Kodachrome: Gone Forever, Or……? What would it take to bring it back? You don’t want to know!

Kodachrome: Gone Forever, Or……?
What would it take to bring it back? You don’t want to know!

By Jason Schneider

It’s now been 15 years since Kodak stopped making Kodachrome color transparency film in 2009, and nearly 90 years since Kodak first introduced it to the market in 1935, but it’s still regarded by millions of photo enthusiasts and professionals as the finest color film ever made. Invented by two friends, Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, both talented musicians with a passion for science and photography, the manufacture and processing of Kodachrome is probably the most complex system of color photography ever invented. The fact that it was literally cooked up (at least in protype form) by two scientists in a home kitchen converted into an impromptu lab is nothing short of astonishing.

Mannes and Godowsky, inventors of Kodachrome, in their lab.jpg
Leopold Mannes (left) and Leopold Godowsky, inventors of Kodachrome, in their lab, date unknown.

Kodachrome inventors Leopold Godowsky (left) accompanied by Leopold Mannes on the piano.jpg
Kodachrome inventors Leopold Godowsky (left) accompanied by Leopold Mannes on the piano. Date unknown.

When Kodak announced it was discontinuing Kodachrome in 2009 it created quite a stir, and there were howls of disappointment from diehard Kodachrome fans. But the final nail in the coffin (and the loudest, most widespread expressions of outrage) occurred in 2010, when the last Kodachrome lab, Dwayne’s of Parsons, Kansas, announced that the last Kodachrome processing machine would be shut down and sold for scrap. In its last weeks of operation, Dwayne’s received thousands of overnight packages. One railroad worker drove from Arkansas to pick up 1,580 rolls, mostly pictures of trains, that he’d paid $15,798 to develop, and an artist based in London, England flew to Wichita KS to turn in 3 rolls of Kodachrome and shoot 5 more before the processing deadline. Dwayne’s Photo soldiered on as long as it could—its staff had been cut from 200 to 60 in its last decade of operation. But in the end, they had no choice because Kodak had stopped producing the chemicals needed to process Kodachrome, and in its the last week of operation the lab opened the last cannister of cyan dye. Dwayne’s owner, Dwayne Steinle, had the honor of shooting the last roll of Kodachrome to be processed. It included a picture of all the remaining employees standing in front of Dwayne’s wearing shirts emblazoned with the heartfelt epitaph, “The best slide and movie film in history is now officially retired. Kodachrome: 1935-2010.”

Dwayne's Photo commemorative Kodachrome tee shirt of 2010.jpg
Dwayne's Photo wistful commemorative Kodachrome tee shirt of 2010. It's still available online!

In response to the brouhaha over the official announcement of the termination of Kodachrome in 2009, some marketing mavens at Kodak decided to conduct an informal survey of Kodachrome users. They concluded that nearly 100% of the target group said they loved the film and praised it effusively. But when asked “When was the last time you shot Kodachrome?” an alarming percentage admitted it that it had been “a while” or even “a few years” since they had done so. Their conclusion: while having a beloved, iconic product is a great thing in itself, if it doesn’t sell in sufficient quantities, it’s hard to justify keeping it in the line, particularly when manufacturing and processing it are both labor- and capital-intensive undertakings that divert resources from other potentially more lucrative projects.

But Kodachrome is more than just a film—it’s an American cultural icon, celebrated in song, myriad incredible images, and even has a state park named after it! That’s why the re-release of Kodachrome is a dream that never dies. It has captured the imagination of countless photographers of all stripes, even those who’ve never shot a single frame of Kodachrome or experienced viewing a a projected, perfectly exposed Kodachrome slide in all its stunning beauty.

Kodachrome is the only film to have a state park (in Cannonville UT) named in its honor. It ha...jpg
Kodachrome is the only film to have a state park (in Cannonville UT), a hit song, and a movie named in its honor. It has become a cultural icon.

Kodachrome was initially released in 1935 as a 16mm motion picture film in this colorful box.jpg
Kodachrome was initially released in 1935 as a 16mm motion picture film in this colorful box.

45 RPM disc of %22Kodachrome> by Paul Simon c.1973.jpg
45 RPM disc of "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon c.1973. "Those nice bright colors...the world's a sunny day..."

What’s so great (and not) about Kodachrome?

Kodachrome has a uniquely rich color palette, with the warmish color balance many prefer, and has an elevated level of color saturation, capturing a kind “hyper reality” that presents things “just a little better than they really are.” Consisting of a stack of low ISO emulsions, it’s capable of rendering extremely sharp, detailed images that seem to stand out in bold relief. And when stored properly in the dark, at cool temperatures and low humidity, Kodachrome images are archivally stable, possibly lasting 100 years or more without noticeable fading.

Like all great things Kodachrome has its downsides. To begin with t’s slow. The first “perfected” Kodachrome iterations of the late ‘30s through the ‘50s were ISO 10 (daylight). The very best Kodachrome in terms of overall performance was Kodachrome 25 (ISO 25), and the fastest “good” Kodachrome was Kodachrome 64 (ISO 64). Most Kodachrome aficionados (including yours truly) are not big fans of Kodachrome 200, which is noticeably grainier and has less brilliance and lower color saturation. Kodachrome has far less exposure latitude than most other films, including other color slide films, which generally have less exposure latitude than color print films. With Kodachrome the exposure must be within 1/3 of a stop of the “optimum” exposure to avoid blown out highlights or murky shadows, and some say it tends to “go blue” in the shadows. Finally, Kodachrome images are prone to fading when projected often or stored in places that are hot, or where daylight can reach them. Contrary to popular belief, Kodachrome is more susceptible to color fading than Ektachrome 100 or Fujichrome (Velvia or Provia) when it’s not placed in dark storage.

Original 1935 Kodachrome fiilm box, cartridge, cannister, and mailer.jpg
Original 1935 Kodachrome fiilm box, cartridge, canister, and Kodak mailer that cost 1-1/2 cents to mail in!

Kodachrome 64 120 roll film of c.1990.jpg
Kodachrome 64 120 roll film of c.1990. It was challenging to process. Too bad they never made Kodachrome 25 in 120 rolls.

Because of its proven ability to “take great pictures” with a unique look that combines vivid color and exquisite image quality, a coterie of analog enthusiasts has continued, albeit without success, to plead with Kodak to bring back their beloved Kodachrome. That mini movement gained some traction in 2017 when it was widely reported that Kodak’s then chief marketing officer Steven Overman stated in “The Kodakery” podcast, “we are investigating what it would take to bring back Kodachrome, but it would be a lot easier and faster to bring back Ektachrome.” We now know that Kodak had no intention of reviving Kodachrome at that time, but merely mentioning the possibility put the rumor mill into high gear.

1934 Kodak Retina 117 with c.1940 Kodacrome cartridge and can.jpg
1934 Kodak Retina Model 117 with c.1940 Kodachrome cartridge and canister--a formidable combo in its day.

What was left unsaid is that the challenge of reviving Kodachrome lies in the extreme complexity of the entire process. Redesigning and manufacturing a novel 6-layer film was the “easy” part. The re-creation of an entire ecosystem for a new Kodachrome that used new EPA-approved dyes, and creating new labs to process the film and produce mounted slides and prints to the consumer was beyond the capabilities of a diminished Eastman Kodak Co. The company no longer had enough engineers, scientists, and production managers (not to mention the film production capacity) to tackle such an ambitious project.

Indeed, what happened was that in 2017 Kodak embarked on a project to manufacture a limited run of a new Ektachrome to test the waters. The company soon discovered that it no longer had enough scientists and engineers needed to complete the project and had to lure some former Kodak employees out of retirement. Due to this and other snags the project took about 3 times as long to execute as had been anticipated, and though the entire run of Ektachrome was eventually sold, in the end the project lost money. While Ektachrome 100 Professional was eventually brought forth as a successful film that remains in current production, the money losing 2017 Ektachrome project remains a cautionary tale for anyone at Kodak thinking of reviving Kodachrome, a far more complex, expensive, technically challenging, and risky undertaking.

The Kodachrome Process of color photography, schematic. It's complicated! .gif.gif
The Kodachrome Process of color photography, schematic. Yes, it's really complicated!

Just how complex is Kodachrome? Here’s an edited version of the K-14 process used to process the last Kodachrome from Wikipedia.

K-14 was the most recent version of the developing process for Kodachrome transparency film before it was discontinued (the last revision having been designated Process K-14M). It superseded previous versions of the Kodachrome process used with older films (such as K-12 for Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X).

Backing removal

An alkaline bath softens the cellulose acetate phthalate binder. A spray wash and buffer removes the rem-jet anti-halation backing.

First developer

All exposed sliver halide crystals are developed to metallic silver via a PQ (phenidone/hydroquinone) developer. The yellow filter layer becomes opaque because it has a combination of Lippmann emulsion (very tiny grains) and Carey Lea silver (metallic silver particles that are small enough that they are yellow rather than gray.)

Wash

Stops development and removes the PQ developer.

Red light re-exposure through the base

This makes the remaining undeveloped silver halide in the cyan layer developable.

Cyan developer

The solution contains a color developer and a cyan coupler. These are colorless in solution. After the color developer develops the silver, the oxidized developer reacts with the cyan coupler to form cyan dye. The dye is much less soluble than either the developer or the coupler, so it stays in the blue-red sensitive layer of the film.

Blue light re-exposure from the top

This makes the remaining undeveloped silver halide grains in the blue sensitive layer (the yellow layer) developable. The now opaque yellow filter layers prevent the blue light from exposing the magenta layer (the green sensitive layer, which is also sensitive to blue light). It’s vital to avoid stray printing light exposing the film base of film.

Yellow developer
Its action is analogous to the cyan developer.

Magenta developer
This contains a chemical fogging agent that makes all the remaining undeveloped silver halide developable. If everything has worked correctly, nearly all this silver halide is in the magenta layers. The developer and magenta coupler work just like the cyan and yellow developers to produce magenta dye that is insoluble and stays in the film.

Wash
As above.

Conditioner
Prepares the metallic silver for the bleach step.

Bleach
Oxidizes the metallic silver to silver halide. The bleach (ferric EDTA) must be aerated. The former ferricyanide bleach did not require aeration and did not require a conditioner.

Fix
Converts the silver halide to soluble silver compounds which are then dissolved and washed from the film.

Rinse
Contains a wetting agent to reduce water spots.

Dry

The result of this 17-step (!) process is 3 different color records each with the appropriate dye, just like other color films. The original Kodachrome process in 1935 used dye bleaches and was far more complex; the dyes themselves were unstable and faded at high temperature. Although the formulas have changed over the years, the basic process steps have followed a similar pattern since the introduction of stable "selective re-exposure" Kodachrome in 1938.

Late examples of Kodachreome 25, 64 and 200 35mm packaging.jpg
Late examples of 35mm packaging of Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200.

What would it take create a new Kodachrome up to EPA standards?

A group of topnotch scientists, technicians, and production engineers would have to reconfigure the film, eliminating any toxic dyes or other chemicals, and developing suitable non-toxic dyes with very high stability.

The group would have to design and build facilities to manufacture the film, and set up at least a few labs capable of receiving, processing, mounting, and shipping the film back to customers.

A separate group devoted to promotion and marketing the film would have to be created.
All the people (perhaps a few dozen) assigned to the Kodachrome project would have to be hired and paid, a challenging undertaking, particularly when it comes finding trained scientists with experience in emulsion technology and relocating at least some of them to Rochester, NY.

At a conservative estimate, initializing such a project would cost $10-20M and take 2-3 years before the first rolls of New Kodachrome would reach the production line.

At present, Kodak has only one production line devoted to making film (down from 10 in the mid ‘60s), and due to the recent resurgence in film sales (reportedly up over 40% in the last few years alone) that line now running 24 hours a day. Adding Kodachrome to the mix would therefore require a huge and potentially risky investment in a second film line, or a cooperative arrangement with another film manufacturer such as Fuji or Ilford.

Is creating a New Kodachrome technically feasible? Absolutely, but it would require a well-heeled partner, a devoted billionaire, or both!

The Kodachrome process is well understood and it’s an accessible part of Kodak’s legacy dating back to the recent past. There would surely be technical and operational hurdles to overcome, but basically all it would take is time, effort, and lots of money. If a multi-billionaire like Elon Musk or Bill Gates wanted to throw a paltry $100M at the project to burnish his image and offer the great gift of Kodachrome to the world, the project could (with the assumed cooperation of Kodak) commence tomorrow.

Fuji has worked with Kodak in the past, and according to unsubstantiated rumors they still tacitly collaborate on film manufacture. However, it’s doubtful that Fujifilm would want to collaborate on a project to recreate Kodak’s signature film which would have the potential of cutting into the sales of Fuji’s Velvia and Provia slide films (which use Kodak’s E-6 process!)

And a new Kodachrome would undoubtedly impact the sales of Kodak’s very successful Ekrachrome E100 professional films that are now available in 35mm, 120 rolls, 16mm, 4x5, and 8 x10 sizes. For the record, Ektachrome E100 Professional is said to be the closest alternative to Kodachrome in terms of color palette, color rendition, and overall image quality currently on the market.

Economics: What would a roll of New Kodachrome have to sell for in order to turn a profit, and would anyone buy it at that price?
Most people are under the impression that film prices have soared since the good old days, and they’ve certainly increased by about 20-25% in dollars over the last 5 years. However, when they’re calculated in terms of constant dollars, taking inflation into account, the price of film has in fact gone down consistently. To put it in perspective a 35mm 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost $1.15 in 1956 (equal to about $11.60 today) and the current price ranges from $9.09 to $9.95. In 1935 an 18-exposure roll of Kodachrome, which included a Kodak processing mailer, was $3.50, the equivalent in current purchasing power of a staggering $80.36!

Assuming Kodak could and would foot the entire bill of $10-20M for creating, processing, and marketing a new Kodachrome, how much would they have to charge for a roll of 35mm, 36-expoure Kodachrome to turn a profit, and would people be willing to pay it?

Right now, a 35mm 36-exposure roll of Ektachrome E 100 Professional goes for $21.99, and an equivalent roll of Fujichrome Velvia 50 runs $29.95. The closest equivalents in “self-processing” “Polaroid instant picture film would be a 40-exposure 5-pack of Color i-Type Instant Film at $62.91 or a 40-exposure 5-pack of Polaroid Color 600 for $73.95, the latter working out to $1.85 per picture. If potential New Kodachrome shooters would be willing to pay $1.85 per shot to acquire a 35mm 36-exposure roll of New Kodachrome, that would come to $66.56 per roll! That would be a stretch, but still well within the realm of possibility.

1935 price list for Kodachrome from The Kodak Salesman.jpg
1935 price list for Kodachrome from The Kodak Salesman. At $3.50 including processing, an 18-exposure roll would cost over $80 today.

Announcement of Kodachrome from 1935 issue of The Kodak Salesman.jpg
Announcement of Kodachrome from a 1935 issue of The Kodak Salesman, an in-house publication,

Of course, nobody really knows what the true front-end cost of creating, servicing, and marketing a brave new Kodachrome system would be, so estimates on profitability and the break-even point can only be “good faith conjectures.” It is evident that Kodak would have to sell of hell of a lot of it at a rather steep price just to break even. As an inveterate dreamer and a lifetime Kodachrome fanatic I sure hope it happens. So if you are on good terms with any audacious billionaires who want to enshrine their names eternally in the hearts and minds of millions of photographers worldwide, do them (and all of us) a big favor and get in touch with them pronto.
.


 
Last edited:
We all have something stuck in our minds as to what Kodachrome looked like but Kodachrome changed dramatically over its life. Kodachrome 10 ASA was really contrasty with purple blue skies and exaggerated reds and blocked shadows. Kodachrome II was tamed down quite a lot with in contrast and color but still on the contrasty side. Kodachrome X was ugly in my opinion with salmon colored skin. K25 and 64 were a lot like KII but loss saturated.

E3 Ektachrome was beautiful with great blues and soft pastels and excellent greens but stability of dies was not good.

E4 was an improvement in stability but when E6 came along that’s when Ektachrome pulled ahead of Kodachrome. Kodachromes stability if exposed to light like projecting was not at all good but Ektachrome was very good. Contrast was better in E6 film and a variety of film from different manufacturers gave us a choice of pastel rendering (Agfa) to vivid with Fuji ( Provia and Velvia). Even Kodak made a choice of films with different rendering, neutral, warm and saturated.

Looking back on it I’m not surprised that Kodachrome went away. It seemed like manufacturers including Kodak put all their development into E6 materials and just left Kodachrome to “fade away”.
I also seem to remember that the K-14 chemistry required a great deal of expensive treatment, post-processing, to prevent environmental pollution from some highly toxic components, and that this was an additional expense that contributed to Kodak's decision to discontinue it.
 
I understand the desire to shoot mono and process the image from shutter button to finished print. I used to spend whole days in rooms lit only with red light bulbs. I do not want to anymore but understand others enjoying the fuss of film. Color, however, is a whole different deal and today digital profiles can be made to mimic all the various color films. So if you can shoot the same image digitally with the ease and efficiency of digital why shoot analog(ue)? I am not sure that I understand the "why". Is it nostalgia?
 
I understand the desire to shoot mono and process the image from shutter button to finished print. I used to spend whole days in rooms lit only with red light bulbs. I do not want to anymore but understand others enjoying the fuss of film. Color, however, is a whole different deal and today digital profiles can be made to mimic all the various color films. So if you can shoot the same image digitally with the ease and efficiency of digital why shoot analog(ue)? I am not sure that I understand the "why". Is it nostalgia?
As has often been pointed out here, photography is not just about the final image; for many, it's also about the process, and the connection to a physical object. For those of us who think this way, ease and efficiency are secondary concerns. I'm old enough that people tell me I should consider an e-bike; I prefer to ride my old, lugged steel frame conventional bike. I don't consider that "nostalgia" just because there is a more efficient two-wheeled option available.
 
So if you can shoot the same image digitally with the ease and efficiency of digital why shoot analog(ue)? I am not sure that I understand the "why". Is it nostalgia?
As I mentioned in another comment, it's all about the process (for me, at least).

And I'm not talking about the development or printing or projecting or whatever - the actual act of focusing, metering, framing, and exposing.

There's nothing with a digital sensor that handles, feels, and behaves exactly like a Rolleiflex or a Contax II or a Leica III or a Robot or a Werra or whatever other weird and quirky contraption someone might want to use. I happen to love the act of developing film and making proper prints in a darkroom, but I happen to love the act of using old mechanical gizmos even more. I don't particularly like C41 film (or even colour photography), but I think I'd rather shoot a roll of Portra in a Leica Standard and hand it off to someone else to develop over taking photos with an iPhone or an iPhone-in-disguise like a typical viewfinder-less fixed-lens digital camera. It's just more enjoyable.
 
As I mentioned in another comment, it's all about the process (for me, at least).

And I'm not talking about the development or printing or projecting or whatever - the actual act of focusing, metering, framing, and exposing.

There's nothing with a digital sensor that handles, feels, and behaves exactly like a Rolleiflex or a Contax II or a Leica III or a Robot or a Werra or whatever other weird and quirky contraption someone might want to use. I happen to love the act of developing film and making proper prints in a darkroom, but I happen to love the act of using old mechanical gizmos even more. I don't particularly like C41 film (or even colour photography), but I think I'd rather shoot a roll of Portra in a Leica Standard and hand it off to someone else to develop over taking photos with an iPhone or an iPhone-in-disguise like a typical viewfinder-less fixed-lens digital camera. It's just more enjoyable.

So for you it is the fuss of analog(ue). I can understand that. I have a close friend who is a ham. He could much more easily call with a phone but enjoys the gear, logging and fuss of ham radio. An intricate hobby. He does not do CW, however.
 
Same with me on my Android smartphone (shot in Autumn 1984 on K25).

Not very sharp, I know, it was a strange idea to take a sunset picture with K25 and 1/4 sec 🤪 (Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 wide open, Contax RTS II).

Haha! Not strange. Mine was most likely K64 (would have to look), tripod, and Nikkor 500mm mirror lens:

IMG_9B37D1072369-1.jpeg
 
Maybe I'm too young (or just not American enough), but I've never seen the fuss over Kodachrome. It's a ludicrously complex film that imparts a look which can only be described as baked-in nostalgia for an era I never saw. For me, Velvia 50 was punchier and richer for landscapes, Provia 100 was better for portraits, and Provia 400X (RIP) was the king of slide film, with a lovely colour palette, impressive speed, and great reciprocity characteristics. I saw no need to mess around with Kodachrome and its proprietary processes while all of those were available to me.

Honestly, the saner option for the Kodachrome fetishists (as far as I'm concerned) would be to recreate a film that looks exactly like Kodachrome but can be developed in an E6 process. Hell, you could rebrand Ektachrome and slap it in a red and yellow box and I don't think most people would really spot the difference.



For me, slide film always made/makes the most sense in medium format, even when it's only shot to be digitized. There's something really special about a 6x6 frame of Velvia 50. There's nothing quite like it. If you only care about results, 35mm slide film has been replaced by digital; it's hard to justify the act (and cost) of shooting 35mm Velvia or Ektachrome when Fuji's "film simulations" do an impressive job of creating the same look with minimal cost and effort. The only real reason to shoot 35mm E6 film for me is the actual act of doing so - enjoying the process of using a cantankerous old Contax II or a small and compact Leica I while still getting colour photos that hold up well to what a modern digital camera can do.



As hinted, I'm probably classed as "younger" - just the short side of 40 (for now). I own a slide projector. I've never used it. I've never even mounted any of the slides I've shot. I've been tempted to use some of the Eastman 5302 I have lying around to make some B&W slides from some of my negatives and put on a "slide show", but in the world where digital projectors exist, is there really any point other than the "quirkiness" of doing it in such a roundabout and antiquated way?
Unlikely that E6 which is a bleaching process could ever be made to look like Kodachrome which is a dye additive process.
 
... So if you can shoot the same image digitally with the ease and efficiency of digital why shoot analog(ue)? ...
I can speak only to shooting B&W, not color, because I have only done color photography with digital since about 2000 or a little before.

The answer to the question with respect to B&W is that ... you can't "shoot the same image digitally." Film sees differently compared to digital capture and demonstrates many differences in the finished, rendered print. They are neither "better" nor "worse" one to the other, they're simply different. And both, to my eye, have their place to the degree that I'm willing to do what I need to with both.

G
 
So for you it is the fuss of analog(ue).
It's not the fuss of "analogue", more the tactile processes and feedback involved in using these mechanical devices.

Also, I have grown to loathe things that try to do the thinking for me. Autofocus, autoexposure... even auto-loading and auto-winding, if I'm honest. The more involved I am in the process, the more enjoyable I find it.

Hell, even the difference between a proper focusing helical (and a decently spaced depth of field scale) and a focus-by-wire lens can make a huge difference in how much I enjoy or am frustrated by the photographic process.
 
I believe that it could be processed into negatives in B&W chemistry. Beyond that, I can't say. Given its age I'd just keep it for nostalgia's sake.
My father in law had an old roll of Kodachrome that I processed in HC110. It did give images but with lots of fog. It had been sitting around for 30+ years so unsure if it was the age the processing or both.
 
My father in law had an old roll of Kodachrome that I processed in HC110. It did give images but with lots of fog. It had been sitting around for 30+ years so unsure if it was the age the processing or both.
Age and storage. Fresh Kodachrome made pretty nice black and white negatives.

Marty
 
I can speak only to shooting B&W, not color, because I have only done color photography with digital since about 2000 or a little before.

The answer to the question with respect to B&W is that ... you can't "shoot the same image digitally." Film sees differently compared to digital capture and demonstrates many differences in the finished, rendered print. They are neither "better" nor "worse" one to the other, they're simply different. And both, to my eye, have their place to the degree that I'm willing to do what I need to with both.

G

Even more to the point, digital is primarily projected via a transmissive display or printed via some form of inkjet, neither of which remotely look like a well executed silver print.
 
I don't remember seeing Kodachrome in 120 format available in the UK. Was it dropped earlier?
Kodachrome 64 was discontinued in 120 format in 1996. I trained at Kodak Melbourne a few years later and we still saw some from time to time.
 
I thought it was K 200 not 64? Date sounds right with a processing drop dead of 2001. Edit: wiki sez my memory is fogged with age ;) you're right.
 
I thought it was K 200 not 64? Date sounds right with a processing drop dead of 2001. Edit: wiki sez my memory is fogged with age ;) you're right.
It was only PKR - Kodachrome Professional 64 that was available in 120. It was introduced in 1986 and manufacturing stopped in in 1993. Last sales were 1996 and last processing runs were in 2001. The approach to developing 120 was very interesting; one of the reasons it was introduced late was the lack of an obvious physical approach for processing using the available machinery. I have some PKR from the last run developed at Kodak Australia around here somewhere and some 35mm from the last Australian run here too. I used to love seeing those yellow boxes in the mailbox.
 
Last edited:
Yup.

This thread does have me pondering trying some E100D, if I can scrape the budget up and find a processor. My local lab doesn't do E6 anymore so probably Dwayne's I suppose. 15+14/12=$2.42 per shot in my Rolleiflex ... yoikes!
 
Yup.

This thread does have me pondering trying some E100D, if I can scrape the budget up and find a processor. My local lab doesn't do E6 anymore so probably Dwayne's I suppose. 15+14/12=$2.42 per shot in my Rolleiflex ... yoikes!

...which is why many of us have now given up color photography with film. Nowadays (at least in Australia), buying a 5-pack of any film is more an investment than a purchase. Vale film...
 
Humor. I trust my elderly digital Leica far more than any

What is an "elderly digital Leica"? Is any digileica even old enough to vote? A camera has to be of pensionable age to qualify (I, IIIa, IIIb, IIIf). IIIg and M2 not far behind.

And on the subject, I too miss K25. I really miss the sheer awkwardness of using a slow film and having to get everything right in camera, but then I'm a masochist.
 
Back
Top Bottom