Kodachrome in China?

Two thoughts:

1) What would have happened to Kodachrome if Kodak had advertised for a year that, "Unless sales volume increases to xxx, Kodak will be forced to discontinue Kodachrome. So if you ever loved Kodachrome, now would be the time to get some" ?

Maybe with a fair warning, the marketplace could have responded.

But, instead, and especially with Fujifilm, we only hear about it after the kill decision was made. No opportunity to respond.

2) From what I have learned over the last year, what makes Kodachrome special is the dyes are added to the film AFTER the exposure, during the processing stage.

It sounds to me very close to a dye-sublimation printing process where the dyes are printed in layers.

Imagine a 3-layer B&W negative film that, during processing is used to control an extremely fine dye-sublimation printer that casts the final image onto a film base. The positives are cut and mounted and returned to the customer, perhaps even with the original negatives.

How would this be any (real) difference from Kodachrome positives?

Would the colors be as vibrant? Would the slides last as long? And since the original negatives are preserved, they could always be used to produce a new set of "prints".

....just thinkin...

I am all for a film that looks as much like Kodachrome as possible, but works in an E-6 process (or maybe even C-41, as it is hard to imagine a brand new slide film being developed). More aesthetic choice for film shooters is a good thing. However, the road to an actual recreation of K-14 film does not seem feasible to me. Of course it is possible...but at what cost, and how would recreating it overcome the problems that made it extinct in the first place? Without significantly changing the market for the film, and the technical problems, that made the film unsustainable, how would we expect anything but the same thing to happen to it? I think it is time to mourn K-14's loss, and move on to better options for the future, rather than to try resurrecting it.

Photo Engineer said:

You all pool your savings and recreate Kodachrome and then give it away!

Click to expand...

Okay... Just as an academic exercise, forget about how much money a company can make selling Kodachrome or any other film, for that matter. What would it cost to get a factory up and running? 10 million? 100 million?

What would it cost to produce film once the factory is in operation?

If I had that kind of money lying around that's something I might be inclined to do just because I want to. So, let's say I've got piles of money lying around with nothing better to do.

I have a crazy idea!

We round up all these A-hole crooks like Bernie Madoff and Jeff Skilling... and who is that bastard at AIG who took all those bonuses from the government? Anyway, we round up all these snakes and make them build us a Kodachrome factory!

See! It's a perfect scheme!

So, how much would it take?

wblynch said:

2) From what I have learned over the last year, what makes Kodachrome special is the dyes are added to the film AFTER the exposure, during the processing stage.

It sounds to me very close to a dye-sublimation printing process where the dyes are printed in layers.

Imagine a 3-layer B&W negative film that, during processing is used to control an extremely fine dye-sublimation printer that casts the final image onto a film base. The positives are cut and mounted and returned to the customer, perhaps even with the original negatives.

How would this be any (real) difference from Kodachrome positives?

Would the colors be as vibrant? Would the slides last as long? And since the original negatives are preserved, they could always be used to produce a new set of "prints".

....just thinkin...

Click to expand...

Not even close! This is so far out it is not even similar to Kodachrome. Nor would it be possible AFAIK.

PE

A direct reversal (C-41) type transparency film was inherent in the instant film project. It was terminated due to the Polaroid lawsuit. Otherwise we might have one single process for reversal and negative. This is the sad part about lawsuits and other factors that no one ever hears about.

And, any film can be made to look like Kodachrome. It just takes R&D.

PE

I would much rather spend a metric sh*t-ton of money on developing an E-6-compatible film with Kodachrome's palette (or that direct reversal C-41 that PE mentioned) then a metric sh*t-ton of money in "saving the K-14 process", even if it results in a wildly different film.

Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

Sirius Glass said:

So in summary, to have Kodachrome available the following are needed:

Detailed knowledge
At least four experienced photo-chemical engineers
Coating engineers
Other experience and skill personnel
Raw chemicals of reagent quality
Coating machine
Cutting and packaging machines
Building to house the machinery
Order and delivery infrastructure
A company to take production on
Lots of money
Advertising
Distribution system
Wholesale dealers
Retail dealers
Chemicals to process the film
Machines to process the film
A company to process the film
Customers
A demand that will support all of the above
​

Did I miss anything?

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

Steve

Click to expand...

Probably implied in the above somewhere, but it would need 1 hour processing, not more than 15 minutes from where we live.
And relatives, friends and neighbours willing to sit through boring slide-shows.

Q.G. said:

And relatives, friends and neighbours willing to sit through boring slide-shows.

Click to expand...

We should be able to pass laws making that compulsary.


Steve.

2F/2F said:

I am all for a film that looks as much like Kodachrome as possible, but works in an E-6 process (or maybe even C-41, as it is hard to imagine a brand new slide film being developed). More aesthetic choice for film shooters is a good thing. However, the road to an actual recreation of K-14 film does not seem feasible to me. Of course it is possible...but at what cost, and how would recreating it overcome the problems that made it extinct in the first place? Without significantly changing the market for the film, and the technical problems, that made the film unsustainable, how would we expect anything but the same thing to happen to it? I think it is time to mourn K-14's loss, and move on to better options for the future, rather than to try resurrecting it.

Click to expand...

Yes, unless someone is going to pay to bring back K-14 out of their own pocket this is what should happen.

Well, that and the law that says people have to sit through or present slide shows once a week. *L*

Steve Smith said:

Q.G. said:

And relatives, friends and neighbours willing to sit through boring slide-shows.

Click to expand...

We should be able to pass laws making that compulsary.


Steve.

Click to expand...

That's not necessary.

Two years ago I was pointing out that nobody cares if those funny little strips in the envelope are positives or negatives. They care about the CD in the package.

What killed all slide film in the consumer realm is the fact that at first you didn't get back pictures, and later that you didn't get back decent scans.

Several years ago in the let's save KC frenzy I was advocating that we just need to teach Grandpa to check the CD box when he took the film to Walmart.

bblhed said:

Well, that and the law that says people have to sit through or present slide shows once a week.

Click to expand...

Next weekend would have been my father's birthday. Last week my sister called me and asked if I would be willing to put on a family slideshow next week just like our father used to (I now have his slide colection). I didn't hesitate in saying yes.

This will be done properly with a projector, not scanned slides on a TV screen.

EDIT: This is going to be a 90% Kodachrome slideshow!



Steve.

Steve Smith said:

bblhed said:

Well, that and the law that says people have to sit through or present slide shows once a week.

Click to expand...

Next weekend would have been my father's birthday. Last week my sister called me and asked if I would be willing to put on a family slideshow next week just like our father used to (I now have his slide colection). I didn't hesitate in saying yes.

This will be done properly with a projector, not scanned slides on a TV screen.

EDIT: This is going to be a 90% Kodachrome slideshow!



Steve.

Click to expand...

Good for you!

Steve Smith said:

This will be done properly with a projector, not scanned slides on a TV screen.

EDIT: This is going to be a 90% Kodachrome slideshow!

Click to expand...

Why doesn't the smiley list include a big "thumbs up"? The PM system has it...

Anyway: A big thumbs up! I wouldn't hesitate either.

Ugh, "family" slide shows. That was my working definition of torture as a kid. I still fear there's a place in hell where I'll have to watch aunts' and uncles' vacation slides for eternity. Now it's interminable PP presentations...

CGW said:

Ugh, "family" slide shows. That was my working definition of torture as a kid. I still fear there's a place in hell where I'll have to watch aunts' and uncles' vacation slides for eternity. Now it's interminable PP presentations...

Click to expand...

I actually used to enjoy most family and friends' vacation slides...(when they were properly edited down a bit, like not six similar shots of every single subject). And often it was a good excuse to get together for a few drinks, some snacks and lots of banter.

As for now "Let me show you my photographs"...followed by a half-hour squinting at about 300 shots of the Eiffel Tower taken from every possible angle, on a mobile phone screen about 2 inches square. Soul-destroying.

Steve Smith said:

We should be able to pass laws making that compulsary.


Steve.

Click to expand...

In my family it was.

In my house it was 8mm movies.

My dad had a Da-Lite 8 ft. roll-up screen permanently mounted to the living room wall.
It was cool because I got to run the projector.

Greg Davis said:

That pretty much sums it up. Money will get you all but the last two. And the last two are the ones that count the most, and that they have the least of.

Click to expand...

Money will get you customers too, I'm sure. "Here's some Kodachrome, I'll give you $5 for taking it from me."

Just for fun, if Warren Buffett was going to write me a check so I could build a Kodachrome factory, how much money would it take?

$100 million? $1 billion?

How long would it take? Five years? Ten years?

Just forget about turning a profit. What would it take to even get it off the ground?

Worker 11811 said:

Just for fun, if Warren Buffett was going to write me a check so I could build a Kodachrome factory, how much money would it take?

Click to expand...

If you had enough money, you could get Kodak to make it for you.... or Ilford.



Steve.

Worker 11811 said:

Just for fun, if Warren Buffett was going to write me a check so I could build a Kodachrome factory, how much money would it take?

Click to expand...

Warren Buffett has boxcars full of money because he knows not to throw good money after bad. :confused:

I used Kodachrome film many years ago, when I was in high school through my late 20's. I then started using more B&W, as I liked the way I was able to express myself through this medium. This past fall, knowing that this would be the end of Kodachrome, I picked up a few rolls of PKL200 and used them for old time's sake. I still have the slides taken in the mid 1950's and the 60's. They are pleasant memories, but they are memories. 'nuff said.

mhcfires said:

Warren Buffett has boxcars full of money because he knows not to throw good money after bad. :confused:

Click to expand...

I said, "Just for fun." Do I think anybody is really going to write a check or otherwise raise the money to make Kodachrome? No. It's not going to happen.

I don't really care who would actually do it. Kodak... Ilford... Some company in China... Whoever. Doesn't matter.

The title of this thread is "Kodachrome in China." Referring to the idea that somebody, somewhere might build a film factory and start making Kodachrome, whether it be in China or anywhere else.

So, let's all just play the "imagination game."
Some very rich but not so intelligent guy decides to build a Kodachrome factory.

What's it going to take? How much money? How long? Can it even really be done?

kraker said:

Money will get you customers too, I'm sure. "Here's some Kodachrome, I'll give you $5 for taking it from me."

Click to expand...

Yes. That way you could even save some money, because you would not need chemicals, processing machines, the people running those thingies, etc.

Worker 11811 said:

Just for fun, if Warren Buffett was going to write me a check so I could build a Kodachrome factory, how much money would it take?

$100 million? $1 billion?

How long would it take? Five years? Ten years?

Just forget about turning a profit. What would it take to even get it off the ground?

Click to expand...

What production capacity? As one who has run industrial machine building operations I can make educated guesses.

I'm not familiar with Kodak's coating lines, but I have been around photosensitive material coating lines for a competitor. For boutique production, a micro brewery of film so to speak, I expect you can get a machine built to make the master roll for under $3 million. Maybe even under $2 million if you already know most of the specifics, which for the K64 are probably somewhat well known by some. So figure $3 million to call it safe.

The building to house things can be a reused building. Figure you can rent something in a currently depressed area with enough space for $100k/yr for a ten year lease. So count that as $1 million.

Bins, storage, auxiliary machinery for mixing, carrying, conveying, etc. I would guess another $3 million.

Permits, legal fees, other hoops to jump through in order to get permission; I would guess another $1 million.

Confectioning you can farm out, so don't count that in the factory's cost. But it's still an operation expense to market the film.

Figure that this is just a Wild A**ed Guess on my part, and double the number.

So I'd say that to get the facility ready, no R&D, no staff, no materials, you're looking at $ 8 million X 2 = $16 million. You still couldn't "make film" at that cost.

Now, if you can scrounge the stuff, like TIP did, and like the Soviets did for the FSU cameras we were talking about, you can lob tons of that off the top. And that's a legitimate method to do it. But I doubt Kodak has a spare old coating machine laying around they'll let you scavenge out of their dumpster. I seriously expect you could scavenge a lot of conveying, mixing, etc stuff, so take that $3 million at multiply by .25, assuming you can get that at 25 cents on the dollar form equipment liquidators. Doing it on the cheap, cutting every corner you can until you cut into product quality you're still probably looking at $3-6 million. And you still couldn't "make film" since there's no materials or staff.

Actual start-up costs, running the first successful master roll off the line, will probably cost you another few million in research and materials. And the quality is probably going to match TIP. Good enough for the nut case enthusiasts like us, but not something that will make it in the market place.

Are these big numbers? Hell no. This is a flyspeck operation at this size. It's unbelievably easy to blow through a million dollars these days. And you'd probably have a hard time finding an investor. But if Warren really likes film maybe he'll go for it.

But if you squeeze the dollars hard you can still get a lot for a million dollars. So it's possible. Good management is the key.

A sizable winning lottery ticket is probably big enough, actually. You'd most likely lose it all, but you could pull it off.

I don't know why all this "making Kodachrome" talk has just begun now. I think if you're serious about making a color film, start with a silver dye-bleach emulsion like PE has shown. He's got a magenta dye, and the chemistry is pretty straight forward. You know, trolling eBay for a few months might get you all the dyes one would need, often at reagent quality and always orders of magnitude cheaper than brand new. Read JS Friedman's "History of Color Photography", follow Ron's advice and get to work.

Momma done took your Kodachrome away and what momma says goes! Go to your [dark]room!

There is a guy in Australia, Photo Researcher here on apug (though he rarely posts, if ever), who is supposedly working on a Kodachrome-type emulsion, yet has anyone mentioned him or contacted him?

No one is going to convince any large company to remake Kodachrome. E6 films are awesome; shoot them while they're here!