Dwayne's Photo (Kodachrome) in the news ...

Al Kaplan said:
Thanks. It works. Nothing else looks like Kodachrome.
Click to expand...

...after 50 years. which is why I can't belive Kodak has decided to shut down Kchrome (after having shooting it down) :bang::bang::bang:

Do anyone have any idea on which color film is the most stable/archival solution after Kchrome?
 
The Kodachrome I liked best was Kodachrome-X. It was ASA 64. I lived in the Nevada desert at the time, in the 1960's. Kodachrome-X captured the colors there in a warm, vivid way that was just right. If they had continued it, I'd have continued using it. To my eye, Astia has a different look. I think it's cooler in color balance. Not a bad thing, but not the same as Kodachrome.
 
sanmich said:
...after 50 years. which is why I can't belive Kodak has decided to shut down Kchrome (after having shooting it down)
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe that Kodak is losing money on Kodachrome. I mean, all of the R&D is done, tooling is in place, distribution channels are in place, product is well-known and has a good reputation.

It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.
 
dmr said:
I find it very hard to believe that Kodak is losing money on Kodachrome. I mean, all of the R&D is done, tooling is in place, distribution channels are in place, product is well-known and has a good reputation.

It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.
Click to expand...

Was it made in the US? I suspect they could manage to loose money if they had attempted to move production to China. In the same vein, they should have just upped the price (because people apparently want to pay $15/roll for it).

Personally, I don't understand the fascination. I can just barely swallow $6/roll. But, to each his own. I suspect that will change when Fuji's prices go up.
 
dmr said:
It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.
Click to expand...

IIRC, somebody "in the know" said there's a lot of risk involved - it hasn't been made recently, and a failed run would be a large financial hit.

It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.

It is a victim of its own prior success and the old American "bigger is better" business model; a long, but smaller volume line might be financially viable as a boutique product.
 
bean_counter said:
IIRC, somebody "in the know" said there's a lot of risk involved - it hasn't been made recently, and a failed run would be a large financial hit.

It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.

It is a victim of its own prior success and the old American "bigger is better" business model; a long, but smaller volume line might be financially viable as a boutique product.
Click to expand...

There was a time when kodak was totally devoted to film and serving its public. That's no longer true: the bean counters took over. :D :D :D

It is a shame. I really liked Kodachrome. I liked 25 over 64, but both were such great producers. For reasons mentioned above, it would probably be difficult to start up production again, even if anybody at Kodak was interested. Sad.
 
One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome
 
CLE-RF said:
One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome
Click to expand...

I believe it even requires a staff chemist to get it right.

/T
 
CLE-RF said:
One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome
Click to expand...

Actually, several people have been playing around with this. The process is well-documented and even the intimate details of the chemistry are available to those who really want them.

A certain Photo Engineer on 'another network' has convincingly stated that he's done small runs in the lab using a plain old tank.

The tricky part seems to be the two re-exposures. These need to be precisely controlled.
 
bean_counter said:
It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.
Click to expand...

One item of speculation has been that Kodachrome would be made until something critical for its production breaks down.

Maybe that time has come.

Another speculation is that they are losing the talent necessary to produce it, you know, that legendary "knowing where to tap" type of thing. Kind of like the fact that Autochrome is well understood and documented, but the skills necessary to produce it no longer exist.
 
hmm

hmm

That sounds like what a Jiffy Lube tech would tell you if you asked them about changing your own oil ...

turns out that the inventors of Kodachrome developed it in their sinks, and throughout the R&D of Kodachrome, the processing was done in sinks without machines, same for non-roll sheet films.

CLE-RF said:
One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome
Click to expand...
 
It's true that in the 40's Kodak used to offer Kodachrome sheet film. You couldn't process that in cine machines; sinks and tanks must have been the method. Maybe K-14 could be done at home. But three separate reversal exposures and color development!
 
Some things are harder than others, live with it. K-14 is fairly different from Kodachrome process of 1930s.

There was a "simplified" K-lab process available in the 1980s, it required just some 20 square meters and $150,000 in machinery. One was recently for sale on Ebay, just for a few thousands.
 
My understanding is that processing, as complex as it may be is not the issue here.
Dwayne would love to continue doing the job.
And if not Dwayne, I guess we could have seen an independant lab running the simplified lab mentioned by Eugene.
The problem is that no Kodachrome will be produced anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom