Survey - Kodachrome Revival Price Point?

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

• 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?

 

[Bill Burk]

I have a couple rolls, so I can shoot Kodachrome any time I want.

 

[Bill Burk]

p.s. I voted $50

For that price I might buy one or two rolls of fresh Kodachrome and processing. I would shoot any ISO that might be made, but prefer 25. I formerly shot 25, 64 and 200 and always liked the results from 25 most.

 

[Roger Cole]

There's no reason the film should cost more than Velvia. In fact, objectively, it should cost less. The processing is a different matter but the film is basically a multi layer B&W film so if anything it should cost less than a chromogenic film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

TheFlyingCamera,

The film itself would cost more than Velvia, which ranges from $10-12/36 exposures,

Where did you get that price from??
Velvia (RVP50) has been around $28.00 for a 36 exposure roll for a few years now. It will be closer to $33 to $35 after the April increase kicks in. Add $12 E6 processing and the real price is closer to $50 per roll — and rising.

 

[Athiril]

There's no reason the film should cost more than Velvia. In fact, objectively, it should cost less. The processing is a different matter but the film is basically a multi layer B&W film so if anything it should cost less than a chromogenic film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Made to the same volume/scale.

Unless you guys decide to ask for special order of something like, Velvia or Provia from Fuji sans the dye couplers.

 

[PKM-25]

I voted for $70, I would gladly do 10-20 rolls a year at that price. But like I have said a bazillion times I have like 60 rolls of the last batch at the bottom of my freezer, so I would pay around $100 a roll to get it processed. I just know the film well and know how to make it sing, know what I would shoot with it at that price point too.

But this is nearly as silly as someone's decrepit "feeler" thread on the same subject awhile ago. The film is not coming back and no one is going to ever provide quality processing for what is left.

It's done...end of story.

 

[StoneNYC]

How much would you be willing to pay if Kodachrome were ever resurrected? I have set the price points based on current markets plus past experience. E-6 runs around $20-30/roll for film+processing, depending on market and film choice (assumes buying new film, not frozen, short-date, out-of-date or second-hand). Kodachrome was always more expensive than E-6, so I'm assuming that film and processing would cost at the very least $30/roll for film+processing, not counting shipping and tax.

$20-$30/roll? Where the heck are you shopping that it costs that much?? $10 max is as much as I spend on an E-6 roll including processing costs...

$50, no, $100, do I hear $200, $250?…wait…people are interested? $500 and only if I deem your photos worthy….you are not worthy, NO ONE IS WORTHY!

Haha oh that was a fun time... Not even space shuttles are important enough

I have a couple rolls, so I can shoot Kodachrome any time I want.

I have over 100 rolls, so I can shoot some anytime I want too


--------

I voted for the under $40 choice, but your poll is limited and flawed, I wanted to say "uninterested at any price" but that's not true, if it were $10/roll I would be interested. At $15/roll I would consider shooting SOME just for special ovations, but I won't even buy the 620 E100G rolls available for $15 at B&H to re-roll them back onto 120, so why would I spend any more than that?

You're either rich or an idiot to pay $30/roll for any single roll of film on a regular basis, sure MAYBE as a specialty one time thing, but WHY, it's un-sustainable? The processing alone is the biggest obstacle, no lab can operate on "spurts" of business.

Guys... Really....

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

32 willing to open wallets, 43 not willing.

That just amazes me. I never expected that kind of ratio by this point.

Ken

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]You're either rich or an idiot to pay $30/roll for any single roll of film on a regular basis[...]

Oh, really...!?
Well, no. There are plenty of photographers, including this one, paying $40 for a Velvia 120 or 35mm film + E6 bundle. When the quality of imaging matters...when a statement must be made, you select the film (and the equipment) that does the job — no compromise. Don't forget to add-on the real, incidental costs: travel, fuel, etc. — greater than $40. The 22% increase in April will not improve things, no, but hey, photography was never meant to be cheap.

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh, really...!?
Well, no. There are plenty of photographers, including this one, paying $40 for a Velvia 120 or 35mm film + E6 bundle. When the quality of imaging matters...when a statement must be made, you select the film (and the equipment) that does the job — no compromise. Don't forget to add-on the real, incidental costs: travel, fuel, etc. — greater than $40. The 22% increase in April will not improve things, no, but hey, photography was never meant to be cheap.

Sorry, should have qualified that statement (though you're all smart enough to probably assume this... Or should be) I mean in the USA... Which flying camera is in... So imagine paying $120 per roll, that's 3 times what you pay now... (Equivalent of my paying $30) and tell me you wouldn't be crazy paying that for E-6... NOW pretend it's (the lower average of the poll) $50/roll, that's 5 times my normal $10, which for you is $200/roll for an Australian... And NOW tell me it's worth for Kodachrome... Everything is relative...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh, really...!?
Well, no. There are plenty of photographers, including this one, paying $40 for a Velvia 120 or 35mm film + E6 bundle. When the quality of imaging matters...when a statement must be made, you select the film (and the equipment) that does the job — no compromise. Don't forget to add-on the real, incidental costs: travel, fuel, etc. — greater than $40. The 22% increase in April will not improve things, no, but hey, photography was never meant to be cheap.

You're paying Aussie dollars for those rolls. The $10-12 I was quoting for Velvia is from B&H in US dollars, processing NOT included. Processing for E-6 runs around $10/roll depending on if you want sleeved or mounted.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a couple rolls, so I can shoot Kodachrome any time I want.

p.s. I voted $50

For that price I might buy one or two rolls of fresh Kodachrome and processing. I would shoot any ISO that might be made, but prefer 25. I formerly shot 25, 64 and 200 and always liked the results from 25 most.

But where are you going to get it processed unless you soup it yourself as a b/w film?

The "for that price I might buy one or two rolls" comment is telling. THAT is why it will not come back - most folks wanting to shoot it are not talking about shooting hundreds of rolls a year. They're talking "a few, now and then". Even if every registered member of APUG shot one or two rolls a year, that would not be enough to build a market for such a product.

 

[StoneNYC]

You're paying Aussie dollars for those rolls. The $10-12 I was quoting for Velvia is from B&H in US dollars, processing NOT included. Processing for E-6 runs around $10/roll depending on if you want sleeved or mounted.

Again, sorry, I only shoot 120 $8.55 not 35mm $11.59

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/512065-USA

And process film at home (about 20 rolls can be done from a $35 kit) for $1.75/roll

So that's a total of $10.30

But even if I send it out to Dwayne's it's only about $6/roll for processing which is $15 total not $30...

(I also last bought a large stash of E-6 right before Fuji announced a price hike so it was less and I wasn't aware of current prices ... BTW they will be raising priced again in ... I think it's April 2014 but could be earlier so stock up now!)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Again, sorry, I only shoot 120 $8.55 not 35mm $11.59

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/512065-USA

And process film at home (about 20 rolls can be done from a $35 kit) for $1.75/roll

So that's a total of $10.30

But even if I send it out to Dwayne's it's only about $6/roll for processing which is $15 total not $30...

(I also last bought a large stash of E-6 right before Fuji announced a price hike so it was less and I wasn't aware of current prices ... BTW they will be raising priced again in ... I think it's April 2014 but could be earlier so stock up now!)

I'm talking about using a local lab, not a discount mail-order facility.

I'm using 35mm as the standard for comparison because that was the only format Kodachrome was available in for the last oh say decade of its production, and would most likely be the only format available if it were to be brought back.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There's no reason the film should cost more than Velvia. In fact, objectively, it should cost less. The processing is a different matter but the film is basically a multi layer B&W film so if anything it should cost less than a chromogenic film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually no. Kodachrome is "silver-rich" in comparison to E-6. And instead of having one silver-gelatin emulsion layer, it has THREE, each with a sensitizer coupler to key it to a specific region of the color spectrum. What's a roll of Tri-X cost now? Triple that, and maybe more to compensate for the lower volume, increased quality control requirements and the more advanced chemistry.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm talking about using a local lab, not a discount mail-order facility.

I'm using 35mm as the standard for comparison because that was the only format Kodachrome was available in for the last oh say decade of its production, and would most likely be the only format available if it were to be brought back.

That's unfortunate... I've also got a few rolls of 120 Kodachrome as well

Still in 35mm that's $17/roll total with send out, not $30.

Anyway this is all sillyness... The only people willing to spend the kind of money that is needed for Kodachrome are the people used to spending money for specialty film, the LF shooters...

Now a 4x5 Kodachrome, that would be worth something... But as with the rest of this... NEVER GONNA HAPPEN...

Don't get me wrong I miss it, but I've finally come to terms with it's loss and have no delusions of it coming back.

 

[StoneNYC]

Actually no. Kodachrome is "silver-rich" in comparison to E-6. And instead of having one silver-gelatin emulsion layer, it has THREE, each with a sensitizer coupler to key it to a specific region of the color spectrum. What's a roll of Tri-X cost now? Triple that, and maybe more to compensate for the lower volume, increased quality control requirements and the more advanced chemistry.

At least this I agree on

 

[benjiboy]

Is "Wumi" a verb, like I'm feeling, a bit Wumi today ?.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've posted a related poll about how much Kodachrome you'd be willing to shoot. So far, 11 folks have responded, with half shooting five or less rolls a year. Only one would shoot more than 50 a year.

 

[Rudeofus]

What could we do, if anything, and within the constrained context of an APUG poll, to improve our chances of getting meaningful results? Presumably this would involve better designing the question(s) asked, and the voting options. I don't think we could alter the presentation format, but I might be wrong. But there must be a better way to approach this Kodachrome question.

One established method for getting quite accurate results are prediction markets, where people do not just state an opinion (or what they want us believe that their opinion is), but actually put money behind it and are in turn able to reap a profit if their prediction comes through. As a matter of fact, APUG unwittingly already started such a prediction market for a K14 processing line a long time ago. People would have to commit a few ten thousand dollars total and would reap any profit such a processing line churns out*. If 500 people honestly believed that a K14 processing line could earn them more than US$ 100.000, they'd be stupid not to invest US$ 150 each, yes?

Now the funny part is that whenever PE offered support if anyone was willing to commit real money and effort, all he got was thundering silence and "The chemistry is above my head, but", "I don't have the time needed for this, but", "I don't have the funds, but" like statements. Prediction markets are brutally honest sometimes ... one must only be willing to accept their results.




* With about US$ 20.000 - 50.000 you could provide a stipend for someone willing to learn from PhotoEngineer how to process Kodachrome. Add another US$ 5.000 - US$ 20.000 to pay for film stock, chemistry and mechanical parts to make such a processing line happen, and viola, you're ready to rock'n'roll! If you are unable or unwilling to pay the whole amount yourself, find people who crowd fund such an effort, there are established platforms for this.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm talking about using a local lab, not a discount mail-order facility.

A local lab for processing? What a concept. I haven't used a local lab to process my color since the mid 90s. There aren't any.

There was a local E6 lab in Atlanta but they closed down some time ago. I hadn't used them because it was much cheaper to send my film out and I could always wait.

 

[Roger Cole]

Actually no. Kodachrome is "silver-rich" in comparison to E-6. And instead of having one silver-gelatin emulsion layer, it has THREE, each with a sensitizer coupler to key it to a specific region of the color spectrum. What's a roll of Tri-X cost now? Triple that, and maybe more to compensate for the lower volume, increased quality control requirements and the more advanced chemistry.

How much of the price of Tri-X is due to the silver content? How much silver is actually in the film? I don't know the answers here but I suspect it's not that much, and it certainly isn't 100% of the cost of the film, which is the only way that having three times the silver content would make the film cost three times as much. Further, ALL the silver can be recovered from Kodachrome. Assuming KA was running the only processing game in town (I don't think this would run afoul of anti-trust laws as long as they ALLOWED anyone else to do it that wanted to - but if no one else actually DID then it would effectively be their game) they'd recover all that, at fairly small cost in the scheme of things, on the processing end anyway.

Back when it was available I don't recall it costing more than E6 films. I'm currently paying $15-$16 per roll for Provia 400X. I can't afford to lay in a big stash at those prices but every time I order other stuff I buy at least one or two rolls while I still can. I'd certainly pay $20 for Kodachrome, and another $10 for processing (which is more than I pay now for E6 processing) without blinking or thinking. That would be $25/roll. As I said, I'd pay $50 combined film and processing for at least a few rolls a year, and yes I know that won't sustain production, unless many thousands were willing to do that. And Stone, I am neither rich nor an idiot. But I like Kodachrome and, with its resistance to dark fading and general archival qualities, I'd pay that for a few rolls a year for special occasions, at least.

For 100 speed film, well I continue shooting up my stash of E100G and I'm buying the Agfa Precisa rebranded version of Provia 100, which is significantly cheaper than Fuji brand and I can't tell the difference - $7 or so for the last batch I bought. I only shoot 35mm in transparency film because I'm shooting for projection. That would change if I'd shell out the money for a medium format projector. But I'm paying that $7 a roll because I CAN. My usage of E6 would not drop significantly if I had to pay double that. I shoot maybe 20 rolls of E6 a year or thereabouts. Far less than I do black and white, but I enjoy it and my end of year slide shows are becoming a tradition among a group of friends.

 

[StoneNYC]

How much of the price of Tri-X is due to the silver content? How much silver is actually in the film? I don't know the answers here but I suspect it's not that much, and it certainly isn't 100% of the cost of the film, which is the only way that having three times the silver content would make the film cost three times as much. Further, ALL the silver can be recovered from Kodachrome. Assuming KA was running the only processing game in town (I don't think this would run afoul of anti-trust laws as long as they ALLOWED anyone else to do it that wanted to - but if no one else actually DID then it would effectively be their game) they'd recover all that, at fairly small cost in the scheme of things, on the processing end anyway.

Back when it was available I don't recall it costing more than E6 films. I'm currently paying $15-$16 per roll for Provia 400X. I can't afford to lay in a big stash at those prices but every time I order other stuff I buy at least one or two rolls while I still can. I'd certainly pay $20 for Kodachrome, and another $10 for processing (which is more than I pay now for E6 processing) without blinking or thinking. That would be $25/roll. As I said, I'd pay $50 combined film and processing for at least a few rolls a year, and yes I know that won't sustain production, unless many thousands were willing to do that. And Stone, I am neither rich nor an idiot. But I like Kodachrome and, with its resistance to dark fading and general archival qualities, I'd pay that for a few rolls a year for special occasions, at least.

For 100 speed film, well I continue shooting up my stash of E100G and I'm buying the Agfa Precisa rebranded version of Provia 100, which is significantly cheaper than Fuji brand and I can't tell the difference - $7 or so for the last batch I bought. I only shoot 35mm in transparency film because I'm shooting for projection. That would change if I'd shell out the money for a medium format projector. But I'm paying that $7 a roll because I CAN. My usage of E6 would not drop significantly if I had to pay double that. I shoot maybe 20 rolls of E6 a year or thereabouts. Far less than I do black and white, but I enjoy it and my end of year slide shows are becoming a tradition among a group of friends.

To your point, I (like others) scan my chromes because you can't print them anymore, so I only really shoot color chromes in 120 or 4x5. Shooting color chromes for scanning and printing, and not paying for a drum scan, severely limits my size capabilities. As is I only shoot maybe 6 ROLLS of 35mm color film a year. If Kodachrome really came back, (and in theory if I didn't have the store of 100 rolls already) I might shoot 1-2 rolls "just because" but I value E-6 too much, as is it's almost already into extinction, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize the longevity of Velvia50/100 and Provia100f by buying Kodak's limited run of K-14

I'm sure others might recognize this danger too.

 

[RPC]

Kodachrome is "silver-rich" in comparison to E-6. And instead of having one silver-gelatin emulsion layer, it has THREE, each with a sensitizer coupler to key it to a specific region of the color spectrum.

All color films have at least three silver halide light-sensitive layers.