Kodachrome - Totally dead?

When everybody started buying refrigerators, delivering ice became a poor business model. However, drinking-water is piped into almost every house in America yet stores sell bottled water to the tune of millions every year. It's time to start thinking outside of the yellow box. There is a demand for a product at a certain price; produce it at a lower cost and you make a profit. The yellow box thinking repeats the dogma that in order to make a silver halide roll of color film you need your own private continent and an army of slave robots; and if you want to process it you need the services of Merlin, Mr. Spock, di-lithium crystals and permission from the Supreme Court. Does anybody but me see this as defeatist thinking?

I could go on in this line, but I realize that I have said enough. It's time to let the Thought Police yell at me.


By the way, is PE really being fed three bowls of Cream of Mush a day? This is extravagant.

This does bring up the question of whether small processing runs periodically would be practical. I think someone said you really needed a chemist on staff to tweak the solutions daily, but that's to keep it running. Set up one lab in the world that processes it one month a year, save up all your K-14 and send it in.

Click to expand...

Try the hair dye experiment. You will understand why you are doing a whole lot of tweaking to keep that running. Granted, in these days of computer control it might be more practical but you definitely have a specialized machine that you want to keep running and stabilized once it is running.

Letting the consumer handle only what amounted to a black and white film always seemed a clever way to reduce potential complications. EK had a monopoly on processing "K" film until the courts stepped in--which meant that the manufacturer could count on recovering most of the silver it had put in the film. No doubt this improved its business model.

Click to expand...

I have to think it was more of an engineering decision about how to most effectively run the process. Silver recovery certainly doesn't hurt, of course, but I doubt that was the prime motivator. In the days when there were 6 computers in the world, they were kept busy designing H-Bombs, not running K lines. So this was all manual control. Although Kodak enjoyed near monopoly status, at least in the US, this is one process where One Big Machine makes a lot of sense.

One of my main interests in Kodachrome is that only this process uses soluble dye couplers; hence the high ph. I see that kind of technology as applicable to other formats. I wondered how EK was able to produce such stable colorants in 1938 that they are essentially of archive quality.

Click to expand...

Soluble dye couplers was, I think, the easiest was to solve the problem. If we were ever going to try and and make a color film ourselves, I think this is how we would do it. Dye chemistry, as in dye manufacture, was a pretty mature field by 1938 and the basic facts of how color development works were known in the early 1900's. PPD was a somewhat common "fine-grain" developer at the time and it was noticed how it would produce stain in the gelatin, especially with other certain ingredients in the developer or film. PPD was also used to produce certain types of dyes early on. When it was realized that dyes produced with PPD worked because of the oxidized PPD reacting with the added leuco (aka colorless) dyes, someone's light bulb when on.

Read Friedman's book, "History of Color Photography" if you have not. I believe much of it is available through Google books. Or google it, you may find it available. The basic technology behind Kodachrome, as well as chromogenic films, is discussed in detail.

"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured.....

Click to expand...

I've wondered of the Lomochrome Purple* film was the opening shot for this technology. If so, that gives you an idea of the necessary volume. Then there is that agreement that KA has with Lomography. Maybe that is how Lomo gets medium volume batches of "wierd" films. They seem to like E6 products.

Still, she does mention Volume. Big B38 would still be it.

Click to expand...

Not quite true! Films were made at Harrow. Find out how and where the Lomo Purple film was made and you may have your answer.

*OK, for the record, I had read somewhere that Purple is a Kodak Aero film that was resurrected and made by Kodak. If I am wrong, "Never Mind" (Apologies to Emily Litella)

falotico said:

It's time to start thinking outside of the yellow box. There is a demand for a product at a certain price; produce it at a lower cost and you make a profit. The yellow box thinking repeats the dogma that in order to make a silver halide roll of color film you need your own private continent and an army of slave robots; and if you want to process it you need the services of Merlin, Mr. Spock, di-lithium crystals and permission from the Supreme Court. Does anybody but me see this as defeatist thinking?

I could go on in this line, but I realize that I have said enough. It's time to let the Thought Police yell at me.

Click to expand...

I'm not the Thought Police, so you're safe with me.

I'm not sure it's defeatist, per se. More a case of arterial sclerosis of the imagination. It's human nature, probably anchored in the survival instinct, to seek out the easiest, least risky, safest, path, then never deviate from that path unless forced to. This applies to thought processes as well. Especially to those, in fact.

I don't think the thoughts expressed in your post require policing. Rather, I think you may have just restated Ms. Pasterczyk's reported sentiments in a nutshell.

Ken

Further, I think these Kodachrome threads would be a wonderful place to conduct market research to help determine just how much residual demand there still is for Kodachrome, Kodachrome, Kodachrome...

:devil:

Ken

Whereupon the otherwise sane marketing fellow began to grin ear-to-ear and shrieked, "So IT IS possible! That's all I needed to know!" and ran out your door, leaving you with that uneasy, sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. You know it's possible. You also know it's not probable. And you know the difference between the two.

Click to expand...

Yep, happens to me all the time. In my case it's sometimes the Director of Engineering (aka my boss - he said with a smile just in case said boss reads this ) That's OK, it keeps me employed!

And then what happens is that the normally sane Marketing Guy goes and sells it. Once they sell it you have to make it.

So all you need to have happen is to have Marketing Guy sell some Kodachrome and then you will get it!

Go find Marketing Guy!!!!!!!!!



Merry Christmas everyone! Go make some pictures!

Although Kodachrome is dead, just think how many of us have original Kodachromes. A bit like having Autochromes.

Re: Roger and the EPA, it is more than pH. There are the couplers and competing chemicals. It is like having 3 E6 color developers on steroids and really may not be good being dumped. Acidification only adds extra salts, and the BOD and COD may not be good for wildlife.

Forgotten ideas: Kodak made a 400 speed Kodachrome and sent it out for trade trial. It was fine grained and sharp with all of the Kodachrome benefits but was totally rejected by the photo magazine editors and test customers as being irrelevant in the face of E6. It was never marketed. There were improved versions of the other products under way as well and it was all shut down. This was in the '90s.

Image stability of Kodachrome comes in part from the dyes that form being micro crystalline. This makes them very resistant to heat, humidity but not so much to light. But then they are only intended for projection.

And finally, the week that Kodachrome was cancelled the manager of that division "retired". My guess is that she told Perez that cancelling the flagship product was ungood and he said "your retired". Just a guess and a rumor at EK. After all, he told me that Kodak was losing money on B&W papers but my thought was that many others made a profit from making them. Oh well. Dan, you were here when this "retirement" took place. I think we talked about it at lunch. So, here it is as a thought only.

Kodachrome was being coated about once every 2 years with the minimum # of master rolls being made. Even so, the stock was not selling out and as noted earlier here, it was being sold with short dates. Finally, it pretty much stopped moving at the dealers and something HAD to be done.

Now, if you note the 60,000+ membership of APUG and the # of people posting on Kodachrome, you may figure out that Kodak did something painful but smart.

PE

To add one more thing about yellow box thinking, let me remind people that EK made its reputation back in the 1800's when George Eastman voluntarily replaced photographic plates that had gelatin emulsions which were unusable. Eastman had bought the gelatin from England, but the cows from which the material was made had eaten a bunch of mustard plants. Mustard contains natural reducing agents and these chemicals fogged all of the plates that were sold. Eastman not only replaced the spoiled plates but investigated the cause of the problem and started using a protocol for gelatin which eliminated the allylthioureas that contaminated some batches. In this way EK earned the reputation for integrity and protecting the consumer, as well as for producing the finest photographic materials available.


Frankly I think it is a shame that EK sold millions of rolls of "K" film knowing that some consumers would never be able to have them processed and would be left holding the bag. It betrays the example of George Eastman and is the source of much of the ongoing fixation with "K" film. I realize that the ship was sinking and the first thing you throw overboard are principles which weigh you down; but there are hundreds of feet of a Space Shuttle launch which will never be seen as well as who knows what else. The accommodation for small batch processing was insufficient but instead of acknowledging this and encouraging discussion, interested parties are told that they are holding on to a dead parrot. Good luck spending your Confederate money. It was a disgrace to the brand.

And at least now we are all clear on where the water is coming from...

Ken

jnanian said:

this whole reanimating a dead film always makes me a bit uneasy

[video=youtube;2p5AG0Tqh3A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p5AG0Tqh3A[/video]

small boutique runs ?

...

Click to expand...

Best posting on this thread!

Photo Engineer said:

...And finally, the week that Kodachrome was cancelled the manager of that division "retired". My guess is that she told Perez that cancelling the flagship product was ungood and he said "your retired". Just a guess and a rumor at EK. ...

Click to expand...

Seen that in other engineering environments. Also seen Division Managers who's division or product line vaporized be smart enough on their own to make the next move... whether that is transfer, retirement, or new job at another company. But it sure makes interesting lunch table conversation, doesn't it.

falotico said:

To add one more thing about yellow box thinking, let me remind people that EK made its reputation back in the 1800's when George Eastman voluntarily replaced photographic plates that had gelatin emulsions which were unusable. Eastman had bought the gelatin from England, but the cows from which the material was made had eaten a bunch of mustard plants. Mustard contains natural reducing agents and these chemicals fogged all of the plates that were sold. Eastman not only replaced the spoiled plates but investigated the cause of the problem and started using a protocol for gelatin which eliminated the allylthioureas that contaminated some batches. In this way EK earned the reputation for integrity and protecting the consumer, as well as for producing the finest photographic materials available.


Frankly I think it is a shame that EK sold millions of rolls of "K" film knowing that some consumers would never be able to have them processed and would be left holding the bag. It betrays the example of George Eastman and is the source of much of the ongoing fixation with "K" film. I realize that the ship was sinking and the first thing you throw overboard are principles which weigh you down; but there are hundreds of feet of a Space Shuttle launch which will never be seen as well as who knows what else. The accommodation for small batch processing was insufficient but instead of acknowledging this and encouraging discussion, interested parties are told that they are holding on to a dead parrot. Good luck spending your Confederate money. It was a disgrace to the brand.

Click to expand...

I think you are taking this WAY too seriously. I'm stuck with four bricks and I can tell you that I've had far worse happen to me in life. I don't really care and at this point the 100 people screaming about Kodachrome won't make a difference whatsoever. I say go buy 1000 rolls of Ektar and show Kodak your support. How much Kodachrome have you shot and processed over the last five years, out of curiosity?

RPC said:

All we have to do is get the large numbers of individuals needed to petition and support the return of Kodachrome. Easy enough!

Click to expand...

Yes there were a large number of people who posted that they wanted to that. After they realized that the petitions to Kodak prior to that had never worked they jumped to "we can get together and make it on our own." Those deluded souls must have seen too many Mickey Rooney "Andy Hardy" movies ==> "We will put on a show" ... <<sigh>>

I can understand the interest in the composition and make up of the film, couplers, ... as well as the processing chemistry, but please no more "we can get together and make it on our own."

One circumstantial observation that argues in favor of the existence of Ms. Pasterczyk's Kodachrome comments is that she allegedly made those comments at a meeting of the Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers (SMPTE). Not a group with any professional interest whatsoever in Kodachrome. Especially in 2012.

Nor, for that matter, a group consisting of individuals who just couldn't wait to pull the wool over the still photographer's eyes by falsifying her comments just for grins. The meeting was scheduled on March 20th, not April 1st.

And it seems even less likely to me that in front of that group she would have pictured herself as preaching to the Kodachrome choir, telling them exactly what they wanted to hear. The audience was not filled with Kodachrome acolytes. So wowing them with tales of a possible path to new Kodachrome would presumably have carried little weight.

Indeed, the thrust of her reported comments was more along the lines that the new production technology they were developing could possibly make many currently discontinued Kodak films newly available on the boutique market. Kodachrome just happened to be one of those films, apparently singled out solely in response to an audience member's direct question.

As well, it's often enlightening to examine the flip side of arguments. If her comments are not outright fabrications, what possible upside would there have been to telling such a tale if it were false? In other words, intentionally lying? I can think of lots of downside to lying, but not much upside. Especially to a group of SMPTE engineers. Her professional credibility would have been trashed, for one thing.

And if she wasn't telling false tales, why in the world would EK squander even more money on R&D into downsizing product lines and a business model that they were running away from as fast as they could? That they had absolutely no intention of implementing?

Well, I could reasonably speculate on one possible motive...

That perhaps the research into new methods of producing boutique quantities of film was a prerequisite for the sale of the film marketing business to what has now become Kodak Alaris.

Perhaps KA said we have no intention of throwing our money away either. We're absolutely not taking over the film marketing business until you can prove to us that micro-production is feasible, because we won't be able to sell huge numbers of master rolls into today's market any more than you could. We have retirees who are depending on us, and so have no desire to join you in bankruptcy.

And today Kodak Alaris now owns the EK film marketing business outright. And claims to be both thrilled and optimistic for its future.

Ken

So the thought police have come out and told me that the real problem is that my thinking is wrong. I'm taking this "too seriously". How did I get the idea that EK wanted me to take photography seriously? I must be some kind of schmuck. EK just wants me to BUY their film--nothing more. Isn't the company just some kind of machine to suck money out of the pockets of consumers? I should go out and buy a thousand rolls of Ektar and show my support. Apparently after they announced they wouldn't develop 8 mm anymore I should have run out and bought a thousand rolls of 35 mm "K" film so I could earn the right to express an opinion on this subject. It's my fault for not having the true party spirit.

In law there is something called the implied warranty of merchantability. If a company sells me a product and says that I can use it to take color photographs, I have the right to expect that I can use the product to take color photographs. Instead I buy a roll of color film from EK and they tell me--Good luck getting it developed!

I'm sure the whole issue was presented to the appropriate school of sharks and they milled around and said "Maybe this, maybe that, yadda, yadda, yadda, shoulda woulda coulda". In the end they recommended "announce a cut-off date of December, 2010". You tell the client a careful analysis of the law and the client asks, "What does all that mean?" And you say, "It means you're screwed".

I understand I'm screwed. When the issue is brought up to some of the world's leading experts, they tell you that they're tired of hearing about it. Then a movement starts up to prevent other people from even discussing the subject. People tell you that they have a hundred dollars of "K" film which they will never use. My roll of 16 mm plus the slide film runs another $150. Worldwide the cost is what? A million? Ten million? And all those latent images are fading away. Just suck it up; you're taking it too seriously. It's a new kind of Kodak moment.

kb3lms said:

I've wondered of the Lomochrome Purple* film was the opening shot for this technology. If so, that gives you an idea of the necessary volume. Then there is that agreement that KA has with Lomography. Maybe that is how Lomo gets medium volume batches of "wierd" films. They seem to like E6 products.

Not quite true! Films were made at Harrow. Find out how and where the Lomo Purple film was made and you may have your answer.

*OK, for the record, I had read somewhere that Purple is a Kodak Aero film that was resurrected and made by Kodak. If I am wrong, "Never Mind" (Apologies to Emily Litella)

Click to expand...

I haven't followed closely the Lomochrome, but wasn't it made by Inoviscoat who is related to Agfa? I gathered around that they are the newest player (their machinery derives from Agfa's and some of it is quite new).
Mirko of Adox mentioned that they have no interest in pursuing film manufacturing on their own, but anyone can go to them and develop film products. So Lomo did. Some part of the IP instant is made by them as well, and they appear in the coating part of the "how it is made" doc video.

I like when the discussion is directed towards an approach to low volume manufacture. I am quite enthusiastic about Harrow, their past manufacturing and the possible conversion to film manufacture if needed. But PE mentioned a series of difficulties and it wouldn't be feasible on the short run; I can't find the post.
Ilford do run a Film/paper single installation, so why KA couldn't? Indeed, but I forgot about those specific challenges.

Photo Engineer said:

Forgotten ideas: Kodak made a 400 speed Kodachrome and sent it out for trade trial. It was fine grained and sharp with all of the Kodachrome benefits but was totally rejected by the photo magazine editors and test customers as being irrelevant in the face of E6. It was never marketed. There were improved versions of the other products under way as well and it was all shut down. This was in the '90s.
[...]
And finally, the week that Kodachrome was cancelled the manager of that division "retired". My guess is that she told Perez that cancelling the flagship product was ungood and he said "your retired". Just a guess and a rumor at EK. After all, he told me that Kodak was losing money on B&W papers but my thought was that many others made a profit from making them. Oh well. Dan, you were here when this "retirement" took place. I think we talked about it at lunch. So, here it is as a thought only.

Kodachrome was being coated about once every 2 years with the minimum # of master rolls being made. Even so, the stock was not selling out and as noted earlier here, it was being sold with short dates. Finally, it pretty much stopped moving at the dealers and something HAD to be done.

Now, if you note the 60,000+ membership of APUG and the # of people posting on Kodachrome, you may figure out that Kodak did something painful but smart.

PE

Click to expand...

I am happy to have been able to shoot a bit of it and give it a farewell, at the very end of it all. It was on a continuous descent for these 20 years and PE has explained ad infinitum what happened with it.

I see that a little thing, marketing wise, could have been done before the very end. But it may have been useful just for an extra manufacturing cycle. Supposing Kodak was as Ilford is, close to the customer. They could have said: Well people, Kodachrome is in the threshold of being discontinued, we've had suboptimal results with the past manufacture. We need more customer involvement.
Perhaps it would have woken up people a bit, like it did after the discontinuance, and the sense of danger would "rev up a bit the engines". Perhaps they could have followed a prefinancing/customer funding stance.

On a marketing perspective that manager was right... As Dan mentioned (same Dan? Kodachrome project Dan) The news about Kodachrome being dead equalled Kodak being dead to the layman.

There are nearly 70,000 members / subscribers and over 900 on line as I write this. I've said this before! With only about 25 or so people posting here this represents a level of disinterest that is typical for this product in the marketplace. It became irrelevant in the late 90s. Kodak tried a push on it then and it failed, back when they did advertise.

Then they warned you about the cancellation and the result was a huge number of complaints expressed over and over again, but just as here on APUG, by the same people over and over again! If you go 70,000 comments from even 50,000 people you would have something but you have 192 from about 25 people here. Not a stellar groundswell!

Lots of luck guys.

And, any product can be re-introduced from any company - if you pay them for it. But, I know of a recent case of EK being paid to remake a discontinued product (for the right amount of money), and it succeeded by their tests but in the customers hands it failed. Hmm, and it was a "simple" B&W product.

And no, don't ask me what it was or who it was for. That is off limits!

I can say that photo products are among the most difficult to make if not the most difficult. Continuity is everything..

PE

Photo Engineer said:

There are nearly 70,000 members / subscribers and over 900 on line as I write this. I've said this before! With only about 25 or so people posting here this represents a level of disinterest that is typical for this product in the marketplace. It became irrelevant in the late 90s. Kodak tried a push on it then and it failed, back when they did advertise.

Then they warned you about the cancellation and the result was a huge number of complaints expressed over and over again, but just as here on APUG, by the same people over and over again! If you go 70,000 comments from even 50,000 people you would have something but you have 192 from about 25 people here. Not a stellar groundswell!

Click to expand...

When ever I refer to people not understanding the economies of scale in making film at the scale that is required to put forth a quality product, the above puts it into full perspective. The people who are often asking for films gone by *highly* overestimate the actual interest...and they take it personally that their chosen product has been discontinued.

I certainly have my hordes of cool discontinued films, but I really choose to use the most stable products out there that meet my needs in order to get into a rhythm I can count on.

Thanks for putting it this way PE, maybe it will sway a few to move on and support the great products we have left....and write a thread about how thankful they are to still have them.

Your numbers mau not fully reflect the fact that some participants wouldn't use K even if it did resurect from the grave.

Photo Engineer said:

There are nearly 70,000 members / subscribers and over 900 on line as I write this. I've said this before! With only about 25 or so people posting here this represents a level of disinterest that is typical for this product in the marketplace. It became irrelevant in the late 90s. Kodak tried a push on it then and it failed, back when they did advertise.

Then they warned you about the cancellation and the result was a huge number of complaints expressed over and over again, but just as here on APUG, by the same people over and over again! If you go 70,000 comments from even 50,000 people you would have something but you have 192 from about 25 people here. Not a stellar groundswell!

Lots of luck guys.

And, any product can be re-introduced from any company - if you pay them for it. But, I know of a recent case of EK being paid to remake a discontinued product (for the right amount of money), and it succeeded by their tests but in the customers hands it failed. Hmm, and it was a "simple" B&W product.

And no, don't ask me what it was or who it was for. That is off limits!

I can say that photo products are among the most difficult to make if not the most difficult. Continuity is everything..

PE

Click to expand...

Exactly, Ron! And this is the problem with forums in general. The erroneous belief of few members that their voices making noise represent a larger movement that is simply hiding in the bushes, ready to fight, camera in hand, for the resurrection of something like Kodachrome.

Falotico, 1) why are you so upset about this? And 2) what difference is it going to make? It seems like you have a gripe with Kodak for how they've handled the discontinuation of Kodachrome. It has been three years already and Kodak has had quite a few not so "Kodak Moments" since. You can sit here and scream and shout for another twenty pages but that's still not going to change anything.

BrianShaw said:

Your numbers mau not fully reflect the fact that some participants wouldn't use K even if it did resurect from the grave.

Click to expand...

I shoot several dozen rolls in the '60s and I did not like the muddy tinged skies. I liked Ektachrome much better and never used or missed Kodachrome after that. Ektachrome was always the superior product.

Sirius Glass said:

I shoot several dozen rolls in the '60s and I did not like the muddy tinged skies. I liked Ektachrome much better and never used or missed Kodachrome after that. Ektachrome was always the superior product.

Click to expand...

We might be talking about a different kind of K but I've found that while on K both ektachrome and kodachrome seem a bit over the top.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Further, I think these Kodachrome threads would be a wonderful place to conduct market research to help determine just how much residual demand there still is for Kodachrome, Kodachrome, Kodachrome...

:devil:

Ken

Click to expand...

Considering that E6 film is dying at an incredibly fast rate, I doubt any really needs this "research" to know that Kodachrome died and will long stay dead.

Heh, heh...



Ken