You misread that- 57% of the respondents said they would NOT be interested regardless of the price. So whether it was $40 a roll for film + processing or $70/roll for film + processing, they would not be interested. The reasons for the prices used here in the survey is that at the end of production, Kodachrome plus processing was already in the $25-30 range per roll. Any revival would cost more than it did before.Jnanian was right. The survey shows more than 57% of respondents would pay "any price". If that boundless love was representative of the feelings of the analogue community, Kodachrome would have never ceased being. People don't necessarily put their money where they put their mouth.
But 57.4% would buy any even if it were free.
Dear PE, I have a huge amount of respect for you, but you seem to be locked in the same mindset that lead Kodak to prevent themself to invest into any promotion effort regarding their analog products up until recently (hopefully not too late). The key word in your sentence above is "WAS". Based on the same reasonning people should stop producing vinyl records because back in the days when the Compact Disk was introduced, suddenly "NO ONE WAS INTERESTED" in vinyl records anymore. I'm not saying Kodachrome sales could be back at the colossal amount they once were, but I'm certain that with the right marketing and promotional tools there would be a lot more people interested (including me) now than when no one was interested. And I also think this applies to Cibachrome and other legendary products and processes which could interest more people now that they are extinct.
Ayyyyyyy; yes! I'll edit and fix that; thanks!Are you missing an 'nt in that sentence?
Ah, how true. Nobody ever wants to discuss sample size or sample bias, nor the amount of revenue or engineering that would be required to really revive discontinued products.
you mean how out of 78,700+ people on this forum, 101 people cared enough about kodachrome to even say so ?
its kind of funny
Pretty much ALL films are on acetate base! lol, including KODACHROME!The only thing left is Provia and Velvia on dimensionally unstable acetate base.
A more important question now is how many here still shoot E6 films. Following that is what price will they pay for film and then processing.
Ian
Kodak advertised Kodachrome heavily until the early '90s when sales began to lag. About then it shared ads with Ektachrome, which had sales far greater than Kodachrome.
Kodachrome was coated once a year and supplied the entire world for that year at about that time. Then the coating schedule slipped because unused outdated Kodachrome was being returned. Gradually slippage to the coating schedule to about 1 time every 2 years, and just one master roll. When returns on that became too great, costs could not be supported.
As for keeping of the solutions, you have three developers with the developing agent and the coupler mixed together. These don't stand around long. In KRL we used to make blanks with no coupler or developer both for keeping and to allow easy experimentation. But to keep it running well, you had to keep it running or it went bad.
It is such a complex product that it overwhelms the making of vinyl records by orders of magnitude. You talk about this as a simple undertaking, but it is not. Steve Frizza worked a near miracle to get the results he got! And that is just with the process. The film already existed.
PE
Ferrania will save E6, im still happy to pay $40(NZD) to get mine developed and scanned, i could save about half that if i get my own scanner.I'll put my hand up, but as you would know I shoot nothing much more than E6 regularly. Of the wider picture, at last estimate here in Australia, around 840 people per 100,000 at using E6 and falling. Once E6 goes (2-3 years??), my prediction is that photographers will migrate to alternative methods and "be done with it"rather than screwed around by manufacturers. It's not the availability of E6 film or the cost at this time that is a worry by any stretch, but the future shock we all know that is coming and needs to be planned for.
LOLPerfect.
I loved the film, but this is one that's truly gone.
Let it go, already. Stop gazing at navels and go out and SHOOT.
Firstly, im using E6 as much as possible, i think there is a right sized market for the stuff, ironically more are probably cross processing the stuff in the lomography community.Nzoomed, it is not as easy as you think. Most APUG members can't mix chemicals this complex. The pH of the 4 developers is critical as is the time and color of the two reversal exposures. You cannot use a Jobo for the process without removing the film. In fact, it can't be done on a reel. If you would sit down and consider these problems rather than just jumping up and down in enthusiasm, you would begin to see how difficult this is.
Yes, this used trained professionals just as motion picture film processing did even though it is not Kodachrome. The pH value there is critical as well.
So, in the damp dark halls of EK, some evil monster decided to deprive everyone of Kodachrome. Not likely. More like a bright, airy office with some nice guys sitting around a table and seeing how dismal the product was responding in 1990 because E6 films were so good. The first Fuji E6 films were recalled, giving a big lead to Kodak, but then all E6 films faltered as well and one-by-one, Kodak and Fuji began an exit from E6. Finally, Kodak called it quits. I expect Fuji to do so soon.
Ferrania has taken on a huge project and is years late for a number of reasons. They are slipping and slipping and the market is changing and getting smaller and smaller. I hope they make it in time.
PE
Firstly, im using E6 as much as possible, i think there is a right sized market for the stuff, ironically more are probably cross processing the stuff in the lomography community.
Im happy enough with E6 and I hope it continues to prosper, Ferrania are underway currently with getting production underway now that they have everything necessary behind them. The way their business model is set up should make it profitable for low volume, so fingers crossed.
I do understand it cant be done on a reel, and perhaps the PH issue is a problem when every water supply is different? Premixed like the K-lab used would obviously be a better solution.
You say its critical for motion picture films (ECN2?) Then i guess its still critical for C41 since both films are processed in near identical chemistry. Obviously its critical with K14 moreso.
Anyway, yes a Jobo style reel would obviously not work, i was suggesting whether or not a tank could be designed that fits on that fed the film past a correctly colored lamp for the exposures while inside the tank, all this would have to be built into the tank itself.
Im just looking at other possible options, i know its alot more complex to process than other films, just interested to know what other options potentially could work to make the process simpler for low volumes etc. I would have happily paid $100 to process a roll of the stuff if thats what it would cost, E6 is almost costing me half of that per roll as it is.
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?