Kodachrome 25 -- Did you use it?

I think one of the problems with film saving petitions like someone tried to do with HIE is that the petitions are:

 

a. too late

 

and

 

b. not backed up with sales

 

I think if one wanted to save Kodachrome 64, a petition would need to be made NOW, or maybe even yesterday. not only that, people would have to start using a lot more of it. Once PKR goes, KR will follow...

 

Strange how Kodachrome 200 isn't even on ebay anymore. What happened to batch 2672?

For what it is worth, as of today, Dwayne's now participates on the Kodachromeproject

forum.

 

And by the way, the project's main focus are two things:

 

1. To visually celebrate Kodachrome's 75th anniversary.

 

2. To petition for Kodak to allow Kodachrome photographers to be able to do that.

 

Also, Kodachrome 64 is officially done in 24 exposure.

Wow, I did not think that so many of us old cougars were still around.

I went to kr 64 because of the speed and did not see that much difference over 25. The processing problems started before Qualex took over. I have numerous rolls with defects, Kodak replaced the film and processing charge without question; try to get that with the current management.

 

Kodak must retain a viable business model; I believe that they have missed the boat in the digital, they were the first in many areas. They did nothing.

 

Back to the question, the kodachrome issue revolves around the processing time. An e-6 film in an hour or K-14 in a day or two. The darling of the industry is Velvia; that is okay if you as a photographer want some industry, Fuji comes to mind, to make your artistic choices. I choose to use a film that allows me to adjust the saturation, chroma, etc.

 

Bob

Terry,

 

These days, Kodak would be happy with any level of profit.

 

It would be easy to cut a master roll into different formats, but there are other complications. Today there is no processing available for anything larger than 35mm. 120 was available in the 1980's, but there wasn't enough demand to keep the machines going. Sheet films would require a dip and dunk operation. I don't know of any processing machine that removes rem jet from sheet film. My guess is that it was done by hand in the 1950's. This would cost several dollars per sheet today. 8mm and 16mm movie film are an opportunity that was lost. The motion picture folks at Kodak insisted that a reversal super 8 film be available for film schools. They decided on E-6 film for two reasons. They wanted to continue the practice of using tungsten balanced films. They also wanted more than one place in the world to process it.

 

They are losing money on E-64T in S-8, but the motion picture execs think it is worth it to keep film in the hands of film students. Ultimately, the future of still film will depend on what the motion picture business does.

Regarding KL200 E#2672, I have a 24 roll brick with an expiration of 06/2008 and around 50 rolls of E#2671 with various earlier expirations. I have been using it this winter and will make sure it's frozen with my other "priority" films like my last few rolls of KM25. Even stored in lead and frozen, cosmic radiation limits it's cold storage to just a few years in my opinion. Oh, it could be longer if a moderate loss of d-max is acceptable. I would guess that someone's rolls will make it to that "auction site" in the future, but hopefully I'll be able to use mine before the last K-14 processing shuts down.

 

As for the person suggestion that some master roll could be used to make 35mm, 8mm, 16mm, 120 and sheet film, 35mm, 16mm and 120 are usually the same thickness, but 8mm is on a thinner stock and sheet films are generally on a thicker stock so the sheets will not fall out of the holders and not curl in processing. Maybe one of the retired EK employees could elaborate further.

 

I have a suggestion, if you are thinking about buying ANY kind of film, you better do it quick while you can afford it. Spot silver prices are UP, UP and WAY UP! Currently almost $19 a troy ounce. That's around a 150% increase in the last year. If you have unlimited pockets, I don't, you can wait! Suggest you buy and buy NOW!

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

PKR is my main film these days - and you bet it'd be 25 if still available.

Also, all this talk of profits/exec.'s/corporate/etc, I mean hay, the "Big Three" have done NOTHING to promote traditional photography in around, 'bout 10 years or so. It's certainly their lose too. Shooters are rediscovering film after all this time, younger digital shooters are also trying it, of course not without a few hitches here and there.

135 film is usually about 5 mills thick. 16mm and 8mm are about the same. K-25 in 16mm and regular 8 mm was cut from the same stock rolls that were used for 35mm. It was the same story with K-40 16mm, regular 8mm and 35mm. K-40 super 8 was a separate coating because of processing differences. Sound S-8 movie film was abut 4.6 mills thick to allow for the thickness of the magnetic stripe. Most 120 film is on 3.6 mill support, but PKR in 120 was an exception. It was the same 5 mill support. This is one reason why 220 format was never considered for Kodachrome--it would not have fit on the spool. Sheet film is usually thicker (7 to 8 mills) and usually a different material. Ektachrome sheet film was coated on cellulose acetate buterate rather than cellulose triacetate. Polyester is more common today. Polyester has been used on many B&W products for years.

Ron, how much money is Kodak losing on each S8 E64T Cartridge? Why don't they just increase the price? I don't begrudge them making a profit.

 

Also, if they were smart, they would use their "Qualex" subsidiary as a delivery service to their customers (both professional and amateur). I saved both myself and Kodak $6.84 each ($13.68 total) in Postage, with my last K40 S8 Cartridge to Switzerland, by sending it and having it returned via Qualex! I guess I'll E-Mail the Qualex suggestion to them.

I don't have the specific numbers (and I couldn't ethically divulge them if I did). I just know that the cost of maintaining an SKU is significant compared to the low volume of this product. I believe they are trying to keep film in the hands of students. High prices would subvert that goal. The motion picture management has always been better at considering ancillary benefits (IMHO).

Robert wrote:

"Regarding KL200 E#2672, I have a 24 roll brick with an expiration of 06/2008"

 

I have eight rolls left of #2672, expires 09/2008. Is that the latest expiration date there is?

"I have a suggestion, if you are thinking about buying ANY kind of film, you better do it

quick while you can afford it. Spot silver prices are UP, UP and WAY UP!"

 

 

Is this absolutely true? I would like to stock up, but this is not a great financial time for

me. Would this be true for all types of film, as I thought that the silver content varied with

different types of film?

Given that silver is about 3x what it costs a few years ago, some of the higher speed films have as much as 13 cents worth in a 24 exposure roll. Lower speed films have less than that. If silver prices were to triple again, then manufacturing costs would go up by about 25 cents per roll. I can't predict what the price would do.

No, I did not quit using Kodachrome 25 before manufacture stopped and I continue to use it. I still have some at -40 degrees in an old freezer that was built back when they went down that low in temperature. I think it has the best color palette of any film negative or reversal. The palette looks best in the equatorial zone costal areas.

 

I believe poor and lengthy processing by Kodak and Qualex did a lot to hurt all Kodachrome sales. I'm still surprised that Kodak cannot make money with one run of ISO 25 each year, pricing it at a profit level. The reason I do not use Kodachrome ISO 25 more often is that I am husbanding my last rolls. With a future supply I would be shooting it a LOT. I would be buying larger lots than I thought I could use to insure that I did not run out and have to wait for next year's production. I would then tend to use up what I bought getting more used to the film which would make me buy even more at the next yearly run. That cycle would also help Duanes' processing line stay afloat. There has to be others like me that would be doing and thinking the same thing.

 

Instead I use Fuji Velvia. Fuji was smart and brought Velvia back to meet customer demand. They upped the price too and we still bought it. So? who is the smarter, better business company, Fuji or Kodak?

Ron, Thanks very much. It sounds like we don't have to panic yet. Thanks especially for all

of the informed information you generously share!

I didn't mean to suggest wide spread panic film buying, but you can't predict how much EK is going to go up on film. I believe it's in February of each year they set the prices for the upcoming 12 months. I do know that 5 years ago, the price of spot silver was $4.29. That had risen to $13.00 one year ago. It was $13.80 by Christmas and had risen to $19.20 earlier today. The B&H price is $6.59 per roll of K64 and no telling how much it will be in 3 months, BUT you can be sure it'll be higher, but how much higher is anyone's guess unless you have privileged information from 343 State St, Rochester, NY - Kodak corporate headquarters.

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

Hi Tom, if you want to express your views to Kodak, check out my previous Thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OHds

 

-------------------------------------

 

"I don't have the specific numbers (and I couldn't ethically divulge them if I did)."

 

I must say Ron that you're a very loyal ex-employee. I don't think though that this matter qualifies as a corporate secret.

Robert, Thanks for the good info. I plan to buy and freeze as soon as I have some extra

funds. Jeff

<blockquote><hr><i>

I believe the basket line that Ron Mowrey described was used for development purposes. It could have been moved to another building when Building 69 was demolished, but I doubt it. There is (at least two years ago there was) a continuous processing mahcine in the film testing area. This K-14 was set up to be as consistent as possible. It COULD be used to process customer film, but it would be very expersive--several times what Dwaynes charges. </i><hr></blockquote>

<p>

One down...

<p> <p>

<blockquote><hr><i>As for the military K-14 line in Antarctica, I can't prove a negative, but in the 30 years of working at Kodak in film manufacturing and R&D, I have never heard this rumor.

</i><hr></blockquote>

Two down...

<p>

 <p>

But, <i>nothing</i> on the much-rumored "out west" lab?

<p>

Hmm...