Kodachrome in China?

[kb3lms]

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

I have some of that Chinese Kodak film that was sold through Wally-world. It's not very impressive. Always seems to be grainier than the US made version.

 

[kb3lms]

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

It would be really great to see this happen but the problem is still getting the chemistry, particularly the couplers AFAIK. I was really hoping someone would come up with a kit for sink line processing as well as an ADOX or FOMA make a film.

If I may ask, what is the issue with producing the couplers, anyway? (I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, I really am just asking) Is it super difficult? I have been reading the patents, which I personally find fascinating, and the information seem to be there. However, I am not a chemist and don't pretend to be one. If this in another thread, I'd really like to read up on it. Certainly the patents might leave out some critical piece, but would a "skilled in the art" organic chemist in 2011 be able to fill in the blanks?

 

[msa]

Why would the Chinese resurrect a complex, expensive, legacy process that they and their film users have no real historical connection or closeness to?

As much as we might want it to happen, that strikes me as wishful thinking in the extreme.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Come Together

Me-ism is a long and winding road,

Let those interested come together.

This piece of history is here, if we want it....

 

[Lionel1972]

PE, could you briefly explose here what are the differencies and particularities of all the different versions of Kodachrome (Original Kodachrome, Kodachrome II,... K-12, ... K-14) and explain the reasons that lead to marketing a new version each time? Do you think it would be easier for a chinese company or any other company to replicate an earlier version rahter than the lastest K14? I love the look of those very early Kodachrome I've seen on flickr and at shorpy.com, especially the magnificient 4x5 and 8x10 kodachrome scans I've seen. If the results would be similar I wouldn't mind buying a "vintage" Kodachrome reissue.

 

[Lionel1972]

If a Chinese company manages to produce a Kodachrome type film and distribute it with pre-paid mailers, I wouldn't mind the delay for sending to China. Might even be cheaper than sending to the US.
Has anyone ever put up a poll here to see how many people would be interested in buying Kodachrome type film now? I know that not enouh people bought it in the past. But this was also the case with Polaroid film and then ,since its death, more people got interested and the Impossible Project managed to see light.

 

[msa]

Not speaking for PE here, but:

Well, it'd be easier for them to replicate earlier versions than it would be to do so here, since the EPA is pretty down on some of that old stuff.

But it doesn't necessarily make it easier to do, or make any money at doing.

My understanding (and I'm sure PE will correct me in the morning if I'm wrong) of the process changes leading to K14 is that they were to increase speed, increase stability, and to discontinue the use of various toxic substances.

But the core of the process (3 layers, with filter layers, remjet backing, dyes added, etc.) in all but the earliest versions of the film didn't change. Just the materials did.

As for mailers, shipping /to/ China is very expensive...they subsidize shipping in our direction to benefit their manufacturing base as a developing industrial power.

 

[lxdude]

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

I was just thinking today how I wish he participated here, but I guess he's got his reasons.

http://sites.google.com/site/ronaldandrews/kodachrome

 

[railwayman3]

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.

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!

My point totally....Leica (and others, not just photo companies) produce some costly prestige products which sell in tiny quantities and surely can contribute little or nothing to profits. But they have gained over many years a huge reputation for quality, exclusiveness and even fashion.....which then spins off to their mass-market products. Supposing that I've always aspired to a a traditional M Leica but couldn't afford one....I now spot a Panasonic pocket digital camera with a "Leica Vario-Elmar" lens, my head tells me it's probably exactly the same lens from the same factory as 90% of the other clones, including Kodak. But my heart says "it's a Leica, must be the best", so I pay a bit more, choose that over the "boring" version by Kodak, and go away happy? **

It's mostly marketing hype, but if that's what gets satisfied and loyal customers?

So what are Kodak's current "prestige" and "flagship" products?

(** Please don't flame me...it's just one example of neat marketing, using how many ordinary customers think!)

 

[Antonov]

Hm, some of you "attacked" me, maybe you got me wrong. So I will try explain again.
Making film is not rocket science, and even if it is, it is still simpler then lot of more complicated products - I mean, probably 90% of your electronic equipment is made in China. Why in the world would be a problem for them to make Kodachrome? Come on people. Don't make it sound impossible.
As for Kodak, well my point is clear. Instead of them to focus on what they know, and what is their specialty, they are investing who knows how many millions of dollars in those cheap cameras and that sort of stuff.
Fuji is my idol. Why? Because they managed to make balance with digital and analog part. They produce high quality digital products but also high quality analog products - who else produces 6x9 rangefinders these days?! You think Kodak can afford that? Nope. Why? Because of their marketing strategy.
PE, I really appreciate you and your work on this forum, and you gave to analog photography really much, so please, please don't get me wrong - that Kodak advertisment is, well to say at least, pathetic. You cannot market your flagship product like that. Marketing Kodachrome would need to include something like "you remember all those famous color photos from Time, NG, etc. - we made it with Kodachrome!" or "have you ever wondered how is it possible to see so perfectly clear color images 80 years ago - we know - Kodachrome!" or something similar, you got the point.
I would like to make one thing clear also. Someone asked why didn't Chinese started to make Kodachrome - I will tell you - because no one told them to do so. Be sure, that if some of those companies ( Lucky or Shanghai ) would get couple of thousands of emails, that you have big possibility to do something. They will not make something that they don't know of. But if you point them, they will make it. I know some people, local salesmen, who are getting their stuff in China. And you know how? They went to China and said "I want this and that in this size and that, make me 1000 pieces", they paid it, and in month with container they got what they wanted. No one in China produces it ( why would it, it is local figure for only this part of the world ), but they told them and payed them, and they got what they needed.
Also, considering Shanghai GP3 films I have 10 rolls, waiting them to be used and looking at this group http://www.flickr.com/groups/shanghai_film/ I really like results, it reminds me on T-Max. So I really don't know why are you saying that these films are lousy. Oh, have I said, that 10 rolls are 21.65$ with delivery, so I don't understand these remarks about expensive shipping.
Please, don't get me wrong anyone here, I'm just saying that it is possible.

 

[CGW]

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.

Based on this (il)logic, then Chevrolet dealers should still have '57 Bel-Air 2-doors on the showroom floor next to their new Volts. "Flagship" product, indeed.

 

[Q.G.]

There are two problems (at least) with Kodachrome.

The first (and perhaps most important) is that even if you offer the stuff, not enough people (so few that you might as well say "noone") buys the stuff. You can invest in making the film, but get no return.

The second is the processing. There's a reason why we can process just about any film at home without any great difficulties, except Kodachrome.
Labs have declined taking on Kodachrome processing a long time ago already, and meanwhile nothing has changed that could have changed their minds about that.

In short: the problem with Kodachrome is not that there's noone who could make it. (And as was pointed out, that includes Chinese manufacturers who make/copy just about anything imaginable. Without needing anyone tell them they must do so. But only if they can make a few Yuan doing so.)
So your solution isn't one.

 

[railwayman3]

Based on this (il)logic, then Chevrolet dealers should still have '57 Bel-Air 2-doors on the showroom floor next to their new Volts. "Flagship" product, indeed.

Well, a Chevvy Bel-Air standing in a showroom would likely catch someone's eye, maybe bring them in to look, and perhaps lead to the sale of a Volts. It would be just good marketing, no-one is suggesting that Bel-airs should be brought back into production! ( I know which of the two I'd choose, but that's not the point.)

I'm waiting for someone to tell me the name of any Kodak flagship or prestige product, discontinued or otherwise, which they have used for effective marketing?

As with the Bel-Air, no one is suggesting that Box Brownies or Retina Reflexes should be brought back into production, but one shown side-by-side with the latest Kodak Digital offering would surely be worth thinking about to catch the cunsumers eye.

 

[lxdude]

Based on this (il)logic, then Chevrolet dealers should still have '57 Bel-Air 2-doors on the showroom floor next to their new Volts. "Flagship" product, indeed.

I get your point, but:
The production of '57 Bel-Air 2-doors ended in '57, so your analogy does not hold.

 

[railwayman3]

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

PE

Please don't take offence, with the greatest respect, but that ad just shouts "hubris" in the sales department...I can just see the ad men "everyone buys our films anyway, cos we're the best, so it does't really matter. But I suppose we'd better stick a whole-page in somewhere anyway".

I thinking, where was the real marketing and promotion while the rivals were gathering to take a slice of the action. Marketing and competition has to be continually worked at, business and products change, new rivals appear, hungry for sales, and the buying public are fickle. Sorry, I'll shut up now.

 

[Q.G.]

Maybe in today's consumeristic world it is, but it bears remembering still that marketing isn't omnipotent.

 

[CGW]

I get your point, but:
The production of '57 Bel-Air 2-doors ended in '57, so your analogy does not hold.

But the inanity of the juxtaposition of Kodachrome and Kodak's current products does. The Bel-Air and Kodachrome are both a meme for a fossil technology and cultural moment.

Who wants a relic as a flagship product?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Lionel;

Each version of Kodachrome represented a change to state of the art emulsions and couplers for improved keeping, reciprocity, speed, grain, and image stability. The one big change in the process was the change from 3 processing machines with a white light exposure and differential bleaches to a 2 exposure, then fog, system that we had in K-14. This changeover was back in the 40s IIRC.

As for the couplers, they would need an advanced synthetic chemistry lab with much high end equipment including glassware with ground glass joints, vacuum pumps and also the proper permissions from the EPA and etc.. The chemicals used are not simple and the synthesis for each is long and complex. You would pay a suitable chemist up to $300 / hour for this work and you would need at least 2 people working to handle all of the concurrent lab tasks. You then would have to make them sequentially. If you had 6 people, you could make all 3 at one time, but you would need about 3x the equipment. So, time or money, your choice. It would probably take 6 months to 1 year to produce a working set of Kodachrome couplers at a guess OTOMH.

Of course, you could pay a company such as Aldrich to make it for you.

PE

 

[railwayman3]

Maybe in today's consumeristic world it is, but it bears remembering still that marketing isn't omnipotent.

I dislike the consumeristic world as much as most people of my generation, but marketing is omnipotent if any company wants to make income and profits on an ongoing basis. You can make the finest quality goods at the best price, but, if the consumer doesn't know, and the goods don't sell......

Customers are fickle and illogical, businesses can't live on past glories, and there's always rivals gathering in the background to grab a slice of the action. I, too, don't like it, but I'm afraid it's a fact of the world we live in.

 

[railwayman3]

But the inanity of the juxtaposition of Kodachrome and Kodak's current products does. The Bel-Air and Kodachrome are both a meme for a fossil technology and cultural moment.

Who wants a relic as a flagship product?

The Bel-Air, and Kodachrome to some extent, is a cultural moment that many people fondly remember and even more know and admire from period films and TV, not just in the US but throughout the world. Maybe fossil technology (I wonder if people in 50 years time will look back with nostalgia on the Volts, who knows....)
but why not use these icons in marketing, if only to show how the "Great American Companies" have not rested on these past glories but continued to develop and manufacture new, cutting-edge, exciting and competitive products for the future? (They have...err, haven't they.... )

 

[Lionel1972]

Lionel;

Each version of Kodachrome represented a change to state of the art emulsions and couplers for improved keeping, reciprocity, speed, grain, and image stability. The one big change in the process was the change from 3 processing machines with a white light exposure and differential bleaches to a 2 exposure, then fog, system that we had in K-14. This changeover was back in the 40s IIRC.

As for the couplers, they would need an advanced synthetic chemistry lab with much high end equipment including glassware with ground glass joints, vacuum pumps and also the proper permissions from the EPA and etc.. The chemicals used are not simple and the synthesis for each is long and complex. You would pay a suitable chemist up to $300 / hour for this work and you would need at least 2 people working to handle all of the concurrent lab tasks. You then would have to make them sequentially. If you had 6 people, you could make all 3 at one time, but you would need about 3x the equipment. So, time or money, your choice. It would probably take 6 months to 1 year to produce a working set of Kodachrome couplers at a guess OTOMH.

Of course, you could pay a company such as Aldrich to make it for you.

PE

Thanks PE for the info. From I have read, it seems that people loved Kodachrome 25 best and the early versions were more like ISO 10, does it mean that the overall look of slower versions may be nicer? If so, I wouldn't mind sacrifying speed and some later refinements for the look I see in some of those old transparencies.

 

[Aurum]

As an anology for the issues for remanufacturing Kodachrome, examine the results of the impossible project.
They bought a factory that had only just ceased making instant film.
To remanufacture they took at least a year of reinventing a very well known wheel.
The results are IMHO still not to the standard of the original pack films. They are still experimental, unpredictable, and do not have the robustness of the original product.

Hats off to Impossible BV. They did an impressive job. I suspect that a Kodachrome-alike would be much more difficult

 

[Antonov]

Come on people, if a group of enthusiasts made STEAM locomotive in 21th century, then what are we talking about?
And, I think it is harder to make running steam locomotive then roll of Kodachrome.

 

[erikg]

If the steam loco restoration is your model, start collecting donations, that's how they did it. The market for Kodachrome is gone and it went a long time ago. I will continue to use what is still here before it also will pass into history.

 

[Antonov]

If the steam loco restoration is your model, start collecting donations,

No, NOT restoration. This locomotive is built from scratch. Whole new locomotive!

that's how they did it. The market for Kodachrome is gone and it went a long time ago. I will continue to use what is still here before it also will pass into history.

Who says it is so? They said same for Polaroid and what happened? They started to produce it again.

NHF, but people like you are the one killing Kodachrome, with constant bragging about "Kodachrome has lost market" etc.