Kodachrome - Totally dead?

[Ken Nadvornick]

<sigh...>

Yes, you are absolutely correct. That is indeed 30+ year-old data from a now-failed and obsolete business model designed to satisfy a 30+ year-old market that today, 30+ years later, is long extinct. Yes it is. And if anyone should doubt that, just call up the bankruptcy lawyers and ask 'em. They'll confirm it.

I heard that Ferrania in Italy is restarting their film coating lines. They plan to begin commercially producing still and motion picture photography film using a modern-day production and business model. That business model was designed to address today's film market realities. Their announced plan is to begin their new operation by introducing a newly re-engineered E-6 transparency film (imagine that!), along with a C-41 color negative film.

One can only presume that their expectation is to make a profit from these activities and business model. Time will tell. Unless, of course, you guys already know better. And sadly, I'm sure you do. We can only hope that those Ferrania guys never show their faces here.

But if they do, I'll request that my new Secret Service detail be reassigned to them. They're gonna' need it...

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Look, to help answer poor suffering David's prayers, I propose the following. As far as my input goes, I will make this my last and final post in this thread. That will give you guys the opportunity to get in those all-important last words with a guarantee from me not to respond.

And in return for my self-discipline, when the next Kodachrome thread begins (and it will), you guys agree to exercise your self-discipline and simply skip over it. Don't open it. Don't respond to it. Don't criticize it. Don't call for it to be shut down. Don't do anything at all with it.

Functionally, I am only proposing that you agree to something that you have already made perfectly clear is your fervent desire anyway. That is, to not have to ever again see or deal with another Kodachrome thread. Agree to this proposal and you will be granted your wish in full.

Deal?

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

If Ferania brings out E6 I will definitely try some and use it if I like it. Choice in E6 would be great again and if Fuji DOES drop E6 it would live on. Bring it on! THAT is a realistic hope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ferrania's business model would assuredly work if Fuji dropped out.

Otherwise it is a tossup. IDK.

PE

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And my proposal?

Ken

 

[Wayne]

Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." These Kodachrome threads certainly fit the definition. Some people seem to think that things may change but they never will.

Whats really nuts is that otherwise smart people keep attributing that quote to Einstein. As Abraham Lincoln once said, don't trust everything you read on the internet.

And now back to tonight's special episode of Independent Lens, "When Film Dies, Does it Have an Afterlife?"

 

[Roger Cole]

Talking to me or PE? I've never called for a thread to be shut down but expressed some frustration of the "here we go again" type, and I'm not about to stop. As long as people keep going there I'll say "oh no, here we go again!"

Unless of course someone DOES duplicate Kodachrome in which case I'll say I am very happy to have been wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not to you, Roger, no. You encourage discussion.

I'm trying to hold out an olive branch in such a way as to give everyone involved exactly what they SAY they want now, while at the same time not to prevent anyone from SAYING what they want in the future.

I don't want to see this happen again in the next Kodachrome thread. It makes us look really bad.



Ken

 

[AgX]

I heard that Ferrania in Italy is restarting their film coating lines. They plan to begin commercially producing still and motion picture photography film using a modern-day production and business model. That business model was designed to address today's film market realities. Their announced plan is to begin their new operation by introducing a newly re-engineered E-6 transparency film (imagine that!), along with a C-41 color negative film.

It is not Ferrania but a new company called Film Ferrania that uses (small?) part of the Ferrania facilities.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Whats really nuts is that otherwise smart people keep attributing that quote to Einstein.

To whom do you credit the saying. Now is the time to correct things.

 

[BrianShaw]

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/the_definition_of_insanity_is_the_most_overused_cliche_of_all_time/

 

[lxdude]

Insanity is repeating the same aphorism over and over and expecting it to not become trite.

 

[Wayne]

To whom do you credit the saying. Now is the time to correct things.

Someone else?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It is not Ferrania but a new company called Film Ferrania that uses (small?) part of the Ferrania facilities.

Yes, I do realize the name is slightly different. But my understanding is the site and most of the equipment is the same? Including the small-scale equipment? It also sounds from their website that many of the key people are also the same?

I really do like that they have incorporated the word "Film" into that new name. It's sort of like an upfront public commitment to what they think they can do. Or at the very least, according to their own description on their website, aren't afraid to kick around, think about, and try. (Which is why we must absolutely keep them away from this website!)

It's somewhat akin to publicly embracing the word "Impossible". Taking the primary arguments of the "nattering nabobs of negativism"* and turning them right back around in the nabobs faces. I love that sort of are-you-honestly-telling-me-we-can't-do-that? can-do attitude. It's how the hard things get done.

And just to continue to stay on-topic, the reason this matters at all is that when the problem of downsizing overcapacity is solved, previously unthinkable possibilities begin to emerge. Like reintroducing a newly updated E-6 film into a marketplace that, by comparison to 30+ year-old business models, should be impossible. (Damn, there's that word again!). But with right-sized production and distribution, might just make perfect sense today.

The same logic potentially applies to Kodachrome as well. Probable? Nah. Possible? Hmm. Given the right market environment (today's conditions, not market size requirements from 30+ years ago!) and the right small-scale production environment, maybe? At least it might not be impossible. (Damn, there's that word again!). In fact, a current member of EK's film R&D staff may have already hinted publicly at just such a downsized environment.

Which, as I've tried over and over to say, is at least one possible answer to the OP's original question.

Beat-downs notwithstanding...

Ken

* William Safire's exquisite crowning achievement.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A point missed in my earlier post is that 30 years ago, Kodak used a model for film sales which resulted in increasing sales for C41 and E6 products but decreasing sales for Kodachrome. They did try models for all 3 lines of products, but all models failed for Kodachrome but the others kept going up until about 2005 or thereabouts.

PE

 

[Prest_400]

Yes, I do realize the name is slightly different. But my understanding is the site and most of the equipment is the same? Including the small-scale equipment? It also sounds from their website that many of the key people are also the same?

I really do like that they have incorporated the word "Film" into that new name. It's sort of like an upfront public commitment to what they think they can do. Or at the very least, according to their own description on their website, aren't afraid to kick around, think about, and try. (Which is why we must absolutely keep them away from this website!)

It's somewhat akin to publicly embracing the word "Impossible". Taking the primary arguments of the "nattering nabobs of negativism"* and turning them right back around in the nabobs faces. I love that sort of are-you-honestly-telling-me-we-can't-do-that? can-do attitude. It's how the hard things get done.

And just to continue to stay on-topic, the reason this matters at all is that when the problem of downsizing overcapacity is solved, previously unthinkable possibilities begin to emerge. Like reintroducing a newly updated E-6 film into a marketplace that, by comparison to 30+ year-old business models, should be impossible. (Damn, there's that word again!). But with right-sized production and distribution, might just make perfect sense today.

The same logic potentially applies to Kodachrome as well. Probable? Nah. Possible? Hmm. Given the right market environment (today's conditions, not market size requirements from 30+ years ago!) and the right small-scale production environment, maybe? At least it might not be impossible. (Damn, there's that word again!). In fact, a current member of EK's film R&D staff may have already hinted publicly at just such a downsized environment.

Which, as I've tried over and over to say, is at least one possible answer to the OP's original question.

Beat-downs notwithstanding...

Ken

* William Safire's exquisite crowning achievement.

Keep them away? You must be kidding Ken! (I see it opens a can from which endless worms could emerge from!) What you put above (sustainable small scale production) is the most important for today's market. But the manufacturer sitting close to the customer and catering the needs of the market isn't something to be overlooked.
Nicola did contribute in the biggest film group of flickr, perhaps he lurked in here.

I am a business student and perhaps that is why I am quite intrigued about the workings on the production, as of volume and logistics involved. And at the end, I see it's just the economics being the barrier.

Mirko of Adox visited the New Ferrania and he seemed quite optimistic about it, IIRC the post must be around APUG... He mentioned that they are converting a research area (supposedly a small coating machine, pilot one?) for this production endeavour. In short, they are doing what PE said in this thread before:

As for coating small quantities, all products are prototyped on small Research or Development machines, and there are 4 in KRL that can do this. They can coat as little as 100 ft of a full multilayer or as much as 1000 ft or so, and the coatings can be up to 11" wide. But why do it when there is no profit. Give me a small staff, the chemicals, a lab and coating time and I could do it, but in the end, I would be in a hole. No profit. Not even enough income to satisfy the investment let alone break even.

PE

Well, they are supposedly 8 people, with a small? coating machine with enough time as the factory is (supposedly) theirs and they have to work on the formulations. Sounds like your recipe is cooking in Italy!

 

[Roger Cole]

It's cooking for E6 which I'm very glad to know, but not for Kodachrome which would also require some processing infrastructure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

It's cooking for E6 which I'm very glad to know, but not for Kodachrome which would also require some processing infrastructure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

processing infrastructure??
who cares about that ..
im sure they can include a slip of paper with a recipe
and a link to a mcgyver episode and the 30customers who would have bought the 50$/roll kodachrome
will have done just fine ...
and mAybe they can also include a link to the thread here on apug where the darkroomexperimente
processes his film in a garden salad and makes direct positive images with shallots ...

 

[Prest_400]

I think that a priority is to keep E6 afloat, which is the next thing to Kodachrome... And is still feasible. Who knows if in a far future some eccentric billionare finds our threads on here, falls in love with Kodachrome, and wants some shots. Maybe one of those eccentric middle east sheikhs who don't know where to spend the money, even after covering their 5th rolls with diamonds.

processing infrastructure??
who cares about that ..
im sure they can include a slip of paper with a recipe
and a link to a mcgyver episode and the 30customers who would have bought the 50$/roll kodachrome
will have done just fine ...
and mAybe they can also include a link to the thread here on apug where the darkroomexperimente
processes his film in a garden salad and makes direct positive images with shallots ...

That! That is some of the best humour I've seen lately.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

A point missed in my earlier post is that 30 years ago, Kodak used a model for film sales which resulted in increasing sales for C41 and E6 products but decreasing sales for Kodachrome. They did try models for all 3 lines of products, but all models failed for Kodachrome but the others kept going up until about 2005 or thereabouts.

But all of those models were based on addressing film markets as they existed 30 years ago. This is 30 years later. Those markets are extinct. As is the need to service them. As is the production environment required to supply them. As is the service sector designed to support them. And so on and so on...

Judging the viability of current film markets by saying that people today are not buying enough film to support the gigantic production capacities that made sense 30 years ago, and which still exist at EK and Fujifilm, is ludicrous. By that metric no modern film product lines can ever again be sustainable.

The question should be, if I can sufficiently reduce the minimum production requirements to match today's demand, without adversely affecting final product quality, and thus remove those 30 year-old minimum production volume constraints from the equation, will a given film product (Kodachrome, or any other current or discontinued film) still be viable?

This was the essence of Ms. Pastercyzk's alleged q&a session comments. Kodachrome, having additional constraints such as its unique processing requirements, would of course be a harder case to justify.

But if we completely factor out the need to sell gazillions of units, might any discontinued film then be worth a second look?

Oh, and what about my proposal?

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ken, the models were revised just about yearly for all products. They did not use a 30 year old model 10 years ago. The models for E6 and C41 worked, while the one for Kodachrome did not. All models failed in about 2005. That is when Ilford turned into Harman and Agfa turned into fragments. The sudden downturn hurt every analog photo company. And remember that revised Kodachrome products and the 400 speed Kodachrome were turned down in the market. The customers wanted E6 slides.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

But all of those models were based on addressing film markets as they existed 30 years ago. This is 30 years later. Those markets are extinct.

Exactly what do you not understand about the concept of extinct?

 

[Roger Cole]

Did 400 speed Kodachrome ever hit the market? That was during my 15 or so years away from photography.

I'll have to say that though I liked K64 I shot some K200 in 2010 and wasn't impressed. Far inferior grain to Provia 400X (and to the last Ektachrome 400 I recall shooting for that matter.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Did 400 speed Kodachrome ever hit the market? That was during my 15 or so years away from photography.

I'll have to say that though I liked K64 I shot some K200 in 2010 and wasn't impressed. Far inferior grain to Provia 400X (and to the last Ektachrome 400 I recall shooting for that matter.)

Kodachrome 200 was a lousy choice for imaging if printing (e.g. to Ilfochrome) was the plan, especially above A4. It's grain was often derided, and rightly so — for a 200 ISO film the grain was too much for enlargements; as you point out Roger, modern era films are far, far better than the offering from Kodak, but alas, not enough to save the mentioned emulsion from the scrap bin.. The Ektachrome films did better in some regards. During my Ilfochrome Classic printing years (22) and the transition to Velvia, it was often remarked that Kodachrome was the better emulsion for bringing up reds clearly, while Velvia habitually overcooked them (since the second emulsion incarnation of RVP, this isn't so much a problem now). So if red was a major component of a shoot, Kodachrome was chosen for the mentioned reason. Somewhere along the line the little red and yellow box was dumped by the wayside in preference for Velvia and where a natural palette was required, Provia 100, and more advanced print control methods, and to this day, reds give no such problems as experienced with the narrow, restrictive nature of Ilfochrome.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The 400 speed film was made in samples only along with a new 200 speed film. Neither went to market. They were universally rejected by the magazines and by the test customers. The E6 films were quicker and less expensive.

As for reds, please take a look at details in reds in Ilfochrome prints from Kodachrome, or compare any Kodachrome to any identically shot E6 film red object. Same lack of detail. This is called "cyan undercut" and is the repression of the cyan image by the magenta and yellow.

PE