Kodachrome coming back next?

David Murphy said:
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
Click to expand...

This is the problem of modern times. Rich and knowledgeable guys are too rich to be bothered to make some extra money and we stupid and poor guys are, well, too stupid to know how to make money.

Sometimes there is a poor guy that is not so stupid, only to find out there are not enough rich guys to make money on them.
 
David Murphy said:
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
Click to expand...

The point is that Kodak never packaged it into a ready-made kit - it always needed a chemist on stand-by. On the other hand, that it has much of its complexity in the lab rather than in the film makes Kodachrome a better candidate for a very low volume survival/revival of colour films than E6/C41, if these should ever drop out of the minimum required volume.
 
tunalegs said:
Because I'm tired of old farts talking about Kodachrome.

"Do you remember the Model T Ford? That was a REAL car. Too bad Ford stopped making those. Nothing drove like a Model T Ford. Only real drivers appreciated the Model T ford. So Ford introduced new models for 2017? They should bring back the Model T! The Model T is was what everybody really wants to drive! No other car can compare to a Model T. Too bad the government outlawed the chemicals used in making Model T Fords. Too much regulation in the auto industry. Why can't Ford just make the car everybody wants? The Model T Ford!"

It's not the company or the product, it's that ever since Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, because nobody was buying the stuff, there has been a group of people who won't stop talking about how it was the greatest thing on earth, and how Kodak needs to bring it back, even though nobody was buying the stuff.

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.

Now could they make an E-6 film that mimics Kodachrome and call it Kodachrome? Possibly. But then I'm sure we'd hear old farts complaining about that too.
Click to expand...

Exactly that!

Listen to what the Kodak manager has said: They evaluated Kodachrome, but saw it is not possible.
Instead they decided to make Ektachrome again, because that is possible.
You would have to invest millions of dollars in R&D for a new Kodachrome film. And furthermore a completely new developing infrastructure (on a global level) would be needed, too.
The result of that would be an extremely expensive film. Much more expensive than all other current films.
And then all those who now are praising Kodachrome will complain about the too high price!
And no one will buy it!
Kodak would loose millions of dollars. And that could endager Kodaks entire film production, which is still quite weak.

Please don't forget what the current Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke had explained several times in interviews last year:
In 2014 Kodak was short before to stop film production completely!!
So hopefully Kodak is not so stupid to waste money on Kodachrome!

E6 films from Fujifilm and Kodak surpassed Kodachrome technilogically at the end of the 80ies / beginning 90ies.
That is why Kodachrome sales decreased: Better quality at lower prices with E6 films, and also much faster turnaround.
I switched from Kodachrome to E6 at the same time for the same reasons.
 
David Murphy said:
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
Click to expand...

How detailed was this description? It is my understanding that the film has to be "flashed" with different colors of light several times, which by itself produces a huge challenge (actually probably the biggest challenge in the process), as well as developed in several different dyes/couplers, in addition to regular development and bleaching.

I suspect there's a reason that photographers, for whom the frustration of wet-plate photography was still a living memory when Kodachrome came out, were happy to let Kodak handle all the processing.

But then again, there are plenty of printing processes that are easily as complicated and tricky. But then again, again, those are basically dead these days too.
 
johannielscom said:
Yeah, or wet plate. It's undecided as of yet.

:p
Click to expand...

Actually, wetplate has been booming the past decade. It went from a handful of people (under 20) shooting it in 2006, to hundreds in most states. Europe it's even bigger. There are websites, forums, books, clubs and events all doing wetplate. I doubt Kodachrome would get as much traction. National Geographic and other mainstream magazines have published a lot of wetplate. Kodachrome is....dead.

But the thing is, wetplate collodion is a do it yourself project. It's become so popular because people wanted to be able to independently shoot large format "film", after feeling abandoned by the companies like Kodak. You make your own "film", with common chemicals. No film company ever "made wetplates." The photographers do.
 
tunalegs said:
How detailed was this description? It is my understanding that the film has to be "flashed" with different colors of light several times, which by itself produces a huge challenge (actually probably the biggest challenge in the process), as well as developed in several different dyes/couplers, in addition to regular development and bleaching.

I suspect there's a reason that photographers, for whom the frustration of wet-plate photography was still a living memory when Kodachrome came out, were happy to let Kodak handle all the processing.

But then again, there are plenty of printing processes that are easily as complicated and tricky. But then again, again, those are basically dead these days too.
Click to expand...

Idk, if the guys a Dywane's say it's hard to do, I believe them. Plus I don't think K14 was purely 1935 technology.

Could it be done? Sure. But only if the market is real. I would probably shoot it, but not commercially like I do with Portra. Personally, Ektachrome is good enough for me. E100G was an incredible film.
 
stompyq said:
Well considering the EPA will soon be gutted, maybe they really can bring Kodachrome back. After all all those banned chemicals will be back in play :bang:.
Click to expand...

Hey, we're supposedly going back to producing most of our energy with coal! Anything can happen. :(

CMur12 said:
The reason we're talking about Kodachrome in this thread is because Kodak is actually exploring the possibility of bringing it back, in some form, into production.
...
The fact that Kodak is exploring the possibility of reintroducing the product strongly suggests that they have good data to indicate that there is a market for it.
- Murray
Click to expand...

Yeah but every one of us who knows what Kodachrome was and actually used it, knows that Kodak hasn't been the best judge of the market or various investments... Granted, Alaris is in charge now but if this sees the light of day it could be the most expensive "Easyshare printer" that Kodak has ever made.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to shoot some Kodachrome and get it processed as it should be but I don't think this idea will survive to actually be produced and hope it won't because it will be another nail in the coffin of big Yellow.

Phil Forrest
 
David Murphy said:
I saw a detailed description for the Kodachrome process somewhere not too long ago. It did not strike me as any big deal for a good wet chemist to replicate - I never understood what all the hullabaloo was about with Kodachrome processing. This is 1935 technology folks.
Click to expand...

On "another network" (APUG? forget) there was a discussion on, believe it or not, using an off the shelf hair color as a color developer for both color negative film and e6 film. Some people were trying this and actually had some success with it.

There was speculation that the Kodachrome color developers could be simulated this way as well.
 
CMur12 said:
The reason we're talking about Kodachrome in this thread is because Kodak is actually exploring the possibility of bringing it back, in some form, into production...The fact that Kodak is exploring the possibility of reintroducing the product strongly suggests that they have good data to indicate that there is a market for it. It may not ultimately prove feasible, but the fact that Kodak is considering it is certainly worthy of enthusiasm and discussion on a photography forum.
Click to expand...

How anyone could read so much into Kodak's comment is beyond me.
 
CliveC said:
I don't believe it'll make a return unless they manage to reformulate the processing chemicals. Too many steps, and some of the chemicals have been banned by the EPA in the US.
Click to expand...

mpaniagua said:
Yeah, agree. Kodachrome was harder to process than Ektachrome to begin with. Unless they reformulate (meaning it wont be the same) I dont see it as a realistic option. Lets remember that Kodachrome was a mainstream product (albeit for professional/serious amateur users product) and right now, although it has grown lately, films is and will be a niche market.

Ektachrome, on the other hand, can be easily processed at home.
Click to expand...

Jake Mongey said:
Hey, if the process could be modernized maybe it could be done although it is more than likely that old kodachrome would still be unprocessable if they came out with a new kodachrome
Click to expand...

I don't think a re-introduced Kodachrome would use the same process as before, for reasons already stated. I could see Kodak introducing a "Kodachrome III" that can be processed in E-6 chemicals, or maybe a modification of E-6. They might be able to make it more archival than E-6, even if not as archival as Kodachrome was. And it would have the warm Kodachrome balance and enhanced resolution. And I'm sure it would be more environmentally friendly. And if they could do all that, what's not to like? It might be Kodachrome in name only, yet if it offers much of the functional advantages of the original Kodachrome, it could be a success.
 
tunalegs said:
Because I'm tired of old farts talking about Kodachrome.

"Do you remember the Model T Ford? That was a REAL car. Too bad Ford stopped making those. Nothing drove like a Model T Ford. Only real drivers appreciated the Model T ford. So Ford introduced new models for 2017? They should bring back the Model T! The Model T is was what everybody really wants to drive! No other car can compare to a Model T. Too bad the government outlawed the chemicals used in making Model T Fords. Too much regulation in the auto industry. Why can't Ford just make the car everybody wants? The Model T Ford!"

It's not the company or the product, it's that ever since Kodak discontinued Kodachrome, because nobody was buying the stuff, there has been a group of people who won't stop talking about how it was the greatest thing on earth, and how Kodak needs to bring it back, even though nobody was buying the stuff.

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.

Now could they make an E-6 film that mimics Kodachrome and call it Kodachrome? Possibly. But then I'm sure we'd hear old farts complaining about that too.
Click to expand...

Are you feeling OK? Old farts? If you dont like the fact that Kodak istalking about it, maybe find another thread.
 
Skiff said:
Exactly that!

Listen to what the Kodak manager has said: They evaluated Kodachrome, but saw it is not possible.
Instead they decided to make Ektachrome again, because that is possible.
You would have to invest millions of dollars in R&D for a new Kodachrome film. And furthermore a completely new developing infrastructure (on a global level) would be needed, too.
The result of that would be an extremely expensive film. Much more expensive than all other current films.
And then all those who now are praising Kodachrome will complain about the too high price!
And no one will buy it!
Kodak would loose millions of dollars. And that could endager Kodaks entire film production, which is still quite weak.

Please don't forget what the current Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke had explained several times in interviews last year:
In 2014 Kodak was short before to stop film production completely!!
So hopefully Kodak is not so stupid to waste money on Kodachrome!

E6 films from Fujifilm and Kodak surpassed Kodachrome technilogically at the end of the 80ies / beginning 90ies.
That is why Kodachrome sales decreased: Better quality at lower prices with E6 films, and also much faster turnaround.
I switched from Kodachrome to E6 at the same time for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to write off anything Kodak says about bringing back Kodachrome as marketing lip service. They know it's a famous brand, so saying something super vague and non-committal like "we thought about it" is still a good tack to take if you want to get people talking about Kodak. That's just good marketing. The reality of the matter though, as Kodak have said time and time again before is that it's not practical to bring it back. And that's that.
 
tunalegs said:
I

I miss Plus-X too, but eventually I shut up about it being dead. It's dead. Get over it and move on. And even then, bringing back plus-X would still make far more sense than bringing back Kodachrome, which was essentially dead in the water years before they finally axed it.
Click to expand...

I miss Plus-X too, but I will not go quietly into the night. I want Plus-X back! I don't know what I will do when my stash runs out. Don't tell me FP-4 is just as good! If Kodak can bring back Ektachrome and Kodachrome, then I insist they bring back Plus-X!
 
Yes, Plus-X and Kodachrome for me, please. One can dream. I'm happy about Ektachrome too.

I still have plenty Ektachrome (E100VS) in the freezer as well as Kodachrome actually, but no Plus -X :(
 
plummerl said:
I'd trade the return of Kodachrome for your three and raise you one, Obama.
Click to expand...

And I'd take 8 more years of Obama in exchange for a week of Trump.


Concerning film and things I actually want to discuss, a Kodachrome-like E-6 film would be great. But the K-14 process was to complex, too costly, and too toxic. No thanks!

And I agree with above, Plus-X needs to come back. If Kodak is willing to bring back an entire process-type by bringing slide film back, maybe we can get our favorite slow B+W back too?
 
If I could get this damn time machine back in service, I'd be shuttling back and forth purchasing/processing Kodachrome 25 every week.

Now where'd I leave me wrench and industrial pixie dust?

Doug
 
Ok for what it's worth the only thing is Ektachrome ....I talked with a major West Coast retailer and they have been told first deliveries of Ektachrome will be late Nov. 2017....if all goes well. I touched base with some people I know back east about K2 and the real issue is that Kodak wants....like the old days to do all the processing. So the bigger issue is actual retail price and processing price. Kodak in the old days priced themselves out of the business...consumer moved to other film products that cost less and delivered as good or better value. So we will have to see what actually happens now.

All the best, Laurance ( Professor Foto )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom