Kodachrome - Totally dead?

[PaulDK]

Thanks for your inputs PE.

If I knew how delicate this topic was, of course I could have gone through the many threads about Kodachrome to find my answer. Anyhoo...

I wish you and your family a blessed christmas eve.

 

[Roger Cole]

To clarify, the phone threats were regarding emulsion making and not Kodachrome or Magenta. They ceased several years back after the caller claimed that his motive was that I had destroyed his life work by publishing emulsion related topics here. I guess he was saving up to do it himself. IDK. But yes Dan, they did happen, usually around 7 or 11 PM and about once per week or so. There are old posts on this here as I was pretty upset.

As for the EPA and Kodachrome, the Kodachrome process uses 3 developers with three couplers in them and uses a very high pH value. So, in terms of usage, Kodachrome can produce around 2x more pollution per unit area than E6 and much more than C41. So, even though I know no details, I do know that there were potential issues.

And, it will continue to get worse for all of us as tighter restrictions are placed on chemicals.

PE

If it's just high pH values, couldn't it just be brought down by adding a suitable acid before disposal/removal or whatever? If it's inherently toxic that's one thing, if it's just pH that's pretty easily adjusted, I'd think.

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks David.

If Kodachrome threads are indeed considered to be on-topic here and not subject to being shut down simply because they exist, then the entire reason for meta-discussion instantly vanishes.

And given that, my only contribution going forward is that I would absolutely love it if Kodak Alaris could at some point down the road resurrect periodic runs of Kodachrome, along with some sort of in-house or other processing solution.

Do I think that will ever happen? Nope. Never going to happen.

But I do wish it could happen. I personally would trade new Kodachrome runs for all of the current E-6 offerings out there.

Just my Kodachrome opinion. Thanks for listening...



Ken

Humm, I'd trade new Kodachrome runs for E6 IF we could get a new "K64" with at least a speed of 100 - that extra 2/3s stop is useful - AND a Kodachrome 400 with the look of Kodachrome and grain and sharpness no worse than Provia 400X. Now wouldn't THAT be some slide film awesomeness?

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.

And then I woke up.

 

[falotico]

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. As for the colormetrics: no color film represents a scene exactly, and "K" film's balance never bothered me. Frankly I'm more disturbed by the belief that you can compute the "correct" color balance by some numerical array--all due respect to Evans, Hanson and Brewer's book. 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. At one time Kodachrome 25 had the best resolution of any color film available. (People even used to talk about Kodachrome 12). I'm told that the modern films have improved resolution; but I have nothing to compare it to now that "K" film is gone.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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.

Somebody representing or speaking for either EK or KA, as recounted back in the gazillions of Kodachrome threads and posts, hinted at just that possibility. I'm usually pretty good at digging stuff up. But for the life of me I can't come up with a search fragment to find that post.

But it was there. Someone recounting a rep speaking at a meeting on the subject of downsizing production, or something like that. If I recall, the sense was not that they could or would, but rather that they didn't see a reason they couldn't if there was sufficient market demand. Of course, market demand was the rub. Don't remember what the credentials were for that speaker, however.

Actually, that post fragment probably comes closer to accurately answering the OP's original question than any of the last 15+ pages, coming as it did directly from a company rep, and not an APUG member's personal interpretation. Again, however, this is only as I recall...

Ken

 

[Athiril]

To clarify, the phone threats were regarding emulsion making and not Kodachrome or Magenta. They ceased several years back after the caller claimed that his motive was that I had destroyed his life work by publishing emulsion related topics here. I guess he was saving up to do it himself. IDK. But yes Dan, they did happen, usually around 7 or 11 PM and about once per week or so. There are old posts on this here as I was pretty upset.

Can't seem to find the right words other than you obviously have to have problems to believe that other people should keep their ideas to themselves to protect your own, let alone making threats to others.

 

[removed account4]

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 ?

it'll end up being like 30$ a roll and 40$ a roll to process
like the now famous double xx special order 600$ for 100 sheets
probably the most expensive 4x5 film made ( for perspective tmx is about 160$/ 100 sheets )
... but at least the end user can process it himself ... with KC they will have to make another machine
seeing from what i remember all of the former labs ( including our friends in kansas ) have all
dismantled and gotten rid of the equipment ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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.

Ahh... Here it is, Roger. From March 21, 2012. You posted only two replies after this one.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The quotes below are attributed to Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Pasterczyk was a chemist with film R&D at Eastman Kodak. At the time of this presentation Ms. Pasterczyk was also a Member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was currently serving SMPTE as a Manager of the Hollywood Section, and National Membership Chair.

From the above link:

"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.

To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".

[Above emphasis is mine. —Ken]

[Edit1: According to Linked-In, Beverly Pasterczyk is currently a Regional Technical Director at Eastman Kodak. I don't know what that title means.]

[Edit2: For the record, I have no way to verify the above quotes as being true or even accurate. Perhaps she could be emailed directly to either confirm or refute that she ever actually said these things?]

[Edit3: Digging further, it looks like the meeting itself, with Ms. Pasterczyk as the featured speaker, did in fact take place on March 20, 2012. Click here for the official SMPTE announcement. And it seems she did also discuss Kodachrome to some extent, although none of the above q&a quotes are recorded in this summary of her remarks. (Search for her name on the linked page. The meeting summary is further down that page.)]

So, I believe the original question was "Kodachrome - Totally dead?"

I dunno'. Maybe. Probably. Or perhaps if Ms. Pasterczyk really did answer the audience questions as indicated above, maybe not?

Ken

 

[PKM-25]

Why do I get the feeling that many on here like eating *highly* tenderized horsemeat for breakfast, lunch and dinner?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You know... If you've never eaten rat meat, it's ONLY because you haven't been hungry enough...



Ken

 

[RPC]

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

 

[hoffy]

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

Yeah, that will work....[/sarcasm]

Do you know what I would be interested in. I would like to know about ALL the other processes that have come and gone over the years, what they offered and why they all disappeared. This includes the many different printing processes.

That would be a good history lesson and I am sure, interesting reading for Film Nerds like us.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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

Do you, or any of the other folks asking for this, realize the economies involved? You'd need to find 10,000 people willing to commit to shooting 1000 rolls a year for thirty years at probably $30-$40/roll to get Kodak (or anyone else) to commit to reviving such a product. And that would just cover the costs of making it. You'd have to have millions of amateurs shooting <10 rolls a year to give it a profit margin. And that ain't happenin'. If it had happened 2 years ago, the product would still be in production. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was the R&D and tooling costs were paid for decades ago.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

I support this idea. Kodachrome resurrection threads need to be isolated from the general population using whatever means necessary.

+1!

 

[removed account4]

if they could resurrect kodachrome, and make it processed in standard E6 chemistry, now that would work

 

[FilmNerd]

Reverse engineer?

I wonder if Kodachrome could be reverse engineered so that it could be made again in such a way that it could be developed using an E-6 process. Of course, this would take lots of time and money. I'm assuming it would be easier, faster and cheaper just to make a new film that gave us those "nice bight colors" and "greens of Summer". I don't think it will happen, but who knows? The Twinkie came back from the grave!

 

[bdial]

I'm assuming it would be easier, faster and cheaper just to make a new film that gave us those "nice bight colors" and "greens of Summer"

They did that, it's called Ektar

 

[semi-ambivalent]

It's useful to revisit threads like this, either to fine tune our understanding of the topic or to cringe at what we used to think (with enough conviction to post it publicly (again-cringe)). What I've come to realize is that much of the value I place on Kodachrome is the value I place on the images I have on it; not the film itself. I keep about 15 rolls of it in the deep freezer as a sort of paen to those days, a fetish or talisman to ward off the loss of memories drifting ever farther into the past. Private value for an ever-older, perhaps ever-more irrelevant old guy. And yet, when Dwayne's sent out the last call for K14 processing like a bartender turning the lights back on I was too lazy to get the family in some shots. I had the family in some shots already, on other emulsions.

Right now, Kodachrome does (did) very little that isn't done now and cheaper by digital imagery. For the billions who create images, not we happy few who think about keeping images worth keeping for decades and decades, digital has won. Unless there is some worldwide digital disaster that wipes out hard drives everywhere and the planet begins once again to see the value in storing images in physical form digital has won. There is enough of a struggle ahead keeping alive the emulsions that remain without trying to bring back one that is so completely gone. (Besides, what good would Kodachrome be if the processing was as crappy as it had become. Huh?) Rather than pecking on and on about Kodachrome start thinking about things like snapchat. In ten years kids aren't even going to have a past to look at at the rate they're being flooded with the latest inconsequential, ephemeral images that pop up on their phones, and the next and the next. They're going to lose an appreciation of past-ness, of its finality. That would be a Bad Thing.

So as this year draws to its close and we're offered a somewhat arbitrary point for a New Start, look at the work we have to do to save the emulsions and emulsion vendors we have now. Put your energy there. And, if you really need Kodachrome (and I miss that smell too), post it in a Kodachrome forum, and include your list of investors, your business plan, some prototype samples and a list of emulsions you'd do without in exchange. Otherwise, enough.

Happy New Year

s-a

 

[RPC]

Do you, or any of the other folks asking for this, realize the economies involved? You'd need to find 10,000 people willing to commit to shooting 1000 rolls a year for thirty years at probably $30-$40/roll to get Kodak (or anyone else) to commit to reviving such a product. And that would just cover the costs of making it. You'd have to have millions of amateurs shooting <10 rolls a year to give it a profit margin. And that ain't happenin'. If it had happened 2 years ago, the product would still be in production. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was the R&D and tooling costs were paid for decades ago.

Yes, I understand it perfectly. My post was a bit of sarcasm directed at those who keep dreaming it could happen.

 

[removed account4]

and while they are reviving kodachromes,
they should revive autochromes
as well as every other defunct film.
im sure it won't cost much to
reverse engineer it all to work
with household cleaning products
instead of sending the exposed films to a lab.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

When the end of K-14 processing was on the way, I loaded my Voigtlander Vitessa-L with my last roll and said I'd shoot it slowly and save it for special occasions, which I did, but really, that's not a great way of doing photography. I wasn't shooting it regularly and getting feedback by processing roll after roll at that point, so despite concentrated effort, I don't think that was a particularly a strong bunch of 36 exposures.

Now I've decided whenever I've got the last of something in the freezer, I save it all for one project, test it if it's past date to see how to handle it in its current state, and then shoot it all at once if I can, as if they were still making it.

 

[Prest_400]

Indeed these threads end up entering a weird spiral

Really sad to hear about the wacko threatening PE. He's an invaluable member of the forum and it's quite bad that he had to endure with someone like that.

Ahh... Here it is, Roger. From March 21, 2012. You posted only two replies after this one.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The quotes below are attributed to Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Pasterczyk was a chemist with film R&D at Eastman Kodak. At the time of this presentation Ms. Pasterczyk was also a Member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was currently serving SMPTE as a Manager of the Hollywood Section, and National Membership Chair.

From the above link:

"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.

To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".

[Above emphasis is mine. —Ken]

[Edit1: According to Linked-In, Beverly Pasterczyk is currently a Regional Technical Director at Eastman Kodak. I don't know what that title means.]

[Edit2: For the record, I have no way to verify the above quotes as being true or even accurate. Perhaps she could be emailed directly to either confirm or refute that she ever actually said these things?]

[Edit3: Digging further, it looks like the meeting itself, with Ms. Pasterczyk as the featured speaker, did in fact take place on March 20, 2012. Click here for the official SMPTE announcement. And it seems she did also discuss Kodachrome to some extent, although none of the above q&a quotes are recorded in this summary of her remarks. (Search for her name on the linked page. The meeting summary is further down that page.)]

So, I believe the original question was "Kodachrome - Totally dead?"

I dunno'. Maybe. Probably. Or perhaps if Ms. Pasterczyk really did answer the audience questions as indicated above, maybe not?

Ken

I do remember this and it being posted on the mythical 200+ pages original thread.

It's specially interesting for more niche products which contrast the huge capacity of EK. At most, it would be quite useful for batch runs of Ektachome; Whose stucture and network is still alive.

Still, she does mention Volume. Big B38 would still be it.
I get it as a closer and more controlled on-demand manufacturing schedule. Yet there is no mention of the economics involved...

Other thing is that Alaris pursued their own film manufacture (long run future). PE did say it wasn't a doable task at the moment due to the need of adapting the installations.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ahh... Here it is, Roger. From March 21, 2012. You posted only two replies after this one.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The quotes below are attributed to Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Pasterczyk was a chemist with film R&D at Eastman Kodak. At the time of this presentation Ms. Pasterczyk was also a Member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was currently serving SMPTE as a Manager of the Hollywood Section, and National Membership Chair.

From the above link:

"On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.

To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".

[Above emphasis is mine. —Ken]

[Edit1: According to Linked-In, Beverly Pasterczyk is currently a Regional Technical Director at Eastman Kodak. I don't know what that title means.]

[Edit2: For the record, I have no way to verify the above quotes as being true or even accurate. Perhaps she could be emailed directly to either confirm or refute that she ever actually said these things?]

[Edit3: Digging further, it looks like the meeting itself, with Ms. Pasterczyk as the featured speaker, did in fact take place on March 20, 2012. Click here for the official SMPTE announcement. And it seems she did also discuss Kodachrome to some extent, although none of the above q&a quotes are recorded in this summary of her remarks. (Search for her name on the linked page. The meeting summary is further down that page.)]

So, I believe the original question was "Kodachrome - Totally dead?"

I dunno'. Maybe. Probably. Or perhaps if Ms. Pasterczyk really did answer the audience questions as indicated above, maybe not?

Ken

Yeah, I did remember that, but then no one could get another word about it out of anybody at Kodak and the conclusion seemed to be that she spoke without thinking or consulting anyone who could really agree to such a thing, or some such.

They could make the film and no doubt would if people wanted it badly enough, and I would pay $30 a roll for maybe three rolls a year. But the processing is the rub. I just don't see that returning and without it the film is useless.

 

[BrianShaw]

If it's just high pH values, couldn't it just be brought down by adding a suitable acid before disposal/removal or whatever? If it's inherently toxic that's one thing, if it's just pH that's pretty easily adjusted, I'd think.

Hey Roger. I quite agree. Seems like maybe it was a bit more than that. See page 3:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/infocus/photofin.pdf

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

When my son was a young Boy Scout we used to attend a yearly winter activities event. The event consisted of about a dozen individual stations scattered throughout a snowy campground. At each station the boys were asked to complete a small challenge.

My favorite challenge involved only two adults and no equipment. The first adult would write down, then whisper a phrase to one of the scouts. That scout would in turn repeat that phrase exactly to the next scout, and so on, until the final scout would whisper the phrase to the second adult, who also wrote it down. Then the adults compared their notes.

The results were always hilarious. If the first adult whispered,

"My dog has fleas."

the second adult heard back,

"My best friend's mother's great uncle first came to America in the early 1800s. He brought goats and llamas with him. The goats were OK, but the llamas suffered from the foreign insects. It got so bad my uncle eventually had to buy flea powder to save them all from extinction."

Goats? Llamas? Enormous herds of lovable but undisciplined cats?

The original question was quite simple. And severely compartmentalized. Is it totally dead? Or, the logical converse, is there any chance at all that it might not be dead?

Provided her recounted remarks are accurate, Ms. Pasterczyk may have answered that compartmentalized question directly. Without any references to pigs, chickens, goats, or llamas. Or cats.

Did she actually say those things during the q&a session? I have no direct deductive evidence that she did. I have no direct deductive evidence that she didn't. What about circumstantial evidence? Well, the meeting is recorded as having happened. She was the featured speaker. Her credentials likely placed her in a position to know, or know of, the technical issues involved. And it's in the record that she addressed the topic of Kodachrome during her presentation.

So everyone must weigh the currently available evidence and decide for themselves.

How many of you working as commercial engineers have had the Head of Marketing walk into your office and say, "If I asked nicely, could you make it do this?" And your answer was a very painful, "Well... yeah... I probably could. But we'd have to change this, and do that, and it would take forever, and introduce tons of new risk, and you don't even WANT to know how much it would cost..."

Whereupon the otherwise sane marketing fellow began grinning 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.

But the original question, and only the original question, was indeed answered...

Ken