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:
Just an idle thought... Can these batteries be opened and re-celled? Or perhaps a 3D printed case, with replaceable cells, could be made? If I owned one of these cameras, I'd be sweating bullets anticipating the ultimate unavailability of batteries.
Both of these options are possible with my 6000-series Rolleiflexes, and I have three brand new (rebuilt) rechargeable batteries for them. Having them rebuilt wasn't cheap, but the peace of mind is worth it. There is a gentleman on eBay who has a bit of a cottage industry building new 3D printed rechargeables for several old classic electronic cameras, so it can be done!
Maybe.

It is a little bit different situation then re-celling a NiCad pack. NiCad typically just had a group of relatively standard sized batteries within them. So re-celling that would be just opening it up and changing out the batteries or printing a new case and filling it with new batteries.

With Lithium Ion batteries some might use common cells (esp larger packs in tools) and some might be custom. If it is a common sized battery then it could be swapped, if it was something custom maybe not if you can't get the original. Lithion ion batteries are more dangerous to mess around with compared to NiCad so that is something else to consider.

Having a digital camera that uses a common battery helps to avoid worries down the line. My Sigma FP uses the same batteries as a Panasonic battery (DMW-BLC12) that is used in a bunch of cameras so lots of options for replacements.
 
Just an idle thought... Can these batteries be opened and re-celled? Or perhaps a 3D printed case, with replaceable cells, could be made? If I owned one of these cameras, I'd be sweating bullets anticipating the ultimate unavailability of batteries.
Both of these options are possible with my 6000-series Rolleiflexes, and I have three brand new (rebuilt) rechargeable batteries for them. Having them rebuilt wasn't cheap, but the peace of mind is worth it. There is a gentleman on eBay who has a bit of a cottage industry building new 3D printed rechargeables for several old classic electronic cameras, so it can be done!
It’s tricky given that the batteries are chipped for control, use lithium cells that catch on fire and/or explode if the cells are accidentally opened, and that the units are sealed.

Edit: @shawn beat me to it. But the chips are the hardest part. Leica will come through, they are stil making the 14464 that powers the M8/M9 series cameras. It’s just a matter of when they will become available.
 
Last edited:
BHPhoto lists them as back ordered. I have a stock alert with them.
...
Neither Precision nor CC actually had any when I enquired. I got a firm confirmation from Leica that stocks were out until a new manufacturing run was due.

This is interesting: When I did a search for them earlier today, I went to BHPhoto and checked (since I have a few other things that I'm planning to order, and they seemed to be in stock. When I checked right now, they're listed as backordered. Very interesting ... website goofery. I think I'll call the local dealers who are listed as having them in stock ... I haven't been in to see either of them in some time, it would be nice to visit if they've got one. But I'm not in a hurry at present since the three I do have seem to be working just fine, and I rarely use up a fully charged battery in less then a week of shooting sessions these days.

Batteries for my film cameras cost about $3 a set and last about a year.
I sure wish I could buy some Kodachrome with all that money I'm saving... ;)

LOL! That's very wry ... and a little sad. ;)

G
 
I remember seeing the etched/3D surface characteristics of Kodachrome 25.

iu
 
Oh yes, I miss both Kodachrome and Cibachrome.

I remember, already in the late 1990s Kodachrome was called to be outdated. Fujichrome and Ektachrome had better technical data in all disciplines, like color accuracy, sharpness, grain and sustainability. Despite these facts, Kodachrome slides always look better than anything else to me. The high contrast gives a crisp and somehow "live" imaging, especially when projected on a big screen. I am very happy that I still own a lot of very good Kodachrome slides from the 1980s until the late 1990s.

Unfortunately, slide film is not popular anymore. We can be happy if Fujichrome will not be discontinued soon, and if Kodak will keep Ektachrome in production. I am quite sure there is no chance to bring Kodachrome back. Too many reasons will be against it.

India 1989. Rollei 35 LED, Kodachrome.

IMG_3780a.JPG
 
Last edited:
When I worked in a photo shop we had 8x10 Cibachrome prints on display. They were so bright and sharp that customers would look behind them for a light source, thinking they were transparencies.
 
The best Article I have read so far. Lots of facts based on historical data. What was hard once, is now easy. We have decently priced programmable controls now, with millisecond precision. Stepper motors with precise positioning. Making a Kodachrome processing machine is no more complicated than making a full color inkjet printer. There are countless venture capitol companies that would be willing to finance at least part of a startup. Send some of that money to Taiwan, and they would be happy to make the film. India has a fine chemical industry that will make you any chemical that does, can or once existed. As for the EPA, and the NGOs interfering, let us get Elon Musk, or any person in the current administration that is charged with bringing back Americas manufacturing leadership, and you will get the permissions you need. Except possibly in California. California knows that even distilled water has its issues. I programmed complicated process control I am no genius, but give me the outline for processing Kodachrome, the specifications for the heaters, lights, valves, and motors, and I can program that machine.
 
The poster mentions "the best Article I have read so far." I agree that this topic is rather zombie-like, but if there's an article out there about why things may be different now, it might be worth sharing.
 
I don‘t know, given the amount of hypothetically to be developed films like Kodachrome, that would be a niche product nowadays, it’s toxicity is neglectable. I think there are worse things to worry about…
 
The chemistry hasn't changed and it's ugly and poisonous. Leave the past in the past and move into the future instead.

I don‘t know, given the amount of hypothetically to be developed films like Kodachrome, that would be a niche product nowadays, it’s toxicity is neglectable. I think there are worse things to worry about…

As a professor of mine once said, "Worry about the little things more, and they don't aggregate into big things."
I believe in that philosophy. We don't always have the ability to affect big things with any haste, but we often can affect small things very quickly and economically.

G
 
The chemistry hasn't changed and it's ugly and poisonous. Leave the past in the past and move into the future instead.
My heart is with Paul Simon but my head is with you 😊

Nevertheless, should people who don’t agree with environmental protection want to take a really up-close and personal interest in redeveloping KC, I have nothing against them personally experimenting a lot to get it exactly right for the rest if us. I am sure that in their endeavours they would be making the world a little bit better.

By resurrecting KC I mean!
 
The best Article I have read so far. Lots of facts based on historical data. What was hard once, is now easy. We have decently priced programmable controls now, with millisecond precision. Stepper motors with precise positioning. Making a Kodachrome processing machine is no more complicated than making a full color inkjet printer. There are countless venture capitol companies that would be willing to finance at least part of a startup. Send some of that money to Taiwan, and they would be happy to make the film. India has a fine chemical industry that will make you any chemical that does, can or once existed. As for the EPA, and the NGOs interfering, let us get Elon Musk, or any person in the current administration that is charged with bringing back Americas manufacturing leadership, and you will get the permissions you need. Except possibly in California. California knows that even distilled water has its issues. I programmed complicated process control I am no genius, but give me the outline for processing Kodachrome, the specifications for the heaters, lights, valves, and motors, and I can program that machine.
Right. Screw the EPA. We all know that Corporate has our best interests at heart, and will do the right thing without any need for regulation.
 
I saw a similar style of conversation over on Photrio where a guy was looking to recreate early black and white developers that have been long-unavailable due to how unbelievably toxic some of the ingredients were, including one which is basically a neurotoxin.

While I'm all for some traditional or vintage photographic processes, sometimes it really isn't worth it.
 
The best Article I have read so far. Lots of facts based on historical data. What was hard once, is now easy. We have decently priced programmable controls now, with millisecond precision. Stepper motors with precise positioning. Making a Kodachrome processing machine is no more complicated than making a full color inkjet printer. There are countless venture capitol companies that would be willing to finance at least part of a startup. Send some of that money to Taiwan, and they would be happy to make the film. India has a fine chemical industry that will make you any chemical that does, can or once existed. As for the EPA, and the NGOs interfering, let us get Elon Musk, or any person in the current administration that is charged with bringing back Americas manufacturing leadership, and you will get the permissions you need. Except possibly in California. California knows that even distilled water has its issues. I programmed complicated process control I am no genius, but give me the outline for processing Kodachrome, the specifications for the heaters, lights, valves, and motors, and I can program that machine.

That something is possible, economically feasible or profitable is not always enough reason to do it. If you were to include the costs of a long term full project life cycle it gets expensive. In this I am talking about illnesses and deaths resulting from pollutants. This is not conjecture. This is historical fact. And those "pesky" and "interfering" regulations are the result of years of litigation and politicking that have grown out of maimed and dead bodies. Minamata springs to mind immediately. There was a Midwestern river so polluted that it would catch on fire, a river. That's water. (The Shocking River Fire That Fueled the Creation of the EPA | HISTORY) There are less heinous examples.

The problem has been historically that the companies that use these chemicals or make these chemicals leave their mess behind until they are instructed by laws not to do so. This is never a problem. Until it affects you and then it is a big problem. We can, however, prevent it from affecting you. So I would suppose that most rational folks would like to do this. It's kind of like putting brakes on a car before the accident.

"Much of what is justice turns on whose ox is gored."
 
Last edited:
To the best of my knowledge, Kodachrome was discontinued because people stopped buying it.

let us get Elon Musk, or any person in the current administration that is charged with bringing back Americas manufacturing leadership, and you will get the permissions you need.

Sorry mate, they're busy making deals with penguins.
 
Back
Top Bottom