Why did Kodachrome fail in the end?

DREW WILEY said:

I don't have time to read all the preceding posts. But here's my take on it strictly from a personal experience standpoint, that I am certainly
not alone. Kodachrome is a pretty fussy process to develop requiring dedicated machinery. Several things happened roughly around the same
time. Kodak spun off development to a third party called Kodalux, and they started botching things. Slides came back scratched etc. Then Kodak decided that K64 was good enough, so dropped K25, which was really the superior product in many respects. Then E6 films started getting better, and were a helluva lot easier to make and process. Then they introduced 120 Kodachrome and made a big hoopla about it,
but dropped it soon afterwards, which left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. But I don't think there has ever really been a substitute for that
Kodachrome look. I don't know exactly how far back Kodachrome goes; but I've seen 5x7 sheet film images on it possibly 70 years old that
look like they were taken yesterday.

Click to expand...

You are part right and part wrong.

For example the 120 speed was not really introduced. Only samples were sent out as well as samples of 400 speed. The reaction was HO HUM. The process was fussy and the images are very stable.

Etc....

PE

trythis said:

What I don't understand is why people keep buying the stuff on dEbay.


Typos made on a tiny phone...

Click to expand...

That's a great question. Recently there was a guy selling some 35mm KC as if it was a viable product. I messaged him and reminded him that there has been no way to develop this for a few years, linky included. He came back with a link to some lab that will process it into B&W, his attitude was, "Good enough, no need to warn anyone."

But it goes beyond KC. There are all kinds of listing for all kinds of films both way out of date, and not, asking astounding prices. "Dude," do you not understand one can buy this for less money elsewhere? In date?

Having recently acquired a 16mm camera, and owning a 16mm projector for my ancient family films, I've been tracking that size. Absolutely amazing gall. Films, 40, 70 years old, prices as if they were new. One of the big variables in 16mm film is single or double perforation. Some sellers will point out how valuable their double perf is, but then supply no information on age, storage conditions, etc.

I did pick up two small rolls of 16mm KC to use as leaders. Cheap, great, fine.

Then there are sellers in foreign lands trying to foist off their local color products. Now, I'm good with it's a gamble, and if it's cheap, maybe worth that gamble. But they ask prices no better than buying on any of the major mail order houses.

The bottom line for me is simply, I...don't....get...film....pricing.....on.....eBay.

Pricing is easy: set a low value to sell fast, set a fair value to sell with ethics, set a high value if there's no hurry and it's worth the waiting time. People selling old stuff do this all day long. It's no secret and there is not much magic to it.

Ron - I was referring to 120 format, not 120 speed. It was ASA 64. I shot a number of rolls of 120 Kodachrome myself, and even made a few Ciba prints. I was pretty impressed. The rolls had to be sent back East for processing. I even have an unopened box of 120 Kodachrome still in my freezer for nostalgia, along with the rest of my dinosaur collection.

Ahh, thanks for the correction Drew. There were samples of 120 speed as I noted above, but only in 35mm.

I know how you feel about nostalgia. I have some keepsakes of my own.

PE

Paul Verizzo said:

............................

The bottom line for me is simply, I...don't....get...film....pricing.....on.....eBay.

Click to expand...

Its been a while since I used eBay, however, this started happening in a big way when ebay went to free listings, you only pay if its sold. For a lot of people, they are willing to wait, maybe forever, to make a killing. I seldom go there now except when I use as a Amazon type site.

I was under the impression, and maybe Ron or someone else here can correct me, but didn't kodachrome processing involve some highly toxic chemicals (highly toxic being a relative term as compared to C41 and E6)? I thought part of the consideration in closing down KC wasn't just lower demand and competition from E6, but that in order to meet up coming environmental regulations it was going to have to either change some chemicals or at least alter the procurment of said chemicals. The lower demand wouldn't justify those costs.

Its funny, I've only just recently come to love KC. Most my exposure to KC came via my monitor (yes yes, I know, I'm a bad apugger), and I just didn't get it. Using software like filmpack to emulate KC really didn't do anything for me on any digital image I tried.

Then I saw a Fred Herzog exhibit and in person, those prints sang; so that piqued my interest. Then last month my wife gave me a copy of Steve McCurry's Untold Stories, and now I get it. It helps that I really love McCurry's work. But in every colour image the colours just make such an impact. They are just the right intensity (which is usually pretty darn strong, but not in the hyper saturated way that I find is in vogue right now). What amazed me most was the level of detail. Steve shot everything on Nikon 35mm cameras, but printed at 12" the texture and detail looks to be limited by the book's printing process, not the film. Just comparing to my own results in the darkroom (which can be summarized as "400 speed b&w film, shot by a drunk monkey, processed and printed by an unusual dumb ape") I'd think he was shooting medium format.

I haven't shot much E6, but I've got a couple of rolls in both 35 and 120 in the freezer, and now I'm giving some serious thought to thawing one or two out...

K14 was no more toxic nor less than E6 or C41 except for having 3 color developers.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

K14 was no more toxic nor less than E6 or C41 except for having 3 color developers.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron is, of course, correct.

But K14 was a high volume process (except for the K14 minilabs near the end), so the volumes involved meant that environmentally related handling procedures were, of necessity, more extensive.

One thing I've wondered though - were there environmental concerns that would have been encountered at the manufacturing stage for E6 films that had to be dealt with instead at the processing stage with K14?

Matt, the answer is yes.

PE

I loved Kodachrome, but completely understand why the markeplace could not support it forever.

I shot 118 rolls of Kodachrome products, starting with a 126 Kodapak of Kodachrome-X in 1973, ending in 2010 with a 12-year old roll of frozen Kodachrome 25 that actually delivered superb results (in all, 19 ciné, 30 stereo, and 69 rolls of 2D slides).

I actually stopped using Kodachrome and went back to it later. I did have one real complaint about Kodachrome: While it gave beautiful images when it worked right, more than a few rolls would be plagued by a combination of low color saturation and a color cast - either aqua green or brownish magenta. I don't know if this was because of variation in the film, the storage, or the processing of the film, I do know the problem became worse with time.

After my stereos of our honeymoon came back dull green, I completely jumped to Fujichrome 100. In 2000, I started shooting Kodachrome 64 again for the strangest reason**, though I continued to use Fuji in other cameras. Oddly, for the first years of this century, I found KR64 was reliably giving good color again. This was when the slides came back from Kodak with the "MN12" stamp (Lerner Minneapolis, I believe).

Substantive reversal films definitely improved over the years, to the detriment of Kodachrome. Many people point to Velvia as the "Kodachrome killer", But I always thought that Fujichrome Sensia 100 (RD, circa 1994) had a huge impact. Years before, there were E-6 films that delivered saturated color (Ektachrome-X, Fujichrome 50 RF, and especially Velvia), but none delivered deep, dense color like Kodachrome - until Sensia 100, which looked just like Kodachrome on the light table. When Sensia 100 RD was replaced with Sensia 100 RA (1997) and I noticed the warmer color balance and teal shifted to kelly green, I stocked up RD Sensia.

Kodachrome was really hit harder by cultural and demographic shifts than by other slide films. Much of the Kodachrome business was home movie film, but demand for home movies fell in the 60s and 70s, in fact, decimated well before the first home camcorder hit the market, and Kodachrome leaned to home movies more than E-6 films did, With other lifestyle changes, fewer people were using slide films of any kind, especially as C-41 and RA-4 approached cost parity with slides. Then digital cameras slashed the demand for photographic film in general. The combination killed Kodachrome off.

More questions for PE:
At one time, the Kodak website actually mentioned Kodachrome 100 film (amusingly, to announce that it was Y2K compliant!), but was there ever any Kodachrome 100? (I may mention here that the lack of an ISO 100 product probably hurt Kodachrome in the marketplace)
I never knew that a Kodachrome 400 had ever been under development. Why was it never released?
I was really surprised that samples of an ISO 120 Kodachrome had ever been produced. Would it not haven been ISO 125?
I was quite impressed when I used Ektachrome Lumiere 100 (LPP), but it was only on the market for about a year. What led to its downfall?
Is there any table published anywhere that shows statistics of how many rolls of different film products were produced year-over-year?
What year did sales of Kodachrome products peak?


** I had bought an Olympus Stylus Epic (AKA mju) to carry with me and take quick and easy slides on the fly, but noticed that it tended to produce underexposed slides with Sensia 100. Knowing that the DX reader on the Stylus Epic read any film with an ISO of 50, 64 or 80 as ISO 50, I figured using KR64 would give of 1/3 stop more exposure, and it worked.

Most pros are on deadlines except eg Nat Geo magazine.
We had 24/7 labs and motor cycle couriers.
E6 was a lot more prompt.
My example was in 1980 my bottom desk drawer had a dozen packs of Pola mono for oscilloscope camera just in case there were none left in lab cause stores only did office hours. Fifteen years later they were replaced by CD-ROM.
Most of the development engineers were the same we had several hundred, but there was only one PR pro photog, I was a software engineer.

The silver halide volume was pro cine then stills the fine art volume was minuscule.

1L6E6VHF said:

More questions for PE:
At one time, the Kodak website actually mentioned Kodachrome 100 film (amusingly, to announce that it was Y2K compliant!), but was there ever any Kodachrome 100? (I may mention here that the lack of an ISO 100 product probably hurt Kodachrome in the marketplace)
I never knew that a Kodachrome 400 had ever been under development. Why was it never released?
I was really surprised that samples of an ISO 120 Kodachrome had ever been produced. Would it not haven been ISO 125?
I was quite impressed when I used Ektachrome Lumiere 100 (LPP), but it was only on the market for about a year. What led to its downfall?
Is there any table published anywhere that shows statistics of how many rolls of different film products were produced year-over-year?
What year did sales of Kodachrome products peak?

Click to expand...

IDK the details about any of the films above 64. I do know that there was a 400 speed under development and some samples went out.

I know nothing about any film after I retired which was before 2000.

There are tables of production, but not published.

PE

History does repeat itself, Ektachrome became more popular than Kodachrome.

From 1951: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...icle/sheet-film-in-kodachrome-to-be-withdrawn

From an Australian user perspective, Kodachrome became more of a chore than a joy to use. True, in the halcyon days when we burnt many rolls of PKL200 through even many more cameras, it was a case or rocking up to the Kodak kiosk, filling out a mailer and posting the film off, to have it popped into the letterbox about 8 days later. As I said, in the good days it wasn't so bad. But then Fujichrome put Velvia on the market and photographers around the world went into a spin. My last Kodachrome 200 roll was exposed in 1998, sent off to VisionGraphics in Sydney, and it was returned almost 2 weeks later. That was quite enough. By this time using more Velvia and Provia than Kodachrome, I looked at the timing and economics (Kodachrome was expensive for what it was): E6 was a 3 hour turn-around and legions of us had migrated to it. It's a convenience thing. We were not going to wait 7 to 14 days to get our rolls back when E6 can do it in 3 hours! The market dropped off precipitately and Kodachrome went the way of the dogo. Good while we had it, and amongst Ilfochrome Classic printers, Kodachrome was recommended above E6 emulsions for the way it recorded reds more accurately.

Craig said:

History does repeat itself, Ektachrome became more popular than Kodachrome.

From 1951: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...icle/sheet-film-in-kodachrome-to-be-withdrawn

Click to expand...

Ektachrome was always better.

I have some old Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides shot in the late 60s and early 70s. The Kodachromes look like they were shot yesterday. The Ektachromes are badly faded. Of course, back then they didn't have E6 Ektachrome.

alanrockwood said:

I have some old Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides shot in the late 60s and early 70s. The Kodachromes look like they were shot yesterday. The Ektachromes are badly faded. Of course, back then they didn't have E6 Ektachrome.

Click to expand...

My late Father's Kodachromes from the 60's and 70's still look good. Ektachromes are more mixed, with some of then fading badly, but those processed by Kodak (in the UK, they offered an E4 factory servicethrough dealers at that time) have definitely lasted much better.....maybe down to less critical processing by independent labs ? Agfa (again factory processed) are also still usable.

I started out with Kodachrome when I became interested in slide photography, and was OK for some years with Kodachrome 25, apart from the restrictions of the slow speed. Having tried the dire "Kodachrome-X" while it was available, I didn't bother much with the later 64 and 200 versions. (I can only think that the "X" version was a "bodge" to be able to produce colour and B&W films of the same speed for the Instamatic 126 cameras !).

I moved from Kodachrome largely because of the indifferent UK "Box 14" processing, often with scratches, blue spots and poor plastic mounts, and sometimes lacking the general "sparkle" of earlier years. I still remember the last film I used, and the total frustration of poor processing after my time, expense and serious effort to produce some good results from a "special" vacation.....and that with what I thought was supposedly Kodak's flagship film.

So it was then a mix of Ektachrome and Agfa E-6, until the discontinuance of Kodachrome was announced. However, I then tried a roll in 2009 just for nostalgia, and was delighted by the quality from Dwaynes....back to the old days, with clean, sparkling slides, and even in the nice retro card mounts !

So 2009 and 2010 were something of a total Kodachrome time for me....and I'm still enjoying scanning and printing from the 2,000 or so slides from that time!

Sirius Glass said:

Ektachrome was always better.

Click to expand...

Eh? Really?

Grain? Sharpness? Dye stability?

E6 films surpassed it. Prior versions couldn't really touch it, except for convenience.

Kodachrome is history, it's time to accept it and move on.

Yesterday my wife asked for a print of a picture I had made many years ago of Manassas battlefield at sunset, so she could paint it. I remembered the picture, but not which film stock it came from. After rooting around in my slide boxes for awhile, I found it. Yep, Kodachrome.

Not a surprise, really. I shot slides for decades - even (cue dramatic music of fearless young men, who don't know any better) weddings. Most of that was on Kodachrome.

I did shoot Ektachrome some, back in the beginning. The magazines touted it, after all. And as a young man fresh in love with photography, carrying a camera with him everywhere he went (even up telephone poles), those rags held some sway. None of us appreciated the dark storage benefits of KC back then. And Ektachrome could be had in a faster speed.

But, mostly, it was Kodachrome.

In the end, during the last month, I sent six final cassettes to Dwayne's. When the boxes came back I selected two of the six, bent over my light table, like I had for years and years, and enjoyed that special thing, the visual feast that only a glowing Kodachrome transparency can provide. Alas. I set the other four boxes back in the corner. Virgin, unseen.

I still carry a box of long-expired Kodachrome 64 in the console of my pickup truck. Just so I can see it when I glance down.


Ektachrome...




Kodachrome...

Throwback Friday...

This is what greeted me when I clicked "auto restore saved content" when I looked at this thread just now...

alanrockwood said:

Why did Kodachrome fail in the end?

Click to expand...

Kodachrome never failed...

Bill Burk said:

Kodachrome never failed...

Click to expand...

True dat...



Ken

The business case for Kodachrome

I'd be quite interested in seeing the sales numbers and the manufacturing costs of Kodachrome in its last ten years. I suspect that a combination of cost to manufacture increases and decline of sales, and the success of Ektachrome and also Velvia all contributed even before digital. The cost to manufacture a film product is quite high today. Certain marketplaces are willing to pay premiums for films that are unobtainable or otherwise unique; Witness New55. Large corporations like Kodak can never serve niche markets as well as micro and small companies do.

Dead Link Removed