Kodachrome in China?

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Kodachrome at China ? When I wanted to buy a trumpet for 80 dollars , They wanted 125 dollars postage. I said send it with state post office , they said its expensive to package the trumpet with goverment rules.
Kodachrome business was crazy , I am living in Istanbul , 6 weeks wait to fresh film comes , 6 weeks to go to dwayne and 7 weeks to reach me. 19 weeks , makes 5 months. I could take trillions of digital pictures compared with it. No guarantee to reach me to correct film also. This is not counted as business at computer , internet age.
If someone wants to make kodachrome , let it be for c41 or dufaycolor , autochrome thing.

 

[railwayman3]

Well, what about "New Kodachrome?" An E-6 film that looks as close as physically possible to Kodachrome?

It sounds much more feasible to me. Kodak proper, if anyone, may even decide that it is in their interests to make such a thing some day.

Or is it really just the name that people want?

I bet we'll see "Kodachrome Inkjet Media" on the market before too long. (Seriously!)

 

[railwayman3]

Kodachrome at China ? When I wanted to buy a trumpet for 80 dollars , They wanted 125 dollars postage. I said send it with state post office , they said its expensive to package the trumpet with goverment rules.

Someone was surely trying to rip you off there. I've bought several items direct from sellers in China (contacted through Ebay buy-it-now listings), they were efficient and satisfactory in all respects, postage was just a few $ and the packets arrived in days.

 

[Antonov]

Kodachrome at China ? When I wanted to buy a trumpet for 80 dollars , They wanted 125 dollars postage. I said send it with state post office , they said its expensive to package the trumpet with goverment rules.
Kodachrome business was crazy , I am living in Istanbul , 6 weeks wait to fresh film comes , 6 weeks to go to dwayne and 7 weeks to reach me. 19 weeks , makes 5 months. I could take trillions of digital pictures compared with it. No guarantee to reach me to correct film also. This is not counted as business at computer , internet age.
If someone wants to make kodachrome , let it be for c41 or dufaycolor , autochrome thing.

I ordered lot of things from China and I always either payed nothing for postage or it was only couple of dollars. Same goes for my friends with same experience. I really don't know on who you ran into.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Come on PE, I didn't expect this kind of discussion from you. Comparing H0 model locomotives with real working steam locomotives is simply ridicolous. It's like I'm comparing Caffenol with Kodachrome.

It was a joke. Just as much so though as you saying that making Kodachrome is as easy as building a Locomotive.

When someone does not understand a problem in constructing or making anything they are apt to oversimplify things. I have intimate knowledge of Locomotives from small to large scale but would not try to make one. That is why I have tried to challenge you to think of the difficulties involved in making a single layer B&W coating. Then I would like you to multiply that by about 100 or even 1000.

You are undersimplifying the situation re. Kodachrome.

PE

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I use alibaba.com and they always want extreme postage. This was different before financial meltdown but prices and postage fees unreliable now.
But 1 meterscube cargo comes with ship from shangai to istanbul for 15 dollars. When I remind it , they cut the conversation.

 

[Q.G.]

I use alibaba.com and they always want extreme postage. This was different before financial meltdown but prices and postage fees unreliable now.
But 1 meterscube cargo comes with ship from shangai to istanbul for 15 dollars. When I remind it , they cut the conversation.

There should not be an "always" in that first sentence.
Why would you buy more than once from someone ripping you off?


I paid cents in postage for the last thing i bought from China. The one before that, no postage at all.

 

[msa]

I said it before, but I'll say it again:

China subsidizes shipping in the direction of their major trading (read: consuming) partners.

They can ship something to the US or western Europe for pennies, but that's not true everywhere in the world. It's not even true in the reverse direction; it's far more expensive to ship something to China, from here, than going the other way (think: 1500%)

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

QG , May be China loves you

 

[Antonov]

It was a joke. Just as much so though as you saying that making Kodachrome is as easy as building a Locomotive.

Making a locomotive is NOT easy. And that's why I pointed that example.

When someone does not understand a problem in constructing or making anything they are apt to oversimplify things. I have intimate knowledge of Locomotives from small to large scale but would not try to make one. That is why I have tried to challenge you to think of the difficulties involved in making a single layer B&W coating. Then I would like you to multiply that by about 100 or even 1000.

The bold part is the most important one. That sentence would say 99,99% of world railway enthusiast. But, 0,01% of them decided to prove that it is not impossible. And they did it.

So, same example goes for Kodachrome. Similar sentence would say 99,99% of world film shooters. But, 0,01% of them could decide to prove that nothing is impossible. And maybe they make it.

You are undersimplifying the situation re. Kodachrome.

PE

No, I'm not. I'm telling people that building Kodachrome from scratch is a complex task as building a locomotive from scratch. You're the one who is undersimplifying things, by pointing that building a locomotive is an easy task, and therefore Kodachrome also.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Antonov;

I am saying that building Kodachrome is 100 - 1000 times more complex than building a locomotive.

An earlier post commented on TIP which has the formulas and equipment for Polaroid products, but where are they? Hmmmm. See my point? They are having problems even though they have the formula and equipment!

Here is another analogy. Lets assume building a locomotive = building a film. Ok, building a film requires precise elemental analysis of all metals going into the product, but locomotives do not. Making a film requires that all individual items come together on a given schedule, but making a locomotive does not. After all, locomotive parts do not spoil on the shelf if kept beyond the scheduled use date in the locomotive, do they?

If I make the support today, bombard it tomorrow and am scheduled to coat on the 3rd day, if I fail, the support is probably scrap! If I am scheduled to attach the drivers to the locomotive, it can be done any day of the week or month!

You see? You appear to be underestimating the complexity.

PE

 

[Q.G.]

But maybe, PE, you are underestimating the difficulty of designing and building a locomotive.
How many have you done so far?

 

[Bob-D659]

PE didn't mention designing of either, he compared the building of Kodachrome to building a steam locomotive. Designing and building are two very different and separate processes.

 

[Antonov]

Antonov;

I am saying that building Kodachrome is 100 - 1000 times more complex than building a locomotive.

I cannot believe that engineer wrote this. Probably most stupid thing I have read from an engineer, ever.
As a railway engineer I do not underestimate complexity of making a film, on the other hand, you as a photo engineer, underestimate complexity of making a locomotive.
As an engineer, on college I have learned to respect any field of engineering in general. I guess you haven't.

Here is another analogy. Lets assume building a locomotive = building a film. Ok, building a film requires precise elemental analysis of all metals going into the product, but locomotives do not.

No, you're right. Building locomotive does not require any material analysis. You just take any material that you come on and build a locomotive.

Building locomotive requires precise material analysis of all metals ( components ) going into the product.

Making a film requires that all individual items come together on a given schedule, but making a locomotive does not. After all, locomotive parts do not spoil on the shelf if kept beyond the scheduled use date in the locomotive, do they?

Yes, you are right about this also. Locomotive parts can wait on shelf for years.

If I make the support today, bombard it tomorrow and am scheduled to coat on the 3rd day, if I fail, the support is probably scrap! If I am scheduled to attach the drivers to the locomotive, it can be done any day of the week or month!

You see? You appear to be underestimating the complexity.

PE

If I make boiler today, I must make hydrostatic test because of the regulations. I cannot leave it on shelf, since tests have limited time, you have to make one every 2-5 years depending of boiler and regulations. And building of locomotive can take years.
If I make superheater today, I must test it as soon as possible, I cannot leave it on shelf, since any imperfection can cause serious damage.
If I make driving wheel, I have to test it right away for balancing, and I cannot wait for other things to be made.
And so on.
You see? You appear to be underestimating the complexity.

But maybe, PE, you are underestimating the difficulty of designing and building a locomotive.
How many have you done so far?

Oh, no. He made many. Only problem was that they were in H0 and he got finished blueprints which he bought from ebay.

 

[Brac]

Why don't we all just accept that sadly Kodachrome has gone, and that the likelihood in the present market of anyone going to the enormous expense of introducing a clone is zilch? I was reading a few days ago about the last processing run of Kodachrome at Dwaynes, and its complexity. So as well as the enormous task of making a clone, somebody would need to manufacture the complex processing chemicals and someone else would have to build & run a new processing line. With labs shutting down left right and centre, this also seems an unlikely event. We need to move on rather than fantasize about something that clearly will not happen, much as we might wish for it, or get into arguments about building new steam locomotives!

It's worth remembering too, that over the past few years, there have been several scares on here about Kodachrome being discontinued, so when that event actually happened, it was hardly a surprise. The truth is that people weren't buying the product, so it was discontinued. Even amongst APUG members, it seems to have only been a minority interest in recent years!

 

[Diapositivo]

Humanity arrived at a locomotive at the beginning of the XIX century, while the first viable industrially produced colour film was produced only in 1935 (KC itself).

To me this means that "a locomotive", a generic one, is intrinsically less complex than a Kodachrome, as the former is a "XIX century technology" product. I am sure later locomotives are much more sophisticated and require XX century technology. But that again is not the point.

Designing a modern locomotive and designing a film are certainly both extremely complex tasks. Designing a "typical XX century locomotive" is XX century technology just as it is KC. If it wasn't equally complex, humanity would have arrived there earlier. So a locomotive incorporating technology that was new in 1935 is certainly not easier to build than KC, in principle.

The problem here is that you can make a single locomotive, or a single luxury car, and replicated it artisanally, and it might have a market, and a manufacturing sense.

You can build 1 car / year in your garage, it may cost $300.000, and you can find buyers for it, and be booked for years. Or you can think later about industrializing production. I think the same can be said for locomotives. You can - as historically happened - start building a few, and only later industrialize the process.

The problem with KC film is that it is not something that can be produced in a garage and be economically viable. It is, so to speak, a product that is "intrinsically industrial". Other, simpler kind of films have been produced "in the garage" first, and only later industrialized.

The problem with KC is that its complexity (of the entire process up to the slide, not just the film coating) cuts out any attempt of garage production which is economically viable. You can't make a "luxury film" that costs 50x a normal film.

Expert and determined, and rich people, can certainly coat KC in the garage, and develop it in the garage. But at which costs? $300 per roll?
So the idea proposed is that garage production is just a first step, a way to demonstrate to a producer that the product is feasible.

With KC I see no hypothetical need to develop a demonstrative garage production, and then use it to propose it to an industrial manufacturer. No need for demonstrations. Any industrial film producer must be able to produce KC, it is old technology, it is described, the patent is available, so anybody in the industry can certainly produce it.

What is lacking is not the access to the technology, or the industrial capability.
What is lacking is the perception, by a producer, that there is a potential market, for this product, in such a volume that justifies its production. And unlike a B&W film, small volumes would not work.

Fabrizio

PS TIP is in my view a misleading comparison, because people at TIP could not use some chemicals of the original formula (which is not produced anymore due to environmental reasons, IIRC). So TIP has had to work around difficulties, to "reinvent" the product, it is really a new product and it shows in the results (what I have seen so far is just awful, a colour film works when the sky is blue and the grass is green).

 

[railwayman3]

Why don't we all just accept that sadly Kodachrome has gone, and that the likelihood in the present market of anyone going to the enormous expense of introducing a clone is zilch? I was reading a few days ago about the last processing run of Kodachrome at Dwaynes, and its complexity. So as well as the enormous task of making a clone, somebody would need to manufacture the complex processing chemicals and someone else would have to build & run a new processing line. With labs shutting down left right and centre, this also seems an unlikely event. We need to move on rather than fantasize about something that clearly will not happen, much as we might wish for it, or get into arguments about building new steam locomotives!

It's worth remembering too, that over the past few years, there have been several scares on here about Kodachrome being discontinued, so when that event actually happened, it was hardly a surprise. The truth is that people weren't buying the product, so it was discontinued. Even amongst APUG members, it seems to have only been a minority interest in recent years!

I see your point, but I, personally, rather enjoy these threads....there's no harm in pipedreams. My head tells me that the chance of new Kodachrome is remote, my heart wishes otherwise....or even that someone might produce new batches of Alticolor or Dufaycolor, which it would be great to try out!

When the pipedreams finish, the thread will die naturally...in the meantime no one is obliged to read it. I just cannot understand why some posters, who probably have never used K-14 and have no interest, spend their "valuable" time reading, then getting agitated and angry with the posters. . For example, I don't have time or facilities myself (at the moment) to get involved with "alternative processes", so I don't usually read those threads on that subject....and I certainly wouldn't be rude enough to post there to tell people to move on or that they are wasting their time on spending their time on obsolete processes! (I'm not directing that remark at your post above. )

As to APUG members not buying Kodachrome....well, I've always bought as much of Kodachrome, and other films, E6, C-41, and B&W, as I needed and could use. I make an effort to go out shooting whenever I can, but my problem, in the real world, is not lack of enthusiasm, interest or funds (within reasonable limits)...it's lack of that finite commodity TIME.
I don't need more film, I'm not going to buy more just to waste on rubbish, and, if Kodak or Fuji then choose to discontinue films and blame their customers for lack of demand and discontinue films, so be it.....

 

[Antonov]

Humanity arrived at a locomotive at the beginning of the XIX century, while the first viable industrially produced colour film was produced only in 1935 (KC itself).

Wrong comparison. Humanity got first good steam locomotives in XX century. It is like I'm saying that you have photography since XIX century because you had daguerreotype.

To me this means that "a locomotive", a generic one, is intrinsically less complex than a Kodachrome, as the former is a "XIX century technology" product. I am sure later locomotives are much more sophisticated and require XX century technology. But that again is not the point.

You can say same for photography. Generic one ( daguerreotype ) is less complex then first steam locomotives. Not to mention newer ones.

Designing a modern locomotive and designing a film are certainly both extremely complex tasks. Designing a "typical XX century locomotive" is XX century technology just as it is KC. If it wasn't equally complex, humanity would have arrived there earlier. So a locomotive incorporating technology that was new in 1935 is certainly not easier to build than KC, in principle.

Who said that at the first place?

The problem here is that you can make a single locomotive, or a single luxury car, and replicated it artisanally, and it might have a market, and a manufacturing sense.

Oh boy. I don't understand you people. What do you think, that designing a locomotive or car is so simple? You know, car for example has to have engine. And I know what are you talking about. You're talking about sports car that you can make, and put in it some crate engine from Ford for example. Well, that's apples and oranges. You have to make your own engine, if you wanna do comparison.

You can build 1 car / year in your garage, it may cost $300.000, and you can find buyers for it, and be booked for years. Or you can think later about industrializing production. I think the same can be said for locomotives. You can - as historically happened - start building a few, and only later industrialize the process.

O really? How many people are producing their own cars with their own engines, chassis, suspension and car body?
I think you all got really on the dark side. To say that Kodachrome is more complex to make then your own car is big nonsense.

The problem with KC film is that it is not something that can be produced in a garage and be economically viable. It is, so to speak, a product that is "intrinsically industrial". Other, simpler kind of films have been produced "in the garage" first, and only later industrialized.

Offcourse it can. Like a car. But, then you don't seek economic viability.

Any industrial film producer must be able to produce KC, it is old technology, it is described, the patent is available, so anybody in the industry can certainly produce it.

And you are right about this. And this is what I'm talking about from the start!

What is lacking is not the access to the technology, or the industrial capability.
What is lacking is the perception, by a producer, that there is a potential market, for this product, in such a volume that justifies its production. And unlike a B&W film, small volumes would not work.

Agree.

 

[bblhed]

Alright, I want to bottom line this.

Antonov and anyone else that wants Kodachrome to come back please do the following.

Go to the bank and get a pile of your own money and have a company make it for you, all the patents are public and you have every right to do it. I see a lot of complaining but not a lot of doing. Now if your not going to actually do something you need to put on your big girl panties, suck it up and quit your whining.

When I see a roll of K-14 Antonovchrome I might have some respect for you again.

 

[Steve Smith]

Anything that has been made in the past is possible to make in the present or future. It might not be financially viable or there might be environmental concerns relating to some of the raw materials being available but that does not affect the potential ability to manufacture.


Steve.

 

[Antonov]

Diapositivo reminded me also on one man. Man and his dream. John Britten.

Go and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britten

And watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM_aNwaodd4

I say - everything is possible.

 

[railwayman3]

Humanity arrived at a locomotive at the beginning of the XIX century, while the first viable industrially produced colour film was.......

PS TIP is in my view a misleading comparison, because people at TIP could not use some chemicals of the original formula (which is not produced anymore due to environmental reasons, IIRC). So TIP has had to work around difficulties, to "reinvent" the product, it is really a new product and it shows in the results (what I have seen so far is just awful, a colour film works when the sky is blue and the grass is green).

That's an interested and well-thought-out post, Fabrizio.

The point, above, about the misleading comparison with TIP is very fair. Their results so far may well be "just awful" by comparison with a conventional B&W photograph. However, some users are already adapting this, faults and all, to produce artistic and distinctive results, in a similar way to the way the inherent "faults" and deficiencies of some of the old "alternative" processes" can be used to add to the character and effectiveness of the finished pictures. At the very least, the results so far from the TIP will hopefully be good enough to maintain interest and support future developments and improvements.

OTOH, a color slide film is either "right" or "wrong", the colors must look "normal" and any new Kodachrome would therefore obviously have to be "right" first time.
There are subtle nuances in color rendering between different makes and types of film, which is why we choose which film we prefer, whether that be K-14, Ektachrome or Fuji. But Kodachrome is Kodachrome, Ekta is Ekta and Fuji is Fuji.
So a new Kodachrome would have to reproduce the old Kodachrome almost exactly, otherwise no point.

 

[railwayman3]

Alright, I want to bottom line this.

Antonov and anyone else that wants Kodachrome to come back please do the following.

Go to the bank and get a pile of your own money and have a company make it for you, all the patents are public and you have every right to do it. I see a lot of complaining but not a lot of doing. Now if your not going to actually do something you need to put on your big girl panties, suck it up and quit your whining.

When I see a roll of K-14 Antonovchrome I might have some respect for you again.

Pleeeeze! Whether you or I agree or otherwise with Antonov, that sort of post is unnecessary, rude and childish. If you're not interested, go and play somewhere else, then YOU might earn some respect!!!!

 

[Steve Smith]

I say - everything is possible.

The owner of the company I worked for when I left school used to say that the customer can have whatever they want, whenever they want it... as long as they can afford it!


Steve.

 

[michaelbsc]

I say - everything is possible.

The owner of the company I worked for when I left school used to say that the customer can have whatever they want, whenever they want it... as long as they can afford it!


Steve.

Therein lies the rub.

When I worked in metrology the customers always wanted more decimal places of precision. The standard joke was they could have as many zeros as they could afford.