Kodachrome Availability Update

A person from Kodak contacted me on the forum today, the dialogue was encouraging. And to top it off, the Kodachrome Project and my using it at Obama's stimulus bill signing today had come real cache, I had incredible access, got a few pros from AP and other outlets to seriously consider shooting it for the 75th.

Today just *rocked*!

PKM-25 said:

A person from Kodak contacted me on the forum today, the dialogue was encouraging. And to top it off, the Kodachrome Project and my using it at Obama's stimulus bill signing today had come real cache, I had incredible access, got a few pros from AP and other outlets to seriously consider shooting it for the 75th.

Today just *rocked*!

Click to expand...

That's great to hear! Did anyone comment when they saw you using the F100? Or did they not notice even notice the difference? The roll of film is kind of hard to miss when you're loading, and I don't think it'd load very well into a CF slot; they must have noticed you loading the film! Then again, when I shot my university president's inauguration on film, no one even noticed I was using film. Told one of the other photographers after, and he was like "You're shooting film?! Wow!!!" You should have seen his expression!

PKM-25 said:

A person from Kodak contacted me on the forum today, the dialogue was encouraging. And to top it off, the Kodachrome Project and my using it at Obama's stimulus bill signing today had come real cache, I had incredible access, got a few pros from AP and other outlets to seriously consider shooting it for the 75th.

Today just *rocked*!

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about the encouraging dialogue with the person from Kodak, if it was a public comment on the forum. Or a URL would do.

The url for the Kodachrome project is http://kodachromeproject.com/
The Kodachrome project forums are at http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/index.php

When they invented synthesizers, people didn't throw their pianos away.

nickstreme said:

When they invented synthesizers, people didn't throw their pianos away.

Click to expand...

You're right. Film isn't likely to disappear soon. But certain types of film (not mentioning any specific ones) are likely to disappear soon.

This conversation brings it all down to Scala.

B&Wpositive said:

You're right. Film isn't likely to disappear soon. But certain types of film (not mentioning any specific ones) are likely to disappear soon.

Click to expand...

Your user name says it all.

B&Wpositive said:

That's great to hear! Did anyone comment when they saw you using the F100? Or did they not notice even notice the difference? The roll of film is kind of hard to miss when you're loading, and I don't think it'd load very well into a CF slot; they must have noticed you loading the film! Then again, when I shot my university president's inauguration on film, no one even noticed I was using film. Told one of the other photographers after, and he was like "You're shooting film?! Wow!!!" You should have seen his expression!

Click to expand...

If I recall properly, he used a rangefinder, if not two. But yeah. Nowadays, that's the response becoming more common. If I'm shooting with my Pentax 645, I get more attention anyway (because it is a big camera, and supposedly one cannot use a bigger camera and be a girl at the same time, what-the-f-ever), but last summer was when I began really hearing people just going, "Wow, big camera. Medium format? What is that?" And then as I explained, there's that eureka moment which they all but don't realize they emote, betraying what they're really thinking. This is then followed by something along the order of, "Wait, you're shooting with . . . film?"

"Yes, Professor Einstein. This uses film."

In any event, I went into a certain major chain camera shop yesterday because of a product I didn't want but, for sake of my research thesis, it needed to happen. The dome-headed guy (oddly, with a stitch sutured into that head) walks over to a display model, outfitted with some monster fisheye, and diminutively says to me, "I shoot with one of these." He holds up a D3. Then he opens a binder with 11x14 printouts of what he'd shot with his own D3 for use in store sales pitching. Boring. I think to myself, Did I ask to know this, and do I look like I care? I look back at him, unimpressed -- what a guy thing to do, I thought. My messenger bag was on the sales counter, so I opened it, pulled out the first and said, "Uhm, well, I like to use this" -- the Pentax 645 -- "this" -- a Konica rangefinder (loaded with Ferrania) -- "and this, which is loaded with Kodachrome" -- my Nikon F-801s. Before I said, "Kodachrome," he already showed that expression of being put back into his place and hating every second of it, but then my saying "Kodachrome" got him to say something. He throws me that derisive You shoot with Kodachrome? look and responds, "Oh, well, you know that film's getting harder to find these days."

"Really? I don't seem to have much trouble finding it. You just have to look online and buy it there."

"Yeah, but it's getting harder to find in stores," he added.

"Well, the way it works for me is that the resolution yielded by what I shoot on this Pentax way exceeds anything an FX camera can do, and to me, quality is really important."

"Oh, well, that's because you're talking about medium format," he perks up. "That a totally different story. It would mean I'd have to go to one of those thirtysomething-megapixel Hasselblads, and those are tens of thousands of dollars."

"Well, this shoots film, it's not close to that expensive, and I like the look of what I get from it. As far as shooting with Kodachrome goes, I don't have to worry about the media rotting on me in 5-10 years and incessantly needing to backup my backups every year or so. If I lose the scans, I still have the Kodachrome for a very long time to come."

His expression was one of thinly-veiled annoyance. I couldn't help but think Avenue Q's "Schadenfreude!"

"Thanks for your help," I politely said.

"Have a nice day," he seethed through his customer-friendly smile. After I walked out, he glared at me through the store window whilst helping another customer.

B&Wpositive said:

You're right. Film isn't likely to disappear soon. But certain types of film (not mentioning any specific ones) are likely to disappear soon.

Click to expand...

And possible alternatives offered albeit C41 based instead of K14 but of a similar or possibly higher quality, with easier processing, and greater availability both geographically and in films sizes. It's called progress.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

And possible alternatives offered albeit C41 based instead of K14 but of a similar or possibly higher quality, with easier processing, and greater availability both geographically and in films sizes. It's called progress.

Ian

Click to expand...

With odd exceptions for play (see above re: Ferrania), I don't like C-41, full-stop. If, however, all C-41 does what Rollei have with their colour negative film, lacking that annoying orange mask (totally redundant these days), and allowing the user to technically process it as either a negative or a positive (without having that cross-processed look by default), then I might begin to use it more often than I do.

accozzaglia said:

...... lacking that annoying orange mask (totally redundant these days.......

Click to expand...

I've seen direct comparisons with and without.

If you had, you would never make that statement.

PE

When I was at the bill signing, I had one D3 mounted to a 200-400 F/4, F100 on a 70-200 2.8 and one black Leica M3 with a 50 1.4 around my neck. I decided against a bag since it was tight quarters.

And yes, the fact that I was using film turned some heads. A few people in the VIP section of the audience made a point of meandering over and checking out the M3 which looked entirely out of place.

I shot with all three cameras, it was not easy, but each tool had it's place. My editorial agent would have killed me had I not shot some digital for their purposes.

All in all, it was a good day. More awareness for the project, a good self assignment on my part and so far, from what I have seen, the images to match it.

And by the way Ian, not all "progress" is good....

The small photo store that I use in OKC stocks it all of the time.

I had a look around, and couldn't find Kodachrome over here in the Netherlands.

I liked Kodachrome a lot. But the 25 variety. Not the currently still available 64 variety.

Q.G. said:

I liked Kodachrome a lot. But the 25 variety. Not the currently still available 64 variety.

Click to expand...

Really, I currently use both and find 64 to be nearly as good in most cases. Here is a set with them intermingled:

Dead Link Removed

FWIW, Don's Photo in Manitoba Canada has Kodachrome on its website and for sale. I picked up 6 rolls and am awaiting one I've already shot to be returned.

I also echo the concerns that this classic film (and very unique in its characteristics) is not advertised at all. Sometimes you have to spend a dollar to make a few. And if there was ever a product that can be considered a 'flagship' (and at least a vanity project, if the money doesn't quite add up) it's this one.

By the way, and off-topic, but do you know that Kodachrome first appeared in the market in 1915 (so it's not 75 years old)?
It was not Mannes and Godowsky's Kodachrome, but a two colour (note!) subtractive process developed by John Capstaff.

Mannes and Godowsky took such an awfully long time to come up with something that they (probably correctly) thought they were "up for the axe", and they needed to invent something, anything, Kodak could produce and market to save themselves.
They were given one more year, and came up with a two colour process ...

Kodak was about to put that two colour thing on the market when they finally came up with a proper three colour process, and that, not the two colour one, was eventually marketed. (In 1935, 74 years ago.)

But it was still given the historic name "Kodachrome".
Somebody at Kodak had a fine sense of humor? I like to think so.

Q.G. said:

By the way, and off-topic, but do you know that Kodachrome first appeared in the market in 1915 (so it's not 75 years old)?
It was not Mannes and Godowsky's Kodachrome, but a two colour (note!) subtractive process developed by John Capstaff.

Mannes and Godowsky took such an awfully long time to come up with something that they (probably correctly) thought they were "up for the axe", and they needed to invent something, anything, Kodak could produce and market to save themselves.
They were given one more year, and came up with a two colour process ...

Kodak was about to put that two colour thing on the market when they finally came up with a proper three colour process, and that, not the two colour one, was eventually marketed. (In 1935, 74 years ago.)

But it was still given the historic name "Kodachrome".
Somebody at Kodak had a fine sense of humor? I like to think so.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this info???

Q.G. said:

By the way, and off-topic, but do you know that Kodachrome first appeared in the market in 1915 (so it's not 75 years old)?
It was not Mannes and Godowsky's Kodachrome, but a two colour (note!) subtractive process developed by John Capstaff.

Mannes and Godowsky took such an awfully long time to come up with something that they (probably correctly) thought they were "up for the axe", and they needed to invent something, anything, Kodak could produce and market to save themselves.
They were given one more year, and came up with a two colour process ...

Kodak was about to put that two colour thing on the market when they finally came up with a proper three colour process, and that, not the two colour one, was eventually marketed. (In 1935, 74 years ago.)

But it was still given the historic name "Kodachrome".
Somebody at Kodak had a fine sense of humor? I like to think so.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was also told that the name KODAK was created because they wanted a name that began and ended with the letter "K". Maybe someone will comment on the accuracy of this. It also sounds and looks a lot like Kodiak; not sure why. In addition, I heard (maybe from PE this time, I don't remember for sure) That "EKtachrome" stands for "Eastman Kodak-a-chrome", or something like that. PE, I'm sure I will get corrected if I'm a bit off on this.

George Eastman did indeed select the name Kodak. He liked the sound of the letter K and tried several variants until he settled on Kodak. It is not related to Kodiak as far as I know.

EKtachrome comes from Eastman Kodak chrome film. All reversal color films end in chrome and all negative color films end in color at Kodak. Ektachrome and Ektacolor were to be processed by the individual and Kodachrome and Kodacolor were to be processed at central Kodak labs. That changed after the concent decree.

Go here: http://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/audiovisual_terms/audiovisual_item.php?term=Kodachrome

for more information on early Kodachrome.

Early on, Mannes and Godowsky worked at home in Manhattan, but Eastman asked them to move to Rochester to better take advantage of the research labs. AFAIK, there was no effort to fire them unless they produced because AFAIK, they had some pretty good results by the time they moved, and that is why they moved, to work closer with the R&D people here in Rochester.

Early films included a silver masked negative and a lenticular negative film.

The first tripack substantive (coupler in the film) negative and print material were produced by Agfa using Brovira emulsions and Fisher couplers in the late 30s about the time of Kodachrome.

PE

The "up for the axe", or rather "in line for the axe", quote was attributed by Douglas Collins (The story of Kodak) to Godowsky. I think he got it directly from Godowsky.

The quote continues: "It was obvious that our only chance of survival was to invent something in a hurry - something that the company could put into production and make money on. And that something was Kodachrome film."

That was describing Man and God's situation near the end of a three year contract (which was about to finish at the end of 1933). Early the next year (! so nothing invented yet!) Mees saved their buts by extending the contract by one year.

Apropos Kodak: "This is not a foreign name or word; it was constructed by me to serve a definite purpose. It has the following merits as a trade mark word: First. It is short. Second. It is not capable of mispronunciation. Third. It does not resemble anything in the art and cannot be associated with anything in the art except the Kodak".
Eastman in response to a request for a complete disclosure of the meaning and origin of the name by the British Patent Office, 1888.

As for the question where this info comes from:
People take great trouble to meticuously investigate and record the history of nearly everything.
Is all that effort in vain? Don't you guys read books?

You will note the use of "the Kodak" in your post. George Eastman originally used it as a Noun, or a Verb to refer to a product or process instead of a trade name or company name. Therefore, he nearly lost the use of it as a trademark. Use of a trademark as a noun or verb turns it into a common name.

Therefore, calling a camera generically "a Kodak" or Kodaking something is a case which can be argued as placing the word into our common language. The same thing is true of Xerox. It is possible to argue the case that this is in the public domain except for the fact that the company never used it that way. Eastman made a serious error in his usage and had to retract or modify some of those early statements of his.

And, BTW, speaking of knowing history, you should know that George Eastman was not the first president of the company. He was the Treasurer, while Strong was president.

PE

His mum's lodger, who invested in the Eastman Dry Plate Company. The man, shortly after they were persuaded not to call the folder "the Collapsing Kodak", saw his bank collapse in the 1893 Panic. Then had a bit of a panic about Kodak himself not very long after that. But remained loyal to the company until he died in 1919?

Why do you mention that? Have i passed a test? What do i win? ;-)

You win 1 gallon of used Dektol. Shipped collect to your doorway!



Strong also founded Strong Memorial Hospital.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

You win 1 gallon of used Dektol. Shipped collect to your doorway!



Strong also founded Strong Memorial Hospital.

PE

Click to expand...

Thanks that gave me a good laugh

Photo Engineer said:

I've seen direct comparisons with and without.

If you had, you would never make that statement.

PE

Click to expand...

Probably. I just try to avoid colour negatives as often as I can.