This is exactly the problem we face as a society today, of which plenty has been written on how doomed they are because of it!
You imply(ed) that they are excused and even justified in not giving a rats arse about what went before them and how things came to be.
Edit: You don’t have to have lived something to have a real emotional response to it.
On the contrary liking and admiring the Beatles or Edmond Burke at a distance and seeing them clearly for what they are, whether you lived them or not, is probably a purer and bigger love/like, than just the easily disappointed rose tinted memories.
Telling someone that they have “a lot more time, energy, and inclination” to post on a forum implies that they haven’t got anything better to do, and is stumblingly close to saying that it isn’t really worth your time or really shouldn’t be worths anyone’s time.Where did I shame you, exactly? I've seen that you are tenacious, it's not a value judgment, I'm simply giving up, not claiming a win, I have to go make dinner, you can have this one.
Telling someone that they have “a lot more time, energy, and inclination” to post on a forum implies that they haven’t got anything better to do, and is stumblingly close to saying that it isn’t really worth your time or really shouldn’t be worths anyone’s time.
I just (currently) prefer this to watching inane series or tv in breaks and when mulling over doing something else on the computer.
And I see it as probably worthwhile effort in this small specialized forum.
Sheesh! See, you have me justifying myself...
I hope so, also. But I’m asking a dollars-and-cents question. Is that product line profitable?
Probably not answerable but something I ask myself whenever I Read suggestions that someone else make an investment with assumptions that “if it’s available buyers will magically appear”. It’s too easy to make suggestions when someone else absorbs all of the risk.
Ditto for sure.I'd much rather join @Donald Qualls in learning wet plate.
As for Kodachrome someone mentioned reintroducing the brand name as an E6 product and that's the only way I could envision a successful return to the marketplace; of course diehards would hate that but trading on the Kodachrome brand with cleaner/easier/faster E6 makes sense. I bet a new E6 Kodachrome that shares the color characteristics of classic Kodachrome would be a hit in the (admittedly small) color slide market.
But not Kodachome. Mama please take my Kodachrome away!
... and not Polaroid either, which I’d much rather have than Kodachrome if I had a time machine! Too bad Paul never wrote a song about Polaroid... Oh, but Taylor did...
Is Kodachrome something that is quintessentially American like say Jimmy Stewart? Without either has the nation begun to lose its way?
If there isn't a resurrection of Kodachrome then what happens eventually? I can't speak for Kodachrome but I think a resurrection of Jimmy, U.S. stalwart though he was, may not be sensible
pentaxuser
There have been 10*4 or 10*5 threads on various photo forums about bringing back Kodachrome. Of course it will not happen. The original post certainly was a successful bit of internet trolling.part of the effort to stop this tomfoolery about bringing back Kodachrome,
Or fanciful internet wanting.The original post certainly was a successful bit of internet trolling.
There have been 10*4 or 10*5 threads on various photo forums about bringing back Kodachrome. Of course it will not happen. The original post certainly was a successful bit of internet trolling.
As part of the effort to stop this tomfoolery about bringing back Kodachrome, I created a survey asking people what they would be willing to pay per roll for film plus processing. Most responses were delusionally unrealistic - as in the same or less per roll than E-6 currently costs. Ain't gonna happen no way no how. At a bare minimum, if someone were to magically reanimate the machinery to manufacture and process Kodachrome, it would not be profitable at even just double the current cost of E-6. So all those folks saying "I'd bet money on bringing it back" can just go pound sand. They're not willing to put money behind it. And most of the folks responding to the survey also indicated their personal volume would be in the under 100 rolls a year range. Again, nowhere near enough volume at ANY price point. You've got to remember that back in the day, commercial studios that used local pro labs would be buying their film in BULK, taking in hundreds of rolls a month. I can remember assisting a wedding photographer who would shoot 50+ rolls of 120 PER WEDDING. And he was a small solo studio, doing probably 2 weddings a month in-season.
I don’t think so. Kodak takes their film and information about it very seriously. Otherwise it would be hard for professionals to take them seriously.I don't think kodak is done with the name. We will get a Kodachrome branded film at some point, it just won't be Kodachrome.
I don’t think so. Kodak takes their film and information about it very seriously. Otherwise it would be hard for professionals to take them seriously.
Kodachrome is a very specific and special thing. Marketing something else as KC would be deception.
Building or reconfiguring a machine to do the thin coats for KC would be expensive but far from impossible. it’s not that different from Ektachrome in basic structure.
The problem would be getting processing widespread (enough) and affordable.
All the hokum about processing chemistry being environmentally unsound is just untrue at best.
Another possibility would be the single layer Kodachrome Kodak experimented with in the fifties and sixties.
That would involve research though, so that’s probably not on the horizon.
It’s pros who keep Kodak film alive.Most professionals don't even think about Kodak anymore. If they can make a buck I think they'd do it.
I don’t think so. Kodak takes their film and information about it very seriously. Otherwise it would be hard for professionals to take them seriously.
Kodachrome is a very specific and special thing. Marketing something else as KC would be deception.
Building or reconfiguring a machine to do the thin coats for KC would be expensive but far from impossible. it’s not that different from Ektachrome in basic structure.
The problem would be getting processing widespread (enough) and affordable.
All the hokum about processing chemistry being environmentally unsound is just untrue at best.
Another possibility would be the single layer Kodachrome Kodak experimented with in the fifties and sixties.
That would involve research though, so that’s probably not on the horizon.
They are very different. Ektar is sharper and has more natural colours.Kodak already has something that very closely mimics Kodachrome in color saturation and sharpness - it's called Ektar 100. It' just not a transparency film.
They are very different. Ektar is sharper and has more natural colours.
Slide definitely has a place in today’s world.Colour slides, i.e. mainly Kodachrome, were the "go-to" colour for almost everyone from about the 1950's onwards, and the majority was probably sold to holiday and family snapshotters, with projectors and screens being regular entertainment on dark evenings, (as also were 8mm movie shows, again on Kodachrome). Print film and processing (e.g. Kodacolor) were very expensive until maybe the mid-1960's onwards, but became cheaper and more convenient for the snapshotter than buying and setting up a projector every time.
Video and images for quick and easy use have now moved onto smartphones, so any demand for Kodachrome would now be restricted to we transparency or cine enthusiasts, who, even as keen as we are, would not use hundreds of films annually. I suppose that we must be grateful that there are still transpanency films from two manufacturers!
No one said it was technically impossible, so you're trying to dispel a non-existent myth. If it were impossible, it wouldn't have been created in the first place.
It is infeasible, impractical and improbable-- It makes no sense from a technical, financial or ecological point of view.
Other than that, it's a great idea.
This!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?