New Thoughts On The Return Of Kodachrome

[George Mann]

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.

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!

 

[Helge]

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 a worthwhile effort in this small specialized forum, both to learn and to provide a viewpoint.
Sheesh! See, you have me justifying myself...

 

[PFGS]

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...

Well, I can see how one would find that implication in my words, at least - not my intention to devalue anyone's contribution, and I apologize. That I do need to go make dinner instead is a matter of fact, however, so... perhaps we can both lean back for a bit.

 

[MattKing]

In Ron's memory, surely we have had enough!

 

[warden]

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.

Yeah I don't think it's answerable and it's unlikely Kodak would want that information public whether good news or bad. There is considerable investment to recoup there (speaking of the lengthy E6 R&D effort) so the path to profitability is likely longer than more conventional reintroductions like P3200, which I can more easily imagine as a profitable product in the short term.

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.

I'd much rather join @Donald Qualls in learning wet plate.

Ditto for sure.

 

[George Mann]

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.

Don't forget Kodachromes unique contrast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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...

Polaroid Si!
Kodachrome No!

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Jimmy Stewart might have an opinion about being resurrected. After all he already had "Its a Wonderful Life" and the second time around it could get screwed up.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

part of the effort to stop this tomfoolery about bringing back Kodachrome,

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.

 

[MattKing]

The original post certainly was a successful bit of internet trolling.

Or fanciful internet wanting.

 

[Wayne]

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.

And that, coming from a guy named Kodachromeguy, should be the final word!

But it won't be.

 

[Cholentpot]

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 kodak is done with the name. We will get a Kodachrome branded film at some point, it just won't be Kodachrome.

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

Most professionals don't even think about Kodak anymore. If they can make a buck I think they'd do it.

 

[Helge]

Most professionals don't even think about Kodak anymore. If they can make a buck I think they'd do it.

It’s pros who keep Kodak film alive.

Both motion picture stock, and the dozens or even hundreds of rolls going through cameras at weddings, and model shoots.

Every one of these are far more important than even a hundred amateurs, who take a week or a month on average to finish a roll.

Not only ia their turnover much higher, they also keep film alive in the minds of people who don’t use it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[laingsoft]

They are very different. Ektar is sharper and has more natural colours.

Ektar in E6 retains the sharpness but gives similar very saturated colors to kodachrome, albeit with a slight cyan hue.
http://theanalogphotographer.blogspot.com/2012/07/film-matter-schizophrenic-ektar.html

 

[Agulliver]

I was projecting some Kodachrome super 8 that I shot in the 80s over the weekend.

Do I miss Kodachrome? You bet. However having read about the people who have reconstructed the K14 process in recent years and taken in all they had to do to process a few rolls decently.....I fully accept that it's not coming back. I doff my metaphorical hat to people who have achieved K14 processing of Kodachrome film in conditions far less than i have at work (I manage 15 school laboratories and can order in any chemical I like). I wouldn't attempt it and I do some pretty crazy stuff from time to time.

And the fact that pro photographers and National Geographic are no longer buying millions of feet of K'chrome a year is also a major stumbling block. I love it. I miss it. But I accept that it's gone.

 

[railwayman3]

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!

 

[Helge]

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!

Slide definitely has a place in today’s world.

The resolution and contrast ratio you get from a projected slide in a dark room leaves every other media in the dust.
It’s first generation and the image stability and vividness of colours almost seem like cheating.

One important way of viewing slides that has been all but forgotten is to use a magnifying viewer.
It’s not quite as breathtaking as a projected slide, but it’s so much more portable.
A slide in a such a viewer can look almost 3D with good foreground and/or middle ground.

I would love for someone to make a VR type goggle viewer.
Not for stereoscopic slides, but for viewing a single slide with brilliant LED backlight and with big magnification.
Not impossible to DIY, but a commercial unit would make slides more accessible to everyone.

 

[BradS]

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!

 

[Sirius Glass]

This!

+1