Kodachrome - Totally dead?

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2013

benjiboy said:
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.

aww come on benjiboy
give us something, anything to go on !

love child ?

benjiboy · Dec 30, 2013

jnanian said:
aww come on benjiboy
give us something, anything to go on !

love child ?

Sorry to disappoint you John, Eastman was a very shy man had a long term close platonic relationship with the widow of George Dickman one of his business partners Josephine Dickman who was also friendly with his mother who was the main woman in his life, but there s no evidence that their relationship was ever intimate, and she never as far as I know had any children.

ambaker · Dec 30, 2013

So... No kids and no Kodachrome, alas and alack.

But we can buy the parts to build a Model T.

Life just isn't fair...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

benjiboy · Dec 30, 2013

P.S. Sir Paul McCartney private phone numbers are a closely guarded secret and he has assistants who answer for him and vet his calls.

Roger Cole · Dec 30, 2013

ambaker said:
So... No kids and no Kodachrome, alas and alack.

But we can buy the parts to build a Model T.

Life just isn't fair...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Well you can buy the "parts" to "build" Kodachrome too, even to process it pretty well as proven in that other thread. Now getting them "assembled" correctly, that's down to skill. Good luck with that.

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2013

Well, here we are again. How many own cars vs how many build, renovate or own a model T? Same thing with cameras and Kodachrome.

Tell you what......... You really want Kodachrome? How many would come to Rochester for a year or so and learn how to make and process it if I taught it? Just curious.

PE

Truzi · Dec 30, 2013

I used to be quite active on a Buick BBS... maybe I should post a pole there asking who would buy a Model T and at what price, if Ford were to be convinced to make them again. I have to agree with PE regarding Kodachrome threads (though always learn a little something new).

On the other hand, I've got some HC-110 dilution H mixed and some Ultrafine Plus 120 waiting on a reel. It might be more productive for me to see if I get those little backing paper numbers on my negatives.

Craig · Dec 31, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Tell you what......... You really want Kodachrome? How many would come to Rochester for a year or so and learn how to make and process it if I taught it? Just curious.

PE

I'd love to do that, simply for my own intellectual curosity; but like most others I don't have a spare year kicking around that I don't know how to fill.

Kodachrome is kind of like Autochromes: the patents are available, the original machinery is available to the recreationists, but 100 years later it has proven impossible to duplicate Autochromes. Kodachrome isn't quite at that stage yet ( I presume) but in time it will be as the undocumented knowledge and skills are lost or forgotten.

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2013

Wow this is STILL going on??....

Well I learned something new, Ron is short for Rowland... Hmm

And trust me, the Kodachrome processing machine is bigger than some labs entire facilities, there's no way Kodak is bringing back even small batches of Kodachrome because all the machines are GONE and it would cost over $1,000,000 to produce a new one from scratch.

When I was at Dwayne's (on December 30, 2010) Dwayne himself said they couldn't even give the machine away, they tried to give it to multiple museums (the big ones) and everyone was interested until they found out how big it was and then they said no... Dwayne was in the process of figuring out how to get it dismantled and taken to the dump... AFAIK no one ever took it and it's rusting in a dump somewhere in pieces...

They may of course produce other small runs like E100G but I doubt it.

The smartest thing Kodak-Alaris could do would be to creat a sub company that only did film and separate that company from the other parts of kodak and then let the film company run on it's own merit, this would take the pressure off the film division to produce IBM sized profits and allow it to continue to fund itself and a "small" profit from the smaller film division.

Then again, what do I know...

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 31, 2013

Truzi said:
I used to be quite active on a Buick BBS... maybe I should post a pole there asking who would buy a Model T and at what price, if Ford were to be convinced to make them again. I have to agree with PE regarding Kodachrome threads (though always learn a little something new).

Actually, that's a demonstrable number - Ford produced what, over 15 million Model Ts? With that volume, the price limiter for a brand new Model T is what someone would be willing to pay for a vintage Model T. A vintage Model T runs around $20,000 in average restored condition (more for superb examples, unrestored originals or rare variations, less for shoddy restorations or cars needing work). Given the mechanical simplicity of the Model T, Ford might actually be able to make it at a profit at that price point because about the only parts of the Model T that someone with access to an AVERAGE machine shop couldn't make is the engine block, intake and exhaust manifolds and transmission housing. Where it would fail is the volume - there are perhaps a few thousand enthusiasts who would consider a new Model T, and once they bought theirs, they'd not be back. Nowhere large enough a market to justify tooling up to mass produce the car. They'd never recoup the cost of tooling unless they priced it at four to five times the price of a vintage car. At which point, why would anyone in their right mind spend $100K for a new Model T when they can get a fully restored 1920s model for $20K, or one rich with patina and character for less?

Prest_400 · Dec 31, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Well, here we are again. How many own cars vs how many build, renovate or own a model T? Same thing with cameras and Kodachrome.

Tell you what......... You really want Kodachrome? How many would come to Rochester for a year or so and learn how to make and process it if I taught it? Just curious.

PE

Ad nauseam, ad infinitum :munch:

I would love to do it as well, but there is the problem of $, being on the other side of the pond et al. My chemistry knowledge ends at junior HS level which wouldn't help.
And hey, wasn't holmburgers (Chris) really interested in Dye transfer/Carbon processes and he ended going and staying in Rochester?

But I know what you want to end... Who wants to get their hands into the manufacturing? no one

Roger Cole · Dec 31, 2013

Cars are different in that, as you say, once someone who wants one has one they are done. If they actually drove it (and I don't see even the most devoted antique car enthusiast wanting a Model T as a daily driver) it would eventually wear out but the fact is cars are durable goods where film is a supply item for an active photographer. Ford would also face probably insurmountable safety and emissions problems in trying to market a new Model T that would make any EPA hurdles to Kodachrome trivial in comparison.

And Stone, Dwayne's had a large production Kodachrome machine but that's not the only way it can be or was done. Kodak used to market a K-14 mini lab, complete with packaged cubes of chems for small volume labs. At least one of these was bought by an enthusiast who, last I read a few years ago, was sort of scratching his head wondering if it could ever be made useful. Kodachrome processing CAN be and was done on a much smaller scale on much smaller machines. IF (big if) the demand were there an updated version of something like that could be made and used by one or a very few labs to handle smaller volumes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Cars are different in that, as you say, once someone who wants one has one they are done. If they actually drove it (and I don't see even the most devoted antique car enthusiast wanting a Model T as a daily driver) it would eventually wear out but the fact is cars are durable goods where film is a supply item for an active photographer. Ford would also face probably insurmountable safety and emissions problems in trying to market a new Model T that would make any EPA hurdles to Kodachrome trivial in comparison.

And Stone, Dwayne's had a large production Kodachrome machine but that's not the only way it can be or was done. Kodak used to market a K-14 mini lab, complete with packaged cubes of chems for small volume labs. At least one if these was bought by an enthusiast who, last I read a few years ago, was sort of scratching his head wondering if it could ever be made useful. Kodachrome processing CAN be and was done on a much smaller scale on much smaller machines. IF (big if) the demand were there an updated version of something like that could be made and used by one or a very few labs to handle smaller volumes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough about the smaller machines.

Truzi · Dec 31, 2013

@ TheFlyingCamera & Roger Cole, good points, but I was just being sarcastic in reference to the survey thread

BrianShaw · Dec 31, 2013

But guess what... there probably are at least 100 guys and/or auto museums in America who would buy that revival T at 10x the price of a restored vintage T "just to have one" or as an investment. Heck... Leno would probably buy 2 or 3 himself.

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2013

BrianShaw said:
But guess what... there probably are at least 100 guys and/or auto museums in America who would buy that revival T at 10x the price of a restored vintage T "just to have one" or as an investment. Heck... Leno would probably buy 2 or 3 himself.

The same problem that Kodachrome has is the same problem that those cars would have, with all the new regulations, they aren't safe at all, and would have to be totally redesigned, completely changing the look and design factors that make the model T what it is... The same is true for Kodachrome, it would need to be reengineered again, to be able to use currently approved chemicals, the grandfathering that it had is now gone...

The costs are just way way too high, which is really why it went on the first place because the cost of using those chemicals was not a viable option for Kodak anymore.

BrianShaw · Dec 31, 2013

I believe that where I live Model T's that have been melded together from vintage parts are given the year of the engine block on the title. But somehow there are lots of hot rods made up from new parts manufactured to look like old, and old cars that have their engines replaced with modern engines, that get titled in the year of the body style... and avoid all of the modern emissions testing, etc.

But you are right that film wouldn't be that lucky.

BTW, there was a very brief discussion in one of these Koda-threads about the dangerous chemicals. Which ones are the problem and what are the EPA regulations/fines associated with them?

AgX · Dec 31, 2013

Roger is totally right on Kodak's small Kodachrome processing unit.

For the big thing see here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(A translation is in the thread too...)

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2013

AgX said:
Roger is totally right on Kodak's small Kodachrome processing unit.

For the big thing see here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(A translation is in the thread too...)

Yep, the middle part is the machine Dwayne's had, it was very cool to be standing in the darkroom with it running a test and being able to take a few shots with my camera ON Kodachrome (which wasn't easy BTW in a dim darkroom...).

Sirius Glass · Dec 31, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Wow this is STILL going on??....

Around here Kodachrome threads are like the undead, they just keep rising out of the ground.

I would be that if each poster who wants to revive Kodachrome would each pay PE $50 per post, the number of posts still would not decrease.

Photo Engineer · Dec 31, 2013

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
Around here Kodachrome threads are like the undead, they just keep rising out of the ground.

I would be that if each poster who wants to revive Kodachrome would each pay PE $50 per post, the number of posts still would not decrease.

Why don't we just take the $50 per post and make a fund to build that bunker we keep talking about building to trap PE in and make him process till the end of days...?

eddie · Dec 31, 2013

These Kodachrome threads caused me to revisit some old ones I hadn't seen in decades. I threw a bunch on a lightbox, grabbed a loupe, and took a look. I also looked at some (same era) Ektachromes. There was no qualitative difference between the two types. I came to the conclusion that we have a tendency to romanticize things from our past which are no longer available. Nostalgia is fine, so long as it doesn't interfere with reality...

bvy · Dec 31, 2013

Kodachrome discussions are now off-topic for APUG. Please refer to our newly found sister site, KPUG, to discuss Kodachrome. A one-year subscription (required) is $500, and all proceeds will go toward funding its resurrection. This thread will now be closed.

BrianShaw · Dec 31, 2013

Kodachrome - Totally dead?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency