I certainly don't know their deal with Kodak, but I'll bet that if they must keep the process running for 10 rolls per day by contract, then Kodak absorbs the losses, not Dwayne's.
Kodachrome interview
-
A
- Thread starter railwayman3
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Two Durst L184 colorhead enlargers with motorized focus and negative carriers
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Kodak HIE BW Infrared film
- Started by romosoho
-
For Sale 90mm f/4.5 Caltar II-N (= Rodenstock Grandagon-N) in Copal 1
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
Forum statistics
I certainly don't know their deal with Kodak, but I'll bet that if they must keep the process running for 10 rolls per day by contract, then Kodak absorbs the losses, not Dwayne's.
Considering that as reported the guy from Dwayne's said 1000 rolls a day, this wouldn't be an issue, at least not right now. Considering that many places don't carry Kodachrome anymore, one wonders if it will survive until films renaissance. I would bet a lot of film sales are coming from places where the cost of digital is insanely high. Then again, there are people who like the look of film results better then digital as well.
For example if you make 30K a year then the roughly $2,000 to $3,000 cost of getting into digital (DSLR, computer, software, etc.) isn't that bad, although suppose you make $2,000 year, now that's a lot harder to justify. However an old film camera for $100 and a few rolls of Kodachrome a year, is justifiable.
Guys;
Considering the Kodak specification for the K-Lab machine is a max of 600 rolls / 8 hour shift (depending on what part of that blurb you read), then either Dwaynes is running more than 1 machine or more than 1 shift.
Taking that into consideration, 2 shifts or 2 machines, total capacity would be 1200 rolls / day.
Taking into account that there are 250 units (shifts or machine shifts) in a year then total yearly output should be about 150,000 rolls as I posted previously. Whatever it is, we just don't know the true count. And, I think that the post in which it was said "Kodak is debating this" is probably closest to the truth.
This is and was a flagship product which is withering. All of the Kodak people have mixed feelings about it. They want to keep it, but it is slowly turning into a liability. What do you do?
PE
Considering the Kodak specification for the K-Lab machine is a max of 600 rolls / 8 hour shift (depending on what part of that blurb you read), then either Dwaynes is running more than 1 machine or more than 1 shift.
Taking that into consideration, 2 shifts or 2 machines, total capacity would be 1200 rolls / day.
Taking into account that there are 250 units (shifts or machine shifts) in a year then total yearly output should be about 150,000 rolls as I posted previously. Whatever it is, we just don't know the true count. And, I think that the post in which it was said "Kodak is debating this" is probably closest to the truth.
This is and was a flagship product which is withering. All of the Kodak people have mixed feelings about it. They want to keep it, but it is slowly turning into a liability. What do you do?
PE
...
Last edited by a moderator:
Kodak needs the Karl Rove of advertising, whoever that is. ; )
There are successful marketing campaigns for things that kill you. What about something that does not kill you? Cigarettes seem to do well in spite of high taxes, and hair coloring is selling well, even though it contains the deadly, but delicious, lead acetate. I shall never understand the American consumer. In lieu of the American consumer, the federal government seems to waste a tremendous amount of money. For example, the federal government spends hundreds of million of dollars on saving salmon, as well as tens of millions more for killing salmon. I mean, come on, pick a side. There has got to be some money that would just go to some undeserving product or ideology, that could be put to better use. If only Kodachrome could get a government contract, or as current trends dictate, a federal subsidy. Everyone uses the locomotive for transport. ; ) Haha, oh, Amtrak.
There are successful marketing campaigns for things that kill you. What about something that does not kill you? Cigarettes seem to do well in spite of high taxes, and hair coloring is selling well, even though it contains the deadly, but delicious, lead acetate. I shall never understand the American consumer. In lieu of the American consumer, the federal government seems to waste a tremendous amount of money. For example, the federal government spends hundreds of million of dollars on saving salmon, as well as tens of millions more for killing salmon. I mean, come on, pick a side. There has got to be some money that would just go to some undeserving product or ideology, that could be put to better use. If only Kodachrome could get a government contract, or as current trends dictate, a federal subsidy. Everyone uses the locomotive for transport. ; ) Haha, oh, Amtrak.
What would be interesting is to see what the average sales volume is for Kodachrome films world wide, and see how it compares. Film generally has a 3 year life span, so an average of the last 5 years, should be very close to the number of rolls being processed per year, and since Dwayne's Photo is the only place processing K14, then that would be close to the number of rolls being processed, in the average year.
Kodak has four options, phase out Kodachrome, rebuild the market for it, sell the product line to someone else, or do nothing.
Phasing out the product would make a lot of film shooters ticked off, even people who don't shoot Kodachrome and never have, and many are likely to give payback where it hurts the most, the wallet. If Kodak gets on the bad side of film shooters this way, they better just pack it in.
Rebuilding the market, actually wouldn't be hard, a little advertising, in the right media, maybe show a few folks with film cameras, with the Paul Simon song in the background. Get a 120 format K14 machine set up and offer it in 120/220 sizes, maybe offer a little faster speed, I think 125 or 160 ISO would be good, in that it would give some extra speed, without getting grainy. Offer the new high speed Kodachrome in 120 format first, then 35mm about a month later.
Selling the product would likely leave it owned by a Chinese or Indian company, maybe one of the Eastern European companies would pick it up. Probably wouldn't net Kodak a lot of cash though.
Doing nothing, will see sales continue to dwindle, until it gets to the point where it's not worth it for DP to continue processing it. Thing is if it dies a slow lingering death, it will probably take Kodak with it.
Paul;
I agree with a lot of what you say.
Firstoff though, Kodak had trouble moving Kodachrome from the old machine to the new one. That right there should tell you how hard it would be for another company to make it. It is probably the most difficult to manufacture product Kodak has.
Second, any R&D would cost more than the ROI for the R&D. It would take probably 5+ years to come to fruition including training the lab techs and professionals in the technology and setting up Research to coat Kodachrome. That is not an easy or inexpensive task. They don't even have a process line in KRL anymore.
PE
I agree with a lot of what you say.
Firstoff though, Kodak had trouble moving Kodachrome from the old machine to the new one. That right there should tell you how hard it would be for another company to make it. It is probably the most difficult to manufacture product Kodak has.
Second, any R&D would cost more than the ROI for the R&D. It would take probably 5+ years to come to fruition including training the lab techs and professionals in the technology and setting up Research to coat Kodachrome. That is not an easy or inexpensive task. They don't even have a process line in KRL anymore.
PE
Actually, being an assembly line kind of guy, I note that two shifts, 16 hours, is 1400 rolls per day, not 1200. There's no need to shutdown and start up between shifts unless there is some requirement to clean the machine after 6 hours of runtime.
MB
Micahel;
Yes, I erred in startup time. But then, that is believeing Kodak's figure of 6 hours of good production / 8 hour shift. Again, that is part of the problem!
Thanks for catching that. There is 1 hour startup and 1 hour shutdown which I had not included.
PE
Yes, I erred in startup time. But then, that is believeing Kodak's figure of 6 hours of good production / 8 hour shift. Again, that is part of the problem!
Thanks for catching that. There is 1 hour startup and 1 hour shutdown which I had not included.
PE
I'm not sure how much stake I would put in either of these two assertions. The slow lingering death may be true, but Kodak probably sees that and would make sure, or at least try, to kill it off honorably.
Rebuilding the market, OTOH, seems almost insurmountable, and I'm the guy who started the whole "How do we nudge Kodachrome back into the consumer's eye" thread a few weeks ago. I think the important comment earlier in this thread is that we *ALL* must come to grips with the fact that silver based photography is now, or is rapidly becoming, an "alternative" process. That isn't a big deal to us, because we do it out of passion, not necessity. But even Wal-mart has stopped running film in my town, and those greedy bastards will squeeze blood out of a turnip. If they can't make a buck on film, how is anyone going to rebuild a specialty market for a tremendously resource intensive product.
Sure it would be expensive to develop, however there are reasons to spend the cash, providing you forward think a little. I predict that within the next 4-5 years there will be a huge renaissance in film use.
I use a different media to make the point, in the 1970's along came the VCR, meant you could rent or buy a movie, everyone predicted that it would mean the end of movie theatres, while was a period where there was a massive drop off, it was followed by a renaissance, because people liked the popcorn, the big screen, it was an event. What's funny is that 70 years before movies were supposed to mean the end of live theatre, the same thing happened then, it dropped off massively for a few years, then came back, in each case it stabilized after a while.
I think film cameras are going to have the same thing, there is the anticipation of seeing the prints or the slides. I love pulling a roll of B&W film off the processing reel, still all wet and shiny, and trying to look at the tiny negative images.
Okay, back to Kodachrome, when the film renaissance occurs, where does Kodak want to be, at the front of the line with perhaps the most well known and famous film brand name product, or known as the company that killed the golden goose, and then gave away the meat. The time to work on getting properly positioned is now, not 5 years from now.
Nicholas Lindan
Advertiser
And along came the DVD ... I think it may be easier to find Kodachrome than blank VHS tape [insert smiley if you have to]. It is just a matter of time until all consumer movie theaters are digital media.
To tell the truth, I am really no fan of K64. I shoot it out of loyalty to K25. To K64's credit it doesn't go all fluorescent green on me like Velvia does, but I still find it too saturated and too contrasty.
If I had my druthers the last two films left in production would be Kodachrome 25 and TechPan -- available from 35mm to ULF -- as they represent pinnacles of perfection in image quality that digital will have a hard time transcending.
But I am afraid the last film made will probably be some horror like Gold Max 800. Just as the last living thing on earth will be the mildew growing on the corpse of the last cockroach.
I think I will go listen to my Sheffield Labs direct-to-disk LP's for solace.
You can still get VHS tape, and in fact the few TV shows I watch each week are recorded on a VHS tape, and yeah you can still get it. I'm kind of surprised that movie theatres have not wholesale converted to digital yet. A 90 minute movie is roughly 5km of film, and each reel weighs something like 20kg, it costs thousands of dollars to produce and can be screened for about a week before the projector lamps have faded it to the point it needs to be replaced (one of the reasons movie schedules change weekly). A digital disc can be -produced for $1, shipped in a courier envelope and can be projected for months before needing replacement.
The biggest resistance is the cost of movie quality digital projectors, and the fact theatres have millions invested in film projectors. There is also a certain look to a movie where light is shone through film stock, where as digital projections are more TV like.
Although blank video tape is still available, there is no real advantage to keep the technology alive though, this is not the same as the film vs digital debate. Digital has advantages, and some are the same as with movie film, although it has the same disadvantages, as well. It doesn't look the same. For the average snap shooter who takes their photos with a point and shoot, and drops the memory card off at Blacks, to get prints in an hour, digital is perfect, and those people will be overwhelmingly digital from this point on. For some professionals where the results are needed quickly, like news papers they will also be digital from this point on. For serious amateurs and professionals where quality is paramount, and you don't mind waiting a little for results, there will be a wholesale move back to film in the next few years.
I've said it before and will say it again, nothing beats a perfectly exposed and processed AgBr print, from a perfectly exposed and processed negative. So where does Kodak want to be when the dust settles?
Last edited by a moderator:
No Tri-X?
My Studer-Revox can beat up your Linn. There's just not as much source material available to me.
If ever the day comes that Kodak does decide to put the final nail in the Kodachrome coffin, a flurry of pundits will declare film is indeed dead as a doornail (while ignoring that fact that there have been any number of recent new film product releases, etc). The veneration of Kodachrome here and in pop culture suggests K64 could be on some form of life-support for a while yet, so long as any other film line remains profitable for them.
Unfortunately a suddenly unexpected Kodachrome demise beyond their immediate control now seems more likely with their outsourcing to Dwayne's for worldwide K14 processing. If any of the above is true, I don't know that I'd want to gamble on the last K14 processing machine on the entire planet-- running near capacity-- not breaking down and defacto leading to a day of infamy-- henceforth known as the day the music died/ death-knell for the film business.
I have more than twenty years of my own wildlife and nature stock shot on K64. I absolutely revered the stuff during that time, and could still talk windily about it's strengths. But my own migration away from it became complete almost a decade ago, after I realized a weakness with my print-making business in that many of my 35mm K64 images were suffering from film-limited resolution when taken in sufficiently low enough contrast light to easily print or scan. (K25 is better but can be a bear to print optically or scan due to the contrast. Not to mention no longer being available fresh.)
Having just said all that, I agree that Kodak could yet provide some good times, with a revival of sorts as a Kodachrome going-away party. Anyone yet been over to Shorpy.com yet to peruse the old Kodachrome 4x5s from the WWII era? That's a hoot. Put me down for a box or two of the stuff, likewise a dozen rolls of 120-- and set a date for the wake.
Unfortunately a suddenly unexpected Kodachrome demise beyond their immediate control now seems more likely with their outsourcing to Dwayne's for worldwide K14 processing. If any of the above is true, I don't know that I'd want to gamble on the last K14 processing machine on the entire planet-- running near capacity-- not breaking down and defacto leading to a day of infamy-- henceforth known as the day the music died/ death-knell for the film business.
I have more than twenty years of my own wildlife and nature stock shot on K64. I absolutely revered the stuff during that time, and could still talk windily about it's strengths. But my own migration away from it became complete almost a decade ago, after I realized a weakness with my print-making business in that many of my 35mm K64 images were suffering from film-limited resolution when taken in sufficiently low enough contrast light to easily print or scan. (K25 is better but can be a bear to print optically or scan due to the contrast. Not to mention no longer being available fresh.)
Having just said all that, I agree that Kodak could yet provide some good times, with a revival of sorts as a Kodachrome going-away party. Anyone yet been over to Shorpy.com yet to peruse the old Kodachrome 4x5s from the WWII era? That's a hoot. Put me down for a box or two of the stuff, likewise a dozen rolls of 120-- and set a date for the wake.
Last edited by a moderator:
The vast majority of film users haven't used Kodachrome. I certainly haven't used a roll in well over 20 years.
As it hasn't been available in many countries for some time now it won't come as a big shock at all if it disappears.
Dwaynes may well be processing large batches on certain days, when they get the residual shipments of film from Switzerland (all of Europes processing) they won't be sent daily, maybe just once a week, and probably smaller overseas batches from elsewhere, but as others say Dwaynes figures don't match production.
Ian
Last night, I purposefully went to a movie theatre that showed movies with 35mm projected filmstrip. I avoided that digital projection crap that they were using at the theatre that I normally patronized. If I wanted to see digital, I would go over to my grandma's and watch it on her 72 inch DLP television. I like the high quality of film, the sound of the film running through the projector, the imperfections on the film surface, the two consecutive little oval thingys in the upper right hand corner of the frame that indicates that the next reel needs to be shown...
I do not get that with a digital projector, so I am sure as hell not going to pay good money for that. Actually, it would be rather nice to save all of that money from not going to the movie theatre when they all go digital. Then it will be the opera and music concerts for me, that is until opera switches to robots and the symphony and pop orchestra musicians are replaced by anamatrons or some sort of disc coded with music files.
I shall make my own decisions on what is better, not some fascist or communist (I got to be equal opportunity here) government that outlaws analogue television signals and bans the sale of the Edison bulb.
I do not get that with a digital projector, so I am sure as hell not going to pay good money for that. Actually, it would be rather nice to save all of that money from not going to the movie theatre when they all go digital. Then it will be the opera and music concerts for me, that is until opera switches to robots and the symphony and pop orchestra musicians are replaced by anamatrons or some sort of disc coded with music files.
I shall make my own decisions on what is better, not some fascist or communist (I got to be equal opportunity here) government that outlaws analogue television signals and bans the sale of the Edison bulb.
I must correct some of your information. I have owned and operated movie theatres. It is quite common for a film print to last several years. Particularly back in the time-period when there were trained Projectionists running the show. Remember blockbusters like "The Sound of Music"? Some theatres had this in 70mm for a year, running the same print, and it looked as good at the end as it did when the run started. Film projectors are very well designed machines that do not harm film. It is the untrained operator that causes 98% of all film damage. Have you ever been to an IMAX presentation? This uses 70mm film (but larger image than theatrical 70mm) The prints cost 6 figures. One print lasts for years and years. If an IMAX theatre is showing an IMAX film that was released 5 years ago, it is still showing the original print. The operators are highly trained in running the equipment and cleaning the projector after each shift.
In my collection of films, I have 35mm features that are 30+ years old, and when projected look just like new...and these were films that had a full theatrical run of up to a year..so don't make comments about the "short" life of a theatrical film print.
Also, equipping a theatre for film projection costs nowhere near $150,000. No where. It is possible to do a "bare-bones" installation with mono sound for under $20,000. using rebuilt equipment. The projectors, sound heads and lamps (but not the bulbs) can last a lifetime. Some equipment now running in the smaller rural theatres was made before WW2. You just replace what brakes or wears out. All parts (for major brands) are available.
So, here you have all the small chain and independent theatres that are fully equipped for film, including updating to the newer forms of multi-track sound, and their equipment is paid for, and to show digital they have to invest a minimum of $150,000 a screen. It isn't going to happen. Many venues would rather retire, and sell the real estate. I can just see a small single screen theatre in (lets say) Kitwe, Zambia in Africa (yes a real theatre). They don't have the funds for that. If they can't get film prints they would just close.
I realize the above is way off-topic in regards to Kodachrome, but as a former theatre operator and owner I feel that whenever someone states inaccuracies in regards movies I need to respond. As PE has stated though, it is the movie-film industry that has kept Kodak in the film making business and provides the bulk of the profits for the analog side of Kodaks business. While the chain theatres are converting to digital projection at a fairly good clip in the USA and "some" other western countries, the whole world operates on the 35mm film standard, and I just don't see third-world countries converting anytime soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
The 120 comes in bricks of 20. Here's the last place on earth to get one.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=160297298679&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=006
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 167
- Format
- 35mm RF
The only thing you can do with the 120 is look at it!
You can't get it processed.-Dick
You can't get it processed.-Dick
Damn shame about the guy with a freezer full of K64 bricks of 120-- wonder what that's cost him electricity to run it all these years? He's apparently been waiting on the Great Pumpkin for a very long time. Yes-- absent some freak decision to revive processing 120 or 4x5 for a grand finale, it's absolutely worthless as anything but a curio. Actually it's been worthless for quite some time.
(Extremely unlikely that Dwayne's will ever be processing formats larger than 35mm, particularly without Kodak making some anew. Note my tongue-in-cheek, that I also referenced Kodachrome in 4x5, which hasn't been available for oh, like, 50-odd years. But since we're so far off in fantasy-land, new batches of K64 in 4x5 and MF and a 2 year processing window would be mine.).
(Extremely unlikely that Dwayne's will ever be processing formats larger than 35mm, particularly without Kodak making some anew. Note my tongue-in-cheek, that I also referenced Kodachrome in 4x5, which hasn't been available for oh, like, 50-odd years. But since we're so far off in fantasy-land, new batches of K64 in 4x5 and MF and a 2 year processing window would be mine.).
No current processing machine exists to run sheet or 120 Kodachrome. The only way to do it would be by hand, or to build new machines, or resurrect the old ones from scrapyards if any even existed.
PE
PE
Is the machine that Rocky Mountain has for sale one of the ones that does 120? Not that it matters, just curious. The one that our lab had did both 35 and 120. Everyone that was around in those days said the 120 was pretty bad, never looked anywhere near as good as the 35mm. I'll try to post some of the pics of the machine in the next couple of weeks here.
I think he's merely trying to cover what losses he can. I bought a brick, but I won't waste any money freezing it. It will be on display next to a couple of Brownies and one old lonely roll of Verichrome Pan and one old roll of Verichrome, both still in thier box. It is a shame that it can't be processed, although I have heard of people processing it as B&W to get images of old relatives. I don't know how well that works, but it seems that it should be fine if you knew how long to develop.
And I suppose, since Dwayne's claims they can process 8mm and 16mm Kodachrome, that some enterprising soul could slit it to Minox or 16mm, but that seems incredibly stupid to break the cellophane when you could simply buy 135 cassettes and get fresh film. Frankly, it's worth more still in the brick than it is split up and used as film.
MB
Thinking about this, what limits the film width of the machine, is the whole machine designed around 35mm film, or would the machine be wide enough that a tinkerer could adapt the existing 35mm machine in an afternoon. It also raises a question, if Joe's Photo lab wanted to buy/lease a K14 machine, and buy some chemistries, would Kodak be willing to sell/lease the machine, train an operations crew for it at Joes expense, and sell him a pack of chemistries?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |