TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Pricing for Kodachrome revived is of course little short of psychotic delusion, but knowing several facts about it can point us in a reasoned if inaccurate understanding of the pricing model.
The last time I shot Kodachrome, it was still in the 1990s, and if memory serves, back then it was about $6/roll for 36 exposure 35mm, and processing was somewhere in the $9-12/roll range. My memory is inaccurate because I was working for a camera store at the time and got employee pricing, so I wasn't paying market rate. Let's assume that in 1997, then, it was $15/roll to shoot and process. Given that when volumes of anything go down, costs go up, and that with time and inflation, costs go up, it is not unreasonable to expect the price to be higher than it was in 1997. IF Kodak were to revive the process, and the only thing they had to do was blow some dust off a few machines, it would be reasonable to expect the cost today to be at least double what it was in 1997. It would be reasonable to assume the price would be double what it was in 2010. But it would be much more than that because the level of effort involved to restart production would be much greater than blowing some dust off a machine. It would more likely be not double, but three or even four times the price it was in 2010. It could even be more than that. In 2010, a roll of Kodachrome cost $10 to process for 36 exposures. $30-40/roll for processing would be a reasonable guess as to what they would charge for it, because the volume was not enough to make a profit in the past, and all the R&D/machining costs were already paid for. Also, there are significant environmental protection laws today that were not in place when Kodachrome was invented, so it would require major expense to either re-design the film to replace the problem chemicals or compensate for their continued use.
The film itself would cost more than Velvia, which ranges from $10-12/36 exposures, for all the previously mentioned reasons. At least double to triple the cost of a past roll of Kodachrome. At least double to triple the cost of a current roll of Velvia. Feel free to dispute these numbers if you disagree. But by my calculation, that's putting it at a best-case scenario around $40/roll to shoot and process. More likely closer to $60/roll. And how many people here bitched, whined and moaned when Tri-X went to $4.50/roll and started looking for cheaper alternatives?
- Kodachrome was terminated as a product line by Kodak because it was not profitable at the volume/price level they were selling it for.
- Some of the chemistry needed to produce the film and process it is no longer made, anywhere, by anyone. That chemistry production would have to be re-started.
- The machinery to process it no longer exists. It would have to be re-created.
- All of the above cost MONEY - lots of it.
- To compensate for all of the above factors, the price would have to go up.
The last time I shot Kodachrome, it was still in the 1990s, and if memory serves, back then it was about $6/roll for 36 exposure 35mm, and processing was somewhere in the $9-12/roll range. My memory is inaccurate because I was working for a camera store at the time and got employee pricing, so I wasn't paying market rate. Let's assume that in 1997, then, it was $15/roll to shoot and process. Given that when volumes of anything go down, costs go up, and that with time and inflation, costs go up, it is not unreasonable to expect the price to be higher than it was in 1997. IF Kodak were to revive the process, and the only thing they had to do was blow some dust off a few machines, it would be reasonable to expect the cost today to be at least double what it was in 1997. It would be reasonable to assume the price would be double what it was in 2010. But it would be much more than that because the level of effort involved to restart production would be much greater than blowing some dust off a machine. It would more likely be not double, but three or even four times the price it was in 2010. It could even be more than that. In 2010, a roll of Kodachrome cost $10 to process for 36 exposures. $30-40/roll for processing would be a reasonable guess as to what they would charge for it, because the volume was not enough to make a profit in the past, and all the R&D/machining costs were already paid for. Also, there are significant environmental protection laws today that were not in place when Kodachrome was invented, so it would require major expense to either re-design the film to replace the problem chemicals or compensate for their continued use.
The film itself would cost more than Velvia, which ranges from $10-12/36 exposures, for all the previously mentioned reasons. At least double to triple the cost of a past roll of Kodachrome. At least double to triple the cost of a current roll of Velvia. Feel free to dispute these numbers if you disagree. But by my calculation, that's putting it at a best-case scenario around $40/roll to shoot and process. More likely closer to $60/roll. And how many people here bitched, whined and moaned when Tri-X went to $4.50/roll and started looking for cheaper alternatives?