Why did Kodachrome fail in the end?

[Paul Verizzo]

All I know and care about Kodachrome, because I can't resurrect the dead is the following:

I have a few frames of 35mm KC of my father and his hot women then ca. 1936.

I have almost 100 4x5" images of personal, family, and WWII military

I have a number of 16mm KC movie segments from ca. 1945-1946, including my exit from the Chelsea Naval Hospitable with my mother and my father's mother at the door.

Holy KC mofo.....

 

[Colin DeWolfe]

Kodak Endura color paper still is being coated!

PE

Too bad it isn't available any more in cut sheets. Wrestling in the dark with a 200 foot roll is no fun.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

All I know and care about Kodachrome, because I can't resurrect the dead is the following:

I have a few frames of 35mm KC of my father and his hot women then ca. 1936.

I have almost 100 4x5" images of personal, family, and WWII military

I have a number of 16mm KC movie segments from ca. 1945-1946, including my exit from the Chelsea Naval Hospitable with my mother and my father's mother at the door.

Holy KC mofo.....

Kodachrome...

It's how America made it's own national self-portrait for generations. We are all poorer with its demise.

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

Too bad it isn't available any more in cut sheets. Wrestling in the dark with a 200 foot roll is no fun.

Yeah, I guess I am out of sync. I'm used to wrestling with 42" rolls of any length to test fresh coatings.

Sorry.

PE

 

[OzJohn]

Too bad it isn't available any more in cut sheets. Wrestling in the dark with a 200 foot roll is no fun.

Build a plywood box that will comfortably enclose the full roll and leave one side open. Then find a tube a bit smaller than the roll core and make an axle from it to go through the centre of the box. The paper will roll out smoothly and with a bit of ingenuity you can arrange for it pass through a couple of guides and into a trimmer. If you are using paper that comes packed in single rolls, quite often the cardboard box it comes in can replace the wooden box. I've cut colour paper as wide as 20 inches in this way. OzJohn

 

[flavio81]

What about the diskettes they are stored on? I have trouble buying 3 1/4 inch floppies and the larger ones are impossible. Drives are going bad.

PE

Digital information can always be backuped periodically (say, every 5 or 10 years) to a more modern medium.
Of course, this means you need to plan ahead. I'm a software engineer, but I'd rather shoot negatives than have to be planning to back up my digital files periodically onto a new medium.

But to answer your question, I inherited a large collection of 5 1/4" floppy disks from my grandfather, dated circa 1984, and back in about year 1997 i was able to read them with no problem. However, surface fungii on them can ruin them at the first read. The solution is simple: Open up the floppy disk (with scissors), wipe the surface thoroughly with isopropyl or a suitable cleaner, so all fungii is removed, and then reassemble the floppy back again. You can do the same for 3 1/4" disks, although the process is more difficult in the latter case.

As for the drives, they're actually easy to service. Most of the times it's just head cleaning what it's needed. And a little bit of lubrication. Full-size 5 1/4" drives are tough things, for example, and i wouldn't be surprised if the 1982-1989 made drives still are able to be kept working to year 2025.

 

[flavio81]

Now, back to the topic: KODACHROME (my version) - dedicated to all the APUGers

When I think back
On all the steps to do K-14
It’s a wonder
They could do it all
And though PE's explanations
Have not settled things down
I can read the writing on the wall
Kodachrome
They gave us those archival colors
They give us the long turnaround times
Makes you think Fuji Velvia
Was not fair play, oh yeah
I got a Canon camera
I love to Nikon-bash
So Apug, just let Kodachrome say "bye"
If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And pictured them with a Diana
For one night
I know they’d never match
My sweet Agfa Clack
Everything looks worse
In small format
Kodachrome
They set the nice threads rolling
They make PE grow tired
Makes you think we should go to Rochester 14650
And barricade it all, ahh
I got some reversal film
And it's a drag to enlarge
So Apug, just let Kodachrome say "bye"

(bridge)

When I think back
On all the posts I've read in apug
It’s a wonder
I can read at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn’t trolled no one
I can read the writing on the wall
Kodachrome
They give us those nice threads rolling
They give us the great flame wars
Makes you think all the world’s
A battlefield, oh yeah
I got a Kodak Ektra
It beats Leitz Wetzlar
So Apug, just let Kodachrome say "bye"
If you took all the trannies I knew
When I was single
And pictured them with Sony Alpha
For one night
I know they’d never match
My sweet Linhof Technica
Everything looks worse
At bayer-mosaic land
Kodachrome
They set the long threads rolling
They make PE grow tired
Makes you think all the world’s
A big luddite land, oh yeah
I got some Provia here
I got some T-max
So Apug, just let Kodachrome say "bye"

(outtro)

 

[Wallendo]

To keep things in perspective, Ektachrome and its descendants (Elite Chrome) didn't last long after Kodachrome went away. Obviously, towards the end, Elite Chrome was outselling Kodachrome, but wasn't selling well enough to survive.

Much of Kodachrome's demise was due to shifts in photographic preferences away from transparency films. The complexity of Kodachrome led to it's failure before some of the rest.

There is a Kodachrome look, but I'm not sure how well that would go over in today's environment. I admit that much of my attachment to Kodachrome is sentimental - I grew up shooting Kodachrome in an Instamatic camera in the late 60's.

In fact, the main theme of the Paul Simon song is that Kodachrome slides often looked better than reality, and that we remember things as better than they were.

I just hope we won't have any "What happened to Velvia" threads anytime soon.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Digital information can always be backuped periodically (say, every 5 or 10 years) to a more modern medium.
Of course, this means you need to plan ahead. I'm a software engineer, but I'd rather shoot negatives than have to be planning to back up my digital files periodically onto a new medium.

But to answer your question, I inherited a large collection of 5 1/4" floppy disks from my grandfather, dated circa 1984, and back in about year 1997 i was able to read them with no problem. However, surface fungii on them can ruin them at the first read. The solution is simple: Open up the floppy disk (with scissors), wipe the surface thoroughly with isopropyl or a suitable cleaner, so all fungii is removed, and then reassemble the floppy back again. You can do the same for 3 1/4" disks, although the process is more difficult in the latter case.

As for the drives, they're actually easy to service. Most of the times it's just head cleaning what it's needed. And a little bit of lubrication. Full-size 5 1/4" drives are tough things, for example, and i wouldn't be surprised if the 1982-1989 made drives still are able to be kept working to year 2025.

Of course you can read Apple ][ and Apple /// diskettes? And 8" diskettes? Gee, backing up my 2TB hard drive of documents, photos and source coded is a snap! (NOT). Even early MAC diskettes are difficult to read because they used a variable speed drive depending on track #.

PE

 

[flavio81]

Of course you can read Apple ][ and Apple /// diskettes? And 8" diskettes? Gee, backing up my 2TB hard drive of documents, photos and source coded is a snap! (NOT). Even early MAC diskettes are difficult to read because they used a variable speed drive depending on track #.

PE

Yes Ron, you can, using two or three alternatives:

a) using a translation software which allows reading apple floppies on DOS machines. DOS you run it througH DOS emulation on modern machines. I think i had such a software.

b) using an actual Apple II and then copying the file to a modern PC via a suitable interface (a peripheral emulator). I used this alternative for Atari 8-bit floppies.

c) Using an emulated AppleII on modern hardware. Not sure if it would "talk" to a 5 1/4" floppy, though.

Macintosh floppies are another thing, though.

 

[flavio81]

Forgot to mention; instead of having to backup 2TB of files periodically, you might opt for using a cloud storage tool like Google Drive which will automatically sync your local storage (your hard disk) to a cloud storage(which will take care of the backup issues.)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes Ron, you can, using two or three alternatives:

a) using a translation software which allows reading apple floppies on DOS machines. DOS you run it througH DOS emulation on modern machines. I think i had such a software.

b) using an actual Apple II and then copying the file to a modern PC via a suitable interface (a peripheral emulator). I used this alternative for Atari 8-bit floppies.

c) Using an emulated AppleII on modern hardware. Not sure if it would "talk" to a 5 1/4" floppy, though.

Macintosh floppies are another thing, though.

I wrote a lot of that software for my Apple ][ to emulate everything but Macintosh disks. I even wrote a complete OS for 8" disks with personalized tracks hidden by use of special commands.

The problem is getting that Apple track and sector stuff read by modern boards and drives. Apple used their own unique system for the DOS on each machine. A friend wrote an OS for his Lisa to make it emulate an Apple ][ or /// but the change in screen aspect ratio finally defeated a lot of his projects IIRC.

I know that I can use cloud storage. BTDT and don't like it. Too "public" in a way. IDK, but this discussion defeats the purpose of the thread. I would prefer to get back on track.

Here are some facts.

About 4 years before its demise, KChrome was on a yearly schedule and had been for some years. Once a year they made it, but each year, the number of master rolls decreased until finally, only one roll was coated. Then, in about '05 film began spoiling on shelves unsold. (Same with E6 but not so much).

KChrome then went to an 18 month schedule. This helped.

Then, on the 18 month schedule, returns began.

They decided (IIRC) that a 2 year schedule for coating was untenable and coating less than one roll was impossible. This was the end!

And, I have posted this before so bookmark this one or the other one. I hate to keep typing it. And yes, I know cut and paste would work, but I like the personal touch of doing this and reminding you that "the truth is out there"!

PE

 

[flavio81]

Ron, you truly are a complete engineer. Did you like my take on the Paul Simon song?

Now, back on topic: If coating less than one roll was not possible and this killed Kodachrome, then perhaps with the new Ferrania factory it could be resurrected (and thus i open the can of worms.)

And i would guess that coating a K14 film would be easier than coating an E6 or C41 film?

 

[fotch]

Just curious, in Kodachrome hey day or peak, how many rolls would they coat per year?

 

[MattKing]

Just curious, in Kodachrome hey day or peak, how many rolls would they coat per year?

I think it would be a miracle if you got an answer to this question.

I can tell you though that at the North Vancouver, BC Canada Kodak lab where my father was the manager of the customer service department, during the summers and other high volume times, the large Kodachrome line was used run after run, 24 hours a day.

And to get an impression of the size of the machine, think of a small city bus, that used leaders and trailers that were each over a mile long.

And at its height, that was just one of three such lines in Canada.

The lab had a drop box that people could drop their films into after hours. Every Boxing day (the day after Christmas) for years in the 1960s and 1970s my Dad would take me down to the lab, take all the necessary steps to enter after hours, and I would help him gather up the hundreds of envelopes/packages of film for processing that people had dropped through the slot - if we didn't, they were liable to overflow back out on to the walk.

The lab processed mostly Kodachrome, but they did Ektachrome as well. No print film.

A lot of that film was movie film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As Matt said, a lot of film. IDK how much but National Geographic was the largest user and we could coat that very quickly.

Also, KChrome is NOT easy to coat due to the thinness of the layers and that is for sharpness. The whole family of films were extremely difficult to coat and difficult to move between machines. There was a formula for every coating machine.

PE

 

[alanrockwood]

Oops, I quoted the wrong post.

 

[alanrockwood]

Here are some facts.

About 4 years before its demise, KChrome was on a yearly schedule and had been for some years. Once a year they made it, but each year, the number of master rolls decreased until finally, only one roll was coated. Then, in about '05 film began spoiling on shelves unsold. (Same with E6 but not so much).

KChrome then went to an 18 month schedule. This helped.

Then, on the 18 month schedule, returns began.

They decided (IIRC) that a 2 year schedule for coating was untenable and coating less than one roll was impossible. This was the end!

And, I have posted this before so bookmark this one or the other one. I hate to keep typing it. And yes, I know cut and paste would work, but I like the personal touch of doing this and reminding you that "the truth is out there"!

PE

When did they coat the last roll?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I am Kodachrome blessed.

My father was an up and coming photographer in NYC late 1930's. I have a few images of him, or the woman who could have been my mother from them. In an aluminum can. The other images are gone.

Then we jump forward to his time as a Photographer's Mate in the Coast Guard during WWII shooting 4x5 KC. Add civilian shots at the end of the year through 1947.

Stunning, irreplaceable, images. To be honest, not better or worse than good digital.

But, wait! Then there are the numerous minutes of KC 16mm movie reels I've got. Intermixed with B&W going back to 1927 B&W's. Mother, my father's mother, and me leaving my birth hospital in 1946.

If for no logical reason, Kodachrome has been a substantial player in my family history for over 70 years in multiple formats!

 

[Xmas]

As Matt said, a lot of film. IDK how much but National Geographic was the largest user and we could coat that very quickly.

Also, KChrome is NOT easy to coat due to the thinness of the layers and that is for sharpness. The whole family of films were extremely difficult to coat and difficult to move between machines. There was a formula for every coating machine.

PE

NG did not have tight deadlines like most other users.
Today all of our girls with smart phones can run a video push two buttons and even if the police confiscate the phone it is on news editors desk.
Our hot news pros are not putting jam on bread any more.

 

[Xmas]

Ron, you truly are a complete engineer. Did you like my take on the Paul Simon song?

Now, back on topic: If coating less than one roll was not possible and this killed Kodachrome, then perhaps with the new Ferrania factory it could be resurrected (and thus i open the can of worms.)

And i would guess that coating a K14 film would be easier than coating an E6 or C41 film?

Selling it would be the problem...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Take a look at this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPgshLhQBw

 

[cliveh]

Why did Kodachrome fail in the end? Was it mainly the complexity of the processing?

It didn't, as it was the best colour film ever made.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Why did Kodachrome fail in the end?

Why? Economics!

 

[kb3lms]

It didn't, as it was the best colour film ever made.

Whether Kodachrome was the best color film ever or not is a matter of personal taste, but I have to agree that in no way was Kodachrome ever a failure. How many products can you think of that had a 75 year run? Not many. It was extremely successful and Kodak made many millions of dollars off of it. Sadly, its time has passed. Many enjoyed it while it was here.

And I don't see an ounce of improvement in any of it.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Many things have become more convenient and in a few cases even cheaper. But as far as true improvements? No, I don't think that there has been that much REAL improvement at all.