Kodak ‘Investigating What it Would Take’ to Bring Back Kodachrome

[flavio81]

Back to the topic, what Kodak could do is to process the film centrally (i.e. at Rochester) and scan it (yes, SCAN it) at very high resolution (i think good 24 or 36MP could be extracted from such a neg), uploading the files to a 'cloud' server, before mailing the slides back to the user.

In this way,

a. the user will be able to see the results quicker than waiting for the courier to return the film (significant for us international users)
b. great scans will simultaneously be made AND backed up to a server -- something which is a big bonus in an era where flatbed scanners are terrible and really good scanners are really expensive

The part in bold, for me, is very significant. I know this is not DPUG but we're talking about the resurrection of K14 in year 2016, and how do we share our analog images here in APUG, Flickr, etc? You know the answer.

 

[480sparky]

Kodachrome ain't exactly 'coming back' to me.

Fact is, it never left me.

 

[Tim Boehm]

I have a small scanning business where we market to seniors and their children to 'digitize' their heirloom transparencies. Scanning 40 year old Kodachrome slides is a joy. They look like they were made last week. The colour, the quality is fantastic. Especially when compared to 40 year old E6 type slides which are faded and thin.

Likewise, I was looking at Kodachrome slides for the 60's vacations; just incredibly beautiful, like they were made yesterday. Yes, bring it back. In fact make large format sizes.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Place your bets now as to how many pages this thread will get to -- I'm going on record now as calling it at 26 pages.

21 of which will be comprised of people bickering over pointless minutiae and the rest of the pages taken up by people posting their pictures that have nothing to do with the topic but couldn't resist showing off their work, regardless.

 

[flavio81]

21 of which will be comprised of people bickering over pointless minutiae and the rest of the pages taken up by people posting their pictures that have nothing to do with the topic but couldn't resist showing off their work, regardless.

I have no pictures to show, so i'll start bickering over pointless minutiae. Thanks for giving me a great idea.

 

[mshchem]

I am just ticked to death that they are bringing back Ektachrome; Kodachrome would have been even better. I would also love to see Plus-X and Panatomic-X. The cherry on top would be MGB's circa 1967-1971 design (without Lucas Electrical systems). But, I'll settle for what comes.

61 MGA and I'm with you

 

[Roger Cole]

Kodachrome ain't exactly 'coming back' to me.

Fact is, it never left me.

Well ok, but I bet you wish you could shoot that and get it properly processed in color!

 

[mshchem]

Yes, if I want the original Kodachrome it's not because it's a better film by accurate reproduction standards. It's because I just like the look of it.

Kodachrome II, 64, etc. are better films and processes in that they more accurately represent what our eyes actually see.

Compare, for instance, the following WWII era original Kodachrome photo:

With the following modern Kodachrome shot (one of the last...):

The first has a very soft, pastel look - it almost looks like a Norman Rockwell painting!

The second is a much better reproduction of actual colors - lean in close and you can't tell it from real life. So it's a better film by that standard, but it doesn't have the unique charm of the original.

Here's another question: I've seen a lot of Kodacolor prints from the same era as original Kodachrome that have the same vibrant, pastel look. What's up with that? Kodacolor II stuff from the 60's and 70's usually looks pretty bland in comparison.

But of course this is all moot, as Kodak is 5000% less likely to resurrect the original Kodachrome than K-14 type.

I'm not arguing with you, I have my Dad's Kodachrome from late 40s, beautiful! But the Navy boys in that photo are shot on 8x10, with huge flashbulb array fill flash. 8x10 Fujichrome Provia would look pretty good too

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you want to chain anyone in a barn, Ron is the guy! Sorry Ron, Just kidding.

He is great and is the world's expert on Kodachrome. Much more than me.

PE

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm considering marrying Scarlett Johansson.

Looks like you won't have to travel too far...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/scarlett-johansson-move-paris-glasgow-3293357

 

[flavio81]

If you want to chain anyone in a barn, Ron is the guy! Sorry Ron, Just kidding.

He is great and is the world's expert on Kodachrome. Much more than me.

PE

That was clever...

 

[kruiwagen]

Back to the topic, what Kodak could do is to process the film centrally (i.e. at Rochester) and scan it (yes, SCAN it) at very high resolution (i think good 24 or 36MP could be extracted from such a neg), uploading the files to a 'cloud' server, before mailing the slides back to the user.

In this way,

a. the user will be able to see the results quicker than waiting for the courier to return the film (significant for us international users)
b. great scans will simultaneously be made AND backed up to a server -- something which is a big bonus in an era where flatbed scanners are terrible and really good scanners are really expensive

The part in bold, for me, is very significant. I know this is not DPUG but we're talking about the resurrection of K14 in year 2016, and how do we share our analog images here in APUG, Flickr, etc? You know the answer.

I like you idea and somehow agree with it. But I think scanning should be optional. IF Kodak was to release Kodachrome again, at what price should they sell it? and does it include shipping and processing? Being that Velvia 50 here in The Netherlands almost costs €15 and that does not include developing.

What if you don't like your slides being scanned, I don't think a lot of people are willing to pay an all-in-amount of money for a service they haven't asked for.

However, seeing there is a growing need for high quality scan services, I like your idea that Kodak could provide optional scanning.

 

[Nzoomed]

Kodachrome will return, its not a matter of "if" but when!

 

[Prest_400]

Back to the topic, what Kodak could do is to process the film centrally (i.e. at Rochester) and scan it (yes, SCAN it) at very high resolution (i think good 24 or 36MP could be extracted from such a neg), uploading the files to a 'cloud' server, before mailing the slides back to the user.
.

Basically the same tried model by a lot of C41 labs. I don't know if there is a specific term for these "3.0 approach".
At the end it'd be structured just as the current labs might be, with different scanning tiers aside of the processing. The advantage of Slides are the lack of interpretation/solid reference they are and because thefiles are manually adjusted/graded it is very labor intensive.

Pricing schemes won't be cheap for large files if they follow the current model.

There is a two student team in RFF (quejai) that is working in an open source "tiling-stitching" scanner. Interesting idea and execution.

I know scanning is not the core workflow in APUG but discussing it is just business sense.

 

[removed account4]

Place your bets now as to how many pages this thread will get to -- I'm going on record now as calling it at 26 pages.

21 of which will be comprised of people bickering over pointless minutiae and the rest of the pages taken up by people posting their pictures that have nothing to do with the topic but couldn't resist showing off their work, regardless.

i'm still looking for the email of the guy in austrailia with the dingo.

 

[flavio81]

. The advantage of Slides are the lack of interpretation/solid reference they are and because thefiles are manually adjusted/graded it is very labor intensive.

You can also have scans with "lack of interpretation" if you're the central lab. Calibrate scanning to the colors and exposure to a properly exposed current batch of film, and scan all films under those parameters.

Whichever color casts or exposure diferences they are on the film, they stay.

And IMO preferable to an operator adjusting manually or (worse) auto-corrections.

Since pictures would go to a cloud server, Kodak could also implement an app to let you pick some of your frames to a Kodak contest, or to be able to link to them in a way Kodak openly certifies that this image was made with actual Kodachrome film,

or share directly to tumblr, flickr, etc.

 

[twelvetone12]

#certifiedgenuinekodachrome #nofilter

 

[flavio81]

#certifiedgenuinekodachrome #nofilter

Exactly.

I mean, Kodak could be like a third-party that can reliably certify (sort of a Bureau Veritas) that the image hosted on his servers:

1. has been shot on actual kodachrome film
2. has not been manipulated in exposure or color balance
3. has not been manipulated in any way, nor cropped

This is VERY meaningful for pretentious hipsters like me. No, seriously.

I'll go even further: This could be the key to further analog revival.
I think Kodak should offer this service in general, they can do it for E6 films as well, as long as they are Kodak.

 

[480sparky]

Well ok, but I bet you wish you could shoot that and get it properly processed in color!

That............ would just be schnizzle with me!

 

[Wallendo]

I would love for Kodachrome to return. I grew up in the 60's and 70's shooting it in a Kodak Instamatic (fixed lens, 1/125s shutter, f8) and later a Yashica MG-1. I have slides from a European trip in 1981 that look brand new.

On the other hand, I would probably buy 5 rolls or so and then go back to Velvia 50 or the new Ektachrome. The nostalgia factor would wear off quickly, and E6 films are easier to scan. I last shot Kodachrome in the early 1980's. I switched to C-41 as at the time as a was in school and in training and projecting slides wasn't practical. I suspect that after some initial excitement, that many users would remember why they stopped buying Kodachrome the first time around.

I think that would be obvious to Kodak, and I suspect if any form of Kodachrome emerges, it would be a E6 film with Kodachrome color balance.

 

[railwayman3]

Back to the topic, what Kodak could do is to process the film centrally (i.e. at Rochester) and scan it (yes, SCAN it) at very high resolution (i think good 24 or 36MP could be extracted from such a neg), uploading the files to a 'cloud' server, before mailing the slides back to the user.

In this way,

a. the user will be able to see the results quicker than waiting for the courier to return the film (significant for us international users)
b. great scans will simultaneously be made AND backed up to a server -- something which is a big bonus in an era where flatbed scanners are terrible and really good scanners are really expensive

The part in bold, for me, is very significant. I know this is not DPUG but we're talking about the resurrection of K14 in year 2016, and how do we share our analog images here in APUG, Flickr, etc? You know the answer.

I see your point, but personally I'm not interested in any all-in processing service which includes scanning. I've tried these in the past with both slide film and C-41 lab services and found that the scans are generally not of good quality. And I usually find that, when I scan my own films (which, with normal care, I can do at better quality then ordinary lab scans) there are probably only half-a-dozen or so shots from each film that I find good enough to want to scan or print for further use. Same when printing my B&W negs, I don't need prints of every single one, just the "best" ones.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back to the topic, what Kodak could do is to process the film centrally (i.e. at Rochester) and scan it (yes, SCAN it) at very high resolution (i think good 24 or 36MP could be extracted from such a neg), uploading the files to a 'cloud' server, before mailing the slides back to the user.

If it is going to be scanned then why bother to use film?

 

[flavio81]

If it is going to be scanned then why bother to use film?

Sirius Glass,

I think you already do know the answer.

Capturing images using film and film cameras gives you most of all the advantages and delights film photography has to offer, even if displaying such images is not done on the analog domain. And what I propose does not prevent in any way to take the film (which SHOULD return to the photographer) and use it as usual, in the analog domain.

Again, if i had such a service, it will be useful for me; i would use the slides for projection and to delight looking at them, while the scans I could use, for example, for sharing over the internet.

 

[Craig]

If you sent them by mail, the same schedule applied, except the to and fro transport was done by the Post Office, and you got the results in your mail (in many cases delivered right to your door).
Some people were under the impression that the mailing envelope that came with the film was what insured that you didn't have to pay extra for the processing. In actuality, it was the labeling on the film cassette.

Now that you mention it, I can remember when I was small the mailman bringing the yellow box when slides had arrived in the mail. That was the nights entertainment, loading up the cubes in the Bell and Howell projector and looking at them.
When I started shooting slides I dropped off Kodachrome at Woodwards, then London Drugs after Woodwards closed. I think if I get the film in on Monday, I'd have it back by Friday for sure, sometimes quicker.

Yes, it was the red ends on the film cassette that indicated processing included.

 

[removed account4]

The advantage of Slides are the lack of interpretation/solid reference they are and because thefiles are manually adjusted/graded it is very labor intensive.

i've skranned slides ( 35mm-4x5 ) for 20 years ( off and on )
it is no more or less labor intensive than scanning anything else.
a mini lab that processes a roll of c41 film uses an automated process,
to get the images on a cee dee, and if you ask happy D ( dwaynes in parsons kansas )
to process and put your slides on cee dee it takes no more or less time than it would for negative film
and otherwise it would cost more $$ &c ...