Survey - Kodachrome Revival Price Point?

[Sirius Glass]

Don't worry Matt. It seems that I am going to be out of town that day!

Just kidding Stone.

PE

Ron should we move into the witness protection program?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Or am I just misreading the intent?

Perhaps.

These discussions are touching on the larger subject of new ways of producing and marketing film. All film. Not just Kodachrome. Not just Kodak. The production changes required by today's market realities have not been lost on any number of other currently successful manufacturers. And I strongly suspect not lost on the film side of EK/EA either.

But unfortunately, there is a small group here who apparently continue to cling to the past, in spite of all of the visible evidence to the contrary. These new right-sized manufacturing techniques are not some pie-in-the-sky dream. Several companies have already figured them out, with the result being not only survival, but reintroduction of older products, and introduction of new ones. This includes new films and papers and chemistries, as well as in one case the successful maintenance of entire preexisting product portfolios.

Should EK/EA be as successful as the rest at this necessary transformation, then the potential for them to do the same sorts of boutique things becomes a real possibility. Again, this direction has already reportedly been hinted at publicly by a current EK individual. In this scenario, Kodachrome (mentioned specifically by that EK individual) becomes only one in a much larger set of possibilities.

But first, when it comes to figuring out what's possible today, ya' gotta' let go of the past...



Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

The correct ratio at this time is 36 positive out of 60,000+ members. That is the "statistical" significance.

Also, the biggest user of Kodachrome in the world was National Geographic and its associated photographers. Has anyone noticed where that market went to?

PE

 

[BradS]

Perhaps....

Should EK/EA be as successful as the rest at this necessary transformation, then the potential for them to do the same sorts of boutique things becomes a real possibility. Again, this direction has already reportedly been hinted at publicly by a current EK individual. In this scenario, Kodachrome (mentioned specifically by that EK individual) becomes only one in a much larger set of possibilities.

Ken

While I agree in spirit, Kodachrome seems to me to be just about the most unlikely choice possible for a revived "boutique" product...why not pump up something even slightly more realistic? (like Ektachrome E100G for example).

The complete and total lack of any existing processing infrastructure seems a major obsticle to reintroduction of Kodachrome (and there are several others). In light of the greatly reduced sales volume (nobody disputes this assumption), I would think that the NRE alone would all but obliterate any further serious consideration of a Kodachrome re-introduction. Surely, you don't propose to re-introduce the film and not the ability to process it commercially?


I understand that a small percentage of people still using film feel quite passionately about Kodachrome. However, I think that the overwhelming majority of that population (people still using film) are completely ambivalent toward Kodachrome (at best). Some are/will be openly hostile toward it because of the perception that re-introducing Kodachrome may canibalize sales revenue of currently viable products...and eventually, lead to their demise and leave us, the overall film using community worse off in the long run. Suppose thet K-A undertook a Kodachrome revival...without any solid business case. What if it took down K-A? What would happen to TMY and Tri-X?

There is evidence to support the hypothesis of ambivalence right here in this poll. As of this moment, only 85 people have bothered to even vote at all....and APUG is quite possibly the most representative, the largest and most receptive online community for this product. The ratio of Yes to No votes keeps being tossed out as good news but the real interesting observation is how many looked at the title of this thread and couldn't even be bothered to open the thread and cast a vote....during the daylight hours here in the US, there seem to be around 1000 users online...and in the few days that this poll has been open...only 85 have voted at all. That's ambivalence. How many looked at teh title and didn't even open the thread to read? Ambivalence among possibly the most representative online community is definitely not the kind of market that I would venture tens of millions of dollars on to launch a major engineering development project.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The correct ratio at this time is 36 positive out of 60,000+ members. That is the "statistical" significance.

Same as Fred yesterday.

Individual opinions aside, whatever negative significance is attached to the '36' positive votes (regardless of the denominator), an equal positive significance must by definition also be attached to the corresponding '49' negative votes. Can't separate the two and cherry-pick only the one we like.

Thus...

If only 49 people say they are "uninterested at any price", then that's a very impressive number, and any project to resurrect Kodachrome in the marketplace is therefore essentially guaranteed to succeed.

Which is as obviously a false conclusion as is the conclusion that only '36' positives in an APUG poll would guarantee worldwide failure.

Personally, I don't attach any cosmic significance to either number. I just think it's interesting that the ratio is as high as it turned out to be. That does surprise me. It's also obviously upsetting to all of those who were convinced it was really going to be zero positives. They seem to be having some trouble accepting that it wasn't.

I wouldn't take the results from Scott's poll too seriously. Nor would I take these discussions too seriously. Debating Kodachrome in December and January is more like debating starting pitchers in the Hot Stove League than anything else...

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here are some better products to revive.

Tech Pan,
Ektacolor Print Film - so you can make gorgeous slides from negatives!
Internegative Film - So you can make great negatives from your slides.
Matrix and Pan Matrix Films - for Dye Transfer

And, all of the associated chemistry and odds and ends, along with the tech pubs that are now difficult to obtain.

These color products are not mentioned much, and most of you don't know what they are, but until you have seen a slide made from a negative, you have not seen color!

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Here are some better products to revive.

Tech Pan,
Ektacolor Print Film - so you can make gorgeous slides from negatives!
Internegative Film - So you can make great negatives from your slides.
Matrix and Pan Matrix Films - for Dye Transfer

And, all of the associated chemistry and odds and ends, along with the tech pubs that are now difficult to obtain.

These color products are not mentioned much, and most of you don't know what they are, but until you have seen a slide made from a negative, you have not seen color!

PE

I know it's not a kodak product but you forgot the most important...

Ilfochrome/cibichrome

Also if anyone wants Kodachrome at all the only people who can make it happen period are the Lomography people, like it or not...

 

[BradS]

Also if anyone wants Kodachrome at all the only people who can make it happen period are the Lomography people, like it or not...

Huh? (WTF?) If you are serious, can you please elaborate?

I'd throw my lot in with Google, Apple, Microsoft or facebook. They have LOTS of cash to spare on whimsy....and apparently no shortage of engineering talent.

 

[MattKing]

I know it's not a kodak product but you forgot the most important...

Ilfochrome/cibichrome

Also if anyone wants Kodachrome at all the only people who can make it happen period are the Lomography people, like it or not...

Sorry Stone.

Ilfochrome and Cibachrome had their strengths, but high quality prints using internegatives are way more useful.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Sorry Stone.

Ilfochrome and Cibachrome had their strengths, but high quality prints using internegatives are way more useful.

Ilfochrome is a rapidly fading hero of yesteryear. Today's recommendation is that photographers use he A-to-D hybridised print method to beat the crap out of the dowdy, restrictive and overly inflexible Ilfochrome Classic. The two print types could not be so far apart in terms of viewing quality. I receive a lot of commentary from visitors hete asking about the new prints; it's not the Ilfochromes that light up people anymore.

Sent from my GT-I9210T using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

I make internegatives on Portra and pull it one stop. Kodak engineers suggested that one. It works pretty good and makes good prints.

At least better than unmasked Ilfochrome.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Ilfochrome is a rapidly fading hero of yesteryear. Today's recommendation is that photographers use he A-to-D hybridised print method to beat the crap out of the dowdy, restrictive and overly inflexible Ilfochrome Classic.

I don't disagree about today's world, but I would like to see a current internegative material, because the prints from internegatives that I used to get were often excellent.

Of course, to get the full benefit, we might need a new paper or papers optimized for optical printing which allow more flexible control of contrast and saturation.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A slide from a negative is awesome. The tonal range is about 25 - 30% greater than an E6 or K14 slide. This is just due to chemistry.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Sorry Stone.

Ilfochrome and Cibachrome had their strengths, but high quality prints using internegatives are way more useful.

Useful? I don't follow entirely, I'm told they were higher archival quality than any other print (someone told me they left a print on the roof for 2 years, half covered, half uncovered, and there was no fading difference between the two after 2 years).

 

[StoneNYC]

Ilfochrome is a rapidly fading hero of yesteryear.

This is a highly ironic statement on a thread about Kodakchrome...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

This is a highly ironic statement on a thread about Kodakchrome...

Hasn't anybody got any photography to do? Nothing at all? Just keyboarding ... all day?? :confused:
Passing by as I head out on another trip, 10 RVP50 rolls down, 8 more to go...and I see the regular regulars are still banging on about Kodachrome.

 

[Wayne]

I don't disagree about today's world, but I would like to see a current internegative material, because the prints from internegatives that I used to get were often excellent.

Of course, to get the full benefit, we might need a new paper or papers optimized for optical printing which allow more flexible control of contrast and saturation.

I regret never trying it when internegative film was available.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hasn't anybody got any photography to do? Nothing at all? Just keyboarding ... all day?? :confused:
Passing by as I head out on another trip, 10 RVP50 rolls down, 8 more to go...and I see the regular regulars are still banging on about Kodachrome.

Lol Happy New Year!

 

[Tom1956]

Hasn't anybody got any photography to do? Nothing at all? Just keyboarding ... all day?? :confused:
Passing by as I head out on another trip, 10 RVP50 rolls down, 8 more to go...and I see the regular regulars are still banging on about Kodachrome.

I rather well think it's all baiting... trolling for some of the older guys to tell us their "war stories". Y'know, some of these guys are getting up into their 80's. We ought to be glad they'll still get on their computer and talk to us. Just found out my Uncle, who spent his whole professional life as a rep for several camera companies came down with the Alzheimers. First with Argus, then Ansco, then Honeywell, as the companies folded and he went to the next. But before that, he was a Corporal in the 3rd Mechanized Calvary in Germany in 1945. The guys from that generation and thereabouts had a whole other ethic. Quite a life.
These old guys.... they're 24 carat gold.

 

[MattKing]

Useful? I don't follow entirely, I'm told they were higher archival quality than any other print (someone told me they left a print on the roof for 2 years, half covered, half uncovered, and there was no fading difference between the two after 2 years).

If you want archival, get Todd Gangler to make some colour carbon prints for you. They are absolutely magnificent in the clarity and depth of their colour. Their longevity is difficult to determine, because they don't respond at all to any of the accelerated aging tests available.

IIRC, his prices start at $6,000.00 per print.

By useful, I mean a process that results in excellent prints from a wide variety of slides.

Ilfochrome/Cibachrome is exceptionally well suited to certain types of images. It is an absolute bear to use with other images.

RA4 materials are way more flexible.

C-41 internegative material can, if stored well, provide excellent longevity. And RA4 prints are much more long lived than they used to be.

 

[Tom1956]

I'll print you 5000 copies on 80lb C1S text for a whole lot less than 6 thousand clams.

 

[StoneNYC]

Anyone want to buy my Kodachrome? I'll only charge $20/roll, that's half off the lowball option...

 

[MattKing]

I'll print you 5000 copies on 80lb C1S text for a whole lot less than 6 thousand clams.

Tom:

Todd Gangler's colour carbon prints are spectacular - like nothing else I have ever seen.

And they involve days of work.

I don't know if you have ever seen a high quality carbon print (colour or black and white) but they are remarkable.

Actually, they have a kinship with Kodachrome, because like Kodachrome they have built in relief.

 

[Tom1956]

Tom:

Todd Gangler's colour carbon prints are spectacular - like nothing else I have ever seen.

And they involve days of work.

I don't know if you have ever seen a high quality carbon print (colour or black and white) but they are remarkable.

Actually, they have a kinship with Kodachrome, because like Kodachrome they have built in relief.

Pardon me--wasn't heckling. I think I've printed 1 too many prints, copies, whatever you call, them for a lifetime. Six thousand clams just wreaks to me of someone who would rather not print any more, and would just as soon quit and sop up his government benefits. And that's his price for getting off the sofa from watching cable news programs and getting busy. In the meantime some of us have to keep plugging along.
Ain't nuttin' 6000 dollars good.

 

[StoneNYC]

Pardon me--wasn't heckling. I think I've printed 1 too many prints, copies, whatever you call, them for a lifetime. Six thousand clams just wreaks to me of someone who would rather not print any more, and would just as soon quit and sop up his government benefits. And that's his price for getting off the sofa from watching cable news programs and getting busy. In the meantime some of us have to keep plugging along.
Ain't nuttin' 6000 dollars good.

Tom... Think... If it takes days to make a print, I can't think they are lazy... Think about how long it takes to build and test a LF camera by hand.... And those are priced the same...