Kodachrome in China?

[Antonov]

Can anyone explain me why didn't Kodak sold his patent to some Chinese company? I mean, it is obvious that people today are crazy about this film, and "smart" Kodak decides to shut down this line. So, why didn't they sell it to China for example? I am sure that smart Chinese people would make good money out of it, if Kodak doesn't want it.
Oh yeah, I forgot, Kodak has some more serious bussiness to do, like making crappy HD hand held cameras.
What do you think about idea? I seriously hope that someone will stole them formula and start making it there.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Look at the Kodachrome thread; the patent was available for free and no one wanted it. As much as we dedicated analogue people liked it, there is not enough of us to justify the costs of production. Crazy about a product that is discontinued is different than crazy about a product that needs to be mailed across the world to get done. Even Kodak admitted (at time of discontinuing Kodachrome) that the film accounted for less than half a percentage of colour film sold.

 

[Antonov]

Look at the Kodachrome thread; the patent was available for free and no one wanted it.

Can you give me that link, where it says it was given for free?

As much as we dedicated analogue people liked it, there is not enough of us to justify the costs of production. Crazy about a product that is discontinued is different than crazy about a product that needs to be mailed across the world to get done. Even Kodak admitted (at time of discontinuing Kodachrome) that the film accounted for less than half a percentage of colour film sold.

I really don't see any reason for some Chinese company not to make it. For example like Lucky or Shanghai. They have plants, all they need is formula. Market is there. At the end, only problem is left with developing. We would need some home made kits for that.

 

[nickrapak]

Lucky and Shanghai films are notorious for their low quality and unpredictability. If they can't make a relatively simple emulsion consistently, how do you think they will deal with an extremely complex multi-layer emulsion?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Antonov;

My name is on the patent for the K-14 process. If you look at the Kodachrome patent, you will see that the last page of United States Patent US3658525, that there is a disclaimer abandoning the patent. It is only in the PDF file, not the text file. Anyone in the world was free to make K-14 products after 1975, and the patent was issued in 1970.

PE

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Can you give me that link, where it says it was given for free?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Quoting PE's statement

Kodachrome film and its process are not patented. The film patent expired years ago, and Kodak abandoned the process patent to encourage others to use it when Kodachrome sales began dropping.

No one took them up on it.

Therefore, anyone is free to make the film and use the process!

PE

I think the misconception is that film making is a simple process of smearing some silver on polyester backing and shooting. Even if Kodak would sell you a coating machine to ship to China, it would take thousands of hours to calibrate and produce. That doesn't include the hardest part, coming up with the coating process or figuring out how to do it at all. It is relatively easy to do something a second time (scientifically speaking), it's the first instance that is near impossible.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Ron , You are great ! I think only some mathematics forums have such experts.

Best ,

Umut

 

[Colin Corneau]

I really don't see any reason for some Chinese company not to make it.

Apparently all Chinese companies do.

 

[kevs]

How about Ferrania? Why don't they produce a K-14 film? Probably because no b***er would buy it! :-o

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak built a modern up-to-date factory in China which is now the property of the Chinese film industry. They have the equipment and the experience for making any Kodak product up to about 1995 or thereabouts.

Kodak had color film made there for a while, but could not get good quality even with their formulas and their equipment duplicated in China. At least that is AFAIK. There were other problems involved as well.

PE

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Did they sell the factory to the Chinese or was it a "mutual" parting of the ways?

 

[2F/2F]

Try Ektachrome while it's still here. It's great stuff. So is Fujichrome. Use it or lose it. Kodachrome is gone, and not without multiple reasons.

 

[Photo Engineer]

IDK what happened wrt the plant in China.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

Like it or not, it's down to economics.

Kodachrome is a complex product, of course, but I'm not convinced that it's as "impossibly" complex as PE, etc., might infer (no offence meant!). Else how could Kodak have produced it to consistent quality andf successfully and profitably for decades, in at least three countries, US, England and France, with labs in around 20 countries, many independently operated. Not to mention the entirely usable clones produced by Ilford, Dynachrome, Fuji and Sakura.

But Kodak are no longer interested....IMHO they abandoned a flagship product. (Some manufacturers can still see the value of making a few prestige products at a loss, to promote their "bread-and-butter" lines, but that doesn't seem to have occurred to Kodak?)

I'm absolutely sure that it could still be be made by Fuji and Lucky, maybe Ilford (if Fuji can coat 14-layer C-41 films, they have some serious machinery and know-how!)....but sadly the demand just isn't there to justify the set-up costs of production, distribution and marketing, or the support of a reasonable processing service structure.

 

[railwayman3]

Did they sell the factory to the Chinese or was it a "mutual" parting of the ways?

I read up on this in the business press a year-or-two ago...apparantly Kodak invested in the existing Lucky company as a sort of joint venture, then changed their mind and withdrew a few years later. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese got the best of the deal by picking up a lot of modern technical knowledge, research and know-how?

 

[CGW]

But Kodak are no longer interested....IMHO they abandoned a flagship product. (Some manufacturers can still see the value of making a few prestige products at a loss, to promote their "bread-and-butter" lines, but that doesn't seem to have occurred to Kodak?)

With respect, it should be painfully obvious by now that Kodachrome's demise reflected collapsed demand--in no way was it a "flagship" product after punchier E6 materials like Velvia shouldered it off photo editors' light tables 15 years ago. How long could a film product survive in a global market when only one lab on the planet could process it? Nostalgia is one thing but this sustained incomprehension of what led to Kodachrome's passing is puzzling.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm as nostalgic, and as crazy about Kodachrome's unique look, as anyone. But I get the business decision behind its demise, as well as the technical hurdles so ably explained (multiple times) by the ever-patient PE.

But I do think it should have been kept as a 'flagship' product. With respect CGW, you seem to misunderstand what a flagship product is...it's something done at a monetary breakeven or loss for the greater (perceived) value of representing a company's brand, to use a marketing term.
Other products or their economic benefits are irrelevant in that definition. The Blue Angels (or Snowbirds) make no military or economic sense for the armed forces, but they are an example of this idea.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Lets make a stupid assumption which is sometimes needed to compare with reality.

Lets assume that Kodachrome sales were zero! Would Kodak still make it as their flagship product? Think about this.

The last master roll of Kodachrome was made several years ago in February of 2008 (I think), and it has lasted until now with ever decreasing shelf life and a lot being returned as outdated from dealers.

So, what do they do? Make it and just put it on display as a "thing" ?

Kodachrome sales, in spite of what you all think, were almost ZERO!

PE

 

[railwayman3]

But Kodak are no longer interested....IMHO they abandoned a flagship product. (Some manufacturers can still see the value of making a few prestige products at a loss, to promote their "bread-and-butter" lines, but that doesn't seem to have occurred to Kodak?)

With respect, it should be painfully obvious by now that Kodachrome's demise reflected collapsed demand--in no way was it a "flagship" product after punchier E6 materials like Velvia shouldered it off photo editors' light tables 15 years ago. How long could a film product survive in a global market when only one lab on the planet could process it? Nostalgia is one thing but this sustained incomprehension of what led to Kodachrome's passing is puzzling.

Having worked as a finance director in industry for many years, and subsequently as a business advisor I actually do understand, maybe better than many here, Kodak's thinking in discontinuing Kodachrome for reasons of collapsed demand.

Whether it was a "flagship" product, or whether they missed other marketing opportunities is a matter of opinion. I can only say that I know of many companies which produce a small range of "exclusive" products, which, when properly costed out, make a loss, but use these as promotion, goodwill, image and advertising for their bread-and-butter products which sell in quantity and profitably. If I'm buying a car, I'll not be paying a million dollars for a supercar of which a company may make only half-a-dozen a year at a huge loss, but I might see one being driven by some famous celebrity, or at a national motor show, be impressed and buy the same maker's every-day run-about.

Sorry, getting way OT, and not an exact parallel I know, but commerce, business and marketing in the real world is rarely simple...even nostalgia is being exploited successfully by many companies these days! Where's Kodak with this.....how about something like"Your grandparents and parents enjoyed 75 years of consistent quality with Kodachrome, now we're bringing these standards to a new generation for your picture-taking with great new products for the 21st Century"........not, SFAIK, anything?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron , You are great ! I think only some mathematics forums have such experts.

Best ,

Umut

Umut;

You must remember that I was not a member of the Kodachrome project. I was working on color developing agents for paper, and they asked me to coordinate testing with all films. So, I got a quick introduction to the new E6 process and the new K-14 process and got to see K-14 being done in the lab by hand. I even got to see them mixing the chemistry and doing initial tests of the film.

I was not a big player. There were many important and good people working on Kodachrome and I feel uneasy here seeming to take credit for something that they did. And, to add to that there were the emulsion makers who formulated the films to be tested. I know nothing at all about their work except for generalities.

The engineer responsible for Kodachrome is now elsewhere, at a different company. He deserves all of these Kudos. He is over on PN mostly and has a web site devoted to Kodachrome. Give him your praise. He deserves it, not me.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh yeah, I forgot, Kodak has some more serious bussiness to do, like making crappy HD hand held cameras.
What do you think about idea? I seriously hope that someone will stole them formula and start making it there.

Antonov, do you not have anything useful to do other than bash Kodak? Kodak gave up Kodachrome in a way to allow anyone to produce it. No one did. No one can make money on Kodachrome. What make you think that you are smarter than everyone else in the world including the experts in the film field?

Bashing film manufacturers on one of the few strong analogue forums will only alienate the manufacturers that we depend on. Please post your film manufacturer bashing to digital forums that are dominated by the brainless masses.

Steve

 

[erikg]

Try Ektachrome while it's still here. It's great stuff. So is Fujichrome. Use it or lose it. Kodachrome is gone, and not without multiple reasons.

+1

Luckychrome? No thanks.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Lets make a stupid assumption which is sometimes needed to compare with reality.

Lets assume that Kodachrome sales were zero! Would Kodak still make it as their flagship product? Think about this.

The last master roll of Kodachrome was made several years ago in February of 2008 (I think), and it has lasted until now with ever decreasing shelf life and a lot being returned as outdated from dealers.

So, what do they do? Make it and just put it on display as a "thing" ?

Kodachrome sales, in spite of what you all think, were almost ZERO!

PE

Marketing and promotion was also ZERO...coincidence?

This is just idle musing, but when I wonder about Kodachrome being a flagship/goodwill/mascot product, I envision that being done in conjunction with a concerted publicity and awareness campaign.

Look at all the ink spilled on K64's demise -- heck even the endless streams of chatter just here on the topic. Now imagine that being done with Kodak announcing K64's new status as its nostagia/flagship/whatever product -- you can bet sales would go up. Not enough to make it viable, of course, but enough to at least not be zero.

If Leica can sell a $10K d*****l camera that is at least 2 generations behind in technology, this at least warrants a wistful daydream!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Marketing and promotion were not zero until extremely low sales forced it! This ad is from the early 90s.

PE

 

[STEREOKODAK]

Kodachrome

I agree that someone should take up making a Kodachrome type film again. I have wished it would happen, and maybe it will.

I also think Kodak under-promoted and let Kodachrome and HIE go without considering the PR consequences. I expect it will happen with a lot more films. I have a bag of excellent Kodak film that was only made for a short period and most people never heard of. Lumiere for example.

Hopefully, someone else will start trying to do really excellent film.

I don't think we should fight among ourselves.