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:
Reading this excellent article and looking at all the photographs, made me want to cry.

I too cut my teeth as a young photographer on Kodachrome. In the '70s I carried hundreds of rolls of it around SE Asia with me on my stock photo trips - I took mostly the '64 with maybe a half dozen '25 for my images in those exceptional places I knew I would be making as a one-of visit only - and later when the '200 came out, I got into it as well.

What wrecked me for K was the 120 roll film. At least in Australia the colors were terrible and the processing took an endless amount of time. Someone at Kodak in Melbourne told me that film had to be sent to Japan for processing, which explained the delay. It went there and back by air freight, but the pros all quickly abandoned it due to the unacceptable delays in providing images to their clients, and we all went over to Fuji, in my case Velvia 50 which gave me the exceptional colors I wanted. Not quite as good as Kodachrome, but being E6 Velvia and the other Fuji slide films could be processed in a few hours. So Fuji won and Kodak lost out.

I still fantasize that Kodak someday will bring back Kodachrome, Ektachrome and - why stop there? Why not the old Tri-X from the '60s and '70s, Plus-X, Panatomic-X. Even Ektacolor which I used a lot in its time, it was a far better film than the then available Kodacolor amateur brands which I found skewed the colors all over the place.

Somewhere in a box at home I have a dozen rolls of Kodachrome 8mm film, which I shot in 1979 during my year's sojourn in North America, using a great old 1960s cine camera kindly given to me by a family friend. I would love to look at those again and relive all my long ago memories - but I can no longer beg, borrow, buy or even steal a working projector to use for them. How things change...

Okay, so it won't happen. None of it will. Just let an old photographer have his dreams.
 
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.
Kodachrome was not really a corner store/drug store option for development, such consumer labs that normally just did color neg would send it out to Kodak or other pro lab. It was an expensive machine and also a very strict & complex development process which made differences between labs almost unheard of, if not an impossibility.
 
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.
A roll was $3.50 in 1935, according to Time; that's about $80 today. $3.50 would be with development.
 
...
Somewhere in a box at home I have a dozen rolls of Kodachrome 8mm film, which I shot in 1979 during my year's sojourn in North America, using a great old 1960s cine camera kindly given to me by a family friend. I would love to look at those again and relive all my long ago memories - but I can no longer beg, borrow, buy or even steal a working projector to use for them. How things change...
...

You can just do a search on Ebay for "8mm movie projector" or "Super 8mm movie projector", depending on which 8mm film you have, and find a few dozen projectors in good shape for prices between US$20 and US$200.

Or you can do the far more sensible thing and have the films digitized into MPEG4 movies, which you can then view, or edit, and enjoy. That's what I've done with all the 16 and 8 mm films that my grandfather, father, and uncles accumulated .. and there are many of those films that have amazing moments in our family's history recorded.

G

Kodachrome

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It’s a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn’t hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s
A sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together
For one night
I know they’d never match
My sweet imagination
Everything looks worse
In black and white

Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s
A sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama, don’t take my Kodachrome away ...


© 1973 Words and Music by Paul Simon
 
Reading this excellent article and looking at all the photographs, made me want to cry.

I too cut my teeth as a young photographer on Kodachrome. In the '70s I carried hundreds of rolls of it around SE Asia with me on my stock photo trips - I took mostly the '64 with maybe a half dozen '25 for my images in those exceptional places I knew I would be making as a one-of visit only - and later when the '200 came out, I got into it as well.

What wrecked me for K was the 120 roll film. At least in Australia the colors were terrible and the processing took an endless amount of time. Someone at Kodak in Melbourne told me that film had to be sent to Japan for processing, which explained the delay. It went there and back by air freight, but the pros all quickly abandoned it due to the unacceptable delays in providing images to their clients, and we all went over to Fuji, in my case Velvia 50 which gave me the exceptional colors I wanted. Not quite as good as Kodachrome, but being E6 Velvia and the other Fuji slide films could be processed in a few hours. So Fuji won and Kodak lost out.

I still fantasize that Kodak someday will bring back Kodachrome, Ektachrome and - why stop there? Why not the old Tri-X from the '60s and '70s, Plus-X, Panatomic-X. Even Ektacolor which I used a lot in its time, it was a far better film than the then available Kodacolor amateur brands which I found skewed the colors all over the place.

Somewhere in a box at home I have a dozen rolls of Kodachrome 8mm film, which I shot in 1979 during my year's sojourn in North America, using a great old 1960s cine camera kindly given to me by a family friend. I would love to look at those again and relive all my long ago memories - but I can no longer beg, borrow, buy or even steal a working projector to use for them. How things change...

Okay, so it won't happen. None of it will. Just let an old photographer have his dreams.
I had the same issue with Kodachrome 120--where I am, in the eastern US, all of the 120 film went to Palo Alto on the west coast for processing and it could take a week or or it might take more than two weeks to come back. Also, sometimes it came back mounted and sometimes it didn't, regardless of what you requested. The processing quality was consistently good, but the wait was unacceptable for commercial work with serious deadlines. I think it was around this time that Kodak sold off the processing business to a big one hour chain, and in my experience their color neg printing went down hill from there. Because of the delays and because I wanted to be able to use the same films for 35, 120 and 4x5 I went to Fuji for transparency film and found a couple of excellent labs with Refrema dip and dunk processors that kept their machines clean and their chemicals fresh. The only Kodak films I continued to use were Tri-X in multiple formats and Portra 400 NC in multiple formats as well. My labs could get excellent color from Portra 400 NC, and I felt like somebody had bought me a new set of studio strobes that a were twice as powerful. Had Kodak done a better job with getting Kodachrome 120 processing done on a regular schedule I would have continued to use it. They originated the idea of 48 hour processing for small towns like mine, which worked really well for a long time. Why they thought that 120 film could take forever to process when 90% of that market was probably professionals is something I could never figure out.
 
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."
You're kinda proving my point without realising here.

A lot of "Pros" say they'd never use a Leica for serious work because Leica just doesn't have the service infrastructure that Canon does. Canon's optics and bodies might not be as good as Leica's, but they go all-in on event support and service for "pros", and that can be enough to sway people. Doesn't mean it's a better product - it just means they're investing in a different type of marketing.

I suspect, reading through this thread, that Kodachrome was in a similar position - but on both sides of the fence, confusingly. It might not have been a better product than its E6-developed rivals, but Kodak having control over the entire process meant photographers knew what they were getting. Americans who had Kodak facilities close by knew they could depend on Kodachrome more than the random store down the street running E6 film through tired chemicals, and that alone would make Kodachrome a "legend".

However, all that control and consistency means nothing when you're nowhere near the company in question (or any of their facilities). To go back to Leica, look at how they're cracking down on "unlicensed repairs" by restricting access to spare parts and tools; in theory, that should mean a higher quality of service (whether it does or not is another matter). Of course, that's great if you're getting good (and speedy) service from Leica HQ (which means you probably want to be based in Germany, ideally). It's not so great if you're in Podunk, Missouri and just need your M10 up and running again ASAP. Same thing with @DownUnder and his experience with using Kodachrome in Australia.

To go back to my original point, it's very rare something rises to the top (and/or is adopted by "pros") purely because it's the best possible product. There's always a lot of factors in play.
 
I always loved Kodachrome. I find Ektar 100 a pretty acceptable alternative, with some gentle work in post - especially working in intense light at the beach.
 
You're kinda proving my point without realising here.

A lot of "Pros" say they'd never use a Leica for serious work because Leica just doesn't have the service infrastructure that Canon does. Canon's optics and bodies might not be as good as Leica's, but they go all-in on event support and service for "pros", and that can be enough to sway people. Doesn't mean it's a better product - it just means they're investing in a different type of marketing.
Humor. I trust my elderly digital Leica far more than any modern Canon (the last one I owned stank to high heaven) and the M 240's colors honestly are best if I use a the DCP from adobe. Now I am not a professional but I shoot it every day, probably more shots than any other camera I've ever owned. If I were to get a job tomorrow I'd pick it up in a heartbeat if it fit the parameters. Now, on that Leica body? My favorite lenses? Nikon & Canon from the 1950's & Zeiss from the 1930s.

In the end it really is, realistically, a Veblen good because that's how Leica has needed to position itself to survive. OTOH, it is still a better _camera_ than anything I have ever picked up from Sony.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. I didn't like Kodachrome. Ain't no way in Gehenna I'm going to pay nearly $90+E6 processing for 5 rolls of 120 E100 Ektachrome to get 60 transparencies that may or may not be exposed correctly (Hell, I blew the hell out of a simple one yesterday with my Leica - see the "Sonnar shot a day" thread and get a good laugh at me!) I'll stick to my Veblen toy and the oldest lenses I can afford for it and make as many landscapes as I can that give me a little bit of joy.
 
Last edited:
Humor. I trust my elderly digital Leica far more than any modern Canon (the last one I owned stank to high heaven) and the M 240's colors honestly are best if I use a the DCP from adobe. Now I am not a professional but I shoot it every day, probably more shots than any other camera I've ever owned. If I were to get a job tomorrow I'd pick it up in a heartbeat if it fit the parameters.
You'll hear no disagreement from me. All I'm doing is pointing out the reasons "pros" cite for using Canon over Leica. Doesn't mean they're accurate.

In a lot of cases, perception wins over experience... or even facts.
 
You'll hear no disagreement from me. All I'm doing is pointing out the reasons "pros" cite for using Canon over Leica. Doesn't mean they're accurate.

In a lot of cases, perception wins over experience... or even facts.
Gotcha. Been there, done that, yada yada yada.
 
I can't speak to how well Canon cameras last, I have none. Ditto Nikon. My Sony A7 works just fine every time I pick it up, likewise the Leicas and HB. And the Pixii. So, they all work. It is like all chisels work. But there are specific applications which some cameras, and chisels, work better than others. Street photography? Leica. But a lot of that is history, any camera would work. Street photography is not camera stressful. The news scrum or sports coverage requires a lot of on-the-fly shooting and that means great autofocus and autoexposure. And the ability to rip off lots of photos in a small amount of time. The Japanese Three do this.

My example of the world figure skating championship is an example, one example. And while it might be representative be cautioned that any survey based on one observation is notoriously inaccurate. I said that Canon had set up shop there. I did not say what the pro's were shooting.

My SWAG is that pro's who get cameras as a part of their job's given gear will work and succeed with anything. We may fuss and fume about minimal differences and subtle features but I wonder if pro's really do, those in the high image count part of the business. Those who work in a situation where they get to choose their own gear would be the ones I would be interested in. So for my purposes I would like the opinions of the freelancers who are making a good go of it. Also, I doubt that there is one "right" camera.

And as this is about film, color film I will say the same applies. Yeah, Kodachrome had a lot going for it, lots of "pop". But for me the more subtle colors of Agfachrome worked better. Likewise the M9 "Kodachrome" colors have that "pop" but I also like the M240 colors a lot, same reason, more like Agfachrome. I think that we have fallen into thinking that Kodachrome is the one way. It is very good, but there are other very good films.
 
Last edited:
And as this is about film, color film I will say the same applies. Yeah, Kodachrome had a lot going for it, lots of "pop". But for me the more subtle colors of Agfachrome worked better. Likewise the M9 "Kodachrome" colors have that "pop" but I also like the M240 colors a lot, same reason, more like Agfachrome. I think that we have fallen into thinking that Kodachrome is the one way. It is very good, but there are other very good films.
Taste can't be argued; there were many interesting transparency films (and I loved the look of Agfachrome as much as Kodachrome). What can be argued, with objective data, is longevity. There is no color film that is or was anywhere near having true archival permanence, but Kodachrome, because of its unique chemistry, was closer to it than any other color film. That fact alone made Kodachrome the choice of photographers and institutions for whom permanence was of prime importance, in addition to its de facto status, through its widespread use, as the "norm" of color rendition. Best example: National Geographic.
 
Taste can't be argued; there were many interesting transparency films (and I loved the look of Agfachrome as much as Kodachrome). What can be argued, with objective data, is longevity. There is no color film that is or was anywhere near having true archival permanence, but Kodachrome, because of its unique chemistry, was closer to it than any other color film. That fact alone made Kodachrome the choice of photographers and institutions for whom permanence was of prime importance, in addition to its de facto status, through its widespread use, as the "norm" of color rendition. Best example: National Geographic.

Yes, I'll give you that one. But I have no idea the longevity of Agfachrome.

FWIW, when I kept bees our group had a couple come to speak at a quarterly meeting who had been in SE Asia doing bee research and an article for NatGeo. They were not pro shooters. But NatGeo would ship them tons of Kodachrome and they would shoot like crazy and send it back. They were out there for months and shot a lot. And guess what? Some of them were really good shots. I am sure that NatGeo coached them plenty and loaned/gave them cameras. But the bottom line is that they got some great shots so spray and pray is valid. And while the colors in Kodachrome may be a little bit goosed they do sparkle and pop. They get your attention when they look out at you from a magazine page and the chances of someone looking at that photo and saying that "those reds are a bit deep" are slim and none. The impact of the photo counts.

What is sad is that this giant of the photo world has been so humbled in image city. They owned the market. George Eastman chose Kodak as a name because it could be pronounced the same in all languages, and was. How they missed the boat on sensors baffles me. They invented digital cameras!
 
It may not be Kodachrome, but today there is a much-improved Ektachrome we could all be using, Kodak E100.

Chris
 
I was fortunate to have shot about 10 sheets of Kodachrome 4x5 in, I believe, the early ‘’70s and it was spectacular. Unfortunately it would probably take me a week to find them in my chaotic files!
I was working as a photojournalist in the 60’s and commercial photographer from the early 70’s onward. Kodachrome II was introduced in the the mid 60’s and I’m pretty certain sheet film was gone with the introduction of KII and I’m certain at that time the process had changed and wasn’t compatible with the early Kodachrome ASA10 film. You must have shot the film in the early 60’s or 50’s.

I was at the Joslyn Museum in Omaha several years ago when they had a huge Edward Weston exhibit. In that exhibit they discussed that Edward had been contracted with Kodak to test Kodachrome in 8x10.

It’s a long story but a large collection of Edwards prints and quite a few of his 8x10 Kodachromes had been retrieved from Edwards sisters home. She had passed and a grandson, I believe, was clearing out the house to dispose of the unwanted items and recognized Edwards work. In short he saved about 100 signed prints and a large collection of his original Kodachrome transparencies and letters to his sister from being tossed in the dumpster. Nice catch!

My father shot original Kodachrome when I was a kid and I worked with several old timers, photographers, that would occasionally show their 3.25x4.25 and 4x5 Kodachromes. While they were pretty earth shattering for the 30’s through the 50’s they were quite contrasty and had some strange color anomalies like purple blue skies and insanely vivid reds.

When I got into photography professionally, the turn around time for processing was just too long for professional use unless you lived in a city with a Kodak processing lab. For me it was out of the question because the closest lab was 200+ miles away in Atlanta.

I occasionally used Kodachrome on certain jobs but honestly I felt Ektachrome was more pleasing plus color separators didn’t like Kodachrome II and X due to issues with getting correct reds.

Occasionally I’d shoot some and have the 120 version a try when it came out. I need to go through my archive and locate some I shot next to some Fuji Provia on a job. I loaded 2 backs, one with Fuji and one with Kodachrome and shot identical shots. I sent the film to the lab through my dealer and had my local lab run the Fuji. I was expecting something totally different that what I got, the Kodachrome was lacking saturation and on the cool side whereas the Fuji was quite vivid and looked like I remembered it.

Perhaps the lab had a bad run, don’t know. Kodak had bad runs, one job I shot on Kodachrome 25 came back from Atlanta with a letter of apology, my original processed film (totally ruined) and replacement film. S%#*t happens.
 
I never tried Kodachrome 200; [...] When I needed higher speed I used Ektachrome 400.
I loved the handful of (already expired) Ektachrome 400 HCs that I had bought in 1994 and kept deep-frozen most of the time afterwards. I shot the last one with good results in 2018. Half a step underexposed, and the colours were beautiful and warm. (When shooting the last of those rolls in 2022, it was over - looked a bit like an Autochrome photo from 1920).
My wallpaper on my iPhone was shot in 1980 on Kodachrome.
Same with me on my Android smartphone (shot in Autumn 1984 on K25).

Fischelner_Bruch_30-10-1984.jpg

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

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

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

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

Looking back on it I’m not surprised that Kodachrome went away. It seemed like manufacturers including Kodak put all their development into E6 materials and just left Kodachrome to “fade away”.
 
Back
Top Bottom