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:
I really loved K-25. It might be the wooly mammoth of film! Nothing beat it for color rendition in my opinion.
(y)(y)(y):love:
I would definitely pay those $ 66.56 per roll.
Even back in the mid-80s, Kodachrome was expensive already.

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

But I also have got some Agfachrome CT100 slides from the late eighties: Those who have never seen the inside of a projector are still fine. But the other ones have got bluish during the past 10 or 12 years :(.

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,
Hm, it may be a matter of taste. I have used Velvia 50 for landscapes in the sun - too punchy for me, artificial. It might work for landscapes under a cloudy sky. For architecture: good, especially in the rain. But in the sun: still too punchy, not as moderate and warm as Kodachrome 25 (in my opinion).

By the way, I'm German ;). I have not yet associated Kodachrome with "America". Just my favourite slide film with wonderful colours.

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.
I would be definitely glad to find such a film. The best of both worlds.

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
Exactly one of the main reasons for me :love:.

Michael
 
Kodachrome 25 & 64 were sold when I started using transparency film. I used a lot of K64; my brother preferred K25.
I always mailed my exposed Kodachrome to Fair Lawn NJ in PK24/PK36 mailers and it was returned in about a week.

I also used Agfachrome 100/200. It was widely available, less expensive and was sold with a prepaid processing mailer.
I never tried Kodachrome 200; I was discouraged by poor reviews. When I needed higher speed I used Ektachrome 400.

In 2012 all my slides & negs were destroyed in the flood from Superstorm Sandy. I wonder if my brother still has his?


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

Just for perspective: According to Yahoo Finance and as of January 2024, Mark Zuckerberg -- kingpin of Facebook and Instagram -- makes $84 billion per year. That's $230.6 million per day, or $9.6 million per hour. At those prices, a Kodachrome revival would cost only about an hour's worth of "devotion."
 
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????
I, as a confirmed Retro-Grouch, buy slide film today. Lots of it. And I have a projector with a stash of spare bulbs, that I actually use!
And everyone enjoys my slide shows. The look on their faces when I finish one is priceless, especially after I remove the duct tape over their mouths and untie them from the chairs.
 
Last edited:
@Coldkennels and other nostalgiasts on Kodachrome. I think a major influence of Kodachrome is that it is how we remember. It is what was shot, it is how we see the past, it is how we remember the scenes and their colors. It is our time machine. And I think this is an influence that needs to be accounted for.
 
If anything, I would like to see "The Kodachrome Project" made into a book. I remember Dan Bayer had the intention to publish it but it was in the early 2010s before the film renaissance and publication attempts did not move really far.
Sometimes I get reminded of how "filmfluencers", youtubers and such, can place zines very very well; Yet a photographer's 5+ year project to document the contemporary tail end of Kodachrome just does not...
From the shots online and what I recall, it would be very interesting work encompassing 2004-2010.

Anyway. I am most probably one of the youngest Kodachrome users. I was 14-15 when it was discontinued and shot a few rolls. It's also... Half my lifetime ago?!?
Another young user is Spencer Tweedy (Wilco's band member son) whose few Kodachromes I saw in flickr, and caught my attention as he was a '96

Still recall the news, just a year into photography and a fellow APUGer said to me "it's now or never". Curiously enough, from Europe and the paid processing it was much simpler for me.
So it was 4 rolls, a trip to Asia and some decent frames taken. It was also about the first ever slide film I ever shot! Being so careful frame by frame taught me quite a bit.

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.
(...)
As hinted, I'm probably classed as "younger" - just the short side of 40 (for now).
It did indeed look quite nostalgic. I usually describe it as rather muted except for the reds and some primaries.

I do miss it sometimes and wish it was here as another choice. Also for archival qualities which are tested and proven.

I moved up to Medium Format, which was even an intention I had back then. And my first roll of 120 ever was 400X. Pity it was discontinued so soon! That is more of a doable return wish.
Should remind myself to shoot more reversal. Ektachrome even I have barely shot; well, Kodak for Color neg, Fuji for Slide. Nowadays it's mostly to lay 6x9 slides on the light table and merely enjoy.
 
Yes, Kodachrome was how we remember, and how we saw.

It was also inspirational: Afghan Girl.

This is because for most of us, drug store development of color negative was poor. Yeah, mom preferred prints ("what? you got slides again?") but if you shot color negative you needed to go to a proper pro lab to get good results, with techs that actually knew what they were doing.

I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively for color when I started out (mid 70s) because it eliminated the printing variable. I either got the exposure right in camera, or I didn't. It was all on me. No frustration with washed out prints, courtesy of the newly-hired teenage tech in the local lab (that just completed an hour of training, who likely was flipping burgers at McDonald's the previous week) getting the contrast completely wrong.

d7c9efa4d85f4a1d8ea6aac9154d2a3a.jpeg
 
Providing a new Kodachrome was as good or even better than the old one,

I think after a few years in the marketplace, it would have solid sales of $75 to $100 per roll.

Why? Excellence gets around worldwide within a few days in today's social media.

Photogs are willing to pay up for a product that really makes a difference in their images.

Kodachrome could once again turn into Kodak's Gold Mine.
 
Yes, Kodachrome was how we remember, and how we saw.

It was also inspirational: Afghan Girl.

This is because for most of us, drug store development of color negative was poor. Yeah, mom preferred prints ("what? you got slides again?") but if you shot color negative you needed to go to a proper pro lab to get good results, with techs that actually knew what they were doing.

I shot Kodachrome for color when I started out (mid 70s) because it eliminated the printing variable. I either got the exposure right in camera, or I didn't. It was all on me. No frustration with washed out prints, courtesty of the newly-hired teenage tech in the local lab (that just completed an hour of training, who likely was flipping burgers at McDonald's the previous week) getting the contrast completely wrong.

View attachment 4843708

Yes, agreed. I lived at the northern end of Silicon Valley in Palo Alto. There was a lab in the next town over, Mountainview, which processed film for the transistor foundries, so you know they did developing right. I sent a roll of Kodachrome there to be developed. A night and day difference. Fresh clean chemicals, the right times and the right temperatures.

Many, many years ago I knew a fellow who had a summer job at LIFE magazine. They got sample rolls from every batch of color Kodak made. They would test it and if they liked it they would buy the batch and freeze it. I also learned from this same fellow that LIFE sent photogs to cover Korea with Leica cameras and Leica lenses and they came back with Leica cameras and Nikon lenses. Folks who depend on images to pay the rent are good to spy on to see just how they do it. Now it is digital, but what digital are the using? Pete Souza covered Obama with Leica. Sports seems Canon/Nikon with Sony muscling its way in. We can always learn something from the pros. Because they can leave little to chance.
 
We can always learn something from the pros. Because they can leave little to chance.
That's not quite true these days. Too many pros will work with (or at least put their name to) whichever products pay the best. Or, perhaps even more problematically, just whichever they're used to.

I know one photographer in the skateboard world who's been shooting professionally since the 1970s and was editor of one of the biggest skateboarding magazines in the world in the mid-80s. He was still insisting on a relatively decrepit Nikon DSLR (I forget the model) into the late 2010s simply because a) he knew it like the back of his hand and b) "better" cameras didn't have multiple SD card slots at the time. He was a creature of habit. I don't know if he's finally modernised by now - I've not seen him for a couple of years.

There's also another issue: elsewhere in the skateboarding industry, top-level professional athletes are using products that are genuinely terrible (poor quality, prone to falling apart or breaking very quickly) because they replace gear every two to three days. That's fine for them, but not for the average child who aspires to be like their idol but without the budget or financial support that sort of churn would need. Pros have different demands and different conditions than the average person - just because something works for them, it doesn't mean it will work for you.
 
20 years later I found my mom's 127 "superslides" documenting my family's many visits to the 1964-65 NY World's Fair.
The cardboard mounts said they were Anscochromes. The colors had shifted dramatically, or was the sky green then? :rolleyes:
Sadly these were destroyed in the flood from Superstorm Sandy. Today I might restore their appearance in Photoshop.

Chris
 
That's not quite true these days. Too many pros will work with (or at least put their name to) whichever products pay the best. Or, perhaps even more problematically, just whichever they're used to.

I know one photographer in the skateboard world who's been shooting professionally since the 1970s and was editor of one of the biggest skateboarding magazines in the world in the mid-80s. He was still insisting on a relatively decrepit Nikon DSLR (I forget the model) into the late 2010s simply because a) he knew it like the back of his hand and b) "better" cameras didn't have multiple SD card slots at the time. He was a creature of habit. I don't know if he's finally modernised by now - I've not seen him for a couple of years.

There's also another issue: elsewhere in the skateboarding industry, top-level professional athletes are using products that are genuinely terrible (poor quality, prone to falling apart or breaking very quickly) because they replace gear every two to three days. That's fine for them, but not for the average child who aspires to be like their idol but without the budget or financial support that sort of churn would need. Pros have different demands and different conditions than the average person - just because something works for them, it doesn't mean it will work for you.

You have spoken about a small subset of a small subset. Looking at professional use in general, count the shutter clicks. They use a camera way more than we do and therefore will reveal faults and shortcomings sooner. And I'll bet you a mortgage payment that pro feedback gets fed into firmware updates. So while some pros may be using sponsored cameras they are acting as guinea pigs, too. Yeah, they can swap in for another just by asking.

I was working at a world figure skating championship and Canon was there. Pros could get cameras and lenses for the asking. And amateurs like me could get repairs for free. They'd flash a message on the giant screen that all Canons with serial numbers ending in whatever were entitled to free repairs at that time. And guess what? No screwing around, that camera was fixed that day, less than a working day. Nice! They had shelves of bodies and lenses, new bodies and lenses. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
20 years later I found my mom's 127 "superslides" documenting my family's many visits to the 1964-65 NY World's Fair.
The cardboard mounts said they were Anscochromes. The colors had shifted dramatically, or was the sky green then? :rolleyes:
Sadly these were destroyed in the flood from Superstorm Sandy. Today I might restore their appearance in Photoshop.

Chris

Anscochrome sucked. I had the same experience, some shots I would have preferred to have still had. Oh, well. Life is not fair.
 
Kodachrome was once sold in 8x10 size WiTH mail in processing included to about the mid 1950's.

Through at least the 1970's Kodak would still set up hand processing for those Kodachrome 8x10's whenever they were mailed into Rochester.
I can't even imagine how lovely that had to be getting those back.
 
I lived at the northern end of Silicon Valley in Palo Alto. There was a lab in the next town over, Mountainview, which processed film for the transistor foundries, so you know they did developing right. I sent a roll of Kodachrome there to be developed. A night and day difference. Fresh clean chemicals, the right times and the right temperatures.

I never saw any variation in Kodachrome development, that’s why I used it, to eliminate the variables with color neg. It was worth it even though latitude was narrow; exposure was everything.
 
I shot very little Kodachrome, various reasons, but my adult photographic period started in 2001. I shot E-6 (Fuji and Ektachrome) until I got a Canon 20D in 2004.

That was informative.

Anyway. I know why I love Kodachrome. It's because it's one of the only medium that can show us the mid 20th century in colour. Pictures of everyday things.

And I'm worried about our digital archives. Phone pictures (that would have been on Kodachrome), etc.
 
I never saw any variation in Kodachrome development, that’s why I used it, to eliminate the variables with color neg. It was worth it even though latitude was narrow; exposure was everything.

I had not either. But in this one case the colors were deeper, more "solid". Enough so that it caught my casual attention. They were shots of a motorcycle show in SF, lots of colors and chrome. The lab was brought to my attention by a fellow who taught photography on the East Coast and used these guys whenever he was out West. He tipped me to a lab back in CT that did a superior job with Kodak color reversal. I guess he had tried every lab that was not a drugstore back in CT. His squeeze was a fox.
 
... I lived at the northern end of Silicon Valley in Palo Alto. There was a lab in the next town over, Mountainview, which processed film for the transistor foundries, so you know they did developing right. I sent a roll of Kodachrome there to be developed. A night and day difference. Fresh clean chemicals, the right times and the right temperatures.
...
Kodak had a processing lab in Palo Alto on San Antonio Road, just a couple of blocks from El Camino Real, from before I moved into the area (1979) until about the early/middle 1990s or so. ALL the Kodachrome processing offered/done by the surrounding photo labs, electronics laboratories, manufacturers, etc, was processed there. I used to drive there from Santa Cruz and later from San Francisco, drop the film off before 10 am, and pick it up at 3pm ... never a problem, always perfect.

The Kodachrome processing line was one of the most highly regulated and precise processing machines ever made. They were very, very expensive installations ... there were few if any other than the ones that Kodak ran due to the costs.

Other films (E4, E6, C22, C41) ... sure, there were plenty of those. Not Kodachrome. I was in the photofinishing industry from '81 to '84, worked for a lab in Santa Cruz. We had our own E6 and C41 lines, and we calibrated them every day. But not Kodachrome: only Kodak did Kodachrome.

Ah, Kodachrome. It was a wonderful film in all its versions, particularly for people photos. Its color response and rendering was genius, its skin tones right on the money. I've always preferred B&W photography, but I shot hundreds if not thousands of rolls of Kodachrome when I wanted to do color work, in the day. It was very sad when Kodak closed it down, almost as sad as when Polaroid shut down their film production in 2006. It was just barely possible to resurrect Polaroid film (vis The Impossible Project) but the demolition of Kodachrome was much more final and complete. Even given the increased interest in film photography that's grown in recent years, the sale volumes are way below what it would take to make the resurrection and sustaining production of Kodachrome economically viable, profitable. That's why finding a rich person to fund the resurrection will not happen ... rich people don't spend money on ventures that cannot be profitable, that's one of the reasons they're rich.

For me, it's all over. All and any color work I do is digital capture now, and has been for over 20 years. All the film work I do in all formats is B&W negative only.

G
 
Back
Top Bottom