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

[removed account4]

i think 100 $ USD is reasonable !!
count me in, especially if it includes send back processing !
heck the original KODAK only cost 3 months sallery !

 

[Element 6]

Is this Kodachrome revival a replay of the new Coke and back to Coke Classic which was really a ploy to remove cane sugar from Coke and replace it with corn syrup?

Actually for us connoisseurs of conspiracy theories, Coke changed it to remove the cocaine from Coke, not the cane sugar. Normally I would not post this controversial theory, but since this is a Kodachrome revival thread, I figured no one would be surprised.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The cocaine was removed in the early twentieth century. The sugar cane was removed fairly recently.

 

[keenmaster486]

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.

 

[MattKing]

The colour of both of your examples has a lot to do with lighting.
And discussions about old colour vs. new colour are fraught with difficulties arising from issues like age related deterioration of materials, past and present unavailability of components, changes in taste and preference, even changes in ambient indoor illumination.
Not to mention age related deterioration of memories!
I have a memory about how Agfachrome and Kodachrome slides in the 1970s appeared in respect to each other. I recall preferring the apparent accuracy of the Kodachrome ones, but appreciating how the apparent inaccuracy of the Agfachrome ones suited many subjects. But who is to say whether those colour memories of mine are in themselves accurate.
This image was shot in 2012 on modern Ektachrome, but if my recollection is correct, it would have rendered well on 1970s Agfachrome:

 

[bvy]

How about they bring back Cibachrome instead? We need some way to print all this slide film that's reappearing.

 

[Wayne]

OH NO not another series of Kodachrome again! We will all be killed! We will all be killed!

Please start with me....

 

[Wayne]

How about they bring back Cibachrome instead? We need some way to print all this slide film that's reappearing.

They won't bring that back because Sal doesn't like it...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

How about they bring back Cibachrome instead? We need some way to print all this slide film that's reappearing.

No thanks.
Today we have much better, easier, faster, reliable and more cost-effective means of printing from slides without the bother of very poor, persistently absent quality control that was so much a festering blight on Ilfochrome Classic in the few years leading up to its predictable demise.

 

[Wayne]

Never say never!

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/

never

 

[Prest_400]

Again, it would just take some rich mogul that came up to Kodak and say:
"Well guys, I want Kodachrome back, here's $XM to formulate the product and get a small lab running. I'll take the financial risk, you do the rest"

 

[twelvetone12]

I will accept Kodachrome only if it comes in the original Man-and-God process. AND coated the original way, one layer at time.

On a more serious not, but I'm really curious (please don't burn me down): PE do you know if kodachrome was ever coated with the machine in B38?

 

[Roger Cole]

How about they bring back Cibachrome instead? We need some way to print all this slide film that's reappearing.

Not that I think it would happen but a good modern Type R paper and processing kit...

sigh.

 

[Darko Pozar]

Perhaps Paul Simon could do an updated version of "Kodachrome"?

 

[Darko Pozar]

No thanks.
Today we have much better, easier, faster, reliable and more cost-effective means of printing from slides without the bother of very poor, persistently absent quality control that was so much a festering blight on Ilfochrome Classic in the few years leading up to its predictable demise.

Gary, your Cibachromes were gorgeous...

 

[railwayman3]

There are two points here:

There is, in recent years, a definite trend towards nostalgia in numerous products and designs. An obvious example is vinyl discs....it is unarguably easier to use CD's, MP3's and downloads, all with excellent quality. But some (including myself) still like the sound quality and querks of vinyl, and are willing to pay for costly discs and high-end turntables. Why should Kodachrome be different.

And not all photography is about "ultra-accurate" colours (whatever that may be...all our eyes and brains see colour differently). But, if that is the only criteria, why do we bother with B&W, sepia toning, cyanotypes and all the other processes ? And maybe there is also some nostalgia, or at least intellectural or artistic interest in using old processes ? For that matter, why do artists still use paper, paint or coloured pencils, when a digital image is quicker, easier and a more accurate record ?

 

[Halford]

Why should Kodachrome be different.

Your quote is alarmingly sensible given a lot of what's being said in the various [pick your]chrome threads. But on this point, the difference is that your vinyl LP can 'realised' to sound on any turntable out of literally millions, that you can have in your home at a modest cost. It does not depend on a network of sites implementing some truly arcane processing methods. So supporting a small market for vinyls (though I'm amazed at the amount of floorspace vinyls are getting in record stores these days) is much easier than supporting a small market for kodachrome.

Resurrecting kodachrome (except as a meaningless brand name on a different type of product) would mean implementing processing centres that, in the absence of a truly massive film renaissance, would severely limit the reach of the product in terms of global markets.

Kodachrome is going to stay dead, IMHO.

 

[railwayman3]

Your quote is alarmingly sensible given a lot of what's being said in the various [pick your]chrome threads. But on this point, the difference is that your vinyl LP can 'realised' to sound on any turntable out of literally millions, that you can have in your home at a modest cost. It does not depend on a network of sites implementing some truly arcane processing methods. So supporting a small market for vinyls (though I'm amazed at the amount of floorspace vinyls are getting in record stores these days) is much easier than supporting a small market for kodachrome.

Resurrecting kodachrome (except as a meaningless brand name on a different type of product) would mean implementing processing centres that, in the absence of a truly massive film renaissance, would severely limit the reach of the product in terms of global markets.

Kodachrome is going to stay dead, IMHO.

TBH, I'm inclined to agree with you, Halford.

OTOH, one processing centre, operated by Kodak themselves, together with perhaps a mail order system for the film, would not seem impossible. In the photographic field (and in many other fields) there still seems to be small-scale suppliers of almost every specialist item (bought myself a Cyanotype kit for Xmas!), examples are 8mm film being still available with processing services, reversal processing of B&W, Minox film and services, also Polaroid films. Not sure about 9.5mm film now, but film and processing was certainly available a year or two ago.

 

[Nzoomed]

Coating need may be too small for a product to be useful as a product!

Ektachrome that looks like Kodachrome is a real reach but possible.

Did you know that EDTA is class as a very toxic chemical but is used intravenously as a medication for heavy metal poisoning? How can it be used both ways??? I'm wondering what the guys are up to classifying things helter-skelter and the result being meaningless. No color process is better or worse than any other, but the original Kodachrome process was a kludge that had to be changed to a more modern method. The colors were due to severe process crosstalk.

PE

The thing is that today, there is now a demand for "imperfect" films, e.g I love the look of vintage kodachrome, while it may not be "accurate" I enjoy shooting on stuff that gives a picture the vintage feel, like it was shot 40 years ago or more.
If photographers want "perfection" well there are plenty of negative films available for that purpose.

There are ever more people like me that want the retro or vintage look.

Realistically, if its possible to make an E6 film with the same qualities as Kodachrome, that may very well be the way forward, perhaps call it kodachrome III, even if it needs modified E6 chemistry to process the stuff, who cares? At least it could be done at home.

If something can be done, this may be the way to go, there certainly would be a market for such a film.

 

[jrhilton]

Are we sure they are talking about bringing back the film, and not just putting "Kodachrome" on one of their branded batteries for example?

 

[faberryman]

Oh so you still think that a pixel is smaller than a film grain. In what universe?

I didn't say a pixel was smaller than a film grain. I said that transparency film doesn't resolve at the molecular level, which is what you suggested. Obviously reading is not your forte.

 

[bvy]

No thanks.
Today we have much better, easier, faster, reliable and more cost-effective means of printing from slides...

Like you say... No thanks.

 

[bvy]

Not that I think it would happen but a good modern Type R paper and processing kit...

You've come crawling back. Yes, that would be nice.

 

[Wayne]

Perhaps Paul Simon could do an updated version of "Kodachrome"?

Yes. He should call it "Fujichrome"

 

[Wayne]

No thanks.
Today we have much better, easier, faster, reliable and more cost-effective means of printing from slides without the bother of very poor, persistently absent quality control that was so much a festering blight on Ilfochrome Classic in the few years leading up to its predictable demise.

What were these quality control issues? I never noticed any.