how the depreciation on that is.

Kodak is not making a fortune on Kodachrome. It is probably breaking even. MHO.

PE

That being the case, and if they are indeed at least breaking even, perhaps they would keep it in production at least until the new facility is completely depreciated... and maybe longer, since it would then be more profitable?
--he asks, thinking wishfully...

michaelbsc · Sep 26, 2008

OK, let's stop speculating and do what's in front of us. I have about 5 rolls left in my freezer, which I will shoot over the next month and have processed. I was saving them for a rainy day, but if we're all worried about Kodachrome going away, then this *IS* the rainy day.

After those are gone I will buy and shoot two rolls per month at *ANY* local supplier I can find it on the shelves so long as the cost is within financial possibility. I.e., I'm not going to spend the mortgage money to buy Kodachrome, but I'm not going to quibble about $10.99 vs $8.09 plus shipping. I figure the cost difference will be about $3-4/roll doing it that way, but it then puts Kodachrome in a tiny bit more of the limelight in the distribution channel. If I've waited too late, and I can't find it locally these days, I'll buy a brick at a time with orders from mail-order places.

It's not much individually, but if hordes of people would do the same then it would make a difference.

As for processing the stuff I send through Wal-mart comes back great, and it's cheap. But I've never tried to write that I wanted a CD in the special instructions box. I just write "Process K-14 ONLY" and get back a package of slides. Costs $4.88 that way. Can you write "Process K-14 and scan to CD" in the instructions box and get back a CD from Waynes? Or will the local Wal-mart guy try to scan it? (Is Walgreens a better option? How do they work?)

I think not getting a "picture in hand" was more detrimental to Kodachrome in the consumer market over the decades than costs. Nowadays I know many people who drop off C-41 film and get a CD only, no prints, then use the digital order counter to get prints of exactly what they want (or just print them at home). So, on the surface, the idea of getting back slides in a box and a CD isn't very different than getting back negatives in a sleeve and a CD. What the consumer wants is the CD, and the medium is immaterial unless one can make a case for the quality of the images. If the consumer started using Kodachrome for the "special" events again the volume would go up dramatically.

MB

randerson07 · Sep 26, 2008

michaelbsc said:
As for processing the stuff I send through Wal-mart comes back great, and it's cheap.
MB

How long does it usually take to get your slides back from Walmart? When Ive used them for e6 it was 2 weeks which isnt terrible, is it longer for K14?

michaelbsc · Sep 26, 2008

Well, I can't really tell you how long it takes since I'm not very diligent about going to Wal-mart. Other than dropping off K-14 I try to avoid the place, so I usually don't get back for a couple of weeks, but it's always ready by the time I do get back to pick it up. I would think that if you're getting two weeks for E-6 you can get the same for K-14.

MB

Photo Engineer · Sep 26, 2008

Throughput of 1000 rolls per day at Dwaynes seems very high in view of what the article reported!

PE

railwayman3 · Sep 26, 2008

^^^PE

Yes, 1,000/day looks very odd. If we supposed that all the annual production of, say, 25,000 rolls were processed, plus another 25,000 of rolls from stock and hoarded supplies, that about 1,000 per week, or 200 per day.

So, then, is 200 a day throughput enough to maintain QC or economic operation, or might they process only once a week?

My only concrete conclusion is that we don't know anything at all really. :confused:

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 26, 2008

I wonder if Dwayne's may process 1000 rolls of film per day, but not all of it Kodachrome. They also process E-6, and I guess they might do print film as well.

nickrapak · Sep 26, 2008

railwayman3 said:
So, then, is 200 a day throughput enough to maintain QC or economic operation, or might they process only once a week?

My only concrete conclusion is that we don't know anything at all really. :confused:

FWIW, a Kodak mailer I sent on august 18 got to Dwayne's on August 21st @ 6 AM, and the meter mark on the return envelope had an 8/22 date.

psvensson · Sep 26, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Throughput of 1000 rolls per day at Dwaynes seems very high in view of what the article reported!

PE

The story said Dwayne's "processes tens of thousands of rolls annually."

Photo Engineer · Sep 26, 2008

Considering 200 workdays in 1 year and 1000 rolls per day, this is about 200,000 rolls per year. This does not match up with "tens of thousands anually". That is all I meant. Otherwise, the article would have said "hundreds of thousands anually".

Just my thoughts.

PE

Ian Grant · Sep 26, 2008

What Dwayne's process now won't be the same as a few years ago, so the figures may have once been right. Also there would be seasonal peaks and troughs.

There can't be that much Kodachrome left in the market place as the processing capabilities have been slashed so drastically down to one lab.

Ian

tim_walls · Sep 26, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Considering 200 workdays in 1 year and 1000 rolls per day, this is about 200,000 rolls per year. This does not match up with "tens of thousands anually". That is all I meant. Otherwise, the article would have said "hundreds of thousands anually".

Just my thoughts.

The trust in this thread that journalists are interested only in writing the facts with total impartiality, rather than writing in the manner which suits the spin they wish to impart, is positively touching.

Regardless, given the turnaround time for my films, I can guarantee Dwayne's are processing more than once weekly. I'd be interested to know what volume of films the K14 process needs to keep running within spec, at a daily rate.

Kodachrome article

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency