Kodachrome - Totally dead?

falotico said:

Kodachrome was introduced in 1935 and within two years became the most successful color film process on planet Earth. It spawned numerous imitators and gave hundreds of millions of photographers their first experience with color photography. Many iconic images were captured by the film.

Click to expand...

So...why did people stop buying it? The problem with discussing it, is that it has been discussed ad nauseam already. It's like everything else. it was great, some loved it, some hated it. At the end of the day, it wasn't worth for Kodak to keep making it and not enough people were buying it. It was a business decision. I love vinyl, I still buy vinyl, and many other people still do and find it superior to anything digital. Nevertheless, it is still a niche market at this point, because it doesn't beat the convenience of digital. The bottom line there also is that there is still enough of a market for it, and still enough people buying to support that market. Kodachrome required specialized labs and expensive machinery, with chemistry that isn't even available anymore. How about discussing some of the wonderful pictures taken on Kodachrome? A photographer's art then? That makes more sense. Sitting here dreaming about what it could be and wishing for someone to bring it back is pointless. As far as technical discussions, everything there is to know has already been said and it's all over the internet. Why waste time?

falotico said:

Kodachrome was introduced in 1935 and within two years became the most successful color film process on planet Earth. It spawned numerous imitators and gave hundreds of millions of photographers their first experience with color photography. Many iconic images were captured by the film.

I cannot understand why people of good will would want to stop any kind of discussion about the film stock. It's like a US history web site banning posts about the Civil War. Would a site about classic automobiles ban threads about the Model T? An airplane site not mention the Piper Cub? There are newcomers, casual enthusiasts and devotees who want to discuss these things. Can't they put an item on the agenda?

Click to expand...

There's a difference between discussing the Civil War on a history forum and wishing we could go back to living in 1863. Discussing the merits of Kodachrome, or showing images made with it, is one thing. Continuing to try to resurrect Kodachrome when not only is the film dead, but the constituent chemistry is no longer made for environmental and regulatory reasons as well as financial, is a sure sign of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Would the folks here pining for its return be willing/able to shoot 1000 rolls a year of Kodachrome for the next 30 years? And could each of you find another 100 people willing and able to do the same? THATS the kind of numbers you'd need to make it worth trying to bring it back. Several million rolls a year in volume.

In my role as an instructor, I do run into a wide range of photography enthusiasts at all skill levels. I don't ever meet young people coming to me asking about the miracles of Kodachrome and where can they try some. I'm much more likely to get young people asking, "I've heard about this film thing, and I've heard it's cooler than digital. Can I still get some, and how do I use it?". If Kodachrome ever did come up, I'd address it simply and honestly - it was an historically important film, a cultural icon (Paul Simon, anyone?), and for a combination of reasons no longer available. If you want an analogous (pun intended) experience, try E6 films while they're still around. If you want end results that have the color palette and resolution of Kodachrome, shoot Kodak Ektar 100. That's about all you can do to encourage people to try existing film lines. Anything else that waxes rhapsodic about what Kodachrome WAS, is more likely to turn kids off by encouraging them to think "here's some old coot out of touch with reality running down nostalgia lane...".

Also, do note that Model Ts and Piper Cubs still exist and can be experienced today by relative newbies to the respective hobbies. Buying and restoring a Model T is relatively easy AND affordable. Owning and operating a Piper Cub is still one of the cheaper ways in to private aviation. The same cannot be said of Kodachrome.

I credit all of the people on this thread with good will.

falotico said:

I credit all of the people on this thread with good will.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why I deleted my post... to which this is a very valid response. I'm having difficulty parsing between "good will" and "intolerance"... which there seems to be a lot of on this site at the moment.

I can't figure out why folks jump on a thread that is of no interest to them. :confused:

I think APUG needs a Kodachrome sub-forum, that is blocked from internet search engines, and is easily excluded from the "New Posts" search.

That way, those who wanted to discuss Kodachrome could, and those that didn't want to see others discuss Kodachrome, could more easily avoid those discussions.

We could put the "is photography art" discussions there as well.

MattKing said:

I think APUG needs a Kodachrome sub-forum, that is blocked from internet search engines, and is easily excluded from the "New Posts" search.

That way, those who wanted to discuss Kodachrome could, and those that didn't want to see others discuss Kodachrome, could more easily avoid those discussions.

We could put the "is photography art" discussions there as well.

Click to expand...

Maybe we shouldn't do that. APUG is already limited to analog photography discussion. Breaking it down into even smaller pieces may be a bit counterproductive. An easier way may be to just go our way and let those who wish to read and discuss Kodachrome do that.

So any moderator out there, feel free to close this thread before the discussions goes out of control.

Pioneer said:

Maybe we shouldn't do that. APUG is already limited to analog photography discussion. Breaking it down into even smaller pieces may be a bit counterproductive. An easier way may be to just go our way and let those who wish to read and discuss Kodachrome do that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to add an emoticon to my earlier post - .

Almost 100 replies in just ONE DAY. Kodachrome sure is active for being dead and gone.

It's terrible that the Godowsky and Mannes terrorists are pointing Kalashnikov sub-machine guns at peoples' heads and forcing them to read the headings in "New Posts" or to waste time writing posts about wasting time. We should only view subjects relevant to analogue photography, like the weather in Los Angeles.

I'm sorry, but censorship always upsets me.

I've been reading that "weather in Los Angeles" thread for days now.

The weather is great, BTW... sunny and warm.

Sunny and warm in Los Angeles? Now that's news. Who would have thought? By the way the Hollywood Freeway is jammed at Vermont Ave.

falotico said:

Sunny and warm in Los Angeles? Now that's news. Who would have thought? By the way the Hollywood Freeway is jammed at Vermont Ave.

Click to expand...

But when is THAT, NOT the case? It would be news if there were an un-jammed freeway in LA.

They should design a freeway with three levels: the top level for blonds; the middle level for redheads; and the bottom level for washed-out punk rockers with blue-green (cyan) hair.

falotico said:

Kodachrome was introduced in 1935 and within two years became the most successful color film process on planet Earth.

Click to expand...

Those are big words. Most part of the world did not even get to buy the film in that period. Some never...

falotico said:

I cannot understand why people of good will would want to stop any kind of discussion about the film stock.

Click to expand...

I think I proofed that I'm of good will. But all aspects have been repeated several times in the recent threads, no new aspect showed up.
Recently I decided never to post in a Kodachrome thread again. With this thread starting I though, give it a try and stop it in the beginning.

In vain...

micwag2 said:

Shame on all of you bashing this and any other Kodachrome thread! What's wrong with you? We come on here everyday to enjoy traditional film and it's processes. If you don't like Kodachrome threads, never cared for the film, or whatever the reason you don't like these threads, don't read them. Ignore them and pass them by.

Think about this..... Many people come here that are new to analog photography. Some young and holding a camera for the first time, others may be older and at a point in their lives that they now can afford and have the time to express their passions through photography. They come here and after hearing so much about the history, fantastic images, and stories about Kodachrome and other films. They want to try it out too! It doesn't matter that the "newer emulsions are better" or "shoot what E6 is left and enjoy it while you can." Negativity and bashing because "you are tired of reading these posts" will only drive away interest from analog photography and will eventually hasten the demise of the very reason this forum exists. Film.



I agree with PKM-25. We will probably not have Kodachrome again, but you never know. I've heard it said by many on this forum, and I'm pretty sure including those whom have made negative statements, there's only one thing that shoots like film. And that's Film. Whether it's Tri-X, Kodachrome, Velvia, E100G, or any other favorite film. Digital can imitate, not duplicate. Because if digital could......none of you would be on here.

Click to expand...

I'm not bashing Kodachrome. I said that modern E6 films surpassed it, which they did. I said it had a unique look and the reds really popped. That look could be awesome for many shots, but it wasn't really accurate. That's not a knock - Velvia isn't accurate either. But it is not coming back. That's clear. We are losing E6 films way too fast, to the point where only two or three from a major maker remain (depending on whether you count Velvia 50 and 100 as one film available in two speeds or two different films - yes I know they render color slightly differently as well as the speed.) Ferania isn't available yet and no one seems entirely sure about the Maco stuff. Kodak also discontinued all their E6 films. I had changed to E100G when Astia was discontinued so I called Freestyle to order 10 rolls (about what I could afford at the time) of E100G. It said "call for availability" so I did. The guy said, "oh yeah, we have [ever how many, I forget] rolls of that, we normally sell ten to fifteen rolls a month, we have it for you." A MONTH, for one of the biggest film sellers in North America.

I wish it weren't so, but it is and wishing will not change it. I'm very bullish on film. I love film and film based photography. I think black and white will be with us for a long, long time. Color neg will be around for quite a while still. E6 is, honestly, a very much "shoot it while you got it" proposition which I am continuing to do. I just ordered some more Provia 400X, amazing film - also discontinued.

So by all means let's promote film and film use. But don't get newcomers excited about a film we used to have, thinking it might come back, when it's painfully clear it's gone for good. My advice to newcomers to film with any interest at all in color would be to shoot transparency film now. You'll have a chance to shoot color neg longer. Get a projector and see them the way they were meant to be seen. If you want prints and want to make your own in the darkroom, though, shoot color neg or get good at making internegatives.

I'm not really even against talking about Kodachrome, and I'm certainly not in favor of closing the thread. Talking about all the great images made on Kodachrome, when it did and didn't work well, posting links to images of history shot on it, talking about the technical way it worked, all that is fine with me. "Can it come back?" is just beating our heads against a wall for no reason, though.

I did find the thread about successfully hand processing it quite interesting. Even if I could buy all the dyes, chems. etc. ready made and in kit form I'd never attempt it, not with the amount of trouble it is and the cost reported at $250 per roll minimum, but it was technically interested at least.

PaulDK said:

So any moderator out there, feel free to close this thread before the discussions goes out of control.

Click to expand...

No, let's don't.

Last night I spent almost two hours composing a well-researched, well-reasoned and well-thought out rebuttal to those here who insist it is their right to control what others on this site may or may not discuss.

I deleted it before clicking Submit. As someone said, it's Christmas.

But I finally did, for the first time ever since I joined APUG in March of 2005, contact a moderator regarding an issue with participants in an APUG thread discussion. That issue is intellectual bullying, plain and simple. Out-of-control egos and arrogance fueling a mistaken belief by a handful of malcontents that they are somehow ordained to pass judgment on the thoughts and words of others. And to attempt to shut down those thoughts and words when they, in what mistakenly passes for wisdom in their minds, disapprove.

To the moderator I contacted and who is reading this, I am this very moment practicing every last ounce of self-restraint that I can muster. And this post does take into account your excellent advice. To the sad group of malcontents desperately trying to silence all of the rest from speaking on a topic they just happen to personally dislike, stop it right now. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. You all know better.

I am especially horrified by those with engineering and/or scientific backgrounds who are bleating for such blanket censorship. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Of all the differing demographics represented here, YOU should be the ones to best understand the dangers inherent in walking down that road. Is that how you spent your careers? Shouting down anyone you disagreed with?

And no, I wouldn't have even the slightest problem standing right in front of you all and telling you that right to your faces. Each and every one of you. Look at my handle. It's not some cutesy little anonymous acronym that conveniently allows me to hide from the words I say. It's my very unique real name. Google it. That's my very real address and phone number. If you think you want to go toe-to-toe in arguing your misguided right to censor me, or anyone else here you think you can bully, you now know where to find me.

I am sorely tempted to begin starting a new Resurrecting Kodachrome? thread each and every week from now on. Just to show the free speech flag in public. It wouldn't matter if there were never a single reply to any of them. All that would matter is that they were there. And I bet the malcontents would figure out real quickly how to ignore those thread titles. It would we a welcome case of a lesson learned.

Did you people all sleep through your high school civics classes? Or did you all fly off to North Korea to attend them?

Ken

"Free speech" merely means one is free to express almost any idea without legal ramifications or restrictions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being free from people disagreeing with you, being rude to you, or even a privately run forum disallowing whatever it pleases (note again, I am not in favor of closing any threads - but APUG could do so and it would not in any way violate "freedom of speech.") I paid attention quite well in school. I have a degree in history with a minor in political science.

I too think some folks take it too far calling for thread closures. But the question in the original post can be answered succinctly, "sure it could be, but it won't. Too expensive and not enough market."

Ken Nadvornick said:

I am especially horrified by those with engineering and/or scientific backgrounds who are bleating for such blanket censorship. What the hell is wrong with you guys? Of all the differing demographics represented here, YOU should be the ones to best understand the dangers inherent in walking down that road. Is that how you spent your careers? Shouting down anyone you disagreed with?

Click to expand...

I have not pleaded for closing this thread, but yes I hoped the return-of-Kodachrome discussion would stop this time.

As I am one of those tech guys:
there are so many issues involved with the photo-chemical industry or just the manufacture of photo-chemical goods. And so much is on stake.
But just this very film gets so many people aggrevated.

So many people lost their jobs and a typical reply here at Apug is "I don't care as I don't buy from them anyway" as just seen here in the context of the demise of Ilford Imaging.
With these people knowledge goes under, knowledge necessary for any future production. Not just that Kodachrome.


I see what iconic value that film has to part of the world.
But please acknowledge too, especially here at an international forum, that this is not the case in other parts of the world aside of some photography minded persons.

PaulDK said:

People people...
...this thread was not meant to get everyone in a fight over Kodachrome. I just wanted to know if it could be reproduced or not. Be good to each other, it's Christmas.

Click to expand...

But this very question was answered over and over and over in many many many threads. That is the point, and now it is being done again.

And, just to be clear, I worked on CD-6 and not Kodachrome itself. I did interact with the Kodachrome team while doing it and do have my name on the patent having worked on the "process".

PE

Excellent and considered response, Ken N. ^^^

The Kodachrome system is part of analog photographic history (as is Dufaycolor, Altichrome, Utocolor and a dozen other systems). If people are interested in this, and any other aspect of analog photographic history, where else should it be discussed except in an ANALOG photography group ???

If you're not interested, don't read it, go and take some pictures or read a thread that does interest you. There's dozens of threads here which are of no interest to me personally, but I don't post on them insulting other people or dictating what should or should not be discussed. I'm sure the Mods are capable of properly keeping discussion on track.

Ken Nadvornick said:

To the sad group of malcontents desperately trying to silence all of the rest from speaking on a topic they just happen to personally dislike, stop it right now.

Click to expand...

Who's trying to silence who?

Ken;

The myriad of threads on this very topic have hashed the problem over and over and we even came up with some possible solutions. See Steve Frizza's results in a previous thread.

Every time one of these threads start, they generate a cluster of up to dozens or more PMs to me from eager students who want to show the world what they can do. After lengthy exchanges of notes, they vanish and I hear nothing more. So, I am weary of this topic. Just weary.

I know a lot of back story on this from many here in addition to those students (who I admire for their ambition even though there is final realization of the magnitude of what they propose and so far, an apparent lack of results). So, call me anything your heart desires, but please take into consideration another POV which you just do not have. Be willing to consider how many pages of response both here and in PMs I have endured.

PE

micwag2 said:

Shame on all of you bashing this and any other Kodachrome thread! What's wrong with you? We come on here everyday to enjoy traditional film and it's processes. If you don't like Kodachrome threads, never cared for the film, or whatever the reason you don't like these threads, don't read them. Ignore them and pass them by.

Think about this..... Many people come here that are new to analog photography. Some young and holding a camera for the first time, others may be older and at a point in their lives that they now can afford and have the time to express their passions through photography. They come here and after hearing so much about the history, fantastic images, and stories about Kodachrome and other films. They want to try it out too! It doesn't matter that the "newer emulsions are better" or "shoot what E6 is left and enjoy it while you can." Negativity and bashing because "you are tired of reading these posts" will only drive away interest from analog photography and will eventually hasten the demise of the very reason this forum exists. Film.



I agree with PKM-25. We will probably not have Kodachrome again, but you never know. I've heard it said by many on this forum, and I'm pretty sure including those whom have made negative statements, there's only one thing that shoots like film. And that's Film. Whether it's Tri-X, Kodachrome, Velvia, E100G, or any other favorite film. Digital can imitate, not duplicate. Because if digital could......none of you would be on here.

Click to expand...

people can bash whatever they want.
i never used or liked kodachrome, big deal.

and i know how to use digital well enough that i can make look like a lot of different stuff,
but i am still here because i like using film and paper.
im tired of having to justify to anyone why i like / dislike or use / dont use stuff.

these threads make me laugh out loud.

it is almost as if people have a wish that somehow the clock will be turned back 25 years so

sorry it is just about 2014
and plenty of things are available so instead of being bent out of shape that trix ortho or kodachrome isnt around
get some other film, put it in whatever camera you use and take some photos seeing that in 25 years you might still be here complaining that tmy2 or hp5+ are hard to find and costs 30$/ roll and you spent 25 years online instead of making photographs