Survey - Kodachrome Revival Price Point?

[Tom1956]

You mean I can get 6000 dollars for setting up a view camera? Bring 'em on. I'll set up view cameras fit for kings.

 

[StoneNYC]

You mean I can get 6000 dollars for setting up a view camera? Bring 'em on. I'll set up view cameras fit for kings.

Chamonix charges about $1,000 for 4x5, $3,200 for 8x10, and $7,000 for a 20x24...

If you can beat their price and quality I would be impressed...

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm thinking that the Ilfochrome print on a roof must have looked pretty bad after being exposed to the elements. The heat and rain would have just about stripped off the emulsion. Covering the print would have afforded protection from the elements but also a bit from UV and Oxygen.

Please don't quote tests like this unless more detail is given and don't quote them unless you understand the issues that may weaken the test, and thus render the tests less than totally valid.

PE

 

[MattKing]

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.

Would you say that about a painting?

The process produces single prints only, and it is very time, labour and material intensive.

And the slightest slip can render useless days of work and $ worth of materials.

And there are very few people in the world who can do this work, and their prices are just as high.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt, if that is true, why am I chained in a cold barn and eating gruel 3x a day. Its 2x on holidays, as my keeper takes part of the day off, and then the gruel is cold.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Matt, if that is true, why am I chained in a cold barn and eating gruel 3x a day. Its 2x on holidays, as my keeper takes part of the day off, and then the gruel is cold.

PE

Clearly Ron, you need an agent!

Happy New Year!

 

[KenS]

Kodachrome is dead baby. It ain't coming back.

Kodachrome "died" for me around 1980/81, when I was working at a Research Centre, where we often wanted/needed to see the slide within hours rather than the 4 to 6 weeks it took for Kodachrome slides in the summer to early fall months.

I changed over to EPY and processed (for the first year or so) by hand, since there was no E4/E6 processing within a 4 to 5 day return time period. Within a short period of so doing, the vast majority of my 'clients' seemed to prefer (by far) the Ektachrome over Kodachrome slides....

Ken

 

[Tom1956]

Would you say that about a painting?

The process produces single prints only, and it is very time, labour and material intensive.

And the slightest slip can render useless days of work and $ worth of materials.

And there are very few people in the world who can do this work, and their prices are just as high.

I think what makes me such a hardcase to be impressed with any color process is the question as to whether or not it is "archival". Most color of any process is not. Kodachrome was, at least as much so as any color process can be. Whether Kodachrome made "faces ghastly white" or other color faults would be of no importance to me. No color process gives perfect color. But if the final product is prone to fade, then it is of not much worth in my mind. Properly processed and laundered B&W photography stands the test of time. In color, the only thing that can stack up is pigment base oil paintings. And even they lose over time.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm thinking that the Ilfochrome print on a roof must have looked pretty bad after being exposed to the elements. The heat and rain would have just about stripped off the emulsion. Covering the print would have afforded protection from the elements but also a bit from UV and Oxygen.

Please don't quote tests like this unless more detail is given and don't quote them unless you understand the issues that may weaken the test, and thus render the tests less than totally valid.

PE

I'm quoting a person, I assume it was left in a box of some sort. This is the story he told me.

It was Don (lightwhisps) ask him yourself for details.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Stone, I'm sorry but you brought it up. It is incumbent on you to validate your post, not me. Or it is up to him.

PE

 

[BradS]

I read it on the internet so, it must be true!

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I'm sorry but you brought it up. It is incumbent on you to validate your post, not me. Or it is up to him.

PE

You're correct, but Don is having health issues and lives in Canada, so I'm not going to call him and bug him to come online for this.

If I do speak to him I'll try and verify and clarify.

 

[RattyMouse]

Another poll on Kodachrome with the results the same: A clear majority want no part of this film.

 

[MattKing]

I think what makes me such a hardcase to be impressed with any color process is the question as to whether or not it is "archival". Most color of any process is not. Kodachrome was, at least as much so as any color process can be. Whether Kodachrome made "faces ghastly white" or other color faults would be of no importance to me. No color process gives perfect color. But if the final product is prone to fade, then it is of not much worth in my mind. Properly processed and laundered B&W photography stands the test of time. In color, the only thing that can stack up is pigment base oil paintings. And even they lose over time.

The colour pigments used in colour carbon are the most permanent known - period. Far more permanent than Kodachrome.

 

[PKM-25]

Another poll on Kodachrome with the results the same: A clear majority want no part of this film.

I bet it is not so much they want no part of it, they just want no part of something that is now considered "Unobtainium". Why want what you can't have?

I have enough of the last batch of then fresh Kodachrome in deep freeze to shoot a "very" solid project and while I would LOVE to do that, reality is all it is going to do for me is help keep the freezer cold by filling a corner of it.

Kodachrome is gone folks...I can see why people get frustrated at these threads. But make no mistake, in the hands of a master, it went beyond photography, history has proven that. There will never be anything like it ever again...

 

[bdial]

...I bet it is not so much they want no part of it, they just want no part of something that is now considered "Unobtainium". Why want what you can't have?

That sums it up for me, I was very fond of Kodachrome when it existed, and would be very pleased to be able to use it again, IF it could be done at a reasonable price. But that isn't going to happen, no amount of wishing will make it happen and hand-wringing over it's loss is not productive.

I would much rather see Kodak keep producing their current films profitably.

 

[Rudeofus]

Another poll on Kodachrome with the results the same: A clear majority want no part of this film.

So we should all use our smart phones from now on, as they are by far the most popular image taking device these days?

The future of Kodachrome will not depend on whether 1, 10 or 50% of the APUG crowd embraces it, but whether the few who really want to keep using it are actually willing and ready to commit serious resources to it.

 

[Peter de Groot]

Leave Kodachroma alone. It is dead. Embrace the wonders that are stil around.

 

[BrianShaw]

I bet it is not so much they want no part of it, they just want no part of something that is now considered "Unobtainium". Why want what you can't have?...

EXACTLY. That is also why I stopped, a long time ago, looking at women to whom I am not married and cars I can't afford.

 

[BradS]

The future of Kodachrome will not depend on .... whether the few who really want to keep using it are actually willing and ready to commit serious resources to it.

Have you or others thought about what the phrase "serious resources" might actually mean in this case? If you had, I think that you would very quickly come to the obvious conclusion that the future of Kodachrome is....well, that it is dead and will remain so. Even if fifty people who "really want to keep using it" pony up $1 million each, it would not be enough. There quite simply is not a sustainable business...where sustainable includes paying employes a fair wage and purchasing materials at market prices and complying with regulations, etc...and yet, still managing to make a profit.


Here's an idea for those who believe that the exists some non-trivial probability that Kodachrome can be revived: Open your wallets, put up some serious resources, say $1000 each and commission a qualified business analyst or firm to look into the potential business case for reviving Kodachrome. Get an objective assessment from a qualified professional. See if there is a sustainable business. Make sure that all of the assumptions are well documented.

One thing is certain, all of the internet chatter and wishful dreaming imaginable is not going to revive Kodachrome.

 

[removed account4]

SNIP SNIP

I'm told they were higher archival quality than any other print.

from what i remember ..
dye transfers are one of the most archival color image processes around. ( aside from painting )

tests at the image permanency institute concluded that RC paper if processed correctly has
the opportunity to be more archival than a fiber based print ...

 

[removed account4]

I think what makes me such a hardcase to be impressed with any color process is the question as to whether or not it is "archival". Most color of any process is not. Kodachrome was, at least as much so as any color process can be. Whether Kodachrome made "faces ghastly white" or other color faults would be of no importance to me. No color process gives perfect color. But if the final product is prone to fade, then it is of not much worth in my mind. Properly processed and laundered B&W photography stands the test of time. In color, the only thing that can stack up is pigment base oil paintings. And even they lose over time.

hey tom

not all things are what they seem
kodachromes were only as archival, as they were ..
and it seems there are quite a few that weren't "archival"
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
or maybe it is archivally stored in a humidity controlled vault ?

 

[StoneNYC]

So we should all use our smart phones from now on, as they are by far the most popular image taking device these days?

The future of Kodachrome will not depend on whether 1, 10 or 50% of the APUG crowd embraces it, but whether the few who really want to keep using it are actually willing and ready to commit serious resources to it.

I'm sure kids today will someday lament about their iPhone pictures and how fun it was to take a picture with a phone now that x image technology exists.

 

[Rudeofus]

Have you or others thought about what the phrase "serious resources" might actually mean in this case? If you had, I think that you would very quickly come to the obvious conclusion that the future of Kodachrome is....well, that it is dead and will remain so. Even if fifty people who "really want to keep using it" pony up $1 million each, it would not be enough.

Look at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and you will quickly realize that it won't cost 50 million US$ to create and operate a small scale K14 processing line. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) that he would teach anyone showing up in his lab for a year.

This is nothing like private space travel, an expedition to the top of Mt. Everest or to the north pole, both in terms of of cost and in terms of personal risk involved. Unlike the other examples given here, Kodachrome seems to lack committed people to make it happen.

 

[RPC]

I bet it is not so much they want no part of it, they just want no part of something that is now considered "Unobtainium". Why want what you can't have?

Kodachrome was rejected by photographers for various reasons back when they could have it, and went belly-up because of it. Those reasons are more so today. It is more than just not being able to have it, or perhaps not at all.