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:
OK, so now I'm going on to Ebay to buy all those unwanted projectors, particularly carousels, and big screens. When Kodachrome (Muscachrome?) is relaunched I will make a mint selling the lot...after all we all know that there is nothing better than projected Kodachrome!
 
OK, so now I'm going on to Ebay to buy all those unwanted projectors, particularly carousels, and big screens. When Kodachrome (Muscachrome?) is relaunched I will make a mint selling the lot...after all we all know that there is nothing better than projected Kodachrome!

I'd settle for a good viewer. I have a very large box of slides stored away. Some of them are good, a few.
 
Another great piece, Jason, with a number of info-tidbits that are new to me. Unlike you, I loved Kodachrome 200. Certainly not as an everyday film, but its weird palette and big grain could be put to some very interesting use. You had to get into a sort of Lomography mindset, before Lomography (officially) existed.
Now, about reviving Kodachrome... Scientists are discussing bringing back the Wooly Mammoth and the Dodo through genetic engineering. Maybe there's some hope for our favorite film, though the science is probably more complex. ;)
Shooting a wooly mammoth with a dodo perched on its back on Kodachrome 25–that’s my idea of bliss!
 
Great read as usual. Thanks for posting.

My dad was a weekend photographer who shot a ton of Kodachrome pics of us as we were growing up in the 50's with his Argus. When he passed several years back, I found probably 25-30 boxes of processed Kodachrome 35mm slides that he had shot in a cabinet in the basement. I suspect they were opened once when he got them back from Kodak, shown to the family, and put back in storage. There they sat for 60 years until I re-discovered them. The slides looked brand new. That famous Kodachrome dark storage quality is no myth, the colors of these slides are as bright and saturated as the day they were shot.

Kodachrome is wonderful stuff, and I do miss it.

Jim B.
 
Nearly all of our family photos were on Kodachrome, going back to when it was ASA 10.

Here are a couple from Japan in 1952 (with my parents 1950 Ford convertible) when my dad ran the Air Force weather station at Iwakuni.

These were shot with a Nicca Type-3 and 50/2 Collapsible Nikkor.

These 70+ year old transparencies scan like they were shot yesterday...


322708366_892603541771307_8581753678350299723_n.jpg322474415_2055387761517763_5934940184179018882_n.jpg
 
Nearly all of our family photos were on Kodachrome, going back to when it was ASA 10.

Here are a couple from Japan in 1952 (with my parents 1950 Ford convertible) when my dad ran the Air Force weather station at Iwakuni.

These were shot with a Nicca Type-3 and 50/2 Collapsible Nikkor.

These 70+ year old transparencies scan like they were shot yesterday...


View attachment 4843656View attachment 4843657
Love that old Ford!
 
Loved Kodachrome 25. Not so enamored with Kodachrome 64.

I still have a few unopened (c. 1980’s) 16mm Movie Magazines my Dad never shot. And I have his mounted Kodachromes from the 1940’s which are still looking good.

There’s some great Kodachrome threads here in RFF:


 
There have a been a couple of very good TV series that have definitely used what I can only refer to as the Kodachrome look. One that really stood out to me was 'Mad Men' ... I found it very appropriate!
 
I saw the heading for this thread and I thought, "Yeah, right; another 'what if' thread!"
Then: "Wait, this is by Jason Schneider, guaranteed to be well researched and informative!"

I shot my share of Kodachrome II, X, 25, and 64. I also shot Ektachrome X and 64, Agfachrome CT-18 (US $2.98 for a 20-exposure roll with processing!), and GAF 64. They all gave me something a little different and it was great to have all the choices we had back then. I was especially delighted when I could get Kodachrome 64 in 120, which resulted in some memorable slides. Kodachrome in 120 is what I would most like to see.

I have old family images on the original Kodachrome from the early 1950s, when I was just a little guy, and they still look great.

Interesting++ that the new Ektachrome is the closest modern film in rendering to Kodachrome.

I really enjoyed the read, Jason. Many thanks!

- Murray
 
My favorite was Kodachrome-X. Wonderfully warm color. I was in the Nevada desert at the time; it was perfect for that.
 
Having shot Kodachrome 25 & 64 for decades I want to know who does slide shows?? I mean seriously who buy Extachrome to make slides to project on screen?? Slide film is the highest contrast film with only about 5 stops. I've often wonder who buys slides film today. Kodachrome was fantastic before digital - but now????
 
Having shot Kodachrome 25 & 64 for decades I want to know who does slide shows?? I mean seriously who buy Extachrome to make slides to project on screen?? Slide film is the highest contrast film with only about 5 stops. I've often wonder who buys slides film today. Kodachrome was fantastic before digital - but now????

Agreed, Kodachrome was great, "was" being the operative word here. Current digital has 14 to 16 stops dynamic range and some have 16 bit color. That's pretty good by any measure. But we are here to talk about how wonderful it was. "You just can't beat the good old days."

Thanks for bringing that up.
 
Took a peek at Freestyle Photo. Holy Snickerdoodles, Batman, that reminded me quickly of the other reason why I don't shoot reversal - $89.99 for 5 rolls of 120... Then, presume an average cost of $15 for dunk & scan per roll? $2.75 every push of the shutter on a 6x6 camera.

Nope, can't do that. C41 is bad enough.
 
Agreed, Kodachrome was great, "was" being the operative word here. Current digital has 14 to 16 stops dynamic range and some have 16 bit color. That's pretty good by any measure. But we are here to talk about how wonderful it was. "You just can't beat the good old days."

Thanks for bringing that up.
An interesting fact (at 70+ still working on scanning my thousands of slides) is Kodachrome from the '70's have held up really well. Ektachrome not so much. A lot of my Ektachrome slides are barely salvageable. And I still have my projector and screen. And there is something fun about showing slides. But my post was more about do younger people still do slide shows? Or what do they do with slides? And Ektacrome was "cold" ie blueish. You could tell what slides where taken with Nikon, Leica, or Canon (or something else). Nikon was the same cast as Leica. Zeiss medium format was the most true. Canon was very cold.
 
An interesting fact (at 70+ still working on scanning my thousands of slides) is Kodachrome from the '70's have held up really well. Ektachrome not so much. A lot of my Ektachrome slides are barely salvageable. And I still have my projector and screen. And there is something fun about showing slides. But my post was more about do younger people still do slide shows? Or what do they do with slides? And Ektacrome was "cold" ie blueish. You could tell what slides where taken with Nikon, Leica, or Canon (or something else). Nikon was the same cast as Leica. Zeiss medium format was the most true. Canon was very cold.

Ektachrome was cold. I really did like Agfachrome, rarely seen and used in the US. I may still have some undeveloped rolls.
 
Agfachrome was a great film way cheaper than Kodak, not as good as Kodachrome , but better than Extachrome. But not popular or available in the US.
 
Agfachrome was a great film way cheaper than Kodak, not as good as Kodachrome , but better than Extachrome. But not popular or available in the US.
Agfachrome was a beautiful film with what was described as a "European" palette, warm and muted. Unfortunately, it deteriorated pretty quickly under even the best storage conditions.
 
Agfachrome was a beautiful film with what was described as a "European" palette, warm and muted. Unfortunately, it deteriorated pretty quickly under even the best storage conditions.

I read this over and over again, but I have Agfachrome CT-18 slides from 1972 that still look really good.

- Murray
 
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.

Slide film is the highest contrast film with only about 5 stops. I've often wonder who buys slides film today. Kodachrome was fantastic before digital - but now????

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.

there is something fun about showing slides. But my post was more about do younger people still do slide shows? Or what do they do with slides?

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom