Kodachrome....AGAIN.

<p>Kodachrome....AGAIN. <br /><br />My comments below mostly come from an article by Michael Chiusano from the premier issue of Photo Pro magazine dated Spring 1990. <br /><br />But first, a word about the original Ektar. At the end of 1989 Kodak invited 39 members of the photographic press to Research Laboratory at Kodak Park for review of some of their newer products. According to Mr. Chiusano, the new Ektar 25 in 35mm form was supposed to produce 20x24 prints that could pass for those made from a 4x5 sheet of Vericolor. The claim was made that Ektar 25 could resolve 200 LP/mm and had grain that would not be noticed in a 40" print (from down the block or close to your nose?). I always liked Ektar 25 and next to Kodachrome it was my film of choice. About a year ago, Mr. Flannigan posted a comparison of Ektar 25 and the new Ektar 100. His conclusion, backed by the posts, was that the old 25 was sharper than the new 100 but had more noticeable grain. Yes, the 25 had been kept a while and both samples were scanned, not printed through glass, but that is our only reference and it was made by a technically knowledgeable person. <br /><br />Could Kodak make Ektar 25 today and include the improvements of the new 100 in it? Probably so, unless they destroyed the equipment necessary like they did with Techpan. Would it sell enough to recoup R&D plus start-up costs? Probably not, because today's buyers want quick and dirty rather than the best quality in just about everything. We've got the government we voted in and we are limited to the range of products that we voted for with our dollars. The results are obvious and truly define what we (Americans) are today. You can take that last sentence as good or bad. <br /><br />ON TO KODACHROME...<br /><br />Headlined as a secondary subject were the words "Kodachrome, where have you gone?" I quote the first sentence under that heading "It is no great secret that Kodak has upset some professionals who have used Kodachrome film in the past or would like to use Kodachrome film today." The article then goes on to outline Kodak's then recent decision to sell off the processing labs and the ensuing troubles getting Kodachrome properly processed. I quote ".....turnaround time through the new Kodalux labs is too long for commercial work."</p>

<p>I was certainly far from a pro but the quality was too low for me and as far as the turnaround time goes, as excessive as it got, the big worry was getting it back at all. Kodalux also had trouble with filling those pesky cutouts in the slide mount with film. Could they have also decided to save money on refuse pick-up fees by dumping the floor sweepings in their film baths? <br /><br />The pros were pissed and looking for substitutes. That is going to drop some volume. More than that, what about the lowest person on the Kodak totem pole, the retail consumer? We simple, insignificant slobs used film to record things like little Tommy's 12th birthday. Did Kodak think that, stupid as we were, we thought little Tommy was going to have another 12th birthday so we could have a chance to duplicate the photos ruined by our friendly Kodak authorized photofinisher? <br /><br />My reaction? To some degree I lost interest in Kodachrome, Kodak in general, photography, etc. I spent a lot lower percentage of my income on photography products. Of the money I did spend on photography a lot of it was spent on Polaroid, the pre-digital digital equivalent for convenience and instant knowledge of results. Wow! I could see how Tommy's 13 birthday party came out before he turned 14. I could also see IF it would turn out. Did I goof on exposure? Did I or the subject move as the shot was taken? Did I get a bad roll of film or was it in the hot car too long? No problem as I could do it over before the opportunity was lost. The downsides were: 1. Every shot cost a buck. 2. Color cost more. 3. 5x7s and 8x10s were expensive and not as sharp. 4. All enlargements were by mail order with its attendant time delay. However Polaroid's turn-around time was reasonable and they never lost or defaced my originals. 5. The camera was large format size. 6. Some of the photo taking enjoyment was gone as photos were now only taken for a specific purpose. <br /><br />I was not "getting even with Kodak." I was not "showing them a thing or two." I just had to make a change because they did not give me a viable alternative. My 35mm and medium format work was done locally. Kodalux single handedly boosted the popularity of "drugstore" film processing enough that it became mainstream. Additionally, the son of a casual friend started Photomat. The first kiosk was located in our community at the intersection of the two busiest streets. The Photonet family (Fleet) was not only prominent in San Diego, but had a good reputation. They lived in our community, were Photomat customers' neighbors, friends and friend of friends. They went to the local churches, shopped in the local supermarkets, drugstores and shoe stores with us. Their kids went to school with our kids. They were not the kind of people to let their friends and neighbors down with sloppy, half-assed work. They did a great job. You even got your results back the next day. Soon they were all over the USA. So...why buy those Kodak mailers anymore with such good alternate choices? <br /><br />The article says that a Ray DeMoulin, VP and general manager of Kodak's Professional Photography Division addressed the 39 attendees about the "muddled professional market for Kodachrome." He referred to Kodachrome as the flagship of the Kodak fleet. He claimed that Kodak was aware of the quality issues and was doing everything in its power to correct the various problem areas. He said that Kodak would (not try to, but would) maintain Kodachrome's position as the premier color film for small format photography. He also hinted that we would see some new versions (in addition to 25, 64, 64T and 200). Did ANY of that come true? I say "No!" <br /><br />In a follow-up letter Mr. DeMoulin stated "I am personally committed to making sure that the processing offered to users of Kodachrome professional film measures up to your requirements." Such bullshit. Not that he did not have good intentions.. I have no insight into his intentions. He simply did not have the ability to control the processing as it was owned and operated by another company, period. Yes, I did not see every roll of Kodachrome that went through Kodalux. But, my returned Kodachrome no matter if it came out of a canister marked professional or not was returned with debris within the layers of emulsion, partially filled slide mounts, and the odd look of uneven processing/agitation/air bubbles. <br /><br />Kodak's Bob Shanebrook, Bill Lane and Dick Wien made a presentation on their then recent and continuing improvement in quality control and product improvements. My examples proved them correct whenever I could get a properly finished slide. I'd also guess that Photonet's Mr. Ron Andrews played a part in those improvements. I started using more Kodachrome in the later 90s when Fuji started processing Kodachrome in its Arizona facility which serviced many San Diego film drop off points. <br /><br />I've never seen a piece of film more pleasing to my eye than the late 90s Kodachrome 25, shot near the coast on a sunny southern California day and processed at the Arizona Fuji facility.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke<br /><br /></p>

<p>A few things to note:</p>

<ol>

<li>Kodak could make a new Ektar 25 with finer grain than the Ektar 100, but once you get below 100 ASA, it becomes much more difficult to shoot in varying lighting conditions. It is the same reason that K25 was axed before K64: people have trouble with very low speed films. I, for one, would not buy more than one or two rolls of a new Ektar 25, simply because the two stop speed increase delivers so much more versatility. If I wanted to make larger prints, I would probably go to MF. That's not to say that I don't appreciate low speed films (I am still shooting up old K25), but when new technology allows you to add speed without sacrificing grain, it is always a good thing.</li>

<li>Kodak did have several improvements in the pipeline for Kodachrome, including a K100 with the grain and colors of K64, and a K400, which would have been the fastest color film at the time. I know for a fact that the K400 went into a test run, but what happened was that market testing revealed almost zero demand for new Kodachrome, and this was in the late 80s-early 90s. </li>

<li>Qualex/Kodalux was always Kodak's crutch. The major problem was that they were spun off because they were losing money for EK, but were forced to continue their business model, lest EK cancel their contract. So what you had were people working for minimum wage, some of whom couldn't even speak English, running thousands of rolls of film a day. This is why QC was so abysmal, and why in the same year that they re-acquired Qualex, Kodak outsourced the K-14 service. </li>

</ol>

<p>Two replies tonight. First, a few comments on Mr Burke's post.</p>

<p>You mention several people I worked with. At one time, Ray DeMoulin, Dick Wien, Bill Lane, Bob Shanebrook and I worked in the Photographic Technology Division at Kodak Park's Building 69. (The building was build in 1968 and reduced to rubble in 2007.) At one time or another, all of us had some connection with Kodachrome. Ray DeMoulin really did try to get some new Kodachrome films into production. There were 4 attempts at K-100 and a solid try at a K-400 film. Ray never bothered talking to accountants at the beginning of a program. He started all of these development programs because he wanted them. Later in the project when someone finally did some number crunching, they found that the sales projections didn't justify a new film. Ray could get the programs started on his say so, but he still had to answer to some other people before he could get a product out the door.</p>

<p> I could go on all night with Ray DeMoulin stories. He could sell sand to Arabs. He did a lot of good things for professional products and is still regarded as St. Raymond by many professional photographers. He also had some flaws. Life was never boring around him. </p>

<p> By the way, I saw Bob Shanebrook at the Photographic Historical Society meeting tonight. He is going to help me shoot some K-25 that recently showed up on my doorstep. </p>

<p>I completely agree with Mr. Rapak's comments on Kodachrome processing. C-41, E-6, ME-4, VNF, EM-26, and other assorted processes could easily be provided by other labs. While there were some independent K-14 labs that produced quality results, the Kodak labs did the majority of the Kodachrome. When they split the labs off and told them they had to make a profit, it was the beginning of the end for Kodachrome. </p>

<p>Mr. Rapak... </p>

<p>Thank you for your well thought out response. <br>

<br />1. All true. But... You could use it in the same type of circumstances that you use Kodachrome 25. With the improvements available today, I would use it again as my mainstay negative film. I am older, weaker, and shakier. I usually have to use a tripod or an image-stabilizing lens. I tend not to shoot on dull days as I do not like dull-day results on any speed film. You mentioned medium format. I'd love to have some "improved" Ektar 25 in 120 to use in my Mamiya 7II with its ultra sharp (for medium format) lenses.<br>

<br />2. True again. I heard rumors of a 100 speed with the grain and sharpness of their then current 25. Their marketing folks talked about that when selling the "mini" Kodachrome processing machines. They spoke to the increased volume this vapor-ware product would create, thereby justifying the cost of buying the machine. </p>

<p>3. I mostly agree with what you said, with a few differences. You may be right, but I understood that Kodak was making a decent net profit off of the combination of manufacture and processing Kodachrome. However, the profit margin on the manufacture was very high, but the processing barely broke even at best. Top management saw a temporary profit opportunity to have income without proportional expense. They hardly thought properly of the customer or the future of their company. It was something to create a good P&L statement this month and this quarter (before the results caught up with them), thereby looking good and perhaps enhancing bonuses. Ross Perot is said to have criticized American business for looking ten minutes ahead, rather than ten years ahead, as had Japan. </p>

<p>I maintain that the marketing geniuses and top management of the once-mighty Kodak should have known if they themselves could not make big profits off of Kodachrome processing, while maintaining high quality, whoever bought them probably could not either. </p>

<p>You have cited several of the ways in which the new company sought to become profitable. It probably was for a while. I sure didn't get any refunds from them for their substandard work, nor for ruining my efforts. Of course, bad business practices caught up with them and they had to be re-acquired. As part of the change-back solution, Kodak routed more of their recently-reacquired Kodalux processing to independent sources, overwhelming them and causing them too to have to choose lower standards and volume over quality. The results were, for a short time, those people who had found the means of bypassing Qualex were now also faced with poor quality results. This of course led to another drop in Kodachrome sales. It certainly wasn't a good time to spend money on start-up costs for Kodachrome 100. The rest, as they say, is history. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Mr. Andrews....</p>

<p>As always, you've provided informative insight. </p>

<p>As to Mr. DeMoulin, I would blame upper Kodak management for not properly channeling the work efforts of an enthusiastic can-do guy. The reason those upper management pendejos get the big bucks is not to do the research, market the products, roll the film, or sweep the floors. Their job is to manage the efforts of the people who do, so that the company can best use those efforts for product and profit. </p>

<p>Additionally, it is often people with the DeMoulin spirit and spunk that make great things happen. Sometimes, the bean counters stifle entrepreneurial effort, lessening their employer. I point to Mr. Fred Smith who started FedEx. He was once a student at the prestigious Yale University. He wrote a major paper for an Economics class detailing the FedEx business model. The Professor, the top management of the class, gave him a low grade on the paper citing his basic premises as poorly thought out and ridiculous. Poor guy may have had to suffer that insult but later ended up with an endless cash flow and the reputation of being a real force in America. He has created thousands of jobs within his company. He is responsible for the additional manufacture of hundreds of airplanes, thousands of trucks and many buildings, creating and extending thousands of other jobs. I understand life is never boring around him, either. </p>

<p>Sharing with someone who worked hard and made accomplishments in a then-premium American company is a great way to use up some of that mysterious K-25. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>I still chuckle at all the Kodachrome posts. This is very easy. If everyone was buying it, Kodak would produce it. The reason it's gone is that people had moved away from Kodachrome years ago. It seems lost on many people that if a company can make money on something, they will continue making it. K64 had become but a rounding error in Kodak's film sales.</p>

<p>If you want to see your favorite films survive.....stop your crying and start your buying.</p>

<p>Perhaps the real blame lies with the antitrust suit resolution that forced Kodak to unbundle color film processing from the price of the film. Until 1956, Kodachrome and Kodacolor were sold in the US with processing included. (Prints were extra on Kodacolor.)<br>

The Kodachrome mini-lab (the KLab) was real. A&I had one, ran it very well.<br>

Of course, Kodak in general made a really bad business decision to stay out of the mini-lab business, where Fuji went into it full-bore. Kodak was "protecting" Kodalux, and all the other "big central labs", who were their important photofinishing product customers, from competition by staying out the mini-lab business. Big mistake. Fuji is now (I presume) dominant in RA-4 paper and chemistry sales due to that mistake. They partner with Noritsu, but they had the smarts (at one time) to make something even better than the now dominant Fuji Frontier.</p>

<p>Mr. Luttmann....</p>

<p>*****I still chuckle at all the Kodachrome posts.</p>

<p>I'm glad to be of service.</p>

<p>*****This is very easy. If everyone was buying it, Kodak would produce it.</p>

<p>I'm glad this is easy, because I'm a pretty simple guy. First, may I give you the simple answer your comment deserves? If they don't produce it, everyone can't buy it.</p>

<p>Now, for you others, the more complicated answer. Premise: Several of us photonetters have lamented the loss of Kodachrome, which was a unique product. Many things have contributed to its demise. Amongst the many things are Kodak's management and decision policies, changing tastes, and a society more geared to instant gratification. The point of my post was to point out one of the many, many, many poor moves by Kodak that have brought it from a once-great American producer and employer to a shell of its former self.</p>

<p>An article in today's paper claimed that Toyota is the number 1 car producer in the world. Despite a recent hit, it has had a very good reputation over the years. If a person could gain executive control of Toyota, and declare that Toyota was a loser company and would be out of business soon, he could cause that prophecy to come true. He could restrict delivery of product to dealers, reduce manufacturer quality control, eliminate after-sale service, and stop promotion and advertising. Customers would evaporate and sales would eventually be nil. He would probably become "right." The Toyota company would have to stop manufacturing Toyotas. And you could then make the same comment as you did above about Kodachrome.</p>

<p>But the real question would be: did people really not want Toyotas, per se? Or did they not want Toyotas under the difficult ownership conditions?</p>

<p>Toyota could also cause a dramatic downturn in their sales by eliminating warranty work, restricting distribution, and stopping advertising in order to save those expenses with the hopes of making this month and this quarter's balance sheet look good. It would probably cause a temporary boost in profits, to be followed by a long decline in sales, profits, market share, etc. It would be a bad, and perhaps self-serving decision to a chief executive just passing through. It also would be just as effective in ruining Toyota as an executive making a purposeful decision to drive down a product or product line.</p>

<p>There are some people, as the above mentioned Photo Pro 1990 article pointed out, who thought the then-current Kodachrome problem was some sort of conspiracy by purposeful design. I just think it is a combination of poor judgment, poor direction, self-serving temporary policies, and excessive arrogance straight from the top of the corporate structure. On Photonet, there's been a discussion about some of the idiotic public statements made by high Kodak officials, which were obviously followed up by action that was not conducive to Kodak's corporate wellbeing. I was just pointing out it started happening a long time ago, and cited the article.</p>

<p>*****The reason it's gone is that people had moved away from Kodachrome years ago.</p>

<p>Did you think I was speaking against that statement? I was citing an article published twenty years ago. The math is simple. 2010-1990=20.</p>

<p>*****It seems lost on many people that if a company can make money on something, they will continue making it.</p>

<p>It may be lost on a few people, but I would debate it was lost on many people, especially the many who include the Kodachrome enthusiasts on Photonet. Most of the non-demeaning, non-sarcastic discussion has been based on how low sales of Kodachrome came about. There are some of us who feel that Kodak itself was the driving force, whether they meant to be that or not.</p>

<p>I would also take issue as to the absoluteness of your statement. In answering a post some time ago, I pointed out that the Ford Motor Company in 1956 and 1957 was content to lose money on every Lincoln Continental it produced. Some of the reasons I cited were its advertising value, its ability to bring potential customers of other products into a showroom where a Continental was displayed, corporate prestige that it created, which rubbed off on the other Ford offerings in terms of increased sales, and a well-needed boost in the Ford brand image. So, yes, there can be a reason to make something or continue to make something that does not produce a profit in itself. Ever hear of a supermarket "loss leader?"</p>

<p>*****K64 had become but a rounding error in Kodak's film sales.</p>

<p>True. Unfortunately, it seems like a continuing series of bad top management decisions, stretching back decades, are about to make Kodak itself a rounding error on its own balance sheet.</p>

<p>*****If you want to see your favorite films survive.....stop your crying and start your buying.</p>

<p>Does that imply I am not buying? If so, your implication is wrong. In the past five years, at least 95% of my photo dollar has gone towards film and film-related products.</p>

<p>Also, I was one of the people who kept bugging Kodak's professional sales department to roll the then-new Ektar 100 in medium format. At first, it was no, never going to happen, don't be ridiculous. In fact, that went on for quite a while before their tone changed. I kept cutting and pasting the discussions about people's wants and wishes for the product that were on Photonet, flickr, and other enthusiast sites. Boy, was I a pain in their ass. They weren't too shy about letting me know it, either. But the tone changed and out it came in 120. The introduction caught me by surprise and I had just loaded up on Reala. However, I sent in a substantial order for Ektar 100 in 120 to put my money where my mouth had been, because fair is fair. I do support that which I champion. Medium format sales must have done pretty well because, more recently, they added large format sheets to the line.</p>

<p>I don't cry. I won't give people the satisfaction. It's must more fun to bug and piss people off. I do however follow up my bitching with cash on the barrel head.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Thank you Mr. Burke. Did that 95% of your photo dollar go to K64? </p>

<p>Like I said, Kodak produces if the volumes are there to support it. Kodak has been clear about this. You should listen to some of the interviews on Inside Analog Photo Radio. Master rolls were expiring before dealers could sell off their current inventory. Looks like there wasn't enough photo dollars from everyone to have the product make sense. Kodak won't produce a master roll of K64 just because Mr Burke is spending his money on it. They need the 20,000 to 30,000 rolls of it to all sell. It wasn't. Pretty easy.</p>

<p>People weren't buying it.....so Kodak stopped making it. This will apply to all films. I support Kodak Ektar in 35, 120 and now 4x5. Fuji gets my dollars for Pro 400H for my wedding and portraiture....depending on the year, 500 to 1000 rolls.</p>

<p>Mr. Luttmann...<br /><br />*****Thank you Mr. Burke. Did that 95% of your photo dollar go to K64?<br /><br />Now there is a reasonable post. No, not quite 95% for the last five years. But probably 90% of my 35mm dollar in the last five years and close to 95% in the last two years went to Kodachrome and Kodachrome related stuff. Stuff? I bought two older Retina cameras and one Signet 35 so I could use the old lens coatings with Kodachrome for an old fashion look. I also paid for processing. Over the last 10 years I used K-25 as long as I could get it then switched to 64. I still have some well frozen 25. I bought 64 before I ran out of 25 to help keep sales up. <br /><br />I still have about 150 rolls of frozen K-25 and K-64. At this point I doubt that I'll use all of it. I had intended on shooting 100 plus rolls in Miami Beach this year taking the old Art Deco hotels. Age, health and weather conspired against me. There was a period of about 5 hours of bright sun one day. I shot 12 rolls in two hours moving down the beach. I should have quit after 10 minutes but stubbornly held on as long as I could. Those two hours put me to bed for several days. At least I got 12 rolls done. <br /><br />*****Like I said, Kodak produces if the volumes are there to support it. Kodak has been clear about this. You should listen to some of the interviews on Inside Analog Photo Radio. Master rolls were expiring before dealers could sell off their current inventory. Looks like there wasn't enough photo dollars from everyone to have the product make sense. Kodak won't produce a master roll of K64 just because Mr Burke is spending his money on it. They need the 20,000 to 30,000 rolls of it to all sell. It wasn't. Pretty easy. <br /><br />I'm not disputing that, per se. I still feel that they helped kill their flagship, unique product. As to the 20,000 to 30,000 rolls, some years ago I got a heads-up that they were thinking about not coating anymore K-25. I asked my source how much volume they would need to do another coating. The answer (unofficial) was 5000 rolls. I sent Kodak a written offer to purchase 5000 rolls. They replied that they would not sell me 5000 rolls unless I became an authorized dealer. Although the 5000 rolls would have exceeded their "dealer minimum annual purchase" more than twice over, I would also have to have a going brick and mortar store. Furthermore since a buying group already had a member store in my "service area" I would have to get a brick and mortar store somewhere else (but they would not tell me of a place where I could "set up shop" without being in some other customer's market area). What a great marketing strategy! My answer was two words. Meanwhile I had solicited resale commitments for more than 4500 of those rolls with enough maybe almosts to far exceed the 5000 rolls total. The difference was that I was trying to find a way to sell, they appeared to me to be trying to find a way not to sell. <br /><br />Speaking of the Kodak genius marketing policies, A good friend had a mall camera store in WA state about 20 years ago. He had been a Kodak authorized dealer for the 10 years of that store lease plus a few years before he moved into the mall. He maintained a minimum of 2-3 times the required annual volume with Kodak. The lease renewal was too onerous and he wanted to move to a smaller town in Montana. He contacted all his major vendors predicting that he could take up to a year to re-open in a new location and they all said "NO problem." He moved in January and stored inventory while he had a new store built to own. It took eight months to re-open. He continued just fine with all his major vendors i.e. Canon, Minolta, Pentax, etc. He placed an order with Kodak. They refused to fill it saying that it appeared that he probably would not meet the dealer dollar minimum that calendar year. He reminded that they already knew that and had assured him he would be OK. They still said "No go." My friend then offered to bring up his order to a dollar amount so he would fulfill the dealer minimum. They still refused with some lame excuse as that big order now might make him fail to order enough next calendar year. He had had enough and became an aggressive Fuji and AGFA dealer carrying everything in their 35mm and 120-220 lines, color negative, color reversal, B&W and infrared. <br /><br />Did ol' Yellowstain contribute to their own downfall or was it just those damn ungrateful customers? <br /><br />*****.......depending on the year, 500 to 1000 rolls. <br /><br />Good for you! Your high volume along with others in your usage range will help keep film alive for those who would like to use film but just do not shoot that much. I'd like to do the same but another year is stretching it a bit and I can no longer hold a camera enough to do that many rolls. At least I learned in Miami that, like the person whose eyes are bigger than his stomach, that my film freezer is large than my ability to empty it.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>I would love to see a new 25 ISO color film. While a few more stops makes a film more versatile to some, it makes it unsuitable to me.</p>

<p>My cameras have a 1/1000 or a 1/500 max shutter speed. Slow film for me is a requirement for some of the conditions I like. Yea yea yea I could buy ND filters, buy modern cameras, go digital, whatever. I'll store them under the wheels of my neighbor's truck first.</p>

<p>SO what's up? The million foot reel manufacturing technique doesn't work, can't green or yellow make small runs of really good film?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dave-<br>

The part you're not getting is that Kodak's lousy K-14 processing pushed people away from Kodachrome. They found something else, and a lot didn't come back.<br>

I came back to Kodachrome when I found another processor, and even used Kodak's K-14 again at times after they got it straightened out, but with a very different view of them. I had always counted on their quality and they failed that trust miserably. I felt something had gone terribly wrong with Kodak and never felt the same about them again.</p>

<p>Kodak had a fantastic reputation, and they have managed to fritter it with top management who did not perceive what it was that made people buy Kodak, and who put pleasing their stockholders over pleasing their customers. That eventually leads to unhappy stockholders when the customers give up and go somewhere else.<br>

You're trying to make it my fault Kodachrome is gone. It's Kodak's fault.</p>

<p>A few facts and figures if it helps.</p>

<p>The support rolls for Kodachrome are somewhat shorter than those used for Kodacolor, but a single stock roll will produce 70,000 rolls of 24 exposure film. If the entire coating event consists of a single stock roll, then more than half of the emulsion will go down the drain. It takes more soup to fill the lines than is required to coat a single roll. An economic coating event consists of at least 5 or 6 rolls. As near as I can figure, there was a K-64 coating event in August of 2004 that consisted of 5 to 10 stock rolls. That was the last one. The stock rolls were stored in the freezer. A few times a year, a stock roll (or a partial roll) was pulled out of the freezer and spooled. </p>

<p>I cannot criticize the decision to discontinue the manufacture of Kodachrome film. I do criticize decisions that compromised the quality of processing. Kodachrome, more than any other product depended on Kodak processing. </p>

<p>Ron-<br>

How many 36 exp rolls off a stock roll?</p>

<p>Roughly 50,000 36 exposure rolls in a stock roll. </p>

<p>The last stock roll(s) were slit and spooled in the summer of 2009. I don't know whether this event consisted of several stock rolls, a single roll, or a short roll. My guess is that it was a short roll. That is the batch with the 11/2010 expiration date. It has been over a year and we haven't finished shooting this batch of film.</p>

<p>While we are talking about Kodak and Kodachrome, I just finished assembling this panorama from 4 K-64 slides.</p>

<p>History: The water power from the falls is the reason Rochester is here. That is Kodak headquarters in the center. FWIW, High Falls Brewery (home of Genesee Beer) is on the extreme right.</p>

<p>Technical: I miss my Minolta scanner. It did a better job on Kodachrome than the Coolscan III I'm using now. It is hard to get the red channel right.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Until 1956, Kodachrome and Kodacolor were sold in the US with processing included.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kodachrome still is in the UK. It has only ever been available here with the processing included and an envelope to post it in.</p>

<p>Hi Ron, can I ask you a question?</p>

<p>Is it unfathomable for a film producer to profitably make say "only" 15,000 rolls per year of an exotic? Like Tech-Pan or Ektar 25?</p>

<p>About a dozen years ago, there were plans to use a small scale experimental coating machine to produce a niche product. They would have struggled to break even on this scale. It only made sense if the product concept had long term growth potential. The project was considered to have too much risk and was canceled before they had a chance to give it a try. (That small scale coating machine was dismantled about 8 years ago.) </p>

<p>A few years ago, a few engineers come up with a back-of-the-envelope (literally) business plan to re-introduce Ektar 25 as a private venture. We figured we could make it work if we could sell 100,000 or more rolls a year at $20/roll. This plan would also have required considerable cooperation by Kodak and continued operation of the film manufacturing facilities at Kodak Park.</p>

<p>It will happen someday, but the exotic product will be more like Portra 400. Daguerreotypes are still being made. Vinyl records are still being made. Buggy whips are still being made. There will come a day (may be 20 years from now, maybe less) when any silver based film will be a specialty item. It will continue to be available in very small quantities for high prices. Columbia Records used to stamp vinyl records in my home town with a manufacturing cost of $0.06 each. Today, the manufacturing cost must be dollars per record. That is the model we will be looking at. </p>

<p>The manufacturing facilities at Kodak (and at Fuji from what I know of them) were designed to produce large quantities of film very efficiently. Kodak still has two film coating machines running. At some point, they will cut down to one. When I was running experiments in 14 room, the manufacturing department charged our R&D unit about $2/sec to use the facility. They have reduced costs significantly since then, but there is not much more room to cut. Once the sales volume no longer justifies keeping one of these coating machines running, film production at Kodak will probably cease. It will be possible to design small scale equipment to make small amounts of film, but my best guess is that somebody else will do it. </p>

<p>Mr. Shriver...<br /><br />"Perhaps the real blame lies with the antitrust suit resolution that forced Kodak to unbundle color film processing from the price of the film. Until 1956, Kodachrome and Kodacolor were sold in the US with processing included. (Prints were extra on Kodacolor.)"</p>

<p>May I disagree? First of all, this happened before the Kodalux debacle. I think, if anything, the anti-trust suit actually forced Kodak into a better position for the long term. It forced them to be more competitive in the camera stores because they could then compete with the Ansco, Agfa, Fuji, etc. films that were going to come on the market. Camera stores would have tended to push the other film so they could get the processing profits themselves rather than Kodak film, where they would not get that profit. Starting in the mid '90s, competition forced down traditional camera store profit margins on 35mm cameras. The profit margin on processing was extremely high. The two were able to balance out, and had to, for the camera stores to stay in business.</p>

<p>Also, that was before the introduction of one of Kodak's biggest mass-market successes, the Kodak 126 Instamatic. It was a camera that just about anybody could get good snapshots out of, because of its automation and ease of operation. The 126 lifespan was during a time when processing outlets expanded tremendously and were able to service the tremendous increase in the use of film. Kodak, a big corporation, would have had a hard time ramping up processing production all by itself. The 126 system would never have sold the extremely high volumes it did, as people faced the frustration that Kodalux caused Kodachrome users. <br /><br />"The Kodachrome mini-lab (the KLab) was real. A&I had one, ran it very well." <br /><br />Yes, the KLab was for real. It was Kodachrome 100 that was the vaporware. A&I did indeed do an excellent job processing Kodachrome. It was a high volume, big city processor that attracted, could afford, and was willing to pay skilled and earnest employees. They made a good business out of Kodalux's customer failures. <br /><br />Mr. Livacich <br /><br />"The part you're not getting is that Kodak's lousy K-14 processing pushed people away from Kodachrome. They found something else, and a lot didn't come back." <br /><br />So true, so true, so true. We retail consumers really didn't want to change film. I'd already been burned badly by trying other film. I put up with a lot of nonsense and hung in there a long time, hoping they could get their act together. But, like the old joke about the hooker, Kodak put its customers in a position that they were not about to walk 25 miles back to town, rather than give them a dose of the clap. <br /><br />"I came back to Kodachrome when I found another processor, and even used Kodak's K-14 again at times after they got it straightened out, but with a very different view of them. I had always counted on their quality and they failed that trust miserably. I felt something had gone terribly wrong with Kodak and never felt the same about them again." <br /><br />I think that is pretty common. I too came back to Kodachrome, but never came back to Kodak. That was pretty common for other consumers of my generation. <br /><br />"Kodak had a fantastic reputation, and they have managed to fritter it with top management who did not perceive what it was that made people buy Kodak, and who put pleasing their stockholders over pleasing their customers. That eventually leads to unhappy stockholders when the customers give up and go somewhere else." <br /><br />I've been pretty vocal about criticizing Kodak's top mis-managers. However, the only way they got that job was to be elected by the stockholders. Ultimately, the stockholders are to blame, and the ones who were investors, and not speculators, have paid the price. Unfortunately, the same thing happened in many large American businesses, and is one of the root causes for the economic mess we are in today. Mid-'50s American business guru Peter Drucker coined "The Peter Principle." It was that people rose to the level of their incompetence. People can also find themselves in a position of incompetence. That doesn't mean they can't do the job. That means they aren't good behind-kissers.</p>

<p>I was never unfortunate enough to be promoted up to my level of incompetence. I however found myself facing a position of incompetence, when I, as president and chairman of the board, although fully able to create current profits, enhance conditions for employees, strengthen the reputation of the business, and position the company for long-term profits and success, was nonetheless bogged down with the petty egos of stockholders with more money than brains. They were dealing with OPM (other people's money) and did not have the inclination, nor the ability to participate in sound business decisions. I've never regretted walking away, especially after seeing, in hindsight, the dramatic decline created by the type of person who would gladly be their piss-boy (but had the title of "president" and/or "chairman of the board"). <br /><br />"You're trying to make it my fault Kodachrome is gone. It's Kodak's fault." <br /><br />What's wrong with you? Don't you believe in the current corporate culture? The empty suits at the top of the garbage chain don't make mistakes. It's always the fault of the customer when things go badly. I of course, am saying that tongue in cheek. Top executives of course, believe it absolutely. <br /><br />Mr. Andrews <br /><br />"A few facts and figures if it helps." <br /><br />Facts and figures always help. Well, unless you're a corporate executive. <br /><br />"The support rolls for Kodachrome are somewhat shorter than those used for Kodacolor, but a single stock roll will produce 70,000 rolls of 24 exposure film. If the entire coating event consists of a single stock roll, then more than half of the emulsion will go down the drain. It takes more soup to fill the lines than is required to coat a single roll. An economic coating event consists of at least 5 or 6 rolls. As near as I can figure, there was a K-64 coating event in August of 2004 that consisted of 5 to 10 stock rolls. That was the last one. The stock rolls were stored in the freezer. A few times a year, a stock roll (or a partial roll) was pulled out of the freezer and spooled."<br /><br />Wow. The 5000 rolls that was quoted me was obviously way short of a coating and may not have even been a full packaging run. Perhaps it was a number that Kodak at the time used in the spirit that if we have 5000 units pre-sold, that's enough of a start that we can usually make a go out of additional coating. On the other hand, it could have been a pure B.S. figure, and I was misinformed. There is still no reason that they would not take the opportunity to sell me 5000 rolls because I was not an authorized dealer and then put up nonsense roadblocks to becoming a dealer. <br /><br />"I cannot criticize the decision to discontinue the manufacture of Kodachrome film. I do criticize decisions that compromised the quality of processing. Kodachrome, more than any other product depended on Kodak processing." <br /><br />I'll agree the damage was done and that Kodachrome definitely had to go at some point. They had shot themselves in the foot too many times to be able to carry on much longer, no matter what they did. I do think they missed a golden opportunity to regain some of the prestige, good reputation, and buyer goodwill that they had lost through continual erosion by extending Kodachrome to 75 years. Advertising opportunities like that only come around every 75 years. Those clowns think that slogans like "So Kodak" will help in that department. Their thinking is "So Kodak."<br /><br />On another subject, the second installment of the article I quoted that was printed in the second edition of Photo Pro was written to give the reader some technical insight into the creation and production of Kodak film. One of the major points the author made was the film engineer's job of creating proper colors per se would have been difficult. Creating the colors that will eventually fool the brain into thinking the final photographic reproduction looks the same as the original subject is actually far more difficult. After reading that article, I have even more respect for your accomplishments. <br /><br />You recognized some of the names from the first article. You may recognize names from the second article, such as Mr. Edward Giorgianni, who wrote about color stimuli, and Mr. Tom Mayer, who personally made some of the presentations to the group.</p>

<p>The article also talked of unnamed scientists, claiming that color accuracy had approached the optimum where individual taste prevailed. Individual taste, more than anything, is probably the reason so many of us bemoan the loss of Kodachrome. To us old farts, the Kodachrome color palette contains the "right" colors. Because we saw them all our lives, they became the standard of what color photography should look like. Anything different, even though it may be technically more accurate, looks "wrong." I notice many of the new movies have come out with a very bluish or greenish cast or tint. This is supposed to trigger a certain moodiness in the audience. One wonders what color reproduction palette people will see as "normal" 20 years from now. Maybe it will have that muddy bluish cast. <br /><br />In any event, to me, all of a sudden, photographic reproduction, thanks to Kodachrome, looked "normal." Before, everything was black and white on paper, but in color to my eyes. That change was perhaps the most extreme visual change in my lifetime. I know the younger generations seem to think that all the houses we lived in, all the buildings we worked in, and all the cars we drove were black, white, and shades of gray in between. Thanks to some old Kodachrome, we can point out that it wasn't so. <br /><br />Mr. DiMarzio <br /><br />"Hi Ron, can I ask you a question? Is it unfathomable for a film producer to profitably make say "only" 15,000 rolls per year of an exotic? Like Tech-Pan or Ektar 25?" <br /><br />Mr. Andrews gave you a good answer. But additionally, I had a phone conversation with Kodak when Tech-Pan's demise was announced. One of the things a surprisingly cooperative employee told me was that they had broken up the plate on which they made Tech-Pan and none of the other plates were suitable. I think the reason she gave me for unsuitability was the thinness and material of Tech-Pan's base. I presume that plate is a one of a kind, pretty large piece of metal, cast or forged individually, and machined to a high tolerance. Something like that would also need an extremely well-regulated enclosure to keep it from warping or expanding/shrinking. That would be in addition to all the environmental necessities of cleanliness, humidity, etc. to make any film. That would make a Tech-Pan duplicate's startup costs prohibitive. On the other hand, there may be overseas film producers that use a similar type of coating plate that could be purchased for a price far less than manufacturing one. Of course, then, how do you get it to the new production site in a condition to be reused? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. You are the type of people that continue to make Photonet, Photonet. Please do not feel that I am ignoring further responses. I'm just getting short of the energy/ability to dictate answers for others to kindly type, at least for a while to come. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

 

<p>In Russia 126 format never happened, rare. Normal 35mm was used for Zorki and Feds.</p>

<p>Thank you Ron. That is kind of depressing.</p>

Ron Andrews is the expert on Kodachrome from a production POV. I have only worked with the project from the R&D POV, but I can say that the general view of Kodachrome in the market was "ho hum" from about 1990 on. This was due to improvements in E6 products.

 

 

 

 

As far as Ektar goes, the original Ektar had a problem with keeping that has not been well known. The very things that gave it its good grain and sharpness could lead to increased grain with keeping.

 

 

 

 

In any even, people commenting on events transpiring within Kodak just do not have any facts to back up their contentions The only real ones are from those that were there, such as Ron and myself to a limited extent.

 

 

 

 

I have seen the 400 speed Kodachrome and a few other interesting offshoots, but all Kodachrome work died in about 1988 in Research due to lack of demand. Lack of demand took place before anything else took place.

 

 

 

 

Ron Mowrey