Kodachrome K64 has been discontinued...

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by joshroot, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. The day we long expected has finally come:
    Kodak has announced that after 74 years, they are discontinuing the last of their Kodachrome films, K64 . You can see the full press release further down on the page. Now, before we get into a frenzy of wailing, teeth gnashing, and hotheaded accusations I think everyone needs to admit something: We all knew this day was coming. Yes, everyone knows that the song says “Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away”. But Paul Simon also says in that same song “I can read the writing on the wall”.
    Read the rest here:
    http://www.photo.net/learn/film/slide-film/kodachrome-discontinued/
     
  2. When you think about it, 74 years is an incredibly long time for the continuous manufacture of any single product line. Josh is right - we all knew this was coming. The only surprise is that it lasted this long. So, just as we did after Hudson automobiles, 8-track stereos and Laserdiscs, we have to move on......
    (But if the Jack Daniels distillery ever quits making Old No. 7 Tennessee Whiskey, I'm going to be seriously pi**ed off.)
     
  3. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Bummer, man.
     
  4. Now I know why something was telling me to buy a few rolls last week at Tempe Camera. Unfortunately, I did not do so. I'll probably have to grab a few online.
    This is a sad day.
     
  5. Well I've never actually used Kodachrome, but now that I've read this I want to. Put in an order for a few rolls.
    Josh Loeser: Don't worry, the article says Kodak will keep selling it until they run out, so you can still get it.
     
  6. Don't worry, the article says Kodak will keep selling it until they run out, so you can still get it.​
    But it also says that Dwayne's will process it up to the end of 2010 so don't take too long using it.
     
  7. Well I knew this day would come! I am sad as I will miss my Kodachrome that I have been shooting now for 18 years. I also shoot digital but if you ask me there is no comparison, hey just my opinion. I will be shooting film for as long as it is around. Hoping for nicer weather as I have 15 rolls of K64 in my fridge just looking to be loaded into my EOS 3. I think Paul Simon needs to come out with a revised version now.
    00Tj7L-146903584.jpg
     
  8. I wonder if the folks at Dwayne's are upset about this news?
    I would have to imagine that Kodachrome processing sales are a good source of income for them.
     
  9. Bummer! Just last week I was telling my wife that I wanted to get my K64 out of the freezer and use it.
     
  10. Dwane's said they will continue to process it through 2010. I'll be shooting some this summer with my F100.
     
  11. Here is the story on Huffington Post (link ).
    Sob.
     
  12. Nice to see that I had exactly the same information as Huffington Post. They do good work there. Of course, I had the advantage of being out at Kodak for meetings last week and getting to talk to people about this exact issue and announcement.
    It is my firm belief that we shouldn't read anything into this as far as the demise of film in general. I got nothing but honest enthuasism from the Kodak crew when I was out there. They know that ending Kodachrome sucks and I didn't get the feeling that they were doing it lightly or without understanding what it means to photographers. But they are also focused on making Kodak as healthy of a company as possible. And Kodachrome was the odd man out. The money wasn't there and it took time and resources that could have been used for other things. I'm sorry, but as much as I like Kodachrome, I'd rather see something like an Ektar 400 get invented than to watch K64 limp along for another 5 years. Not that you can say that one directly affects the other, but you get my point.
    Times are much different for film companies than they were 10 years ago. And when times change, smart companies change to survive. I don't know about you all, but I want Kodak (more specifically the film division) to survive. So while it sucks in the present, I think the end of Kodachrome is a good thing in the long view.
    Now get out there and shoot. We've got 18 months (4-6 months to buy film 18 months to process).
     
  13. There is no reason to simply say "bummer man." Despite the digital camera juggernaut, many, many people are still using film. May of us would like to continue using Kodachrome. It was a drag when they killed off Kodachrome 200. Now we can't even work with 64. We need to write to Kodak and ask them to reconsider. Of course, I'm aware of market realities. But we can do this.
    In the meantime, I will publish any and all Kodachrome pictures on my blog, www.gonecity.blogspot.com, as a form of protest.
    sevignyj@yahoo.com
     
  14. We need to write to Kodak and ask them to reconsider. Of course, I'm aware of market realities. But we can do this.​
    I'm here to tell you, it's not going to happen. The time for this was 5-10 years ago when the sales numbers slipped far enough to be alarming. How many rolls of Kodachrome did any of us buy last year 10? 20? 50? 5? Kodak can't make money on K64 any more and there is only one place in the world to get it processed. What's done is done. We've reached the end of the line. Kodak needs to focus on supporting, producing, and improving tri-x, t-max, ektar, and the films that ARE selling.
    Rather than waste your time trying to fight an impossible fight, get out there and enjoy the time you've got left with Kodachrome. Get your photos up here on photo.net and tag them with "kodachrome" so people can enjoy them for years to come. Write me an article for VivaFilm about what Kodachrome means to you and why you care about it so much.
     
  15. Well, Kodachrome disappearing will suck, but Josh is right - haven't we all, except for a dedicated few, been neglecting it for a while? We can't really expect Kodak to keep making a product for old times sake when they're losing money on it and need to do what they can to keep their film business viable. On the other hand, they do keep improving their E6, C41 and B&W films, which are easy to get processed. There are excellent products in that line such as Ektar 100, Portra, the E100's, good old fashioned Tri-X, etc., and even the consumer grade C41 is far better than it was in the '90s, so it's not like Kodak is forgetting its customers.
     
  16. It probably says a great deal about Kodak's dire financial situation that they couldn't even continue to manufacture Kodachrome six more months to celebrate its 75th birthday. I moved on from K64 several years ago but it's still a sad day for me.
    Just my 2 cents worth, but I expect EK to discontinue E-6 transparency film as well, and continue to put their remaining resources into the print film market.
     
  17. B&H is already sold out. I hope they'll be getting more in.
     
  18. Aargh! And just when I was finally able to afford an ancient Leica (M3) and some too slightly worse for wear to be fetish objects to collectors but great for shooting lenses (erm, except for the Summaron 35 with the wonky eye that someone superglued in off-kilter) to go along with it.
    They are just feenin' to throw some photons on a lil' K64. Better find me a few rolls and get to snapping!
     
  19. How untimely that Kodak comes out with this news on the first day of summer.
    Couldn't they have waited just a little while longer, or did they not want to put any money into a 75th Anniversary logo?
     
  20. Good point Jim, we all know this might happen but it does not make too much sense to discontinue a product six months before such milestone anniversary. Fuji could bring back Velvia 50 but Kodak can't do one Kodachrome run in a year... I also have hard time to believe that Kodak made all efforts to keep Kodachrome alive... It was thanks to people like Ron and Daniel I learned about Kodachrome existence and not from Kodak adds and promotions. We got to pay over 100USD to courier three roll films to Dwayne's from Ro to Kansas one way only, add the processing costs and the shipping back but we still wanted to shoot Kodachromes... We gave friends Kodachromes rolls as free samples so they could go out and try and get to know the stuff... It's not much we could do but we tried... We truly believed that the Kodachrome will be here at least till next year... My apologies for this post but this is not a good day at all....
     
  21. This of course will impact the supply of Kodachrome IT8 targets. So, for all those Kodachrome lovers who contemplate scanning their Kodachrome but haven't yet obtained an IT8 target, get one! I got mine from LaserSoft earlier this year, and am glad I did.
     
  22. OPINION: The end of Kodachrome for me was 2-part: First, when Kodak stopped processing it. It never quite looked right from other labs. And second, when Kodak discontinued Kodachrome 25, the best color transparency film ever made...though it was contrasty as all hell! The 64 was grainier and less saturated, and the Fuji 50 and then Velvia that many photographers flocked to in the 1980's were clearly inferior products....though the oversaturated, incorrect-color approach of Fuji became the norm with the publishing world, and continues to this day.
     
  23. To reply to the "75th anniv" accusations:
    I think you guys are putting too much into that. As I understand it, Kodak has said that recently they were making one production run of k64 a year then spooling it as needed. They just recently made their production run for this year and have that film ready to send out over the next 4-6 months (depending on how fast they sell it out). Add to that the fact that Dwaynes is comitted to processing Kodachrome through the end of 2010, and Kodachrome is easily going to roll through it's 75th annivarsary. What difference would it have made, really, if they had waited 6 months and made the same announcement? The same people would be making the same complaints. At least this way they are giving us the maximum amount of time to enjoy the film we have less and be sure we can get it processed.
    There really wasn't any reason for Kodak to make a big deal over the 75th birthday. What was that going to get them? Putting more money and resources into a film that wasn't selling well enough to pay for itself and has only one lab in the world that will process it? That makes no sense and is just throwing money away for the sake of a feel good story.I want Kodak to do whatever it needs to do in order for its film division to thrive. If that means cutting out films that aren't paying their way, so be it. Those of us shooting film need Kodak to be working on ektar 400 or t-max 6400 or whatever the mad scientists have cooking up in Building 38 at Kodak Park.
    It's up to all of us to celebrate Kodachrome's 75th birthday. We don't need, nor should we want, Kodak to do it for us. They should be spending that energy in other places.
     
  24. Adorama in NYC has Kodachrome in stock. I just purchased 10 more rolls of the good stuff. Now I will have 25 rolls in my fridge. I will slowly start stocking up on Kodachrome.
    00TjEL-146967584.jpg
     
  25. Just like when Agfa stopped producing AFX25, things move on. At least everyone has the opportunity to pick some up and enjoy the glow of chromes on a light table.
     
  26. It took hearing the news on NPR this morning to get me to order some Kodachrome; my whole experience with slide film has been E6. B&H was out, but Adorama has KR64 for $7.99.
     
  27. Sad dayin the history of photography. I shot 100's of KJodachrome in the 70's and 80's.
    I remember when Kodachrome 64 came out as alternative to Kodachrome II. There was always the Kofdachrome - Ektachrome decision to make in those days. Still have some yellow and red metal film cans around.
    I have not shot it in a few years , but it was nice knowing that it was still an option.
    I dread the day we read - Kodak stops film production.
     
  28. As I look back I notice that I have shot 1 roll of Kodachrome in the last year... I think I am also at fault here. but I can see I shot about 500" of Tri-X so I am at least helping with that.
    I still have about 50 feet of APX 25 in the freezer but just 1 roll of Kodachrome... Time to shoot it. Sad day yes but we will move on.
     
  29. The last coating of K-64 probably occurred some time ago. It was originally designated emulsion number 1551. Each time a portion of this coating was pulled out of the freezer and slit, perforated, spooled, and packaged, it was given a new emulsion number. When new emulsion numbers topped 1560, I hoped maybe there had been a new coating. The increased expiration date also suggested this. Today's announcement eliminates this hope. If there had been a new coating, it would have been big enough to last longer than this fall.
    I cut my eye teeth (photographically speaking) on K-II. I still recall watching my grandfather's slide shows (they were worth watching). From 1984 - 1989 I was the production formulation engineer in charge of Kodachrome. I've known this time would come, but it is still sad to read the news. To quote my own little website: "
    Why wait for the funeral to deliver the eulogy?
    It's time for a celebration!
    If you send me links to your Kodachrome image collections, I will post them.
     
  30. This is sad news that I've been hoping wouldn't be delivered. While K64 isn't applicable to every project that I work on, it's my favorite film and it seems like my method of working syncs well with Kodachrome's characteristics. This is the fourth time I've had to endure painful Kodachrome discontinuations: super8 K40 sound film, super8 K40 silent, K200, and now K64. (I wasn't shooting chromes when K25 was around... I wish I had been).
    I started a project about 18 months ago on Kodachrome that was a response to Kodachrome slides that my mother had shot a few decades ago. Since I wanted to shoot my photos on Kodachrome, I'm glad that I started this project a while ago. I probably would have run out of time due to the phase out of Kodachrome and Dwayne's processing. I believe I can finish what needs to be finished during 2009.
    I want to do a couple other small projects using Kodachrome that I could finish by the end of 2010. I'll probably end up buying a couple dozen rolls for this purpose, depending on whether Dwayne's K64 processing is kaput at the end of 2010. If it were extended, I would buy more K40 to tide myself over.
     
  31. It just would have been nice if Kodak gave this film a little more than, oh...sales of this film have been miserable, so we're gonna give it the ax!
    Even though this wasn't my favorite film, I still shoot it sometimes and admire those who know how to use it properly.
    Why is it so much to ask that Kodak show a small shred of respect for this legendary film and let it make its milestone anniversary.
    I don't think that is asking for too much.
    Why should we be happy that Kodak has yanked yet another slide film from its catalog in the last two years?
    Ektachromes 64, 100, 160T, 320T, and 400X. Elite Chrome 400. Kodachrome 200 and now 64.
    Not to mention the color negative films UC 100 & 400, HD 200, Portra 100T and the infrared B&W film.
    I'm sorry... the possibility that maybe they'll come out with an Ektar 400 doesn't make me think things are going in the right direction.
     
  32. I'd rather have Kodachrome 25 back. Didn't appreciate the difference from 64 when both were common. Not really moved by Kodachrome 64 anymore, just 25 and 200.
    I'm darned grateful to Kodak for the recent presents of Portra 400NC-3, Ektar 100, and T-MAX 100 TMY-2. They have been generous as the dickens keeping Kodachrome going, and I don't want those expenses to prevent some other wonderful new film.
    Ektachromes and C-41 films are perfectly reasonably stable these days. Just bought a bunch of Ektachrome slides from 1973-1978, and the color looks just dandy. Just don't store them in the attic.
     
  33. I'm really surprised it had taken this long. I've already blogged about what I think, but I'd rather have Kodak put effort in films I know that I will use, rather than a film whose time has passed. Kodak showed more patience than most companies would, in this instance. I'm more upset that they stopped making Verichrome Pan and Panatomic-X.
     
  34. I find it to be an interesting coincidence that the end of Kodachrome will come roughly ten years after the Nikon D1 helped revolutionize photography.
    I want to say that I recently discovered Porta, and it is a fantastic film. I hope to be using it long into the future. On a recent trip, I had three rolls of it and the image quality is excellent.
     
  35. Is it possible that Dwaynes was losing money and told Kodak they were going to pull the plug?
     
  36. I'm so glad I decided to finally try a few rolls of Kodachrome. I had never used slide film before, but I knew I had to try Kodachrome while I still had the chance. I love it, it was the most amazing thing ever. I was totally blown away when I got my slides in the mail and saw these little positive images on film. The colors are absolutely amazing.

    But I agree with Josh. We knew this day was coming. It sucks, but everytime there was a discussion about Kodachrome, everyone would preface it by saying "shoot it now while you still have a chance." This was hardly unexpected.
    And I also agree that we shouldn't read too much into it. Kodak has been talking about this for a LONG time, that Kodachrome was going to be discontinued. I don't think we should read too much into this about film production in general. To me, the fact that Kodak started making the new Ektar film in 120 rolls is very encouraging. Remember about a year ago when we were all saying we hope they make it in 120? But everyone was saying "no way" and they would never do that, and we'll just have to be happy with 35mm. Well, they did it! Ektar is now available in 120.
    I wasn't around in the 60's and 70's, and I was a little kid in the 80's. So I admit that I don't have the same experience and emotional attachment to Kodachrome that a lot of other people have. I tried Kodachrome, I really liked it, and I'm sad to hear about any film being discontinued. But I agree with Josh that we need to move on and support Kodak so that they continue to make other films. I mean, how can any film continue to be made when there was only one place left in the world that still developed it!
    What kind of bothers me though is what's going to happen to Dwayne's Photo? I'll bet Kodachrome processing was probably one of their main sources of income. Not their only source of income of course, since they develop all kinds of film. But I'm sure this is going to have a big effect on them. I REALLY hope we don't read some day about Dwayne's Photo closing next. I've sent a bunch of film to them over the past couple of years (color print film and 8mm movie film), and they've always done a great job. They seemed to be doing well, so I doubt they would close. But it does make you wonder what will happen when Kodachrome disappears.
     
  37. GOODBYE KODACHROME
     
  38. Kodak is down to three 35mm slide films: E100, E100 vivid and E200. I don't understand why they phased out E400 in favor of E200.
    Fuji on the other hand has P100, P400x, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Sensia 100, Sensia 200, Sensia 400, Astia 100.
    Right now I'm shooting Fuji Provia 400x and Kodachrome. When Kodachrome is gone, I'll probably shoot 400X and maybe also Provia 100.
     
  39. I'll continue to have Dwayne's process my E6 films. I also like the fact that I can buy film from Dwayne's the same time I have my film processed.
    In my opinion, they deserve our support not only for the excellent job they do, but also for supporting film by processing older formats discontinued films, processing super8 movie film, and also in being the only Kodachrome processor in the world. They earned my business.
     
  40. Josh, it seems to me that Kodak already had an Ektar 400: it was called 400UC... and they discontinued it... :-\
     
  41. " I don't understand why they phased out E400 in favor of E200."​
    Probably because E200 pushed to 400 was far less grainy than Ektachrome 400. (There was no E400.)
    And Provia 400X blows both of them out of the water.
     
  42. How unusual is it for a single company/business to have what is essentially a world monopoly on a service? It could be common for all I know, but Dwayne's has the entire world to themselves and has for some time now. That can't be overly common.
     
  43. Can any of the three remaining Kodak slide films pushed to 400 compete with Provia 400X? It seems like Kodak doesn't have any viable fast slide films.
     
  44. I have a freezer full of Elite chrome 400 I liked it but it too is gone. Well all I can say is now I need to stock up on more E6 film because we know that is next in line .... You would have thought Digital would have killed C-41 first.
     
  45. By coincidence, I ordered my very first roll of Kodachrome last week. When I heard the news, I quickly ordered some more. I have no idea whether or not I will like it, or if I can indeed get decent exposures with it, but I am so looking forward to start shooting. The first couple of rolls will be shot in Berlin this summer, and I think I will save the rest for when I go to Italy or France.
     
  46. 1974 - ~1990: Kodachrome films were processed at the local Kodak lab here in Vienna, Austria, taking 1 - 2 days. They came back as cardboard-mounted slides in these nice yellow plastic boxes - or as sleeved film strips in red-yellow envelopes, if sold process-paid, but unmounted.

    Then, the K14 lab in Vienna closed, processing was moved to Stuttgart, Germany, then to Lausanne, Switzerland, and finally to Dwayne's at Parsons, USA. In 2002, a ten roll brick of process-paid unmounted K64 was available for 60 Euros by mail-order from Germany; today, one process-paid mounted roll costs 20 Euros at local retail shops with a 2 1/2-week turnaroud time to Dwayne's and back.

    I have shot my final roll of K64 this spring with my collectible Minolta XD and later bought a Silverfast IT8 calibration slide for scanning. Finally I decided to trade about a dozen of frozen K64 for slide film in green boxes, and now I have a last K25 (exp. 2002) left, and some K200 professional frozen for almost 20 years. K25 was nice, without doubt, and impractically slow.

    Already when Fujichrome Provia 100F was introduced 10 years ago, Kodachrome 25 and 64 had become obsolete. I hope that the variety of the green boxes will continue for some time, but I will not miss Kodachrome.
     
  47. It is sad news but I think we all knew it was inevitable to happen eventually. I think however there is still a future for film, but sadly not with Kodak. Film will likely render down the same pathway of other obsolete mediums and become a "specialty" medium for ""specialty artist. Films will be the product of profit for small independent companies who are not so large they must sell a million units to turn a profit. Ironically, the major producers of an obsolete medium are the ones who loose first, because their production methods where engineered for an enourmouse and expensive volume output. Perhaps not with Kodak, but I expect that black and white films will remain avialable for at least another century. They will be the product of small (at least in comparison to Kodak) companies such as "Photogrpher's Formulary" or "Liquid Light". Maybe Addox and Egfe could already be regarded in this category? In regards to Kodachrome, I've been told the vintage K-14 Processor at Dwaynes is a sight to see in operation. I wish someone could document in video shorts the device in it's last day's of use. I'm told it's huge and bulks manuals that are almost endless. The last of it's kind I suppose.
     
  48. [​IMG]
    I hope everyone realizes that blaming Kodak for films being discontinued is not a productive avenue of discussion.
    Kodak doesn't want to discontinue films, they want to sell film and make money. You want to ensure that your favorite film is still around in a decade? Then get out there and be a part of the solution. Introduce others to the joys of film. Don't sit around making "woe is us" or "you digital users are jerks" posts. Get out there and walk the walk. Give an old camera to a young photographer (we've all got 4-5 old SLR's in our closets). Remind your wedding photographer friends that they can gain hours of their lives back (and have a marketing tool that stands out) if they shoot film and have a relationship with a good lab. Simply share the joy that you get from film with others.THAT is what is going to turn the tide and stop the death spiral.
    There is no way to win the "digital or film, which is higher quality" argument. Flat out, it's as pointless (and as messy) as pissing into the wind. But there is nobody in the world who can tell you are wrong if you say "I use film because I love shooting with a Leica rangefinder. It makes me happy and here is why." Everyone on this thread has a passion for film. Share that passion. Nobody wants to listen to a sour old crank who thinks the sky is falling. Anyone over the age of 30 knows that young people especially just tune out when grandpa gets up on his soapbox. But anyone can be excited by proxy when talking to someone with a genuine love and passion for doing something.
    That's what my whole point was in starting the VivaFilm project . Stop the pointless argument and start doing something that might actually help us defend the castle for another 10, 20, or 50 years. They still make buggy whips and horse saddles. When was the last time you heard a horse riding enthusiast get in a shouting match with a car owner? Never. Or hell, make it something even closer to the horse, a bicycle owner. I have never in my life, and neither have you, heard two people shouting at each other in a bar about which was the higher quality choice for riding to the lake, a horse or a bike. Sure, they might be talking about which they personally love and why. But no bike owner is standing there saying "The lake will be higher quality if you ride the bike, dumbass".
    Love film, shoot film, share film. VivaFilm.
     
  49. Excellent post.
     
  50. As I understand it, Kodak has said that recently they were making one production run of k64 a year then spooling it as needed. They just recently made their production run for this year and have that film ready to send out over the next 4-6 months (depending on how fast they sell it out). Add to that the fact that Dwaynes is comitted to processing Kodachrome through the end of 2010, and Kodachrome is easily going to roll through it's 75th annivarsary.​
    Actually, Josh, K64 will be sold out by early fall according to EK's own estimates. I believe it will be a lot sooner than that given the hoarding that is already taking place.
     
  51. BUY EKTACHROME!!!!!! Long live E6. I blame myself I only shot 1 roll of Kodachrome in the last year.... It is not Kodak's fault. The EPA may have had a lot also to do with it.. Kodachrome processing left real nasty chemicals.. No I never blame the company... That is what is wrong with the world today. I want no part in that.
    Count the rolls of Kodachrome you shot in the last 3 years then add that up to the other rolls you shot in that time. Place blame where it is due.
    Larry
     
  52. Actually, Josh, K64 will be sold out by early fall according to EK's own estimates. I believe it will be a lot sooner than that given the hoarding that is already taking place.​
    I know what the press release said, I also know what I heard in meetings at Kodak last week. Either could turn out to be true. But I went with my ears rather than the piece of paper. The film isn't all spooled yet and it isn't going to end up on retailers shelves in the next two weeks to be sold out at a fire sale. According to what I understood, it will be shipped at a more leisurely pace. Now, does that mean you will be able to buy a couple rolls on Dec 15th for your christmas party photos? Probably not. But I also don't think it means that b&h showing "out of stock" today means that it's gone for good quite yet.
    Also, if you want to be technical about it. The first day of fall (in the N. Hemisphere) is September 22nd. Early fall could reasonably be considered anything from that date to the end of October. Which would be 4+ months out, within the timeframe I stated.
    In any case, it doesn't change the point of the whole thing. Get some film and enjoy it while you still can. If that means you have to buy it in July and not in November, so be it.
     
  53. I wonder if the folks at Dwayne's are upset about this news?​
    Look at their website home page: http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/
     
  54. Give an old camera to a young photographer (we've all got 4-5 old SLR's in our closets).​
    Did exactly that today. I posted one of my film cameras to an 18 year old on another forum.
    Remind your wedding photographer friends that they can gain hours of their lives back (and have a marketing tool that stands out) if they shoot film and have a relationship with a good lab.​
    I keep making that argument myself. If I was going to do wedding photography (which I'm not) I would use film, get a lab to produce proofs, make an album then get the lab to make the re-prints. Just the way my father used to do it.
    Sitting in front of a computer for hours processing thousands of images? No thanks!
     
  55. I think it's important that we continue to support Dwayne's, and if you haven't tried Dwayne's before for your E6 processing, why not give them a shot? I've been very pleased with the results and their customer service.
     
  56. In a very small part, as one person I can vote with my wallet. I will choose to not purchase other Kodak products. It is not common that this works, but in mass, it has in the past with other manufacturers and they brought a loved product back from the grave.
     
  57. Douglas, why take that route? It just doesn't make any sense. Kodak isn't discontinuing Kodachrome out of spite, and they let it go on a lot longer than they could have, or maybe should have, based on its sales. Kodak makes some great films today and it would be a shame to let those pass by because they're ending a 75 year run of Kodachrome.
     
  58. The best film song in the world. Is there another one?​
    Don't forget "Fujicolor Superia" by Eminem and Sinatra's classic "The Lady Is Panchromatic".
     
  59. No one seems to want to answer the question:
    Would it have killed Kodak to make this film for 6 more months, then announce that they are going to retire the film now that it made it to 75 years?
    Would Kodak have gone broke??
    Would their be layoffs and talks of financial bailouts??
    No.
    But wouldn't it have been good PR for Kodak to show some respect for the film that is synonymous with their own history?
    The funny thing is, Kodachrome isn't even my favarite film by a long shot. Imagine how I'm gonna rant when they finally ditch Ekatchrome 64T.
    Or should I take the attitude of: Well, you knew it was gonna happen...
     
  60. Again, why do we need Kodak to celebrate anything? I could care less when some company starts shilling that it's the 100th anniversary of their product. Are you really that interested in the 100th anniversary of coca-cola or maytag or A/C delco? Are we such tools of advertising and commerce that we have to be told what to celebrate by the companies who want our money?
    If we want a celebration, let's have a celebration among the photographers who love the film. As I've said before, we shouldn't want or need Kodak to do it for us. They have better things to be doing with that time and money to work on keeping their film division open and we are not the kind of people who need a salesman to tell us what to be happy about.
     
  61. I'm with Josh. The company's job is to think forward. Our job is to celebrate what we consider worth celebrating.
     
  62. Douglas, why the heck would you do that? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you really love using film, then that would be the worst thing you could do. I used to get mad at Kodak too, everytime I went into a Walmart and saw a bunch of cheap digital point and shoot cameras with the name "Kodak" on them. I thought that Kodak was just selling out, and making nothing but cheap, plasticky digital cameras made in China, so that emo kids could take lame snapshots for their MySpace page. But what I've learned over the past couple of years is that Kodak DOES support film. Very much so. Every time I buy a 120 roll of Plus-X, or a roll of Ektar 100, it reminds me of how much Kodak supports film.
    A boycott would be the silliest thing you could do, and it wouldn't do a bit of good. If you like film, then that would be a big mistake. All you would be doing is just helping digital to kill off film. I support ALL companies that make film as much as I can...Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Arista, etc. All of them. The way I look at it, film manufacturers are all on the same side. They each make their own unique film with unique characteristics, but I don't see them as competing with each other anymore. Fuji also seems to be very loyal to film, but if you boycott Kodak just because they stopped making Kodachrome, that would be rediculous. It's too late for boycotts. Boycott bad photo labs, yes...but not film manufacturers.
     
  63. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a once great company (and don't just stick up for them because you were invited to some private meeting and a tour of the facility), unceremoniously drops something from their line that has a rich history, and the higher ups claim no responsibility.
    Look at GM. Do we really want to start drawing comparisons??
    Oldsmobile and Pontiac were once great automobiles. But General Motors did nothing to keep those lines competative, and in fact, many people feel that they ran Pontiac into the ground. Then the GM execs start whining about how they aren't making money, and...well, you know the rest of the story.
    My whole beef is, it would just have been a nice touch...something so simple...for them to have said, At 75, the film is gonna retire in style because OBVIOUSLY it means and has meant so much to so many.
     
  64. I just heard the news. I have two rolls in the fridge I recently shot and have 2 more before I need to get more before the cleansing starts. What I wish kodak would do is sell the formulas of all the films they have discontinued to other film companies so they can make it for us . Kodak infrared films come to mind, especially the infrared color slide film.
     
  65. After striking out on Kodachrome with B&H, Adorama, and Freestyle Photo, I wanted to be on the safe side and decided to give into to paying the SLIGHT and SUDDEN mark-up of a package of 24 rolls (EXP 12/09) which is a bit more than I need. I plan to share them with my father who documented many of our earliest moments with Kodachrome, and a few rolls to some fellow photo-nut friends. This is perhaps a time to sullenly celebrate and mourn the last stands of 'real' to the final overtakings of the souless mediums of virtuality.
     
  66. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a once great company (and don't just stick up for them because you were invited to some private meeting and a tour of the facility), unceremoniously drops something from their line that has a rich history, and the higher ups claim no responsibility.​
    If you are going to come out and call me a liar or a tool of big business, I assume you have some facts to back those statements up Craig. Otherwise it's just pathetic mud slinging on your part because you don't like what I'm saying. Typical, don't like the message, attack the messenger. Once again, a waste of time and energy that could be used to bring out the good parts about film photography. Instead here we are in a pissing match over nothing.
    My having a relationship with the people at Kodak is good for this site, good for this community and for film photographers in general. I'm able to get information, film, access with film photographers on their roster, and most importantly, I can pass on some of the current feelings of film photographers to the people who could actually make a difference. I sat with the senior management in rochester and told them exactly what I've been preaching here. People still love film. People want to be excited about it. We need to stop wasting time with stupid battles over digital or film being better. Do things that encourage film photographers on all sides of the product/lab/etc pipeline. And so on. I didn't hide the fact that I talked to the people at Kodak last week and nothing I did was underhanded or deceptive in any way.
    I've been running this same theme into the ground since I published the first Filmtown article last year. Check back and read through every post I've made about Kodachrome in the past year. You see anything contradictory, you let me know. Otherwise, perhaps you want to rethink your accusation.
     
  67. It had a longer run than ANY. Life will still go on.... Live it enjoy it and shoot.. Film.
     
  68. Josh, I never once called you a liar nor a tool for big business.
    If it came across that way, then you have my apologies.
    I appreciate what you have done for this forum and film users in general.
    But in my almost 30 years of experience in the public sector, I realized that the best way to get something unpopular to go over well with the masses, is to get some big names on your side before you drop the bomb. I've seen it done countless numbers of times, and I've also seen a lot of people get burned by those same politicians who at one point in time stood by them for photo ops at the podium, only to be let hung out and dried years later on by the same city council.
    I love Kodak film.
    I pretty much shoot them exclusively, and always will.
    But you're right...maybe I should have seen this coming.
     
  69. Flash ahead 3 years...... We are still here shooting film. and talking about it...... I will still be a member will you?
     
  70. I hope that in three years we have more left than just a couple 100ASA slide films. If you don't think that can or will happen, think of all the films that have been discontinued over the past three years: Kodak infrared, P1600, Elite Chrome 400, Kodachrome 200, Kodachrome 64, Tmax 3200, etc.
    If you like film, shoot more of it than you ever have, or it's history.
     
  71. I have turned over a new leaf and started my journey with Ekachrome. It is kind of nice that their are still five emulsions left....E100G, E100GX, E200, Ektachrome 100 Plus and Ektachrome 64T. Hopefully we can keep those going for a while. They don't touch Kodachrome quality but they are a heck of a lot better than digital! I am also pumped about shooting some 4X5 Ektachrome I just ordered!
     
  72. You are the power of that.. 3 years ahead... you have to shoot it.. shoot more make up for the slackers..... Don't depend on the Government.. Kodak is not too big to fail..... :) "Remember only you can stimulate the slide film market."
    Larry Dressler June 22 2009.
     
  73. Look also into the amateur line Elitechrome is also nice. And Fuji also makes many great E6 films they even went out of their way to make the Velvia 50 in an alt way after the origional was killed becaused it used a method/chemical that was banned by the U.N./Epa/Whoever. it took over a year but they did it.
     
  74. FOOD FIGHT!
    (link )
     
  75. Love it JDM........ Good way to feel.
     
  76. I called Tempe Camera this morning to reserve five rolls of K64. There were 28 rolls in stock at that time (8:36 am local time, to be precise). By 4:45 this afternoon, probably much earlier than that, they were all gone, except for my five rolls. Now that I have them in my freezer, they really are out of K64.
    What do people think are the odds of major camera stores across the country getting more Kodachrome to replace the run on it they all no doubt had today?
     
  77. It is over.. relax.... If your life depended on Kodachrome you would have run Kodak I think.... More will arive and be sold as it shows up.. or be presold... So make orders now..... I know I did.
     
  78. There are unquestionably large subsidies from Kodak to Dwayne's for running the K-14 processing line. Kodak is paying a pretty penny for every PK36 Dwayne's receives, and was paying for all the European "processing prepaid" Kodachrome. There were probably other subsidies as well. But the subsidies were probably a lot less than running Fair Lawn cost, and probably has led to much happier customers. (The last years of K-14 processing at Fair Lawn weren't pretty.)
    But, it was a savvy move for Dwayne's to become the last K-14 line. It gave them a base volume, and it got their name out there. They're going to be one of the last "central labs" standing, and most reports are that they do good E-6 and C-41 as well. They handle "Fuji" E-6 processing these days as well.
    It will be interesting to see how long E-6 stays on the market. Those labs are struggling as well. Kodak made it pretty clear that they view Ektar 100 as their long-range replacement for Ektachrome E100VS and friends.
     
  79. I don't care how nice Ektar 100 is, I'm not going to shoot negative film. Slide film or bust.
     
  80. John
    You have a few great thoughts there.... But we have to remember that K14 was not home friendly At least a person can run E6 at home. But with the end of E6 mailers at the end of this year where does that leave things? Will anyone Have pre-payed slide film mailers? Will Dwayne's Offer them if they did they would make a fortune .. well a small one..
     
  81. If each of us could buy two dozen boxes of Elite Chromes daily, it would still ammount to less than a drop in the bucket for Kodak. Where talking about a company that once could rely on the sales to billions of regular everyday housholds in which 99.5% now shoot digital and have not bought a roll of film in years. It's only a matter of time when eventually we will be getting our chromes from third world manufacturers. One thing Kodak might could do to salvage more life and use for it's chromes, it to offer a substantially imporved method for duplicating digital images on film as a means for long term achive and preservation. Digital media and it's means of storage are constantlly being made obsolete each decade forward. Had Ansel Adams shot some of his last works on digital floppies and lost them in storage in his garage; only years later after his death to be rediscovered...they would likely be unreadable and fragmented data. Film was a medium for over a century, and I can still make images from negatives on my scanner that are over a hundred years old. Film has remained a fairly consistent record, where as digital methods continually obsoletes itself.
     
  82. Only 3rd Wold manufacturer is Maco/Rollei and they are using old AGFA equipment and they are not 3rd World. No I think you are off base here... if you can't make a $ from it.. then it won't go... Kodak still makes money from film so buy it and Fuji..... "In the days of old when men were bold".... Be those people.
    Only part of Kodak that made Money last year was the Film Division....
     
  83. It's ironic to note that all the stores are now sold out of Kodachrome.
     
  84. No it is not. If there was insider tradeing they would have been sold out Friday LOL
     
  85. I was wondering if the camera companies ever thought of making a two in one camera, one that both shoots digital and film. No need for digital backs. You can still keep your digital images and see what you are going to hopefully get on your film. If they can transfer digital images on to a roll of film why couldn't they make a digital/film camera? It would drive the film market back up hopefully as well as the consumers/students who want to try film but still want the convenience of digital. There would be no reason to discontinue film if that were the case. It could work.
     
  86. A shot is a shot once in a life time.. make it count don't just go off 1/2 cocked.
     
  87. If only Kodak could downsize it's means of production enough to make it still profitable. Most of their equipment and facilities are designed on a scale to the equivelent of an Anheuser Busch Brewery. It's an enormouse operation that accustomed to taking in chemicals from a tanker truck rather than a barrell. It would be much like asking Anheuser-Bush (InBev) to fuel and finance a football field sized facility to produce only 100,000 cans of beer a year. I am with you though Larry, even though I sound so rottenly pessimistic. If Kodak could downscale their means of production, perhaps outsource their formulations, they could still make money. The problem is, thier means of production are so large and costly.
     
  88. Too bad the film is going, but it's only fair the the processing will be discontinued as well so people can't buy up record amounts and then sell it for ridiculous prices on eBay.
     
  89. Let's see...In the past year, Kodak has discontinued 1 film:KR-64, and introduced one film: Ektar 100.
    Fuji on the other hand has discontinued CDU-II dupe film and Fujichrome T64, and has not introduced any new films. Fuji has also pre-announced discontinuance of their Single-8 motion picture films.
    Oh, that evil Kodak! Death to the yellow box! Long live Fuji! (if you can't tell, that was sarcasm).
     
  90. LOL it is dripping from the corners of your mouth my friend.... I love it.
     
  91. Well, i am extremely disappointed and frustrated with this turn of events. Im young, i can't say i had a good bunch of years with the film and that it was time. Its like adopting an older dog then having it run over by a car... Sure, you knew it was gonna go, everything goes, but that doesnt mean you should expect it... All i can hope is that there is some company out there with enough money to buy the product and name and continue making the film, but Kodak would probably be too stupid to sell or the company to cheap to make the film right. I do not care for Ektachrome and i dont shoot color negatives, so its all Fuji color (and maybe ilford/agfa for BW. im seriously pissed) for me now.Just bought 140some dollars of the stuff for a trip to Israel, debating leaving a few rolls home now so i can save them for later.
     
  92. Why? That is a trip of a life time perfect for Kodachrome.... Dan Shoot it up enjoy never get pissed over things you have no choice in.. embrace the time you have with what you have and who you have it wit.
    Rabbi Larry
     
  93. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_us/us_kodachrome_s_demise
    The Story from Yahoo.
     
  94. Wow. And Dwaynes will only support it for 18 months from now for developing. I guess I should do something with my last remaining rolls of this stuff. Someone on here gave me some rolls of the 200 which I have yet to use. And I have 6 rolls of K40 Super 8 in the freezer to shoot. I was hoping to save one till I got my next car, but now that won't happen.

    I can just see all those Kodachrome auctions on Ebay in 2011 selling any sort of Kodachrome film and neglecting to tell people you can't get it processed anywhere anymore. I saw that with K64 in 120.
    Well I guess this summer I'll use my last roll of K64. I haven't shot slides for a couple years now. Seems like a fitting time to do so now.
     
  95. Just enjoy K64 while you can. If you like other Kodak products continue to buy them, lest Kodak shrug its coorporate shoulders and discontinue something else. IMHO, the only thing that would save Kodachrome is if enough people (who like Kodachrome and other discontinued EK products) all pooled their resources and bought Kodak out.
     
  96. Mike I doubt that.. it is too small to fail.
     
  97. Perhaps it's only 'of-the-moment' pessimism, but hasn't the world as we knew it during the Kodachrome years pretty much faded away as well? The days when common living and simplicity was in the air? A time when peoples faces had a Koda-chromatic glow. Digital every bit has a rightful place in todays superficial and cultureless mainstream society.
     
  98. Agreed. Perhaps it's fitting that with all the things that faded away (chrome-laden cars, wooden roller coasters, roadside motels, Tiki Gardens, ice cream sodas, stickball), the film that recorded them should also fade away. Kodachrome is too beautiful to be used to photograph strip malls and Starbucks.
     
  99. Mr. Root,
    I thank you for all the effort you put into photonet. You're one of the people who make a difference here. It's also good for all of us film users that your various efforts, like "Viva Film", continue awareness and recognition of film, which is not only interesting, but helps film sales. Your comments, whether I tend to agree or disagree, are thoughtful and purposeful. They set a good tone for the users of the photonet forums. I must respectfully disagree, however, with a lot of what you said about the end of Kodachrome.
    Big corporations have learned most of us sheeple will buy the products they feel like selling us. They feel they do not have to respond to customer wants because the customer really won't hold out, but will use instant gratification. Their ads train customers to do so. Customers have become much more compliant in my years of being aware of things like that. Nevertheless, as perhaps a lone and foolish voice, I wrote them a letter. I realize that trying does not guarantee success but if no one at least tries, things will never get done.
    When Ektar 100 turned out to be a good film in 35mm, I wrote the same person a note asking if they would consider making it in 120 size. The answer was a very polite, business-like, yet firm, "no way," "not on your life." I waited a while and sent him another request, attaching dozens of photonet comments positive to a 120 introduction. The answer again was they were gratified that people were receiving their new film well, but the chances of 120 were slim and none. I waited a while longer and sent him even a longer list of comments with another most polite request for reconsideration. Sometime after the third email, Ektar in 120 was announced and shortly thereafter on the shelves. No, I realized my letters to him weren't the sole reason the decision was made. What I don't know is how many other letters like it they received. Something motivated them to consider expending the startup costs to make Ektar available in 120 rolls. I'm sure the 35mm Ektar sold out in record time, but certainly did not have a track record to normally justify a subsequent startup expense during bad economic times in a declining market for film in general. One of the things I mentioned in my notes was a possibility of their promoting Kodak film through advertising, as they had once done. Within the last couple of months, I saw the first Kodak film ad I'd seen in years. I think both B&H and Adorama have been sold out of Ektar 120 twice in its short life, and have had to wait some time for a shipment from Kodak, which probably meant Kodak had to make a rolling run from their inital production and rolling a lot sooner than they anticipated.
    Just to show you what a foolish cry in the dark I made, I quote my email to them below:
    Hello again...
    It was nice to know that Kodak revised its plans and made Ektar 100 in 120 size. Since the large photo houses like B&H found themselves on backorder more than once I presume sales are rewarding your meeting customer requests.
    Your Kodachrome announcement on the other hand, is a REAL disappointment. I've used it since the 40s and my father since the late 30s. Three nights ago I watched the Military Channel's show "WWII In Color". The English and German films looked so crappy but the American Kodachrome still looked good after all these years. That type of thing gives Kodak a positive public image. Halting production of Kodachrome does not.
    Modern manufacturers and retailers seem to have lost sight of the fact that most all buyers develop buying habits. It seems that when retailers made buying decisions at the local level, they were aware that people will stop in the store to pick up a low-volume or low-profit item and then continue shopping there out of habit. Now that are made in centralized corporate headquarters by people who do not know their customers, products are dropped at a certain volume or profitability level. The customer who has been using a particular store or line of products for years, upon finding a substitute, is likely to continue buying from that new source or manufacturer. Additionally there are people like me who purposely do not use and/or avoid products or companies they feel have worked against their interests. I used to use Kodak films almost exclusively. I was satisfied with the products and had no interest in trying others of unknown results. My main purchases were Ektar in 25 ASA and 125 ASA, Kodak Royal Gold in 25 ASA and 100 ASA, Tech-pan and Kodachrome in 25 ASA. Caught filmless on vacation at a tourist spot with limited options, I would then use Gold rather than take a chance with a Fuji, Agfa, or store-brand product. Well, you dropped all the good stuff. Looking for a substitute I found Reala and Velvia which became my mainstays as I retired and stepped up my use of photo products. Of course, I still use Kodachrome 25 ASA whenever I could get it.
    Upon your dropping the Kodachrome 25 ASA, I emailed Kodak's customer service with a most polite letter. In it, I asked if they could reconsider, even if it was only to produce one production run a year or some other scheduled length of time, as people like me might buy it out pretty quickly, stocking up for future real or imagined use. "No", of course, would have been an acceptable answer, after all, it is your company, not mine. The rude, angry personal response that I got, accusing me, amongst other things of trying to tell Kodak how to run its business, was truly out of line. The tone, tenor, and suggestion of my request was clear that it was a suggestion or request. Reviewing it at the time, I could not see what could have inadvertantly triggered the arrogant anger expressed in Kodak's answer. Naturally, then I boycotted Kodak, except for using Kodachrome 64 ISO for important and permanent pictures and when a Kodak product was my only choice because of limited alternate opportunities.
    I appreciated your bringing out the new Ektar 100 and lobbied you to get it in 120. Since then, I have been using Ektar as my main film. Liking the colors and hearing that 100G had a similar color pallette, I tried it. Upon Kodak's meeting its customer request (perhaps with a change to better top management?) by adding Ektar in 120 size, I felt I should respond by again making Kodak my preferred choice in general.
    Now you've got a customer again asking you to reconsider what must already have been a thought process of some length. Could you consider an annual or semi-annual production run of Kodachrome 64, just to keep customers used to asking for Kodak products? I would suggest you might obtain a good portion of immediate sales from people like me who'd like to use it as long as Duane's has committed to processing through the end of 2010.
    You were the person who responded to my requests to make Ektar in 120 size. Yes, at first, the answer was definitely no, but I continued to refer you to people hoping for the product and expressing their hope on Photonet. Although I doubt it is within your power to make the final decision, I hope you will at least see that management is aware of the many comments being made on the various internet photo sites and forums by Kodak customers about the loss of Kodachrome. AFter all, the comments you're hearing are from the people who are still using film, in other words, your best sales prospects.
    Tom Burke
     
  100. Mr. Watkins...
    "Perhaps it's only 'of-the-moment' pessimism, but hasn't the world as we knew it during the Kodachrome years pretty much faded away as well?"
    Well said.
    Mr. Lewis...
    But...Kodachrome is the only film that could make strip malls and Starbucks look good.
    Tom Burke
     
  101. It is not the film. It is not the camera.. Ot is not anything but the Photographer that can make any photo look as it is ment to look. No Tom I think I am correct here as in when we are missing a tool in our box we find another way to make or fix what we are working on. To all of you who were using Kodachrome And I think that is not as many of you that are posting in this thread. I say. "Start using and processing B&W in your home. You know it is next on the list after E6 ...Oh and you can do that at home too."
    Larry
     
  102. When Ektar 100 turned out to be a good film in 35mm, I wrote the same person a note asking if they would consider making it in 120 size...Sometime after the third email, Ektar in 120 was announced and shortly thereafter on the shelves.​
    I did not mean to imply that consumers could not make a difference as far as products and decisions made by corporations. But you have to understand that you are talking about two vastly different things here. When made by Kodak, film comes in sheets 5 ft wide and 1/2 a mile to two miles long. It is then cut, slit, perforated, etc for whatever purpose they have in mind for it. So all it took for Ektar 120 to be created was for a few people in the film marketing/sales department to decide that there was a market for Ektar in 120. Emails like your no doubt made that happen.
    But Kodachrome is film that uses a vastly different set of chemicals in production then anything else they have. The makes the labor and cost of creating such a film go way up (not even getting into the processing mess here). Kodak came to the conclusion that sales weren't enough to support such an expensive orphan. And then we get the announcement we have today. Getting them to change their mind is going to be a order of magnitude harder than getting them to slit an already in-production film into a different format. In fact, you'd probably have a better chance of convincing them to slit some of the remaining Kodachrome into 120 (and convincing Dwayne's to process it) than you would getting them to change this decision.
    The fact of the matter is that we've been talking about Kodachrome's possible death for years. And despite all of us who rang alarm bells saying "If you want to keep Kodachrome, you need to shoot more of it every day and convince others to do the same" sales kept declining. Despite efforts like PN member Daniel Bayer's Kodachrome Project, sales kept declining. Despite the constant references to Paul Simon's song on every photography forum out there, sales kept declining. There had been plenty of warning over the past 5 years for lovers of Kodachrome to make a difference. But it didn't happen and now that time is past. The die is cast, the deal is done. I honestly do not believe, both as a photographer and as the guy running photo.net, that there is a snowball's chance in hell of Kodak changing their minds and Kodachrome not being discontinued.
     
  103. I thank you for all the effort you put into photonet. You're one of the people who make a difference here. It's also good for all of us film users that your various efforts, like "Viva Film", continue awareness and recognition of film, which is not only interesting, but helps film sales. Your comments, whether I tend to agree or disagree, are thoughtful and purposeful. They set a good tone for the users of the photonet forums.​
    I do thank you for the kind words. I put a lot of my life and energy into PN and it's always nice to hear a compliment and know that at least some of the work is appreciated.
     
  104. Josh
    Read your mail I sent you a nice note earlyer today.
     
  105. Josh
    Read your mail I sent you a nice note earlyer today.​
    Yes you did. I am still behind on my email replies from the trip to NY and family functions over the father's day weekend, so I apologize for the delay in replying.
    To answer your question, any statement I make about a new Ektar 400 (or any forthcoming film) should be taken as pure speculation on my part. I used Ektar 400 as an example because it seemed like a logical next step for Kodak to make, given the success of Ektar 100.
     
  106. Josh
    Well with the looks of Ektar 100 and the knowlege from my friends who shoot 35mm Cine film it would be a next move. I know many who Love the 500 but welll just wish it was tweeked a little.
    They dumped 400UC but added the little tweek to to the newer Porta VC I think a toned down Ektar in 400 is not too far off the mark.. and regardless what others say printing/scanning can make a world of differance in any film you can't fake a direct positive in projection though.
    Maybe an Ektar NC LOL
    Larry
     
  107. Mr. Dressler...
    In the early 1950s with the expenses of a first new home, I had to fix the aging car (except tires and brakes) with lesser than spec parts. I did a good job, was sometimes able to make the cheap part a little better with some elbow grease and the car still got the family to school and work on time. However it was not the same as when I could afford high quality parts. For one thing the repair did not hold up as long, like the Ektachrome of the 50s not holding up as long as Kodachrome. I find it is the same with photography. I can make a purse from either a sow's ear or silk with the same level of creativity and workmanship. Are they going to be the same?
    I treasure the old photos made with my Argus AF ($12.00 at the PX) 50 and 60 years ago. I'm glad to have them in my declining years. They sure would have had more detail had I been able to buy the quality of camera/lens that I have today. But then I won't be looking at those currently taken sharp pictures 50 to 60 years from now!
    Tom Burke
     
  108. Tom
    As a Vet who retired in 97 after 20+ years I understand. Nothing can replace Kodachrome. I Have Kodachromes I shot in the 70's and they were kept in a box at my mothers home.. along with the Kodachromes... The Ektachromes have lost some lust but then so have I. The Ektachromes I shot in the 80s are better and the ones from the last 9 are fine. In the future we won't have Kodachrome. I am just trying to tell the people if we don't support what we have left we won't have much left. It is much easier to restart a whole government than it is to restart a factory...
    I am scanning a roll of APX25 at the moment I am talking to you so My name is Larry Tom not Mister Dressler if you please.
    Thank you
    Larry
     
  109. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSXKjHDKkY
     
  110. What I wish kodak would do is sell the formulas of all the films they have discontinued to other film companies so they can make it for us .​
    I think they abandoned the patents years ago. As far as I know, it's public domain now.
     
  111. Agfa could not even get their own correct after a break Old APX 100 and 400 / Last Run APX 100/400 and now the Dredful Rollei/Maco Retro. Why do you think anyone could get the Kodak stuff correct?
     
  112. Just to let you know that the online store 7dayshop has 'plenty' in stock at this time. Order in bulk and it gets cheaper. They are based in the Channel Isles.
     
  113. Good if you are in the U.K. U.S and Mainland Europe pays tax on it of 15-30% and then shipping.
     
  114. Also, if you are in the U.K., check your Boots store - Hemel Hempstead branch is doing 2010 dated Kodachrome at 3 rolls for 2 pounds. Bigger stores are doing this offer too I have been informed.
     
  115. I bet not after today....
     
  116. There's an excellent rant in yesterday's BJP from a columnist who obviously hasn't drunk the corporate Kool-Aid on this one:
    http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=863523
    'What the penny pinchers at Kodak do not seem to appreciate is the thousands of photographers worldwide who make up the less than 1% of Kodachrome users are a special breed with a head full of Kodachrome colour. We see things differently. In the world of colour photography, the Kodachrome palette is unique. There isn't another emulsion remotely like it and no amount of reviewing, trialling other stock or embracing the digital substitute and trying to kid myself I can get close to what Paul Simon sung about, will ever persuade me it can be replaced'
     
  117. Well I am very sad to see Kodachrome discountinued, I credit Kodachrome film with it's unforgiving exposure latitude affording me the discipline that I needed as a young photographer to take the incredible images that are part of my portfolio today. Does contraints gave me the patients to take my time with what I was seeing through my lens. Like many people the amount of Kodachrome that I have used in recent time has become minimal due to the fact that has become hard to find. I have about 20 rolls left that I have kept in a small refrigerator in my darkroom I guess the best advise is to go out and take photographs before the 2010 deadline.
     
  118. Re. 3 rolls for £2.
    Ian - Boots have been running an offer for some time of "3 rolls for the price of 2" on K64. I find the offer of 3 rolls for £2 a little hard to swallow. I hope it's correct though - I'll wander over to my larger Boots store this afternoon.
    The 3 for 2 offer was/is based on £13 per single roll, coming out at ~ £8.60 per roll for three. This isn't too much more than the bulk price from 7 day shop. All prices include processing (but not postage).
    I'll report back after visiting Boots.
    Adey
     
  119. Re. 3 rolls for £2.
    Just back from my local Boots store. I am afraid it's still the "3 for the price of 2" in this large Boots store.
    Adey
     
  120. A couple of days ago, I was looking at K64 prices online. B+H was I think $8.50, Adorama was $7.99, where it had been $8.50 or $8.75, as I recall. Freestyle was $8.09. Early yesterday morning, I read the awful news and immediately went online to buy some before the rush began. California sales tax made Freestyle more expensive w/ shipping being almost as much as Adorama's shipping. I bought 20 rolls from Adorama and today considered buying 20 more. Whoa! Adorama today is $9.49, B+H is $11.20! Yeesh! Freestyle is still $8.09. Of course, all are out of stock. I sure hope things settle down soon.
     
  121. Adey, some larger stores are cutting back on film. Hemel Hempstead is one store doing this, but St Albans is not - worth checking though. The 3 rolls for 2 pounds applies to most films (apart from Boots own and the 110 cartridges) - Superia, Kodak B&W and Fuji Sensia are all the low price in my branch.
     
  122. Only thing I can add to this discussion is that I went through my Kodachrome grieving process 4-5 years ago when Kodak discountinued Super 8 Kodachrome. I bought as many as I could afford and ironically just shot a roll on Father's Day of my kids. So many home movies from 60+ years ago still look great because they were shot on Kodachrome Cine film. Few realize it, but the original release of Kodachrome was as a Cine film! The still film came along a year or two later.
     
  123. Russ, make that twice with Super 8 Kodachrome.... First it was the sound film, then the silent a few years later.
     
  124. If anyone had any influence with the upper Kodak management, it would be nice if they could persuey the company into seeking forms of micro production of many of their reveled films. As many of you have indicated, that 1% (for Kodachrome alone) accounts into thousands of photographers worldwide. If they could find a means of a smaller facility that could operate on a supply that would use barrels as opposed to pipelines and tanker trucks, smaller manpower, it may be a lucrative option. I'm speaking of a smaller production base that could calander a limited supply of all their films that still have some level of market, not just Kodachrome. Of course, I know that I am dreaming in the daylight as I type this.
     
  125. I guess I don't feel as passionately about this as others do, because I don't use Kodachrome. I pretty much stick with what I can do myself. That said, sorry to see it go. It's been an obvious industry leader; Kodachrome has been a pillar of influence.
    Like the Polaroid peel apart films I tried when I was younger, I thought this was a nice idea, but I just wasn't sustaining it on a tight budget. I pretty much have to stick with the homebrew processing, or it isn't really a good option.
    If I can't do it at home, I feel like there's too much trusting people on the outside. I'm sure they do a great job; but by the time I got around to being able to have a chance to afford it, there was only one place left. I just didn't want to get used to something and have it gone forever. For a specialized process like Kodachrome, I think I would have felt better if I could have just sent it to Kodak themselves. Then, too, I would have felt better about Dwayne's. Admittedly, I never gave those guys a chance, either; so, please don't misinterpret it as a dislike for them or anything. From what I hear, they do a great job with pretty much everything. But, by the time I saw a chance, they were the last ones. Not a good criteria for adopting a new syntax.
    I chose what I chose, and that's not why I am in the 1% of Kodachrome shooters. Still, sorry to see it go because Kodachrome has so much social influence.
    Whether I'm right or not, and I know they are now all digital, I associate Kodachrome with National Georgraphic. And, even though it's cheesy, and over-commercialized in its presentation of "photographers" now, it was those National Geographic photographers from the late 1960s to the late 1980s that set me to daydreaming as a kid about what it would be like to see the world and photograph it. I associate Kodachrome with those people, and their work.
    The loss of Kodachrome, as news, is as though a hero has died, is on his deathbed and will soon rest. I suppose we worry about the future of the kingdom as we see the death of a king.
    The E-6 films are nice, but I feel like there's a great big ol' bullseye on them now, too. We'll see. It'll pare down and change some, but we need to keep going. Stay positive. Proceed with confidence. Don't get to letting the tigers eat their own young over one option. We know we need a good spread to make a survivable choice.
    Sorry to see Kodachrome go. And, you know I'd be raising hell if my last favorite option was about to be gone. But you can keep on going. I know you can do it. Drive on, Kodachrome shooters! Perhaps I will shoot one roll of Kodachrome for a grandchildren's generation to view.
     
  126. They discontinued Kodachrome when they stopped making 25 - a truely awesome film. Only nostalgia has kept 64 alive. Good riddance.
     
  127. Sad to see the end of an era, although I was never a full-time Kodachrome user, was pretty much part of the E6 generation. I did use PKR200 at times when light was low, and was always glad I did, it had such a unique look. This shark shot was made on an overcast day, and I still don't believe there's any E6 or digital set-up that would create anything quite like it. Here's to Kodachrome... <<sound of glasses clinking>>
    00Tjo3-147355584.jpg
     
  128. The E-6 films are nice, but I feel like there's a great big ol' bullseye on them now, too.​
    I've heard this from a couple people as the Kodachrome discussion has come up. And while I don't think that film photographers should ever be taking the "everything will always be rosy" stance, it seems to me that there are a number of reasons why we shouldn't worry nearly as much about E-6 film as we might have worried about Kodachrome.
    • There are a few companies still making E-6 films. Fuji and Kodak dominate. But Rollie and Foma/agfa still make niche products. I even had heard at one point that Lucky had a slide film, though I've never seen it.
    • Far more photographers are shooting slide film still than were shooting Kodachrome. Kodachrome sales and use had dwindled further and further down over recent years. While I'm sure E-6 sales are dropping as well, the numbers are still much higher than Kodachrome.
    • There are still, even in 2009, thousands of places to get E-6 run. The lab situation isn't as good as it was in the past (and won't ever be again). But most decent sized towns still have at least one lab that can run E-6. This is, of course, compared to the single lab in the whole world that is still running Kodachrome.
    • Not only can E-6 be run at home with the E-3 type system (or whatever they call it), but it really isn't that hard to get ahold of an E-6 machine and run it yourself. K14 took a massive amount of specialized knowledge to run properly. E-6 is much more within the grasp of the average person. With a little time and dedication, any one of us could have an E-6 system in our basements if we had enough photographers who wanted to run film with us.
    Yes, we should be working hard on trying to introduce other photographers to the joys of film imaging. But the situation with E-6 is much different than the Kodachrome situation and we should be careful not to misdirect our disappointment over one onto the other.
     
  129. WRT E-6: It's not the same as Kodachrome, anybody can see that from looking at the photos. But there are E-6 films that are really good on their own merits, from the Kodak line as well as the Fujichromes, and a lot of photographers doing some great work with them.
    Heck, Kodachrome hasn't been available in sizes larger than 35mm for a while, so everybody shooting 120 and larger chromes, e.g. a lot of landscape photographers, has been shooting E-6. So has everybody who needs their film processed locally.
    This doesn't mean the end of chromes, or that everybody should be giving up on them, it means that one film - a good one, though apparently very impractical to make and process - is going away. Have a look at what else is out their, because, again, some of the E-6 films are really good. Even Ektar 100, when scanned and/or printed well - which is hard, BTW - is amazing stuff.
     
  130. Here's a Time article on the demise of Kodachrome.
    http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1906503,00.html
    These are the only hard numbers I've ever seen on how popular Kodachrome still is.
    "Dwayne's Photo — and even through it is the only center left in the world, the company only processes a few hundred rolls a day."
    Personally I don't care for Kodachrome but it's passing will make me defrost some E6 and shoot it this weekend.
     
  131. I grew up watching slide shows taken by my father. He shot slides from 1958 until 1986. Many of his early slides were Kodachromes and still look as colorful today as they did then, having all been stored carefully in slide caroulsels in a cool and dry room. I began shooting slides in 1983 and first shot Kodachrome in 1987. Here is a Kodachrome I shot in 1996 in San Francisco with my Nikon FE2 and a 50mm 1.8 AIS lens (this was scanned in 1999 by Kodak on to a PhotoCD):
    [​IMG]
     
  132. Well....as long as they don't take my APS away...
     
  133. BASTARDS!
     
  134. I didn't really use a lot of KR64 after KL200 came out, but after its demise along with KM25 I used the KR64 from time to time. I also shot a roll of PKR64 in 120 back in the early 1990's. During the 70's though, I shot some KR64 after it replaced Kodachrome-X, but tended to shoot Fuji R100 (E4) and High Speed Ektachrome. I also shot a lot of Ektachrome 64. When I look back at my slides from the 70's, the KR has a quality to it the others couldn't touch.
     
  135. They discontinued Kodachrome when they stopped making 25 - a truely awesome film. Only nostalgia has kept 64 alive. Good riddance.​
    More like good thing opinions don't speak for everyone, and I happen to own a *bunch* of perfect KM-25 by the way.
     
  136. Anyone know where I can purchase some K64? - Chicago stores are completely out!
     
  137. Any reliable "dealers" on Ebay?
     
  138. Now would be a good time to start visiting some of the small drug stores, discount stores, etc, that may have stocked some K64 without realizing what they were getting. Even if slightly out of date you might could get a deal. I remember back when K200 had just been released in amatuer version (KL instead of PKL) that a Gulf Coast drugstore inadvertantly stocked up on it thinking it was print film. Luckily I came along with some $$$$ to ease their suffering and fill my fridge. So, check. You never know what you might find.
     
  139. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/peopleevents/pande19.html
     
  140. Sorry folks, but Eastman Kodak allready is OUT of stock. 'Hope I'm wrong.
     
  141. Have any of you tried Dwayne's Photo in Kansas to see if they had any on stock? They advertise it on their order forms as being for sale, but I could not assert if they still have it on hand or not.
    Daniel- Thank you for issuing out such a well written email which put the thought for me to order more film. I was fortunate to read it minutes after you had released it, but this did not prevent me from taking my time to put in the order as it was so busy at work. When I did finally manage time, I nearly missed out but managed to get a box on E_ay for a fair price before it went crazy. Had I not opened your email, I would have missed out for sure.
     
  142. why hasn't other film companies put out similiar brands of films that kodak has discontinued? Someone here responded to my initial post about that saying the patents on these discontinued films have expired.
     
  143. Mr. Root...
    You said "When made by Kodak, film comes in sheets 5 ft wide and 1/2 a mile to two miles long. It is then cut, slit, perforated, etc for whatever purpose they have in mind for it. So all it took for Ektar 120 to be created was for a few people in the film marketing/sales department to decide that there was a market for Ektar in 120. Emails like your no doubt made that happen."
    From my e-mails back and forth with Peter V at Kodak professional technical support where he indicated the production was different, I thought they might be made on different bases as some other films are in 135 vs 120. I looked up the Kodak datasheet, Feb 2009 which said that the 35mm Ektar emulsion was put on 0.13mm base and 120 was put on 0.10 mm base. This means that Kodak did indeed have to make a separate batch of film to be cut into 120 rolls.
    May I respectfully refer you to:
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf
    to see for yourself?
    Unless they have already started to destroy the metal block on which the base and then the emulsion are poured (as they did on the Techpan plate before the announcement for its withdrawal from the market) we may yet have a chance, however small. I'd rather try and fail than give up without trying. Are you too young to remember Frankie Lane's song "It's Better To Have Loved And Lost Than Never To Have Loved At All"? If customers just let it go without even a wimper, the company has got every right to think they didn't really want it that bad anyway. And..They will.
    Tom Burke
     
  144. Mr. Williams...
    I like your style!
    Larry...
    In that YouTube video you refer to..Is the white bottom on the girl on the beach bikini bottom or un-tanned skin?
    Mr. Flanagan...
    Thanks for the production quote. 20,000 rolls at the price it goes out of Kodak's door which is probably $4.00 to $6.00 a cartridge, say $5.00 each is only $100,000 plus or minus. Are things so bad at Kodak that they cannot risk not selling a small part of that amount in a year. My-my, have they truly downsized. Couldn't even hold on one more year to make 75? Now -that- is lack of any company pride.
    Tom Burke
     
  145. Thanks for the production quote. 20,000 rolls at the price it goes out of Kodak's door which is probably $4.00 to $6.00 a cartridge, say $5.00 each is only $100,000 plus or minus. Are things so bad at Kodak that they cannot risk not selling a small part of that amount in a year. My-my, have they truly downsized. Couldn't even hold on one more year to make 75? Now -that- is lack of any company pride.​
    That would be revenue of $100K. Assuming a generous 50% profit margin that only brings in a net $50K. That is virtually nothing for a large corporation. It's basically a rounding error. That number is so low I'm surprised Kodak didn't kill Kodachrome years ago.
     
  146. Looking for Kodachrome? Get on the B&H waiting list.
    I've noticed several folks posting above asking where to get Kodachrome now that everybody seems to be out. I tried to get some a day or two before the announcement from B&H while ordering other film. The salesman told me they were out and did not expect any more to come in. So, I e-mailed Henry Posner, an executive with B&H as well as a friend and respondent to Photonet and its members. I quote his answer to my asking if the "no more Kodachrome at B&H was true".
    "As far as I know our buyer intends to restock Kodachrome as long as it's
    possible to do so. While I know film demand is a shadow of what it was once
    I mourn Kodachrome's passing as much as anyone. I have exposed miles and
    miles of the stuff."
    He is obviously a Kodachrome fan to boot! I would suggest getting on their waiting list if possible. B&H is probably one of the larger Kodak customers and will get its fair share of the future rolling.
    Tom Burke
     
  147. Mr. Flanagan...
    At least they'd have another $50,000 to help offset the other divisions' losses. I quote a MSNBC web posting from Jan, 2009:
    "ROCHESTER, N.Y. - Eastman Kodak Co. said Thursday it is cutting 3,500 to 4,500 jobs, or 14 percent to 18 percent of its work force, as it posted a fourth-quarter loss of $137 million on plunging sales of both digital and film-based photography products. Its stock tumbled more than 23 percent."

    $50,000 here --- $50,000 there, pretty soon you don't have such big losses.
    Tom Burke
     
  148. I thought they might be made on different bases as some other films are in 135 vs 120. I looked up the Kodak datasheet, Feb 2009 which said that the 35mm Ektar emulsion was put on 0.13mm base and 120 was put on 0.10 mm base. This means that Kodak did indeed have to make a separate batch of film to be cut into 120 rolls.​
    I stand corrected on that. I'm not sure how I forgot about the fact that most (if not all) 35mm and 120 films have different weight bases.
    However, while that reduces the "debate" points of my comparison, I do not believe that is changes my overall point. the fact is that getting Kodak to run an existing emulsion onto a different base is far easier than getting them to continue to produce an orphan product that shares virtually nothing with any other product in their line. I fully believe that trying to organize some sort of "protest" to get Kodak to reconsider their Kodachrome decision is a waste of time. If Daniel Bayer and his Kodachrome project couldn't make a difference with all the press coverage that it got, I seriously doubt that a bunch of photographers writing letters will make a difference. After all, Kodak can still point to the sales numbers and say "Well just how many rolls of Kodachrome did YOU buy last year?" There are very few of us on this thread that can honestly say we purchased 5-10. Let alone 2-3 dozen.
    Now, that having been said, just because I think something is a waste of time doesn't mean that someone shouldn't do it if they want to. There are many things that I can't imagine spending my time doing that many others love more than anything. I would just expect to be disappointed if I were you. As I don't think there is much chance of success.
     
  149. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Between 1972 and 1982, I shot quite a bit of Kodachrome-X and later Kodachrome 64 in a Pocket Instamatic 60. The 110 format earned its reputation as a sub-par shapshooter format based on Kodacolor II negative film, which was grainy and muddy despite its improvement over the old C-22. But Kodachrome really showed off what the 16mm format could do with a sharp lens. I projected the slides on a 50x50-inch matte screen with a Pocket Carousel projector. The projected slides were (and still are) tack-sharp and fine-grained. And when I project them today (which isn't often, since the projector's special bulb was discontinued years ago), they look just like they did 35 years ago. I also shot a few rolls of Ektachrome-X, which lacked much of the sharpness and impact of Kodachrome.

    I doubt many 110 shooters used Kodachrome. But Kodak's management at the time were visionaries who saw the 110 format as a "system" suitable for serious photographers as well as the more numerous snapshooters. So they made a range of cameras, and kept Kodachrome on the market for a decade despite sales that probably did not please the bean-counters. But times have certainly changed. Even if today's management had authorized the sale of Kodachrome and projectors, they probably would have discontinued both after one or maybe two quarters.

    I stopped using Kodachrome (and 110) in 1982, when a box of slides came back from the Kodak lab with a note that slide film was being discontinued in the 110 format. With a switch to 35mm came a wider selection of film. I liked the Fujichrome RD100 palette better than Kodachrome, and eventually found that sending ISO 400 color negative film to Dale Labs for printing as slides best suited my needs (until I bought a DSLR, which suits my needs even better).

    I learned that Kodachrome was ill-suited to the 21st century when I started scanning some of my 1970s slides in 2004. (A few of them are <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/eurfd.htm">here</a>.) Those unique dyes make scanning unnecessarily difficult, between the strange color balance and the unpredictable performance of infrared cleaning. Since by then my photography was entirely "hybrid," I had no use for a film that was such trouble to scan. I think the scanning incompatibility was the penultimate nail in Kodachrome's coffin-- after Velvia changed photographers' tastes, K-14 labs dwindled to one, and the general decline of slide film (and film in general). The Great Recession surely was the final nail.

    Yes, it's sad to lose a product that inaugurated practical color photography and defined an era. But its only place in a digital world is as a very specialized niche product. And unfortunately, there's no business case for a foundering company to continue selling any such thing.
     
  150. Mr. Marcus...
    I have three Nikon consumer level scanners, a 9000, a IV ED and a 5000. All have a Kodachrome selection in the "film type" window (Kodachrome, Positive, Negative and B&W) which works quite well.
    Tom Burke
     
  151. Speaking of 16mm film Minox used even narrower film, 9mm I think.
    Kodachrome 25 II was also re-spooled by custom photo labs for the Minox. Using the later Complain lenses with the curved film path one could get enough resolution to make a 8000 PPI drum scan worth doing. It produced a file size of about 2612x3464. Cropping down the 11 side of the 8x11 mm exposure (cropping on a Minox???) one could print a pretty sharp 8x10 using the equivalent of 300 PPI printing. Printing at around 200 PPI digitally as many drugstore and mass merchandise box stores do today, would get you 13x17. I can do one on my 13" wide lower line Epson 1400 printer at a 13x17 print. It still looks great at arm's length. Try that with any other film without getting serious grain or sharpness issues. The non-Kodachrome color films of the 70s and 80s whch were not up to today's standards would look ridiculous.
    Tom Burke
     
  152. Thanks for the production quote. 20,000 rolls at the price it goes out of Kodak's door which is probably $4.00 to $6.00 a cartridge, say $5.00 each is only $100,000 plus or minus. Are things so bad at Kodak that they cannot risk not selling a small part of that amount in a year. My-my, have they truly downsized. Couldn't even hold on one more year to make 75? Now -that- is lack of any company pride.​
    A couple things wrong here.
    • According to my reading, 20,000 is the production run they were doing. Not the sales figures. They may have been selling all of them, or they may have been throwing some number away if they didn't sell with a reasonable amount of time left on the expiration date.
    • As was stated, even if they were selling 20K rolls, that $100,000 number wouldn't be profit.
    • I think 50% profit on any product at the manufacturer level is probably VERY generous. Though I could be wrong.
    • Profit on a product is a hard thing to calculate. Are you going to call it just revenue minus the cost of materials? Or minus the cost of materials and labor? Or materials, labor, and facilities costs? Or materials, labor, facilities, and the cost of NOT using the facilities to produce a higher profit product? And so on.
    I tend to believe it when I hear that Kodak wasn't making money off of Kodachrome. But even if they were, it couldn't have been much. And when you start adding in the rest of the costs per-unit that occur when running a manufacturing business, I'm virtually positive that profit would have disappeared. Especially if we're talking about a number in the $50-100K range. Kodak's power bill for the month is probably more than $50k (I'm just making that up, but I wouldn't be surprised).
    Now, does that mean that NOBODY could make money manufacturing Kodachrome? I truly think a company could. If they could balance demand with the correctly scaled production facilities. But as was mentioned earlier in the thread, that company is not Kodak. Kodak is set up for volume production. And when a company is set up for volume production, they save a lot of money on large production runs. but small production runs cost far more than they would for a smaller company. If there weren't any technological reasons that would make it impossible, a smaller company could go the polapremium route and buy/license the film from Kodak. But the fact that nobody has stepped up to the plate either means that there are technical reasons, or those with the money to do it have decided that it would be a bad investment.
     
  153. Ian - that's the bargain of the century. 3 rolls of (process paid) K64 for £2. Thanks for the heads up. My store, whilst large, is in a popular tourist location and it's possible that they have more healthy sales of film....
    Well worth keeping an eye on one's local Boots stores in case the offer is repeated in other stores. My Boots also stocks Ilford B&W along with the consumer colour C41 from Kodak and Fuji.
    Adey
     
  154. You know this speculation on whether Kodak could keep Kodachrome going or not is counter productive to making photos, right ( Josh excluded )?
    It's done, we have 18 months, just enough time to have one last dance with it and celebrate in the images we make. Talking about what could have been is what I will do years from now when I have shot all my Kodachrome and the opportunity to get it developed is gone.
    Just food for thought....
     
  155. I wonder if they could license someone to manufacture the film?
     
  156. I wonder if they could license someone to manufacture the film?​
    A licence isn't needed as Kodak have abandonned the patents. It's public domain now so if you want to have ago.......
     
  157. I think the availabilty of chemistry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process) might make it difficult for others to replicate the process. For example if the specific color couplers for cyan, yellow, and magenta are no longer produced, then the process couldn't be precisely duplicated. I suppose through trial and error, workable chemistry might be eventually produced, but I wouldn't count on it.
     
  158. You're assuming that Dwayne's would want to continue developing this film. Almost certainly there would be a drop off in the number of users due to the Kodak name not being on the package, and that drop off may make it an unsound business for Dwayne's.
     
  159. You're assuming that Dwayne's would want to continue developing this film. Almost certainly there would be a drop off in the number of users due to the Kodak name not being on the package, and that drop off may make it an unsound business for Dwayne's.​
    They are contracted through the end of 2010. And, unoficially I have heard that if demand is still there, they will keep running the machine until demand drops to a point where it is unprofitable. While I wouldn't bet on a rumor and I intend to shoot my kodachrome before dec 2010, the rumor makes sense as K14 probably has done well for Dwaynes. Even a small monopoly is good for business.
     
  160. Just curious, would be more expensive to manufacture Kodachrome or to process it? Both Kodak and Dwayne's having the monopoly on manufacturing/processing Kodachromes it looks like good business for Dwayne's and bad business for Kodak... I recall paying 9 dollars a roll of 36 for processing at Dwayne's, seems to be ten now.
     
  161. There have been Kodachrome (I, K-11) "clones", as the first color slide films by Konishiroku (a.k.a. Konica), Fujifilm, and Ilford were all based on Kodak's patents, just as the Dynachrome slide film made at Rochester, USA - by a company built up by former Kodak employees. Also Gevaert in Belgium tried to emulate the Kodachrome process before WWII, but sooner or later these companies switched to Agfacolor- or Ektachrome-type films with embedded color couplers.

    It would not be too difficult to manufacture a K-14 "clone", as the patents have all expired, which describe the basics, and the technical skills of casting film and processing still exist. However, K-14 processing appears as too particular, since even some Kodak-run labs are said to have had troubles in the past with processing consistency (Stuttgart, Fair Lawn, ...)
     
  162. Maybe now is the time to turn attentions away from high volumn producers and perhaps focus on smaller independant companies. Unless they needed to be rid of their K-14 processing machine?... Dwayne's for a period after the deadline (OR maybe do such NOW)only fire up the big-girl when they had received enough rolls of (still/motion) K-14 film to do a run? Per say on a bi weekly or once a month and basis... keeping the incomming films in cold storage before a scheduled run. Maybe someone might even suggest they do a reasonable increase in their processing fees? If they are doing a hundred a day now, it might could total (with some added dwindle in consideration) into rougly a thousand rolls or more a month. If they went to charging from $9 a roll to maybe $12 it would total $12,000 for a one thousand roll run, which might appeal being lucrative enough for them to go on another year or so? I don't know what their cost of operation is however. In other avenues, maybe Photographer's Formulary Inc. might want to take up the challenge in offering a do-it-at-home for K-14? (If anyone had enough patience or Gin to endure such?) I know I am being silly, as I'm a mere amature and small fish in this pond. Many of you however seem to have a groundful name that could maybe influence the pulling of stings. With film of all formats gradually facing it's 'final' demise, maybe now is the time to conglomerate the numbers of dedicated film users and know just exactly what market still remains. As I indicated, I'm (often) a bit silly in my imagination, but I keep thinking now is the crucial time to grow beyond web forums. Maybe find a bored and wealthy benefactor with a lot of spare time on his hand to help launch a National Endowment of Film Photography? If it could comprise such members and dedicated film users such as Leibovitz,Demarcheller, and so on, we could maybe help reveal the actual market potential for film sales and influence smaller companies to take on production of film on a smaller scale. (If appear stupid and suddenly over the top, please blame it on the two cups of coffee I just had.) Charles
     
  163. Maybe I have been very fortunate, but I have never had a poorly processed roll of K64, K200 or super8 K40 from either Fair Lawn or Dwayne's. Everything looked perfect, except for my own screw-ups! I have had, however, poorly lubricated super8 K40 carts from Kodak that caused headaches for super8 filmmakers for a few years.
     
  164. I tend to believe it when I hear that Kodak wasn't making money off of Kodachrome. But even if they were, it couldn't have been much. And when you start adding in the rest of the costs per-unit that occur when running a manufacturing business, I'm virtually positive that profit would have disappeared. Especially if we're talking about a number in the $50-100K range. Kodak's power bill for the month is probably more than $50k (I'm just making that up, but I wouldn't be surprised).
    I think it's important to bear in mind that like many publicly held companies, Kodak dances to Wall Street's tune. Kodak has to be profitable and seem both profitable and seem to be a safe investment, not for you and me but for investment banks, mutual fund managers et al. While Wall Street is too often accused of being very near sighted, that's the pond where Kodak swims, myopic as it may be.
    Henry Posner
    B&H Photo-Video
     
  165. They are contracted through the end of 2010. And, unoficially I have heard that if demand is still there, they will keep running the machine until demand drops to a point where it is unprofitable. While I wouldn't bet on a rumor and I intend to shoot my kodachrome before dec 2010, the rumor makes sense as K14 probably has done well for Dwaynes. Even a small monopoly is good for business.​
    In talking to Dwayne's yesterday, they seemed to be fairly confident K-14 processing will not go beyond 12/2010. So in my mind, even if processing does literally extend beyond 12/2010, it would not be advertised as such for as you could imagine, the last minute rush is going to be substansial, so Dwayne's in effect could be souping Kodachrome orders from the deadline date a month or two beyond 2010 just to get caught up.

    But all in all, I think it is best to plan with 99.999% certainty that sometime in 12/2010 is the deadline to get your film in. Otherwise, if people start relying on rumors, it just gets nasty when people are let down by the actual circumstances.

    Also consider that *if* Dwayne's is even going to remotely consider processing past 2010, the numbers around Fall of next year have to support the extension as well as the availability of K-14 chemistry.
    This is all just so new and fresh that I think we need to focus on the facts for awhile. And the debate about having another company make the film, I just can't begin to fathom why this is still going on. Kodak made the announcement, the film is going away and we have 18 months to get it processed, end of story.
     
  166. Following up on my previous post: Jun 23, 2009; 09:28 p.m. Looking for Kodachrome? Get on the B&H waiting list......
    I have received the following, even-more-positive response from Mr. Posner from B&H regarding their continuing committment to stock Kodachrome:
    "No matter what sort of rumors and nonsense you read online, B&H has an order in for a carload of Kodachrome and we will continue to stock it as long as it is possible to do so. Right now we have no idea when our next shipment will arrive. We do not know how much we'll get either. What I know with absolute certainly is we will have Kodachrome as long as it is possible to do so. "
    Might I also point out that we, although the ultimate consumers of Kodachrome, don't really place orders directly with Kodak. Jobbers, wholesalers, suppliers, and big retailers such as B&H place the orders. Big orders to Kodak from their big buyers can't help but make a strong point to Kodak to pour another sheet. So....it is to our benefit for those companies to have a good reason to assume the sales risk of placing a big order of Kodachrome from Kodak. That's why, even though I just bought what I need for the immediate future, I am putting my name on the waiting list with B&H. I will also complete my order when they get it in. It's only fair and honorable, but it's also good for us because how else would B&H be motivated to place another order?

    Additionally, I have received a response to my first request to Kodak to keep Kodachrome. Yes, Mr. Bayer, although most polite and perhaps even with a hint of sadness on the part of respondent Peter V., it was a definite "no." On the other hand, it was just as definite a no that I got the first time I wrote him about marketing their new Ektar 100 in 120 size.

    Mr. Posner, a few posts earlier, gave us a most insightful comment about who really sways large corporate decisions. Mr. Posner, as an executive of B&H, probably attends a certain amount of downtown New York business club meetings that include senior personnel from the nearby investment and financial firms. At least some of the same type of people surely must be customers of their nearby B&H superstore, where Mr. Posner has an opportunity to speak with them from time to time.
    While the announcement of dropping Kodachrome is fresh and current, the blogs and news groups are full of Kodachrome comments and columnists are devoting part or all of a column to Kodachrome, perhaps someone on photonet has a friend or acquaintance at the Wall Street Journal. If so, would they be so kind as to suggest an article, perhaps with a theme like "Will dropping Kodachrome help or hurt Kodak's bottom line in the long run?"

    I'm old enough to remember the mid-50s quite well. General Motors scooped Ford badly with their 1954 highly altered offerings. They were able to showcase them at the popular GM Motorama which left Ford in the "me-too" also-ran category. The new GM offerings were the talk of a quite car-conscious 1950's American society. What was Ford to do to get somebody to notice them? They tried to play catch-up with somewhat altered 1955 models, only to be countered with the new Chevy and Pontiac V8s from GM. Oops, not good enough. So Ford consciously made the decision to produce the semi-custom-made, most expensive car in the USA, and quite unique, Continental Mark II at $10,000 each, when a new Cadillac cost about $5000. Ford made this decision, knowing they were going to lose money on every car, even at $10,000. It was a good decision. It brought a little something new and excitement to the Ford name and into the Ford showrooms, where they displayed each car for a time before "allowing" it to be sold.
    Kodak was once the General Motors of the photo industry. Today, most of my photo friends consider them the Ford of 1954. Ektar 100 has brought them some new sales, as well as an image boost. But that just brings them to 1955, as it was a defensive strike.
    I ask, why is Kodak top management not making hay out of all this Kodachrome publicity? They could let the photo public wait anxiously for the decision, only to announce they were going to do a full 75 years, with an institutional advertising program that would give a little glow to Kodak imaging products, where they feel their future is. At $50,000 to produce the 20,000 rolls of Kodachrome, they would sell for $100,000 or more, could be the cheapest and most effective corporate publicity coup in the current competitive photo industry.

    Tom Burke
     
  167. A smart move by Kodak would have been to come up with a new formulation of an existing Ektachrome film like Fuji did with Provia 400X, which is an improvement of the older 400H. Kodak did this with TMAX films. They could have retained customers by saying, "even though we have to retire Kodachrome, we have this NEW version of Ektachrome ______ that has the lowest grain, blah blah blah". It seems to me that Fuji has stolen a lot of formerly loyal Kodak users, myself included. I'm primarily a Kodachrome and Fuji Provia user, but I'm going to end up shooting Fuji exclusively when K64 is gone.
     
  168. Did I read in one of these forums a month or two ago any number of comments proclaiming Kodachrome wasn't going anywhere? And they would believe it when they saw it.
    BELIEVE IT!!!
     
  169. Mr. Stapleton...
    We believe it. That's what all the fuss is about.
    Tom Burke
     
  170. "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..."
    Even though I haven't shot film in years, it will be a piece of Americana missed.
     
  171. Even thought all online retailers are out of stock right now get your orders in. The more K64 that is backordered the more retailers will order from Kodak. If we can clear out the Kodak warehouse in a week they may decided it is worth makning another batch. It may not extend the deadline past 2010 but at least we may get enought film to enjoy until then. I now have orders with 3 retailers. 20 to 40 rolls with each of them.
     
  172. I seem to recall at least 3posts in the past year saying Kodachrome wasnt going anywhere, Howard....
     
  173. Mr. Quinn
    Very true!
    Tom Burke
     
  174. The fate of K-64 was sealed a long time ago. I have written before that I had been told on 4 separate occasions that the last batch of Kodachrome had been coated. Three of those messages were wrong. I had hoped that the fourth time would also be proven wrong, but such was not the case. While the last batch of production (slitting, spooling, and packaging) has yet to occur, the last coating of K-64 occurred in 2006. There are some unique chemicals in the product. It would be difficult to find suppliers to make these chemicals again.
    The formula is indeed proprietary. Sure all of the patents have long since expired, but many important details were never published. In the late 80's, I was the formulation engineer for the product. Even if I still had all of the information I had at the time, there is no way I could go to another company and start production. There might be a patent that lists most of the chemical ingredients and their quantities, but there is nothing out there that lists the procedures used for each step.
    The stages of grief include denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance. You can see all of these stages in this thread. They are all normal and I wont criticize anyone for feeling the way they do. I will echo the refrain of many others--we've got 18 months to use this unique product. Lets make the most of it.
     
  175. Mr. Andrews...
    Thank you for the real word. If anybody on the net would know, you would. I knew you worked on the K64 project but did not know that you were the formulation engineer. Interpolating what you said, the last coating in 1996 was for for 4 years of production at 20,000 rolls a year, or close to 80,000 rolls. That would take a sizeable investment.
    Fuji claimed to have stopped production of Velvia ISO 50 a few years back due to unavailability of a certain ingredient. I presume they did not loose or forget the formula for ingredient but envirornmental laws made it no longer able to legally produce. Fuji reformulated around the ingredient to make something "about" the same. I would imagine that Kodak, now on the ropes financially, is not about to invest in finding an acceptable subtiitute, if one even exists. I don't suppose the older formula of the ISO 25 is still viable? I think you indicated it was not in a post a while back.
    I'm not Reggis Filban, but it seems as though we now have the final answer. Nobody likes bad news but it is certainly better than no news or half truths.
    You've come through again, Sir...
    Tom Burke
    P.S.
    1. Why couldn't Kodak have explained the same thing that you just did rather than create the anger of loyal 74 year customers who would be suspicious of their motives. What is the big secret? Does the top management have that much of an "Let them eat cake." attitude towards their customers? That would certainly expalain some of their previous actions! Be assured that I'm not extending the bad attitude comment to reflect on the dedicated employees who had to live under the thumb of the various executives that have come and gone in the recent years and furthermore had to deal, sometimes face-to-face, with the pissed-off customers top management's decisions and policies created.
    2. If they had all that product in the freezer why would they have the public think they would quit rolling from time to time in the past few years? Just bad top management decisions?
     
  176. RIP Kodachrome. We've not been able to use it practically for years anyway, but a shame it's finally happened. I heartily suggest you lucky Americans that can still use it (at a practical cost) for the time being, get out there and enjoy. You could consider contributing to the Kodachrome project that was set up some time ago with a special purpose prior to Kodachrome being discontinued. http://www.kodachromeproject.com/
     
  177. Josh wrote: "When made by Kodak, film comes in sheets 5 ft wide and 1/2 a mile to two miles long."

    How do they store this? Presumably in rolls, once dry, but what is the diameter of a 2 mile long roll?
     
  178. AJG

    AJG

    While I'm sorry to see that Kodachrome has been discontinued, I can't say that I am surprised. Kodak lost me on this one 20 years ago when they sold off the processing business and I could no longer depend on the quality of the processing and the prompt return of my film. Shortly after they made Kodachrome 64 available in 120, I began to use it for commercial work because the quality was excellent. Then all of that film started getting shipped out to Palo Alto, CA, and taking 2-3 weeks to get back to me in upstate NY. Some of the film would come back mounted and some of it would not, no matter what you requested. After dealing with a lot of anxious clients, I wound up trying Fuji and never looked back.
     
  179. How do they store this? Presumably in rolls, once dry, but what is the diameter of a 2 mile long roll?​
    Take 0.007 inches as a normal film base thickness. Cut a cross section through 2 miles of that, and the cross sectional area of film base is A = 0.007 inches * 2 miles * 12 inches / foot * 5280 foot / mile = 887 square inches. If it were just film base, and this is a circle, use A = pi*r^2, so r = sqrt(887/pi) = 16.8 inches. There's also the thin emulsion layer and the spool and any thin air layers between wraps but I can't imagine the spool's diameter would have to be larger than about 4 feet.
    Now this is interesting: at 5 feet wide, there are 53,220 cubic inches of film base on that spool. At roughly 0.05 lb/cubic inch for polyester or 0.07 for acetate, the spool has 2,600-3,700 pounds of film base on it!
     
  180. Andrew Gilis,
    You are very close to the mark. The death knell for Kodachrome was sounded 25 years ago when Kodak re-organized into a line-of-business approach rather than a functional approach. This LOB arrangement could work, (and did work well for many of the busineses), but they put the Kodak Processing Labs in a separate business and told them they had to make a profit. They started worrying aobut the $0.10 they were losing on each roll of Kodachrome processed. The profit to the company on each roll sold was considerable greater than that. Since Kodachrome more than any other product line depended on Kodak owned processing, many of us associated with Kodachrome knew that this was going to hurt. Kodachrome sales peaked about that time and have been down hill for the most part ever since.
    Andrew Lynn,
    You calculations are correct. Two assumptions need to be revised. Most 35mm films are about 0.005 in thick. (Sheet film is about 0.007 in thick.) Also, the rolls are wound on a core that is several inches thick. You are still pretty close to the size and weight of the rolls. It takes heavy equipment to move those rolls.
     
  181. @ Ron Andrews: 25 years ago was the time, when the green boxes spread in the market, for the amateurs Fujichrome RD100, and in the professional sector, RFP50 (50D), already usable films in Fuji's 2nd E-6 generation.

    Kodachrome was expensive but convenient for the amateur. Fujifilm tried to attract customers by a lower price; they sponsored sports events as the soccer world championships in Spain (?) 1982 and in Mexico 1986, and, what must have been a sort of shock for Kodak, the olympic summer games at Los Angeles 1984. At least here in Europe, the green boxes weren't that exotic any more in the mid-1980s, although Kodak still dominated.

    Outside the US, Kodachrome was always sold as pocess-paid. I cannot imagine that all costs for processing hadn't been included into the retail price. Kodak processed Kodachrome in its own laboratories. The film itself was manufactured in France (Kodak-Pathé) and England. I do not know when this ended, but a little marketing effort might have secured Kodachrome's position for some more years, instead of the attempts to imitate Velvia with Elite/Lumiere/Panther.
     
  182. Fuji actually tried to attract Kodachrome users even ealier than that with their E4 process Fujichrome R100. Back in the early 1970's I saw ads in the photo magazines for it. I think they were trying more to get users of Kodachrome II to switch since the ads explained how much earlier and later in the day you could extend your picture taking. For an E4 film it was actually pretty good as I preferred it over Ektachrome-X and High Speed Ektachrome. Ansco made an ISO 50 film to compete and Agfachrome (with their own special processing) were other contenders. And Dynachrome 25 (another subtractive color film) was available.
     
  183. Here's one more: From the October 1970 issue of Popular Photography- Agfachrome 25S, an ISO 25 transparency film available in 35mm and 120(!) designed to compete with Kodachrome II. It was said to rival Kodachrome in sharpness and grain (according to article). Also, this film could be processed by the user. Still not Kodachrome, but in some ways close. I don't remember how long Agfa offered the film, though.
     
  184. "While the announcement of dropping Kodachrome is fresh and current, the blogs and news groups are full of Kodachrome comments and columnists are devoting part or all of a column to Kodachrome, perhaps someone on photonet has a friend or acquaintance at the Wall Street Journal. If so, would they be so kind as to suggest an article, perhaps with a theme like "Will dropping Kodachrome help or hurt Kodak's bottom line in the long run?"


    Kodachrome is a great product, but let's be honest - it's a niche product that accounts for a tiny portion of Eastman Kodak's sales and even a significant price increase would have no real impact on the company's fortunes. It's common on enthusiast boards such as this to demonize Wall Street and investors, but let's remember that these are people who have their money invested in the company and have a stake in its survival. Given EK's continuously shaky financial situation, they are well within their rights to insist that management stop spending the company's scarce human and financial resources on a product like Kodachrome whose time has come and gone, and to devote their time to the products and services that are going to have an impact on the future of the enterprise. It would be different if Kodak was still a wildly successful company that was flush with cash and could afford to continue manufacturing a nice little side line like Kodachrome, but it's not.


    "A smart move by Kodak would have been to come up with a new formulation of an existing Ektachrome film like Fuji did with Provia 400X, which is an improvement of the older 400H. Kodak did this with TMAX films. They could have retained customers by saying, "even though we have to retire Kodachrome, we have this NEW version of Ektachrome ______ that has the lowest grain, blah blah blah". It seems to me that Fuji has stolen a lot of formerly loyal Kodak users, myself included. I'm primarily a Kodachrome and Fuji Provia user, but I'm going to end up shooting Fuji exclusively when K64 is gone. "


    In my opinion, this is a sure sign that Kodak is probably going to exit the E-6 business as well in the near future. I agree that this was a tailor-made situation to introduce a new E-6 film and use the predictably large media coverage of Kodachrome's demise to reinvigorate the Elite Chrome and/or Ektachrome brand. Instead, they seem to be lumping all of their film customers together as potential purchasers of their newer negative films.
     
  185. I really really hope that Kodak does not exit the E-6 buissness. I think I feel it coming. Fuji has stole all of Kodak's E-6 users. That is one of the reasons I don't really care for them. All of Kodak's Ektachromes give a more natural look than most of the Fuji slide films IMO. I don't know of many people that shoot Ektachrome. Fuji, Fuji, Fuji. The only Fuji I use is their instant films. I give them credit for helping us Polaroid users that are in need......
     
  186. All this talk of Kodak axing the Ektachrome line isn't helping any.
    We should all be out there shooting E100 G's, GX's, VS's and Ektachrome 64T's.
    Yeah... we should.
     
  187. I've got some Ektachrome film in my fridge right now that I'm planning on using soon (and some Kodachrome as well). I want to get back into shooting slides and I've got an order in for an old fashioned projector.
     
  188. Most of what has to be said has been said. For those trying to change Kodak's mind: don't expect anything, but good luck. For those who are 'protesting' with a boycott: get a life.
    I can't see Kodak as a GM. Kodak made excellent products.
    And as for the fine grain of Kodachrome, geez, Ektar 25 (a negative film, I know, I know) was far superior in detail and granularity.
    Finally, a couple of items from my 35mm film cassette collection:
    00ToyX-150297784.jpeg
     
  189. Kodachrome tribute @ B&H
     

Share This Page