Kodachrome in China?

Anton, my point, to summarize, is that you can make an engine from scratch, really a new engine of which you produce only a few copies per year, this is what formula 1 team do by the way (not all of them ) the cost is maybe $300.000 per car (just to give a very high figure), but you can find a buyer, or a use, for this car. You can run a F1 team. You can sell luxury cars to very rich drug dealers in Mexico, to Saudi princes, to Rock stars, and to my Prime Minister :devil:...

By the same token, you could have a very small "factory" (in the F1 sense) produce a master roll of Kodachrome for $300.000 (just a very high figure, again). The problem, here, is that you cannot sell this because there is no F1, or rich Arab prince, or Mexican drug dealer, to buy your film.

So all the comparisons between difficulty in producing KC versus difficulty in producing a locomotive has a problem: you can make a very expensive, unique, artisanal locomotive, at a high cost, and sell it. If you make a very expensive, unique, artisanal film, you won't recover the cost.

So IMHO is not the quest for engineers the problem, the problem is the quest for clients.

And I think that you, me and PE all agree on this.

Fabrizio

Everyone has made some good points here. I would like to add and clarify....

I am aware of the problems that TIP are facing. I know that some chemicals are not produced nor can they be made due to environmental concerns (but only by their reporting, we have no statement of which chemical or why). OTOH, many Kodachrome chemicals are also not produced and would have to be reapproved by the EPA or some other agency. Some might be found to be totally unavailable at any price, and substitutes might have to be found. I can imagine Kodak having a huge batch of a selenium sensitizer which they are running out of and they are wondering how to get a new batch or what to use because the EPA will no longer allow them to make it! Well, this is not a problem building locomotives!

As for building a locomotive, I can take a scrap locomotive and tear it apart. I can look at the entire mechanism and make drawings and make design specifications from that and published data. IDK if the builders of the locomotive were engineers or not, but the guys here that make steam locomotives in 1/4 scale (and we ride on them - google steam locomotives and clyde NY ) are not engineers by any means but they build good locos and know a lot about the full scale ones. I can also get analyses on the steel, the welds and other aspects of the full scale device. I can put it together again and run it. I can then use the drawings and specs and without a patent, I can build a copy locomotive (just as described in the start of this discussion). I can have it inspected as I go, and I can abide by the rulings of the inspectors. I can use the proper SS in construction - or brass - or bronze or whatever metal is called for.

You cannot do this for film, even working from a patent, as it says "one skilled in the art". And so I know that a metal analysis of Silver and the resultant Silver Nitrate must go into parts per million unlike the analysis of carbon in steel used for making the loco. You cannot reverse engineer a photographic product! That is my point. You can reverse engineer a locomotive.

Now, I have just finished testing the new Kodak style super mixer for emulsion making. I am happy to say it works. I have ordered a second one. No one present on APUG has any idea of what this is or how it works, but it is an integral part of making a Kodachrome type emulsion! There are no secrets in making a Locomotive.

My friend who made it for me is both a Chemical and a Mechanical Engineer, with cross training at Kodak as a Photo/Emulsion Engineer. He gave me good advice. He said "never argue with a mechanical engineer about chemical or photographic engineering, because they think that all chemical problems or systems are easy!"

I must say that I agree with him based on these recent posts. I have had experience with both ME and CE and find that the CE (actually PE) is far more complex!

As for locomotives, to further your understanding of where I come from, my uncle's father was an engineer and I used to hang out at the P&LE roundhouse about 2 blocks from my house. I used to watch them take engines apart and put them together for repairs from about the time I was 4 or 5. I know my first ride was in a Dinky 040 steam engine at the age of 3 and I enjoyed ringing the bell and blowing the whistle. I was very sad when they tore down the roundhouse when I was about 12. At that time, the railroads here were converting to diesel, and all steam locomotives were being scrapped. There were literally hundreds lined up on tracks along the Monongahela river across from Clairton. My father helped scrap these locomotives by disassembling them and then cutting the parts up with huge shears that worked at 3,000 PSI using an oil hydraulic system. So, I know just about ever part in a locomotive!

This has led to a lifelong love of trains and I now have one of the largest "N" Scale layouts in the Niagara Frontier NMRA region. I have several shelves on display of hand made "HO" models all the way from the 442 up to the 4884 steam models. So no, I never build a full scale locomotive but have friends that have made live steam 1/4 scale that we can ride. I know how "easy" it is relative to film building because some of them worked at EK and we have talked about this kind of problem.

PE

Antonov said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just a quick note here - I am physicist, same as my father. When I was still in high school, father told me: "Son, physics makes sense. You take a rock, release it, and it will fall to the ground. Take two chemicals, put them together, and you'll never know what will come up of it"

To get back on the subject, I was never very much attracted to positive films, but got taken into the Kodachrome hype. Primary reason was that just at that time I became a father, and thought: "Imagine my daughter would read about one totally cool film named Kodachrome, then find out that it was still there when she was more than one year old... If she would ever get into photography as a hobby, she would hate me for not taking at least some pictures of her with Kodachrome".
Which is kind of stupid. When she gets 20, she would probably take her 55 Megapixel pocket camera, import the picture into Photoshop CS18, pass it through "Kodachrome" color filter and wonder what the this hype was all about

The more I read about film and emulsion making, here and elsewhere (I have Robert Shanebrook's book, and have seen the Ilford factory), the more I appreciate the research, knowledge and skill which goes into producing the high-quality products which we rely on for our hobby or work. PE is right to point this out, and to defend his work and that of others at Kodak and other makers when we take this for granted. It almost seems that some kind of supernatural powers are needed, and that there are so many opportunities for problems that it's some kind of miracle when a successful finished film emerges.

And.....that is what started me thinking.....Kodak has been producing a vast range of film consistently and successfully for 100+ years in many different factories around the world. To consider only Kodachrome, this was made to the same high standards for 70+ years in, at least three plants, US, UK and France, with processing labs (some independent) in around 20 countries. In fact, I have a book in front of me from the 1970's, which lists other companies making film, some color, in US, France, England, East and West Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy, China, Yugoslavia, USSR, India, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. (There must also have been dozens of others in the hundred years or so of roll, movie and 35mm, but the names of most of these from the 1970's would still be recognised now.)

Now, not all of these companies would have had the modern facilities of Kodak, or produce film in the range or quality, of, say, Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.......but, the fact is that they all did turn out perfectly usable film day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year....and presumably generally profitably. These films would all be good enough and consistent enough to be used successfully by amateurs, professionals, movie-makers, scientists, doctors, astronomers, and numerous other professions and trades.

So, what is my point? Well, nothing really....except that there seems to be some who present film manufacture as some kind of almost impossible task, which can only by done a few accolites coached in arcane knowledge (I was going to say "wearing yellow uniforms", but I won't. ), and even then that it takes some kind of divine miracle to complete.

To me, this kind of presentation, particular in regard to the current "Kodachrome" discussions, is starting to get counter-productive, and rather tedious. Yes, film manufacture is a great art and science. So is locomotive making, so is the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, the practice of surgery, the making of electronic goods, rockets, aircraft and 101 different professions and manufactures. But, all are established, reliable technologies, and almost "routine" to those properly trained and working in them on a daily basis.

I'm not, of course, saying that any of them, or us, should not be pleased with and proud of our qualifications, experience and work, whatever it may be. I'm not really making any great issues, I'm just musing and philosophising, and maybe wondering that, in our discussions, there is this risk of exageration in making our points and defending our views, which, in the end is getting somewhat counter-productive.

Sorry, I've rambled on quite long enough for now......

If anything, this discussion focuses way too much on the "is it possible to make Kodachrome film?" theme, while we all know it is.
But that's wrong. We have to focus on why it isn't made anymore. Changing where it is made will not change much about that.

Railwayman;

No, you did not ramble on. It was a refreshing and good POV. I appreciated what you said.

I would just like to add that any film can be somewhat likened to this....

You find a very fine bottle of wine, and ask the wine maker to make you just one bottle like it. He made this 2 years ago and has not mad it since. Do you think that a single bottle, compared say to his 1000 bottle run would be the same in flavor or in cost?

So, the single bottle "could" be made, but at what cost in taste and what cost in price? That is my main point.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Railwayman;

No, you did not ramble on. It was a refreshing and good POV. I appreciated what you said.

I would just like to add that any film can be somewhat likened to this....

You find a very fine bottle of wine, and ask the wine maker to make you just one bottle like it. He made this 2 years ago and has not mad it since. Do you think that a single bottle, compared say to his 1000 bottle run would be the same in flavor or in cost?

So, the single bottle "could" be made, but at what cost in taste and what cost in price? That is my main point.

PE

Click to expand...

Thanks, PE...I'm pleased that you appreciated that I wasn't "getting at" anyone at all. I can be guilty of defending my own profession far too much at times (which is actually nothing to do with railways, just that steam trains are a lifetime interest of also....this does seem to go with photography, or vice-versa, for a lot of people )

Your bottle of wine is a good analogy....you could add that, if your wine-maker cannot guarantee that the new bottle will exactly match the very fine old wine in taste, color and quality, the request becomes pointless, whatever the cost.......

I think the wine analogy is a great one. I had a favorite 2000 Bordeaux I loved which sold out (I bought the last 6 bottles in my province, at $35 a bottle). The same winery makes a 2002 which is the same wine (from the same vines) but I don't like as much. Even my 6 bottles tasted different since there was a 2-year gap from opening the first one to the last one and the wine aged. No matter what I paid him, the wine maker could never guarantee the exact same taste. Even if you gave the exact chemical breakdown of the wine to "one skilled in the art", it would not be the same.

Now wine is an organic product and thus suffers from constant one off's (the weather on the grapes this year as opposed to last year, the number of hours between the filter being changed on the spout, the temperature the wine is stored at) and film is a chemical material which in theory should not have any deviation. In theory. But in theory they should be able to build a plant anywhere in the world that produces identical quality film as they do in Rochester and their China production line couldn't.

Antonov said:

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

Click to expand...

If you were not wasting PE's time answering you, he could be finishing up his book on how to make and coat film. This would be useful to everyone. A much better use of his time than pimping your ego.

Jus' sayin'

Railwayman, the way I see it, the first colour slide film was Kodachrome, in 1935, who was a complicated film (in respect to B&W) but still "relatively simple" (mind you, I said relatively, before somebody flames me ) film, but had a very, very, very complex development routine.

In 1936, another firm, Agfa, comes out with another slide film, probably more a complicated film to manufacture, but a film for which the "complexity" was successfully moved almost entirely in the film making process, and the development was made comparatively easy, so easy that I can do it myself at home .

In the course of the years, the "kodachrome way" was followed by a few firms, and ultimately only by its creators, Kodak. The "Agfa way" was enormously more successful. Kodachrome remained the queen for a certain kind of pictures, until Velvia arrived. Velvia has a similar "high saturation" rendering, but is developed round the corner. Kodachrome still had the advantage of greater archival stability. Besides the different colour rendering of the two films, my suspect is that the market values much more ease of development than archival stability. If Kodachrome had been processable round the corner, Velvia would have had a much tougher time.

The problem with Kodachrome is not so much the complexity of the film itself. That, I suppose to be less complex, industrially, than an E-6 film. The problem is the complexity of the developing, of the hassle and risk to be endured up to the final slide. Making an E-6 film is probably more complex than making Kodachrome (I expect confirmation or denial here by PE). I suppose the industrial complexity of Kodachrome is half-way between B&W and E-6.

The reason why Ferrania (formerly 3M), or Sakura, or others don't produce slides any more, is that the market is too thin and small players fall prey of slack, unsold inventories, distributive inefficiencies. IMHO of course.

No film is so complicated to produce, and possibly KC is not so complicated as an E-6 film. But overall, and again, IMO is volume, and "slack film", the big problem. Distribution matters. Distributive problems kill products.

Fabrizio

Antonov said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sacré bleu, Henry! Selling Kodachrome or even stealing the concoction to China!? No, no, no! We have enough trouble with the often lax quality control with goods churned out of China — everything from dodgy LCD televisions to the elastic breaking unexpectedly in knickers! Nup. They'd never get the venerated Kodachrome 'just so' as well as Kodak did. China has probably got its fingers in way too many pies in a manufacturing sense; good for them, but consumers should be on their guard.

E6 films are more complex than Kodachrome, but easier to coat, while Kodachrome films are less complex but harder to coat.

Part of this comes from a more modern design of the E6 films and part from the incredibly thin layers in Kodachrome films.

As a side note, Autochrome and Dufay Color film were selling well in the early part of the 20th century, as were some Kodak and Agfa color products. Kodachrome and Agfa "Chrome" came out at about the same time. Agfachrome film reportedly had rather mediocre dye stability.

PE

Diapositivo said:

Railwayman, the way I see it, the first colour slide film was Kodachrome, in 1935, who was a complicated film (in respect to B&W) but still "relatively simple" (mind you, I said relatively, before somebody flames me ) film, but had a very, very...........

................... and small players fall prey of slack, unsold inventories, distributive inefficiencies. IMHO of course.

No film is so complicated to produce, and possibly KC is not so complicated as an E-6 film. But overall, and again, IMO is volume, and "slack film", the big problem. Distribution matters. Distributive problems kill products.

Fabrizio

Click to expand...

Interesting points, Fabrizio, and I don't disagree at all.

Summing it up, as I see it.....it could be said that, just like PE's fine wine, a "new" Kodachrome would have to reproduce, (for all practical purposes), the original version. Else, like the wine, what is the purpose?

But...just musing further, if PE's winemaker could not replicate the original wine, his vineyards, varieties of grape, equipment and skills might enable him to make a new wine which had many of the characteristics of the old, and make a very acceptable drink in its own right.

So, does that mean that a new film, not Kodachrome,and not exactly the same, but using the Kodachrome-system of emulsions and processing would interest photographers in its own right? Sort of a new-vintage version of the same wine.

I'd buy it.

But, again, it's still down to demand, price and economics. The new wine, however good, would not be a commercial success for the maker without enough customers to buy it at the right price.

I was just thinking that the ultimate problem here is not the low volume of film sales, but the diminishing volume of sales.

Let's suppose film sales were 100 in year 2000, and they are now 15. The problem is not that much the fact that only 15% of film is sold in 2010 compared to 2000. The problem is that in 2011 maybe 14 will be sold. I think the industry is now in a panic state. "Actors" want to see where the fall ends before planning, investing, making projects.

Hopefully in a few years, sales will stabilize.
15
14
13
12
12
12
12
12

When the industry begins seeing that there is a bottom, a reliable market volume, I think we are going to see much more activity. Not just R&D but, especially, marketing for film.

The industry is not going to invest in marketing until the market stops shrinking. You don't catch a falling knife, you know. You wait for the knife to have fallen to the bottom. Only then it is not dangerous any more.

I don't think film will end. Stabilization is nigh. When the industry begins planning for film again, who knows, maybe in a few years we might see a new generation Kodachrome, even.

Fabrizio

Poisson Du Jour said:

We have enough trouble with the often lax quality control with goods churned out of China — everything from dodgy LCD televisions to the elastic breaking unexpectedly in knickers!

Click to expand...

This is a terrible point of view. Whilst there may be some companies in China with poor quality control, there are many similarly poor companies in the UK, US, Australia... anywhere in fact.

Also there are many very good companies in China (the company I work for is owned by one of them). It doesn't matter where something is made but how it is made.

I don't think it will happen but in my opinion, China is exactly the place where a new Kodachrome could be made.


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

This is a terrible point of view. Whilst there may be some companies in China with poor quality control, there are many similarly poor companies in the UK, US, Australia... anywhere in fact.

Also there are many very good companies in China (the company I work for is owned by one of them). It doesn't matter where something is made but how it is made.

Steve.

Click to expand...

I agree...I deal occasionally with the local UK representative of a highly specialist US engineering/electronics company, the HO of which sells throughout the world. The owner of the main US company is a typical American (in the best way) , proud of his country, US design and engineering, and (very justifiably) the high quality and reliability of his products. The design and QC is done by him and his team, the products are all "Made in China".

There are good and bad businesses throughout the world, and sometimes it's very convenient to pass the blame down the line when things go wrong....

railwayman3 said:

I deal occasionally with the local UK representative of a highly specialist US engineering/electronics company, the HO of which sells throughout the world. The owner of the main US company is a typical American (in the best way) , proud of his country, US design and engineering, and (very justifiably) the high quality and reliability of his products. The design and QC is done by him and his team, the products are all "Made in China".

Click to expand...

I simplified our position. I am working for a European branch of an American company owned by a Chinese company (Parlex and Johnson Electric Group respectively).


Steve.

The bad stuff from China we only get, because we want it, i.e. because we want it to cost nothing.
You gets what yous pays for.

Photo Engineer said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110111/wl_nm/us_china_defence_fighter

Click to expand...

Yeah, but can they build a locomotive?

They use electric powered trains or diesel.

The first steam locomotives used in Japan were built in the USA. They didn't have the capability to build them. The engine became known as the Mikado. I've built one in HO.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

As for building a locomotive, I can take a scrap locomotive and tear it apart. I can look at the entire mechanism and make drawings and make design specifications from that and published data.

You cannot do this for film, even working from a patent, as it says "one skilled in the art". And so I know that a metal analysis of Silver and the resultant Silver Nitrate must go into parts per million unlike the analysis of carbon in steel used for making the loco. You cannot reverse engineer a photographic product! That is my point. You can reverse engineer a locomotive.

Click to expand...

What else to say on this? Yes, building of locomotive is piece of cake, children's game and making of film is divine inspiration only known to gods. I just don't understand why kids all over the world don't make more steam locomotives. Happy now?

Sirius Glass said:

If you were not wasting PE's time answering you, he could be finishing up his book on how to make and coat film. This would be useful to everyone.

Click to expand...

Have I pointed a gun to his head and make him read and reply on this thread?

A much better use of his time than pimping your ego.

Click to expand...

Pimping my ego? Whatever...

Jus' sayin'

Click to expand...

You mean, just provoking?

Poisson Du Jour said:

Sacré bleu, Henry! Selling Kodachrome or even stealing the concoction to China!? No, no, no! We have enough trouble with the often lax quality control with goods churned out of China — everything from dodgy LCD televisions to the elastic breaking unexpectedly in knickers! Nup. They'd never get the venerated Kodachrome 'just so' as well as Kodak did. China has probably got its fingers in way too many pies in a manufacturing sense; good for them, but consumers should be on their guard.

Click to expand...

iPhone for example is made in China and I don't see people are complaining. And lot of more stuff, you don't even know. And they all work. It all depends how good is QC, and that doesn't have anything to do with China itself, rather with company.

Antonov;

Please read my wine analogy. Thanks.

PE

In an ultimately futile gesture to end this thread, which long ago ceased having any meaning, I might say that the answer to the OP's question -- "why doesn't Kodak sell the patent to Kodachrome to 'some Chinese company'?" -- lies in the answer given by Photo Engineer.

The patent has been open and free to anyone for years.

IE. It's moot to sell it since it's free to all. And "some Chinese company" clearly isn't interested.

You may now go back to talking about trains or whatever the heck it is now.

So in summary, to have Kodachrome available the following are needed:
Did I miss anything?

I did not include someone's daddy's barn nor grandma's cesspool.

Steve