Kodachrome - Totally dead?

[Poisson Du Jour]

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

PE, I only have thousands of Kodachrome 200 slides; no Ilfochrome Classic prints exist here now from Kodachrome slides of that era (1980s-mid-1990s) but I have a clear recollection of a briefing at the lab where it was said, (of the difficulty in bringing red detail up on Ilfochrome), "this is one of very few occasions we would recommend Kodachrome for clarity of reds over Velvia." We definitely did very often get good results printing e.g. red roses (some even with multiexposures, that being a major challenge). Managing colours was a doddle compared to the progressively waning interest in Kodachrome; and a lack of punch in the palette was one of the film's downsides: I distinctly recall clients asking around 1994 (about the same time Velvia came along), "can we have stronger colour?" Ilfochrome was not really successful in that regard. We tried others: the RA4 method, with either Kodachrome or Velvia, was grossly inferior to Ilfochrome, which in time became a victim of the development of hybridised analogue-to-digital processes.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

What I do not understand is why you continue to believe that EK's Perez knows more about its use regarding film markets than everyone else in the world more qualified than he knows. Words matter. Extinct means zero chance of returning. Extinct means forever, in its most severely existential sense...

(1) EK said the market for E-6 was existentially extinct. But a brand new E-6 film from a resurrected film company is reportedly now only weeks away from re-entering that extinct market. And they're not returning that product to the market just for laughs.

(2) EK said the market for consumer C-41 color negative film only continues to be minimally viable by coat-tailing the massive production of MP film. When that ends (real soon now), that market will likely also become extinct. The same resurrected film company introducing the new E-6 film is also introducing a C-41 color negative film on the same schedule.

(3) EK said the market for b&w enlarging papers was extinct. But Adox successfully returned the MCC enlarging papers into that same extinct market. Then Harman recently announced a family of well-received upgrades to their best-selling line of Multigrade b&w enlarging papers for that same extinct market.

(4) EK said the market for b&w contact printing papers was extinct. The risk was too great for their still multi-billion dollar company to take. But a private individual subsequently raised the money, paid the R&D costs, and shouldered that too-great risk for them. The resulting paper is, by all accounts, currently available and highly regarded.

(5) EK said that the b&w film market was in such severe decline that they were forced to eliminate all but a tiny handful of their previous full range of b&w film products. Adox recently introduced a brand new 100-speed b&w film, to enthusiastic reviews, into that same market. And they are reportedly only awaiting the drawdown of existing residual APX stocks before introducing more new films. And Harman? In the same market they have never had to drop a single Ilford b&w film from their long-standing lineup.

(6) EK said that the market for Kodachrome was extinct, due to their inability to produce small enough quantities of it using their severely oversized manufacturing equipment and processes (designed for capacities that made sense 30 years ago). A current member of EK's film R&D staff reportedly said hold the phone, we are trying to rework that, and that EK may be able to begin offering current and perhaps previously discontinued EK films in smaller, more marketable volumes. Including Kodachrome, was the direct question? Yes, was the direct answer.

So the real issue here is not one of extinction. It's one of moving forward with new thinking that better fits the new reduced film markets that exist today.

And the real question is, why do some people continue to believe, without any questioning whatsoever, Perez's and EK's self-serving definitions of extinct, when they so obviously continue to turn out to be incorrect?

And the even more fundamental question is, just what is it that all of these other people and companies know, that we here seemingly still don't? They're not producing all of these "extinct" products just for grins. They're doing it to meet market demands. And make a profit.

There is a common thread in all of this that leads to an answer...



Ken

 

[Rudeofus]

(6) EK said that the market for Kodachrome was extinct, due to their inability to produce small enough quantities of it using their severely oversized manufacturing equipment and processes (designed for capacities that made sense 30 years ago). A current member of EK's film R&D staff reportedly said hold the phone, we are trying to rework that, and that EK may be able to begin offering current and perhaps previously discontinued EK films in smaller, more marketable volumes. Including Kodachrome, was the direct question? Yes, was the direct answer.

Kodak producing more Kodachrome film will not resolve this issue unless they are also willing to operate a processing line. While it is trivial to process C41 and E6 (even I could do it from raw chems, recipes are readily available here on APUG and elsewhere, and I have no formal training in chemistry), processing of Kodachrome appears to be quite difficult, euphemistically speaking. There is still plenty of Kodachrome stock around, but nobody is willing and able to develop it to acceptable standards, despite the fact that Kodak revealed all the secrets in their patent.

As long as we, APUG, can not even process Kodachrome with some level of repeatable success, we should stop yelling at Kodak for discontinuing that film. Hiding behind "I can't do it, I'm no chemist, it's too complicated for me, someone else please do it for me" statements won't help here.

 

[baachitraka]

It may not a bad idea to open at least one processing facility in each continent...

 

[Rudeofus]

It may not a bad idea to open at least one processing facility in each continent...

Well, one per world would already be a good start ... but apart from countless forum postings about this topic nothing much has happened since Dwayne closed his processing line. Steve Frizza proved it can be done but seems unwilling to continue working on this.

For all those who want to start such a processing facility: Look at US patent 3658525, one of the inventors is still alive and a very prolific member here on APUG

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I do not understand is why you continue to believe that EK's Perez knows more about its use regarding film markets than everyone else in the world more qualified than he knows.

On this we agree. Dante's Infernio does not have a deep enough level for Perez to put it into classical terms. While the English language has one of the largest vocabularies1, it does not have enough derogatory words to begin to describe Perez.






1 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/u...at-english-has-the-most-words-of-any-language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061213120502AAT63vT

 

[ME Super]

For all those who want to start such a processing facility: Look at US patent 3658525, one of the inventors is still alive and a very prolific member here on APUG

+100. This is cool. For one skilled in the art (which I am not), this tells how to make the various color developing agents, and why they did what they did. Unfortunately, 99% of this chemistry is over my head at this point.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ken, I talked personally to Perez about some of your items above. They are, for the most part, incorrect. Perez had much the same staff that Fischer had and Carp had. What they found was that they could not compete due to costs and prices. Yes, some things were welling, but at a severe loss.

Why?

Well, as an example, the C41 and E6 processes were not patentable, nor were the films. EK paid for the R&D and had to cover that in their costs, but Fuji, Agfa and 3M had work aline products with no R&D overhead. In fact, Ilford had no R&D overhead for their D76 work alike. So, Kodak had to "eat" their R&D costs to be competitive.

The cost of labor in the US and England and France were not competitive to the costs in Eastern Europe and so those papers undercut the Kodak price.

Etc...

Your premises can be stated here, but like many comments on the internet, simply are not correct.

PE

 

[Prest_400]

Why?

Well, as an example, the C41 and E6 processes were not patentable, nor were the films. EK paid for the R&D and had to cover that in their costs, but Fuji, Agfa and 3M had work aline products with no R&D overhead. In fact, Ilford had no R&D overhead for their D76 work alike. So, Kodak had to "eat" their R&D costs to be competitive.

The cost of labor in the US and England and France were not competitive to the costs in Eastern Europe and so those papers undercut the Kodak price.

Etc...

Your premises can be stated here, but like many comments on the internet, simply are not correct.

PE

So, despite Kodak having huge income and great part of the market, their costs were quite high as they spent a whole lot of their resources into mantaining their leading position; An on and on. And for amortizing that R&D it took a way longer time than the competition.

And for a giant, small markets might not be attractive at all. As of now, isn't the situation different?

But, that was at EK. Kodak Alaris is supposedly a new beginning, a blank page. And IIRC a recent interview that was passed around here they hinted that the new context they are in might be much better for the current film market.

 

[removed account4]

Hey everyone.

Here's a question I have been wondering about for a while now. As we all know Kodachrome is off the market, but could it technically be produced again if the demand is huge enough? Or, does the Kodak chemicals and the calibrated machinery which was used in the production, simply don't exist anymore?

hi paul

it seems that 26+ pages and still going kind of is the answer.
the short answer is if the demand is big enough, and if there is still equipment and chemistry produced to process it ...
but the other side of the story is that there isn't enough demand for it, and from what i understand there isn't any machinery to process it ..

but then again, if you throw enough money at a problem or you have a futurist, it can be solved.
im looking forward to a few years from now when we change drains in our toilets with a flick of a switch
and flush ourselves down to a new destination. it will be much easier than buying airline tickets or driving ..

 

[Photo Engineer]

So, despite Kodak having huge income and great part of the market, their costs were quite high as they spent a whole lot of their resources into mantaining their leading position; An on and on. And for amortizing that R&D it took a way longer time than the competition.

And for a giant, small markets might not be attractive at all. As of now, isn't the situation different?

But, that was at EK. Kodak Alaris is supposedly a new beginning, a blank page. And IIRC a recent interview that was passed around here they hinted that the new context they are in might be much better for the current film market.

It remains to be seen as to how much driving force Alaris will have on the film portion of Kodak. Most people have no concept of how much the market has shrunk and how much demand is out there. I would estimate that there is only 10% or less of the original market remaining for consumer photo products. In the face of that, what can be done? Not much.

PE

 

[Prest_400]

It remains to be seen as to how much driving force Alaris will have on the film portion of Kodak. Most people have no concept of how much the market has shrunk and how much demand is out there. I would estimate that there is only 10% or less of the original market remaining for consumer photo products. In the face of that, what can be done? Not much.

PE

Indeed. They are wisely cautious at the moment, and they haven't said much. Better to assess the environment before taking any risky move. They do own Harrow, which is smaller but quite small enough? I remember we discussed about Harrow and film, and I gathered that as it is now a paper facility, it isn't feasible to adapt it to film/paper coating.
Seems an interesting thing to research, the different film facilities and how they could cater the needs... Ilford is Small, EK's B38 is huge... Harrow is seemingly in between?

I think, as Ken, that most current products can be viable if adjusted to the current market. However, I've met film in 2008 and only have known as it is. I enjoyed my short stint with Kodachrome and as many others would love to shoot more of it. But, I'd prefer to keep a healthy E6 niche as it is the closest thing to it, wonderful as well and much more feasible as now. However, in here it's Film Ferrania who is taking an initiative.

IP did the impossible, but I'd rather apply these tactics into stabilzing E6 that taking a huge risk into Kodachrome as of now.

As of Perez, I've been watching snippets of a 1h conference he did here in Spain in 2011. He does mention about everything but he doesn't appear to be interested at all in film. He even hints that MP will be going in the long run (in a quite open way however).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj5e3dR4PcE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While the English language has one of the largest vocabularies, it does not have enough derogatory words to begin to describe Perez.

I have seen estimates of 250,000, 400,000 to 4,000,000 total words in the language. My particular favorite words are those of venery which can drive non-English speakers to distraction. Such terms as a knot of toads, a parliament of owls, a murder of crows, etc.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Jerry, how about a pod of whales?

Anyhow, yes, paper and film can be coated in the same facility, with one caveat. Paper makes for a lot of dust in the equipment which must be totally cleaned before the next run of film, or you get severe defects.

As for what is coming, there are no doubt, quit a few surprises in store for us coming soon!

PE

 

[Athiril]

I hope they're not bad surprises.

 

[falotico]

In the spirit of this holiday season let me express my deep appreciation for APUG and all of the effort which people make to post their ideas and knowledge on the forum. It is a source of continuing satisfaction for me; probably the best place for steady information on analogue photography that I have found. I read the site daily and will try to avoid controversy and criticism in an effort to maintain its professional standards.



It baffles me that expressing enthusiasm for a famous EK product could be controversial. All I can think of is that it is kind of like singing "As Time Goes By" in Rick's Cafe at Casablanca: the activity touches a sore spot among the feelings of some people. I will try to follow good manners even as people excuse my poorly expressed concern over the loss of a set of latent images. Can't we all get along here?




Clipper ships don't make any money, but there are still plenty of sailing vessels in blue water. Surely if somebody on a NASA web site talks about walking on the Moon again, his or her excitement won't be attributed to some character flaw. Discussion of old technology is part of the study of analogue photography. Unfortunately some subjects have become tangled up with issues of market demand, the past policies of a major corporation, a desire to show team spirit and support the superior products currently sold, as well as how to deal with remembrance of things past. There are individuals who have a long-standing interest in the subject who do not wish to offend anyone. After all, we're not suggesting going back to Direct Current and giving up AC.




So I hope that everybody will continue to find as much enjoyment from APUG as I do. Best wishes to all for the New Year.

 

[Prest_400]

Jerry, how about a pod of whales?

Anyhow, yes, paper and film can be coated in the same facility, with one caveat. Paper makes for a lot of dust in the equipment which must be totally cleaned before the next run of film, or you get severe defects.

As for what is coming, there are no doubt, quit a few surprises in store for us coming soon!

PE

Thanks PE for reminding me what was that factor that complicated it. I didn't dig deep enough in the KA threads where it was discussed.

Surprises? Your newest post expresses a lot of enthusiasm! So I am with Athiril, which will be those? (Aside of Ferrania or KA I don't know where to look at)

Falotico: Indeed. APUG is a great forum and with a very warm environment. Sometimes there is some silly arguing around, but usually not bad. Kodachrome is one of those topics that are sensitive emotionally around here. You can see PE is quite entretained trying to bring some realism to us around here... If he weren't around now perhaps we would have had our 100-400-1600 Kodachrome in the market and many other nice products (imaginary market, that is ). He's an invaluable member of the community (sorry PE for the flattery, but I enjoy a lot this learning around and industry knowledge)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Jerry, how about a pod of whales?

Yes Evidently when people were not hunting during the middle ages they were sitting around defining terms for each animal. You were looked down on if you didn't know the right term for a particular animal. Even today new ones are being coined such as a giggle of girls.

 

[Truzi]

The main problem for any film from Kodak & Fuji has been stated many times in this thread and others - economy of scale. They are geared up for huge quantities, and the market doesn't need this anymore.

Certainly it can be scaled down, but it will cost money just to get there - a lot of money. I don't think the problem is sustainability at a lower scale; the cost to get to that scale is the problem. A company with diversified interests would rather (and should rather) put more effort into growing markets, or stable but larger markets. Of course I don't want this to be true, but it is.

You can still buy just about any reproduction part you want for a Model A Ford - but not from Ford. It would not be profitable for them to do that. Other companies that can thrive with smaller production runs have taken that over (plus, these parts don't "go bad" sitting on the shelf).
Kodak is a Juggernaut. While it would be nice for them to continue certain things, I don't know that it's practical given its financial state, and the economy in general.

With Kodachrome, it would not end with production. Processing machine(s) would have to be created and maintained. More expense - and probably the largest sustainability factor.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's not just processing machines - it's chemistry that is not currently being manufactured ANYWHERE that would have to be sourced anew. Plus the machines, plus the film. Very few are willing to pay $8-10/roll plus $8-10/roll processing costs to run E-6 films now - IF you could bring back Kodachrome, the cost per roll would probably be triple that. Do you love Kodachrome THAT much you'd be willing to shell out $40-60/roll for an exposed, processed roll of film? The market for such a product, at that price point, would be limited to the dozen or so folks posting with the most extreme vehemence in this thread. And perhaps not even those people.

 

[VaryaV]

Has anyone got Paul McCartney's phone number? What a lovely tribute to Linda (Eastman) to fund a new Kodachrome production facility. 10-15mil would be vacation money for Sir Mac.

Think of the PR campaign!

 

[Rudeofus]

It baffles me that expressing enthusiasm for a famous EK product could be controversial. All I can think of is that it is kind of like singing "As Time Goes By" in Rick's Cafe at Casablanca: the activity touches a sore spot among the feelings of some people. I will try to follow good manners even as people excuse my poorly expressed concern over the loss of a set of latent images. Can't we all get along here?

Clipper ships don't make any money, but there are still plenty of sailing vessels in blue water. Surely if somebody on a NASA web site talks about walking on the Moon again, his or her excitement won't be attributed to some character flaw.

The big difference I see is the level of commitment: people who own a clipper ship went out and paid for one, and/or helped build one. Likewise the guy who wants to fly to the moon doesn't just sit there but is prepared to contribute substantially to this effort. "I want a clipper ship sooo much" and "I really wish I could fly to the moon" didn't and won't help them one bit.

The same thing applies to Kodachrome: film stock is out there and not even that expensive. The process is, as I already mentioned, well documented, and small scale processing can be done by skilled lab workers as exemplified by (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Sadly, most statements that read "I want Kodachrome back" mean in fact "I want someone else to spend the money and effort so I can shoot Kodachrome again", and this won't work in real life.

Ask yourself: what are you ready to contribute to Kodachrome processing?

 

[Steve Smith]

Has anyone got Paul McCartney's phone number? What a lovely tribute to Linda (Eastman)

Yes, but not the same Eastman family.


Steve.

 

[benjiboy]

Linda Eastman' s father was Leopold Eastman (Epstien) a Jewish entertainment lawyer, and nothing to do with Kodak's George Eastman who was a lifetime batchelor.

 

[VaryaV]

Aaah! My hopes and dreams are dashed!!!!