Kodachrome interview

[railwayman3]

My standing search on Google news for anything about Kodachrome has just produced this item, which includes an interview the guy who owns Dwaynes:-

http://www.kake.com/hattebergpeople/headlines/30496989.html

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Did I read that correctly? The owner of Dwayne's, Grant Steinle, says that:

"We’re probably doing over a thousand rolls of Kodachrome every day."

For a five-day work week that's 260,000+ rolls per year. For a seven-day operation it would be 365,000+ rolls. Was it PE that estimated a master roll produced something like 20,000 to 30,000 rolls each, depending on defects? Or am I remembering that incorrectly?

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

My figure came from the last published article in the AP which stated that there were "tens of thousands processed each year" or something of the sort. That is NOT an exact quote as I don't have the article here. But I can verify that you get about 30,000 rolls of 35mm film from 1 master roll. Each master roll is about 5000 ft long and 40 usable inches wide. You can easily do the calulation yourself. I assumed a 36 exposure roll is 5 feet long, and that the film is 35mm (of course) wide.

I do know this. Consumption of Kodachrome increased since the article in AP appeared, and the thread on Kodachrome was started here. I also have stated that Kodachrome is NOT a big runner, but rather is very tiny and all sales of reversal films are falling faster than those of negative films.

I also know that it was once coated in the plant at Pathe in France and here in Rochester on a heavy schedule that was just about 24/7/365 and today is reduced to only being made in Rochester about once a year (from hearsay). We all know that one plant can process that entire output. That is Dwaynes.

Now, as for the comment. It depends on how many machines and how many strands of film go through each machine. The Kodachrome process is about 1 - 2 hours. I forget offhand, but in any event, taking the low figure of 1 hour that is 1000 hours of processing alone for 1000 rolls. They have to have more than one machine that runs more than one strand or they would have a bottleneck in throughput if they had a problem and doing that many rolls requires some sort of dispersal across strands/machines. So, we can concluded that they have many machines and they run a total throughput of 1000 hours minimum of film. You can go to the Kodak page and get the Kodachrome data sheets on the process and machine and see how much chemistry that will require and how many machines as the # of strands is given.

It uses at least 6 process solutions. They replenish in a manner similar to E6. You can figure out how much water and replenisher they need. Also, they will need over 36,000 slide mounts per day.

Knowing that, you now know that Dwaynes is probably the largest employer in their city if not the entire state! They have to have one person feeding the machine with spliced rolls of film. One roll / strand goes in. One comes out and is chopped, mounted and boxed. One person has to tend the machine operation including replenishment. I would say at this rate that is about 3 people / strand or machine. Just a guess.



Thats about all I can say. You can go figure it out yourselves.

PE

 

[Pupfish]

"Probably 1,000 rolls a day" doesn't seem to square with having just one machine. Probably he was misquoted.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

It looks from the video, and trying to time the rate at which separator tapes go by, that one roll goes through the machine every 5 seconds. That works out to 720 rolls / hour. So a 1000 rolls a day isn't breaking a sweat for one processor. A slide mounter does a slide a second, or 3600/hour = 100 rolls/hour, again making a 1,000 rolls/day a middlin' number.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's an article with a series of photos from Dwayne's in the March/April 2006 issue (#3) of _Super-8 Today_ magazine. I have a copy of it, but it's not accessible at the moment, but if anyone else subscribes, there's lots of info in there. If you want to buy a copy, you can get it here--

http://www.super8today.com/backissues.html

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I do know this. Consumption of Kodachrome increased since the article in AP appeared, and the thread on Kodachrome was started here. I also have stated that Kodachrome is NOT a big runner, but rather is very tiny and all sales of reversal films are falling faster than those of negative films.

For me, this crucial point continues to illuminate the obvious.

If the appearance of a single, relatively obscure article on Kodachrome had anything to do with this noticeable "increase" in consumption, imagine what a modest, targeted advertising campaign might accomplish, IF - and it's a mighty big "if" in my book - Kodak really wants to sell more of this particular product. I am currently happily paying about US$20.00 per 36 mounted slides, soup-to-nuts, mailed directly to Dwayne's. (Envelopes, round-trip postage, processing, replacement roll, etc.)

I wonder how many more like me are out there...?

I wonder if Kodak wonders how many more like me are out there...?

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

It looks from the video, and trying to time the rate at which separator tapes go by, that one roll goes through the machine every 5 seconds. That works out to 720 rolls / hour. So a 1000 rolls a day isn't breaking a sweat for one processor. A slide mounter does a slide a second, or 3600/hour = 100 rolls/hour, again making a 1,000 rolls/day a middlin' number.

Nicholas;

I cannot dispute this as I didn't view the video and have not had experience with that machine, but I can say one thing. Dwell time is important here.

So, if the machine has a 2 hour process time, then it takes 2 hours before the first film comes out of the machine, and at the end of the day, it must stop processing 2 hours before they shut it down. This is just an example, and not meant to be realistic. So, as a result they get 4 hours of startup / shutdown and 4 hours of production.

That also does not tell us how long it runs, how many shifts, how many days/week and etc, things run there.

So, we know little and can not speculate much. This is closely guarded, I assure you.

As for advertizing, the ROI on an ad campaign is not very big. There has not been sufficient sales in Kodachrome to support ads since about 1990. I have mentioned this before.

PE

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Ken Nadvornick;

It is nice to know that there are other photographers out here in Latte land. I am just off the Bothell-Everett Highway.

Regarding the first question, there are several. I am one of them.

On the second question, I am not sure. In this forum, Ron Mowrey is probably the best qualified to attempt an answer to this question.

 

[railwayman3]

It looks from the video, and trying to time the rate at which separator tapes go by, that one roll goes through the machine every 5 seconds. That works out to 720 rolls / hour. So a 1000 rolls a day isn't breaking a sweat for one processor. A slide mounter does a slide a second, or 3600/hour = 100 rolls/hour, again making a 1,000 rolls/day a middlin' number.

That was the impression which I got from the video....the roll(s) (probably several strands?) seemed to be going thru the machines quite quickly.

But I take PE's point that the film can only run through at a maximum speed consistent with the time it has to spend in each processing liquid or stage.

FWIW, I would have thought, though, that 1000 films/day would be a reasonable output without an excessive number of support staff, as surely the national Kodachrome labs would each have handled many times that quantity every day to deal with the output of several coating plants operating 24/7/365? As a comparison, I appreciate that E-6 labs are also getting scarce nowdays, but, again, I would have expected that one in a busy city like London might still handle 100-200 films in a day?

I guess we just don't know!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

As for advertizing, the ROI on an ad campaign is not very big. There has not been sufficient sales in Kodachrome to support ads since about 1990. I have mentioned this before.

Well, call me a rube, but I always thought the donkey came before the cart.

I always thought the purpose of advertising a product was to increase sales of that product. Not to wait until sales of that product acheived (or regained) a certain level in isolation before then deciding to begin (or restart) advertising of it.

A lot has changed since 1990, in both the methods of advertising and photography. But one constant is, 'ya still gotta wanna sell it in the first place...

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rube;

You have to get some response from your ads. In the 90s, the ad campagns returned very low results for Kodachrome and very high results for Ektachrome. Now if you have $1M for advertizing, and you can get $1B return for one and $1/2M for the other which to you choose? This, of course, is hypothetical but illustrates the case. BTW, the results for negative films, by comparison to the above was virtually overwhelming.

Remember that the 400 speed Kodachrome was rejected by the public in terms of response from the samples sent out and so that project was cancelled. If it were not, and using today's technology, we would probably have an ISO 400 Ektar like Kodachrome. No, Kodak was willing, the public was not! I assure you.

This Kodachrome issue is being run into the ground. We really don't know what is going on.

PE

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

We really don't know what is going on.

That indeed appears to be the case...

Ken

 

[mabman]

One of the things the article doesn't say is how old the rolls they're processing are - eg, for convenience or by panic, some people have stockpiled rolls in their freezers, and are shooting and processing them relatively slowly (and if the 1,000 rolls/day figure and PE's estimation of a master roll's capacity, plus only 1 or 2 master rolls a year are accurate, there would have to be a fair bit of processing of old rolls going on).

No way to know if Dwayne's keeps track of that data, but it would be interesting to know overall what people's usage/stockpiling habits are...

 

[railwayman3]

This Kodachrome issue is being run into the ground. We really don't know what is going on.

PE

Maybe if Kodak were a little more open with its loyal customers (cp. the goodwill which Ilford enjoys?) we wouldn't feel the need to discuss and speculate the issue into the ground? I appreciate the needs of commercial sensitivity, but PE has pointed out in another thread that K64 is a 1970's film with no recent R&D. And, realistically, no other company is going to take it on or copy it.

I love Kodachrome and will use it while ever it's here, but it will be Astia for me when K64 is gone. I've already used Ilford B&W for years, and Fuji give the impression that they will continue to offer and support a variety of color film for some time yet.

I'm only a modest amateur customer and have no wish to knock Kodak, but their PR really needs a big shakeup.

 

[railwayman3]

No way to know if Dwayne's keeps track of that data, but it would be interesting to know overall what people's usage/stockpiling habits are...

FWIW, I've always kept a small stock of various films in the freezer, including Kodachrome. Over the past year, and since I realised that it may not be here for ever, I've built my stock to about 50 rolls, which is about a year's supply on my present usage.
I'm keeping this stock figure up by buying 4-5 rolls per month as I use them, on the assumption that we can rely on processing being available up to the expiry dates, which are at the moment coming in at 12/2009.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Give Kodak a call and make the appropriate complaint then. Don't complain here or to me. I can't help.

PE

 

[Colin Corneau]

Well, Ken -- you can count me in your camp. I bought some rolls recently (and want to buy a lot more) after thinking for a long time that it was already cancelled. I've never seen it advertised, stocked, or even mentioned at most camera stores. I don't think it would take much by way of marketing to affect a substantial increase in sales -- given not only the renewed interest in traditional/old school photography, but also Kodachrome's enormous advantage in brand recognition.

I would only add, also, that the manager of a busy camera store I interviewed recently for an article on traditional photography said that colour negative film sales had dropped off to almost nothing, but colour slide film had held steady (although fallen in the past decade).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Colin;

And that runs counter to many published reports, and the fact that Kodak is still producing newer color negative films on a regular basis.

PE

 

[SamWeiss]

Let's be more reasonable about this

It looks from the video, and trying to time the rate at which separator tapes go by, that one roll goes through the machine every 5 seconds. That works out to 720 rolls / hour. So a 1000 rolls a day isn't breaking a sweat for one processor. A slide mounter does a slide a second, or 3600/hour = 100 rolls/hour, again making a 1,000 rolls/day a middlin' number.

First off (if it needs to be said), just because we see a talking head on TV or some video of a process does not mean we are getting reliable information.

So, let's look closely at that video. First off, it is shot in artificial light, not in the dark, so we must be seeing processed film coming out on the way to being dry and cut. Look at the white tape... I am assuming these attach the ends of the rolls (so there can be one long stream), no?

Secondly, it takes more the 5 seconds for the chemical process to occur! Are you suggesting that the film is only in chemistry for 5 seconds?

(Also, assuming 5 work days/wk and 50 working weeks/year, there would be more like 250 days of processing/year, not 365.)

Suggest that you can't estimate the process time (and thus the total throughput) by looking at that video of the film streaming by.

Now, about the "1000" rolls per day... you did hear that owner say "probably", didn't you? Human estimation being what it is, he could be off easily by a factor of 2. Then we have to ask whether the owner is being honest (to himself... I'm not suggesting that he is intentionally lying to us). The human capacity to elevate wish over fact comes into play in all human activities.

His accounting office/front end ought to know the actual number, as they count orders as they come in.

Suggest that Kodak, and only Kodak, know for sure how much Kodachrome is produced. We know though that from the quarterly reports of both Kodak and Fujifilm that traditional business film and processing continue to decrease.

Silver halide photography has become an alternative process, along with platinum printing, carbon printing, etc. I love them all... and plan on doing more film shooting. But lets us not deceive ourselves into believing that all will continue to be fine for film lovers. I've concluded that my interest in film will long term be that of black and white, as I do believe that can continue on till past all of us are dead and gone.

 

[Michael W]

That was a badly written article, only of interest because it quotes the guy from Dwaynes. Interestingly he was asked at the Kodachrome forum how many rolls they do a day & he declined to answer, based on commercial confidence, which is fair enough. So it's strange that he'd give a figure here.

It is interesting that PE says there's been a slight uptick in Kodachrome sales since the AP article. That is probably an indicator of the sort of campaign that will lift sales & keep it around a bit longer. I'd say this campaign will come from passionate shooters rather than from Kodak, e.g. if people with photo blogs start posting examples of good photos taken with Kodachrome where it's qualities are obvious.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My pulse is strong - right now, but I'm pretty old compared to some of you. So, the length of time I'll be around might vary depending on who you ask. Kodachrome had an uptick? Well, call it what you might but that does not mean a cure for old age or cancer is around the corner........

What is, is! Kodachrome sales are anemic to say the least.

PE

 

[wogster]

First off (if it needs to be said), just because we see a talking head on TV or some video of a process does not mean we are getting reliable information.

So, let's look closely at that video. First off, it is shot in artificial light, not in the dark, so we must be seeing processed film coming out on the way to being dry and cut. Look at the white tape... I am assuming these attach the ends of the rolls (so there can be one long stream), no?

Secondly, it takes more the 5 seconds for the chemical process to occur! Are you suggesting that the film is only in chemistry for 5 seconds?

(Also, assuming 5 work days/wk and 50 working weeks/year, there would be more like 250 days of processing/year, not 365.)

Suggest that you can't estimate the process time (and thus the total throughput) by looking at that video of the film streaming by.

Now, about the "1000" rolls per day... you did hear that owner say "probably", didn't you? Human estimation being what it is, he could be off easily by a factor of 2. Then we have to ask whether the owner is being honest (to himself... I'm not suggesting that he is intentionally lying to us). The human capacity to elevate wish over fact comes into play in all human activities.

His accounting office/front end ought to know the actual number, as they count orders as they come in.

Suggest that Kodak, and only Kodak, know for sure how much Kodachrome is produced. We know though that from the quarterly reports of both Kodak and Fujifilm that traditional business film and processing continue to decrease.

Silver halide photography has become an alternative process, along with platinum printing, carbon printing, etc. I love them all... and plan on doing more film shooting. But lets us not deceive ourselves into believing that all will continue to be fine for film lovers. I've concluded that my interest in film will long term be that of black and white, as I do believe that can continue on till past all of us are dead and gone.

It takes something like 12 hours to build a car, yet they come off the line at the rate of 1 a minute, the only time that the amount of time it takes means anything is the very first roll of the batch, since all rolls are attached to each other, it's one continuous process, most likely done in huge rolls of film by dozens of splicers, each splicer takes a bunch of rolls and splices them together and those batches then get spliced into a bigger roll, and this continues until you have one big massive roll, which could, if there is enough end slack be spliced together on the machine. They could run a 7/24 operation with no shutdown, more likely they run a 5/24 operation, to allow time to drain and clean the machine. Don't forget they do all the Kodachrome processing for around the world, which means that roll shot in Kualla Lampur could be next to a roll shot at Disney Land in Florida.

 

[PKM-25]

Nice read, interesting, but not much to read into, which is what is being done here, I think anyway.

On October 26th, I left home to travel and shoot Kodachrome.....I am still on the road today.

It's not easy, I want to do the film justice, not just get snap shots and all.

When I get home in a week or so, I will work on getting a gallery option up on the Kodachrome Project site, so people can share with the world what Kodachrome looks like now, not just 50 years ago.

 

[Brandon D.]

C'mon guys...

Does it really matter how many rolls of Kodachrome they process each day? :confused: