Leica & Kodachrome

<p>Totally random and wild thought here, but I thought I'd post it to get your opinions.</p>

<p>What if Leica acquired the rights to manufacture, sell and process Kodachrome? They could really buy the whole line K25, K64 & K200, and reintroduce it as their own; if they wanted to get really daring, they could even buy and market the old Kodachrome II recipe. Given that Kodachrome processing is now done solely at one location, at least here in the USA, there would be no huge overhead in providing for the films' processing like there would be with a newly introduced film.</p>

<p>Leica's strength is still, from what I can tell, their ability to produce the highest quality film cameras in the world. I don't think Leica holds the same niche in the digital photography arena that they have always enjoyed in the film world. I imagine that the acquisition could be a success for Leica and could also yield some much-need cash flow which would allow Leica to direct money into further R&D in both film and digital projects, because they could sell the new Kodachrome to anyone with an old 35mm camera. I imagine the demand would be economically sustainable and could bring about a mini-renaissance for film-based photography. Depending on its initial success, Leica might even offer film scanners dedicated to processing Leica's own film stock.</p>

<p>What say you?</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>Why would the manufacture and distribution of Kodachrome be profitable for Leica (which <strong>doesn't</strong> have the equipment, personnel, experience, or distribution channels for the manufacture and sale of film) when it's not sufficiently profitable for Kodak?</p>

<p>Great joint venture! The force of two dinosaurs in deadly spot-on alignment!<br>

I would be in if one roll would be about 10€+4€ development, push 2.00!</p>

<div></div>

<p>Sufficiently profitable for Kodak may be a vastly different concept from sufficiently profitable for Leica. Also, there is the disparity between the public's perception of the two companies, with Kodak suffering by comparison. I have already plainly stated that its a wild and random idea. I'm interested in getting people's opinions on why it may or may not work, not so much in defending the premise.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>Lack of processing locations kills almost any Kodachrome-revival plan. I'm no expert, but I bet environmental regulations probably kill the rest.</p>

<p><em>I'm interested in getting people's opinions on why it may or may not work, not so much in defending the premise.</em></p>

<p>The reason it may not work is that the premise is fundamentally flawed: it's quite likely that it would not be a highly-profitable venture for Leica. All of the factors that led to Kodachrome's demise at Kodak would still apply if it were manufactured by Leica. And it would cost Leica significantly more per roll to manufacture and distribute the film.</p>

<p>But Leica doesn't have a film manufacturing facility, and from everything I've read Kodachrome was the most complicated film to make when it was last in production.</p>

<p>It's dead, guys. Time to get a new film.</p>

<p>Why it may not work? IMHO because Leica lacks expertise in the field of film production as well as the financial resources to get into a line of business which has been a money loser for years. You're right...it is a wild and random idea, best quickly dismissed. A better idea is for you, as the idea man, and a group of deep pocketed investors to pick it up and attept to run it as a successful venture for all the film lovers out there (of which I am one....I grew up on Kodachrome, home slide shows, etc.).</p>

<p>Ya you all are so serene...</p>

<p>Continuing on Stephen's thoughts ... IF (big IF) Kodachrome gets a last-minute reprieve, I would bet it will be by some investors who can set up a production facility in some less developed country hungry for ANY form of manufacturing and commerce, where the environmental impacts can be quickly swept under the rug, compliance-wise (or dumped into the river, more literally). </p>

<p>Additionally, if they do this AND offer it in all it's formulations (e.g. K25, K64, K200, 35mm, 120, 4x5, ...) to create broader appeal in an already niche market, they might be able to pull it off. Few environmental concerns and low labor costs could create favorable costs to the consumers.</p>

<p>Not that I think this is right -- nor would I support it if it were to be manufactured in such a setting -- but this is the only way I see it being a profitable reality.</p>

<p>Silly silly silly discussion If it was possible/profitable to just not have turned the machine off Don't you think the company that needed NO investment what so ever would have been the one to do it?</p>

 

<p>Yes, it is a silly, silly, discussion but if you can't have silly discussions here amongst our PN friends, where can you? Particularly about obsolete film emulsions. I just can't get this sort of humor at work.</p>

<p>I just love the fact that Kodachrome just won't die ... the threads are always an interesting read and the postings are universally passionate. Almost as bad as "is film really better than digital?" postings ...</p>

<p>And with that I bid you all a good night ...</p>

Leicachrome?

<p>Perfect. Then they could charge $65 per roll.</p>

<blockquote>I imagine the demand would be economically sustainable and could bring about a mini-renaissance for film-based photography. Depending on its initial success, Leica might even offer film scanners dedicated to processing Leica's own film stock.</blockquote>

<p>I'd expect the demand to be as close to zero as makes no odds. Kodachrome isn't dying because too many people want it, but because nobody wants it. A Leica logo won't change that.</p>

<p>Sadly, Fuji Velvia 50 and the <strong>environmentalist</strong> movement killed Kodachrome.</p>

<p>If you love the song, turn your speakers on, click & enjoy >>> <a href="

Simon's "Kodachrome"</a></p>

<p>Good one, Michael! If anyone produces Kodachrome again it will probably be some company in Croatia or something.</p>

And think of all the discusions we could have as to whether Croation/Tasmanian/Madagascan Kodachrome was better/ worse than Monroe County Kodachrome.

<p>No, I think Leica needs to stick to their knitting. The next priority needs to be an affordable digital body for R lenses. Let's not distract them.</p>

<p>"I can read the writing on the wall". Thanx for the link Gus.</p>

<p>I use Portra.</p>

<p>It's not in Leica's company interest to support film use, much less use of a niche film par excellence. Y'all should have bought and used it when it was available.</p>

<p>If we had some ham, we could make ham and eggs, if we could find some eggs.</p>

<p>Maybe you need to be reminded that Leica's "new" M cameras are digital? If cars suddenly ran on solar power, would Ford go into the gasoline business to keep their old line running?</p>

<p>Right now there are still a large number of various emulsions available for the dedicated film shooters. And unfortunately Kodachrome isn't one of them.</p>

<p>"<br>

"Leicachrome?"<br>

They could offer also offer it a black film canister, and call it "Leicablack"<br>

Taking it one step further, why not bespoke, "a la carte Leica film", film canisters in a variety of colors and finishes..<br>

Then you can periodically offer canisters in "Limited Edition", "Special Editiion", "Anniversary Edition:, "Safari Edition"...finishes.<br>

Prices? If you have to ask.....</p>

<p>I agree Gus on the Fuji Velvia and the environmentalists.....I agree more with the Velvia though.</p>