Tech Pan to be discontinued

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by david_ditzel|3, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. FYI for Tech pan users. Kodak has announced the discontinuance of
    Technical Pan Film. The suggested replacement is Delta 100. Oops! I
    mean Tmax 100. The discontinuance schedule is as follows:
    December 2004 - 120 format,TP120.
    April 2005 - 35mm format, TP135-6 & TP442 150ft roll.
    June 2005 - 4x5 & 8x10

    Remaining inventory will be sold until depleted.
  2. Aaaargh! Honey, make room in the freezer...<p>You serious, or a joke in poor taste?
  3. What a pity. Do you have a link to the announcement?
  4. While at the counter of my local camera store, buying some darkroom paper, the female clerk whom I've know for years showed me a fax she had just gotten from Kodak which clearly stated they are discontinuing both Tech Pan and Kodachrome slide film. I'd like to immerse the CEO of Kodak and Kodak's shareholders in a tub of boiling acetic acid or stain them with a heavy dose of Pyro from head to toes for screwing up the company so much. I've yet to read a very positive analysis/review of Kodak's digital camera releases, yet the CEO thinks sales of digital cameras will rescue Kodak. What a jerk!
  5. I'll help you Terry... next thing you know, they'll say ROI on Tri-X was too low, so they're axing that too.
  6. Boil up the CEO of Kodak if you must, but immersing all the shareholders in a tub of boiling acetic acid or staining them with a heavy dose of Pyro from head to toes seems a little excessive. Doing the acid thing just with those shareholders who are powerful enough to control Kodak's policy would surely be enough. Maybe I'm just jealous; technically that sort of thing is still illegal in the UK, though we have a home secretary who's working on it.
  7. :O<br>
    I'm raiding the store!
  8. Kodak is lost and has no North. Thanks God Fuji and Ilford know their business and realise that they can make money from the existent film technology at marginal cost.
  9. If there were money to be made on these films, wouldn't Kodak sell or license the films to someone else? Seems logical to me.
  10. Makes sense to me. Their real market for tech pan is document duplication, if I'm not mistaken; this is going digital big-time.

    For those of us who like to use weirder film combos it sucks, though. At least they still carry EDUPE, so I'm ok, but it makes me feel sorry for all the hi-res b&w guys.
  11. I can't believe it. The fact that they're getting rid of Technical Pan is bad enough, but to kill off Kodachrome 64 and 200? That's the final straw. Some will say that Kodachrome had it coming, but I still think that it is an excellent film unlike any other. 70 Years in the bin... :(

    Seems like they're killing off their distinctive films that make them stand out. Technical Pan had an RMS of 3 I think, the finest-grained film ever. True it was rather slow at ISO 25, but with good lighting, a flash, or a reasonably fast lens this wasn't difficult to get around. You almost needed a microscope to see it's grain.

    Kodachrome has a lot of history to it, being one of the world's first color films. The fact that it lasted so long is a testament to it's greatness. I will miss it so.

    Does anyone know where I can send flowers?
  12. tech pan's demise shouldn't be a surprise really, if you look at some similar films that have bit the dust in the past year or two--Pro Copy, Commercial Film and SO-132. I'd rather have seen Kodak continue making Pro Copy anyday over tech pan to tell you the truth.
  13. Here is an interesting site of someone sick of Kodak (because of discontinuance and non availability of some films in some formats:
  14. I'm taking this with a grain of salt... Google News yields nothing about Kodak discontinuing Kodachrome. I'm sure they would have something on there if they did, particularly since you'll find journalists tossing around the word as a synonym for "conventional film".
  15. With Tech Pan, I feel very sorry for the amateur astronomers who can't afford (or don't want) CCD sensors. Obviously, professional astronomy is all digital now, but the amateurs have a lot to contribute to the science. They do a lot with "hypered" Tech Pan.

    Kodachrome: the writing was on the wall, and it was hard to miss. But I may buy a few rolls in the next few days. Maybe the 200, I like the colors of it. But I've shot a roll of E100G and appreciated it, and I suspect E100GX will address my few complaints. Certainly, it's futile to hoard Kodachrome, as Dwanye's can probably only keep their line running for a year at most. How long will Kodak keep making the chemicals, anyways?
  16. I had a feeling that the end was near for Kodachrome, BUT TECH PAN!? AARGH! I'm going to stock up on the 150 feet bulk rolls!<p>Kodak is really pushing people to try Agfa or Fuji, then EFKE or anybody else who will still make film.
  17. People here are acting as if Kodak were making an effort to hurt them. Please. Look at the products they're discontinuing: these are some pretty esoteric films. Does Fuji have anything like Kodachrome? Nope. Nothing in terms of color pallette OR difficulty/expense/precision in processing. At least you can use X-pan...oops, wrong again. That was discontinued a while ago for the very same reason TechPan is being dropped: poor sales.

    I certainly feel sorry for those who are disappointed by these announcements (assuming they are genuine). I know what it's like to have a beloved product pulled. At the same time, have a little buisness sense, please: Kodak is not taking out some personal vendetta against you, they are "cutting the fat," in business terms. In fact, considering slow sales of these products in recent years (which is the reason Kodak stopped advertising Kodachrome, not the other way around), I'm surprised they held on to them this long.
  18. I would have said that Kodak has a good record for maintaining a wide range of products for longer than any of the other film manufacturers.
  19. Time to buy a few 4x5 boxes for the freezer.
  20. I'm taking this with a grain of salt... Google News yields nothing about Kodak discontinuing Kodachrome. I'm sure they would have something on there if they did, particularly since you'll find journalists tossing around the word as a synonym for "conventional film".
    The world does not revolve around Google.
    Get back with us when you find something via Google regarding Kodak ceasing all K14 processing in the USA this month.
    For that matter, get back with us when you find a Kodak press release explaining that they are closing down many of their labs, including Fair Lawn, the sole Kodak K14 lab in the Western Hemisphere (as well as 50% of all Kodachrome labs in the western hemisphere), and, 50% of all Kodak labs in the universe!)
    The fact that this news does not show up on Google does not mean that it's not for real. Kodak seems to historically play a lot of stuff very close to the vest. This report may very well be true. A quick glance at the posting histories of the two people who've "spilled" in this thread (David Ditzel and Terry M) does not reveal anything "trollish" in their character.
    We will most likely find out the lowdown within a few days. And come to think of it, Friday notifications of unhappy items seem to be fairly common. Stuff that you want to put out under the radar, you... put out under the radar. That means only notifying the minimum number of people who need to know, and it's often done late on a friday to keep it out of the news cycle.
    If it's not true, that's good news. But I'm not holding my breath.
  21. You would look for Kodak to do something because it makes good business sense??? They abandoned that philosophy back in the 60's and 70's when instead of building on their successful products, they abandoned R&D on them and went in a totally new direction.

    Tell me, is Ektachrome as successful as Fuji's offerings yet????

    Kodachrome is distinctive and if improved over the years could have helped Kodak far more than spending the last several years trying to emulate Fujifilm. Alas, the die is cast, but please don't refer to the demise of Kodachrome as "good business sense". It is simply the end of a long line of very poor business decisions.
  22. I can't find any mention of Kodachrome and Technical Pan being discontinued on ANY search engine or in ANY Kodak press release.

    Not that it isn't true, but being a long time employee of a major news organization, it's well known that bad news is best dissemenated on a day when it'll draw the least attention and minimal bad press. Late on a Friday is a good time for a "cover up!" Also, being the 49th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, would also tend to mask things around here, since the bomb was made just down the road in Oak Ridge! That's always big news on August 6th!

    In any case, I've tipped the Kodak beat reporter at the Rochester newspaper that he may have a story on the death of the Kodak flagship film product! I guess we'll have to wait and see what appears in print early next week or maybe we could call the Rochester grocery stores and see if they have had a run on "Kodak Cash Cow Bar-B-Que Sauce?"

    Robert Johnson
  23. Like Chris said, there's nothing else quite like Kodachrome out there today. Kodak should do some R&D and come up with an E-6 process film that matches it's color palatte and other distinctive features. Maybe call it Ektachrome-K or something. I'm sure that were it not for the K-14 processing, Kodachrome would be with us for a while yet. But as it is, many people who have tried it like it, but just can't afford to wait to get it processed. In the end, it seems that its unique requirements are what doomed it.

    It was one of my two favorite films, including Velvia. Velvia certainly isn't an all-purpose film though. As we all are well aware, it has terrible skin tones. Kodachrome, while less saturated, provided an excellent compromise. I loved its skin tones. I could come in from the garden and shoot my sister's birthday no sweat. Some of my best shots ever were taken on it.

    While many may suggest other films like Sensia and Provia to me to fill this void, I believe that nothing else can quite fill the gap left by Kodachrome.

    I realize that Eastman Kodak is not out to get us devout Kodachrome users, but I am still angry at them because they let this happen and didn't do anything about it. First in the 80's they let Velvia come along and wipe Kodachrome 25 from the map, now they've just sat back and let one of their icons desintegrate. Maybe some R&D could have saved it. I would have gladly welcomed Kodachrome-III into my array of films.

    Still, though, seventy years is a damn fine run, a record for production that I can't see any film outstripping. The photographic community now begins to mourn the loss of a film that for decades defined color photography, and for a select few still did. It is the end of an era, one that many will lock back on fondly, I'm sure (I will anyway).

    And so as the curtain begins to lower on this act in photographic history, there are those who will criticize and those who will grieve, but the one thing that we can all agree on, I'm sure, is that this is the close of one of the greatest chapters of our art. But then again, who knows, it may be the biginning of a glorious new one.
  24. So if Kodachrome is dead, does this mean Super 8 as well? I occassionally use this stuff for fun reasons and to kill off its finest grained Super 8 film would really piss in my Cornflakes.
  25. I spoke with Gary in Kodak's professional film division yesterday morning and he confirmed that Tech Pan will be phased out in 2005. I informed him how pissed off I am because I love that film and cannot find anything like it for sensational photo duplication on my copy stand, reproduction of line art works, and general shooting/grain-free prints. Meanwhile, one camera store near me has approximately 30 rolls of it on its shelf, another has approximately 40, and B&H and Adorama probably have some as well. So I must go to one of those close to me and buy a quantity, but I won't be able to approach the counter and store staff with a smile on my face!
  26. Kodak should lay off the blubbler management; and radically reduce its overhead. They should keep films that sell; and make a commitment to still sell films that folks want and use. The spineless management is drunk with short term goals; and blind to their customer needs.<BR><BR> They need a Patton type person; with both film and digital vision; with the guts to downsize; cut blubber; and still make core film products.<BR><BR> Tech Pan is a slow film; with a longer shelf life than faster films. Kodak is cutting their own lifeblood; well proven useable products. They should further clean house; and cut the fat; blubber; BS management; that is wimpy; with no balls; "the wrong stuff". Kodak lacks vision; it has no chaps that have the guts to downsize; cut out the blubber; and still keep proven saleable films.<BR><BR>The Patton type chap should fire the entire marketing dept; every single person.<BR><BR>The Patton type chap should find out the minimum crews to keep the film lines still making films. <BR><BR>The Patton type person should develop a long range set of goals; for film and digital; and cut every wastefull BS thing at Kodak.<BR><BR>
  27. About blubber management.

    EK has reduced WW workforce from about 120,000 to about 60,000 or so, almost 50%. Most of it was in 'nonessential' areas. For example, few reductions took place in R&D. There were some, but far fewer than in other areas that were then more highly automated, or that could be outsourced.

    About digital:

    Headlines in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle for 8/7/04. Kodak sales surged ahead of all expectations in the quarter just ended, but among those figures was the fact that EK digital sales surged ahead more than any other placing EK second to only Sony in the sales of digital still cameras.

    Ron Mowrey
  28. Ron, maybe you can confirm or deny this: my guess is that Kodachrome and TechPan were cut not just because of poor sales but also because they were difficult and/or expensive to produce. You had mentioned this as being a factor in EK's cutting (I think) RG25. Any validity to this?
  29. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Nobody here has any idea what it costs Kodak to run the Tech Pan line relative to its sales. So while Kodak has certainly had a lot of financial problems in the last ten years, nobody here can really do more than froth at the mouth when they talk about whether or not this was a good decision for Kodak. While a decision may not be good for photographers, that doesn't mean Kodak should potentially drive themselves into the ground for that reason.

    Until someone has some hard data, frothing (e.g., "Kodak is cutting their own lifeblood; well proven useable products") is pointless.
  30. I have just sent an e-mail off to Kodak asking about the fate of Tech Pan and Kodachrome. I'll post the reply here once it comes in.
  31. Chris;

    See my comments here:

    I'm to lazy to type it all in again. That is the best reply I can give all of you about Kodachrome.

    Ron Mowrey
  32. What kills me about Kodak is the shortsightedness. Ask anyone is business school and they'll tell you that the best way to suceed is to change the perception not the product. I agree sales of Kodachrome are way down, that is fact, it has been that way for a long timt hat is fact, and I believe that they experimented with better Kodachrome that went unreleased because no one wanted them, that seems to be fact.

    What they don't know how to do is convince people of anything. Rather than try to sell their emulsions they constatntly change and discontinue them. Anyone can tell you that's not a way to build market.

    I fully believe Kodak looses money on Kodachrome and Tech Pan. I also know many people have no ideas of the properties of these films. Kodak made the idiotic mistake of assuming that because marketing/advertising isn't working, cut the marketing, and gradually kill the product. Most people would try changing the marketing, or increasing the marketing first, I also know a lot of people who don't use much Kodachrome or much Tech Pan, but when they do use them nothing else will sufice. Many of these people will run from all Kodac products if Kodachrome or Tech Pan is discontinued. Look at teh number of comments we see about people who won't use any Agfa product because sheet films have been discontinued, or because APX25 was discontinued.

    I'd bet a good market surveyw ould show these products function as loss leaders, People who buy Kodachrome probably also by Ektachrome, rather than FujiChromes out of simple brand loyalty. That will VANISH, and quyickly.
  33. Jason;

    EK kept the Kodachrome emulsions and didn't change them and some people are complaining that the product line isn't modern enough. As a matter of fact, both Fuji and EK change their product line at about the same pace, but people complain more about Kodak. So, which do you want. An old product with old emulsions from the 80s or up to date technology. Why do you criticize EK for doing what Fuji does. Why not complain about both companies? And don't give me the old song and dance about how EK ruined a good old film by introducing a new film. I have seen Fuji do the same. In fact, in the 90s, the new Velvia almost failed due to flaws.

    In addition, I see a lot of EK ads in national magazines and on TV during prime time. And not just here in Rochester. I travel. Those ads appear across the country.

    There was a lot of advertisement and hype about the new Kodachromes at the time of introduction of the new products in the 80s and the reaction was 'ho hum'. So EK decided why waste money on a product with little excitement on the part of the public.

    The public went out and bought Ektachrome during an ad blitz for the new Kodachromes in the 80s. So, here you are, about 20 people who love Kodachrome. Gee, think EK could make a profit selling to all of you? Lets see, one roll sold to each of you once a month, wow, maybe we could coat it once a year then and maybe sell 10% of that production and scrap the rest. I can see them thinking at Kodak Office now.

    To make a profit, the coating line has to run almost 24/7 and the processing line just about has to run 24/7. The Kodachrome process is very sensitive to sitting idle for anything more than a few hours. There it is in a nutshell. The spiral started with the customer, and not with EK. There were some exciting products already scheduled, but that were cancelled due to severely declining sales in the 80s, total disinterest in spite of ad campaigns, and rising interest in color negative and Ektachrome. At that time there was virtually no Fuji competition.

    Suddenly, in the 80s, the public wanted color prints rather than slides. The big push became color negative actually in the 70s when EK saw this coming in spite of everything. The public consumer was tired of lugging out the slide projector. They wanted prints, and didn't like prints from slides, even Cibachromes. They did like internegative prints, but it was more expensive. I know, I saw some of the trends in person. Most people did not like Kodachrome. The only way some professionals could use it, such as at National Geographic, was due to the massive intervention of masking for color correction and contrast, which then made prints from Kodacrhome look really good. Scott Eaton has pointed out here that Kodachromes are often hard to scan. I agree with him and I know the technical reasons why. They are the same reasons that Kodachrome is hard to print and why massive intervention is needed to make good reproductions of the slides.

    Enjoy Kodachrome and Technical Pan while you have them.

    Sorry, but you are in a minority though. And, it appears that no one here knows the inside stories correctly. It also seems that no one cares. It is easier to ignore the true stories and I guess you like to bash Kodak.

    BTW, most managers at EK have gotten advanced degrees from Harvard Business school. That is one of the requirements for promotion to top levels at EK. Getting degrees in Business Admin and / or Marketing are a must. Oh, and while you are so busy attacking EK management, did anyone sympathize with EK when about 6 of its top managers were killed in a crash of one of the company planes about 10 years ago? That didn't help things at a very critical time. I think they managed quite well in spite of many handicaps including a series of dubious law suits that went against them. I say dubious simply because I have seen expert leagal opinion go both ways, but most favored EK in spite of the fact that EK lost. You would be surprised at the fallout that had at EK beyond the monetary considerations. And, I would bet that most of you don't remember all of the law suits that EK had to contend with back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, right? Just get the big guy because he is big. He is a bully right?

    I know I'm inviting flames, but that is not my intention. It is to alert you to the fact that you don't know very much about what is really going on behind the scenes, or what really happened in the past. If you don't know about all of those law suits, you cannot fully appreciate some factors in EK thinking. All of you that know about the Pavelle, Ansco, and Polaroid suits raise your hands! Do you know what they were about or what the result was?

    There is so much you don't know, but you are very quick to criticize. Well, I will try to answer your questions even if they are flames, but as I say, what I want to do is raise your awareness to the fact that there is a lot you don't know.

    PS. Fuji quit making their very excellent version of Kodachrome when it became unprofitable for them. The other companies that made Kodachrome type films went out of business. Did anyone fail to note that?

    Ron Mowrey
  34. Ron wrote:

    "In addition, I see a lot of EK ads in national magazines and on TV during prime time. And not just here in Rochester. I travel. Those ads appear across the country."

    The only Kodak ads I ever see on TV are for disposable cameras, amateur-level digital cameras, and rarely, for MAX 800 film. I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for Kodak slide film or Kodak B&W film.
  35. Kodak is a huge company. It is easy for an outsider; such as me; to use the "blubber" comment than an insider. ALL companies have some sort of "blubber". <BR><BR>Kodak and digital are nothing new. The WSJ and others seem to think Kodak is just awaking to digital.<BR><BR>I interviewed with a Kodak project in the late 1970's; for digital storage; in the San Diego area. Kodak at that time was looking into mass storage; in the optical film; and magnetic recording areas.<BR><BR>My personal biased take is that Kodak took a wrong bet with the APS concept. It was a last weird format; that was not really loved by the masses. Some photolabs never changed to APS; but farmed it out. APS in some places is 50 percent more in processing costs than plane jane 35mm P&S film. The masses dont want to pay for prints that cost 50 percent more. The only folks who liked APS I know are realtors. Many went to Sony digitals here; for home appraisals.<BR><BR>Dropping a film type always causes a ruckus.<BR><BR>One wonders what the next film to be dropped will be. <BR><BR>The dropping of the Kodak professional copy film caused our business to go into digital scanning; to redo old B&W images. This radically reduced our buying of Kodak photo papers; and chemicals. One item dropped rippled thru and caused other Kodak items to not be bought. Once we bought 250 sheet packs of 8X10 Kodak darkroom print papers; now it is all non-Kodak inkjet.
  36. BTW, most managers at EK have gotten advanced degrees from Harvard Business school. That is one of the requirements for promotion to top levels at EK. Getting degrees in Business Admin and / or Marketing are a must.
    There is a school of thought that believes that top management should also know something about the business, i.e., the products and industries that use them.
    I'm sorry, but the more I see of Kodak's PR material, the more I see a tribe comprised of all chiefs and no braves.
    Or if you prefer, "all beancounters and no photographers."
    And then overriding it all, is the insane focus on stuff that's "neither of the above" -- PC dogma to the nth degree, as epitiomized in this guy's situation.
    What's the emoticon for "shaking my head in utter disbelief?"
    What I see (granted, from my "middle of nowhere" perspective, relying solely on the news media) is a company that's lost its focus. No pun intended. Really.
  37. Fuji quit making their very excellent version of Kodachrome when it became unprofitable for them.
    This is news to me. I knew that someone, I think Sakura, made a Kodachrome-like film in the early '50s, but I never heard if described in particularly glowing terms. I've never heard anything about Fuji making a Kodachrome clone, excellent or not.
    The other companies that made Kodachrome type films went out of business. Did anyone fail to note that?
    The only other Kodachrome clone I'm aware of was Dynachrome, which I believe was made by a 3M subsidiary. 3M is still in business, and in any case, I recall Dynachrome not receiving very good reviews in the press, and selling mainly on the basis of cost (it was cheaper than Kodachrome).
    I don't see any lessons there at all, pertaining to the marketability of Kodachrome. Any type of film is inherently a limited market, and when one company has the bulk of the sales volume and the only really good product of its type, there is a self-perpetuating cycle that creates a high cost of entry for anyone trying to break into the market. It seems to me that the obstacles to entry were too great for anyone to obtain a foothold. One Japanese company, in the immediate postwar era, had a regional product for a short period of time, which lost its market when Kodak began bringing in top qualty competition. Another company, a decade later, made a halfhearted effort to compete domestically, with a low-end product that failed to compete in terms of quality.
    How this reflects on Kodachrome itself is beyond me, but then again, I'm not a Harvard MBA. I'm just a lowly putz behind the lens.
  38. One wonders what the next film to be dropped will be.
    Looking at the current batch of PR material on their website, I get the image of a guy who's dumped his ex wife, married his new flame, and can't hardly wait for the last kid to turn 18 so that he can finally be rid of his support burden.
    I don't know that that answers your question, but your question evoked that imagery.
  39. R. T.;

    In the latest professional magazines, Rangefinder is the example I'll use, EK has 17 pages of ads while Fuji has 11 pages of ads for professonal grade products and digital products.

    The EK ads include Plus-X film, HC 110 develper, and T-max 100 & 400. So what do you read?

    I see similar ads in Popular Photography and Photographic Techniques. Of course TV ads are going to be more biased in the direction of consumer products. What do you expect?


    Again I am forced to repeat this. APS was not an EK format. Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Agfa, in fact all major camera and film makers joined in a combined effort to develop a melded digital / conventional product. The scope included a lot of things never realized which were to come from the striping along the sides of the film with digital information imprinted on the film.

    All of these companies agreed on this try. They all believed that APS would be a success. Don't criticize Kodak alone as being at fault. If you wish to cast a stone, cast it at the management of all of those companies. I own a Nikon Pronea VIs. It is a beautiful camera and uses APS film. Its just sad that it never went as far as planned. Nikon had faith in it as well as Fuji, and in fact Fuji is still putting effort into APS. Kodak is admitting to the probable failure of this product line. Please get the facts straight and lay the blame properly and equally. (FYI, I bought the Pronea at a great price and I knew what was planned for APS and had a degree of faith in it myself, knowing what the potential was. Besides, all of my equipment is Nikon, so my lenses fit etc..)

    So, where is anyones comment on the stupidity of Fuji for supporting APS? Where are your comments about EK starting to withdraw from APS but Fuji continuing?

    What about Fuji jumping into production of Polaroid type instant films? Is that smart, especially as they charge a premium price for their product? And, the only way they can get to produce Polaroid type products is due to the legal structure of the Japanese patent laws. They can essentially get away with what Kodak was sued for.

    What about Dyancolor? They went bankrupt trying to keep on selling and processing Kodachrome films that they made. Where were their customers? The product was very good. It was equal to the EK product. What about the comparable Fuji product. Where are the mourners for its demise?

    You guys all are so biased. You have your minds made up with no concrete evidence in hand. I participated in 3 litigations at EK as part of the pre-trial discovery process. I watched the development and attempted sales of improved Kodachrome films. I have read photo magazines since about 1950, and keep current with consumer and professional products and ads.

    After reading some of these posts, I really wonder if you care about the product or just enjoy bashing EK. And what is worse, I doubt if most of you really read what I've written sometimes, or having read it I doubt if you care or understand what I have tried to explain.

    I have read reports here from several people who have gotten bad products from manufacturers other than EK. Where are the blistering tirades against those manufacturers?

    Fair is fair guys. Lets try to be that way. No company is free of blame, poor marketing, poor judgment or poor products. Don't heap all of your anger on EK.

    I don't get anything from EK, nor am I happy with some things that they have done. I'm just aware of and see the faults in other companies and look at them with an open mind and wonder what is going on here when you only see faults with EK.

    Ron Mowrey
  40. Regarding Dynacolor(chrome?), I don't recall it that way. I remember it getting slammed in the press for being too contrasty and not having as good a color rendition as Kodachrome. But, it's been many years, and maybe my memory isn't perfect.

    As to Fuji's Polaroid films and patent laws, the way I understand it, Fuji manufactures Polaroid film under contract/license from Polaroid, and some of it is branded "Polaroid", and sold in the USA. You may be thinking of Fuji having manufactured a version of Kodak's instant print film (I don't know if it was the original, or the "trimprint" style), which they were able to sell in Japan, but were prohibited from importing into the USA. As I understand it, Fuji's endeavors in that format were done without the blessing of EKC.

    By the way, I always found Kodak's instant print film to be superior to Polaroid's SX-70. The Kodak cameras were not as elegant as the SX-70 but the film was far superior, in both image quality, and convenience. The "Trimprint" concept was brilliant. Kodak's image-through-back technology allowed for a much better integral pack print, with a textured surface (and ultimately peelable image layer). Polaroid could not do that, because they needed a perfectly smooth glossy surface because it was also the image forming side was also the focal plane.

    I think Kodak could have won that suit, because I think Polaroid's arguments were bogus. But, I think Kodak did the beancounter thing, and cut and run after "running the numbers", just as they did with so many other promising technologies.

    I can't really speak for others, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that we LOVE Kodak's PRODUCTS, but we hate the way they treat them.

    If we did not love the stuff Kodak made, do you think we'd be pulling our hair out, wailing, and gnashing our teeth over LOSING the stuff Kodak makes?

    Or to put it another way, do you see any people here complaining about no longer being able to buy Anscochrome or Triple Print Film?
  41. Reuben;

    As James Blamphin said in the article you quote, "there is more to this than has been reported". Yes there is, and Kodak will not comment on personal matters. They are very close about matters related to dismisssal for legal reasons. I know that you have to do something pretty bad at EK to be dismissed. Any follow up in our local papers have not supported either side, and Bob Londsberry has been quiet about that subject AFAIK. So, I doubt if anyone knows the 'real truth'.

    As far as managers knowing the products they work with and sell, quite a few top EK managers are very good photographers. Many of the lower level managers are as well. I myself, while not in top management, had been in the field outside EK for years before I joined the company. Some very great photographers have been EK employees. Grant Haist and Pete Chiesa come to mind right away. Along with them please note that several of the top managers have written definitive textbooks on photography.

    Yes, Dynachrome was bought by 3M as their business was faltering several years ago. Nevertheless, the Dynachrome business vanished when they went bankrupt. And, even though you see 3M, where is the 3M film business nowdays or their Italian subsidiary Ferrania? Are they prospering?

    Sorry, you are right, it was Sakura and it was an excellent film. I have quite a few slides taken on it in the 50s and 60s. When I was in SEA, a roll of Kodachrome was over $10 with processing included, but I could afford the Sakura color. Fujichrome may have been a Kodachrome type then as well, but I know Sakura was, as I visited their factory in Hachioji. I should have gotten that right. Thanks for the correction.

    Ron Mowrey
  42. As far as managers knowing the products they work with and sell, quite a few top EK managers are very good photographers. Many of the lower level managers are as well. I myself, while not in top management, had been in the field outside EK for years before I joined the company. Some very great photographers have been EK employees. Grant Haist and Pete Chiesa come to mind right away. Along with them please note that several of the top managers have written definitive textbooks on photography.
    Just to clarify, I was talking about the current generation, the "new breed" at the top, NOT the guys who made the company great.
  43. Reuben;

    Dynachrome film was manufactured by a group of engineers who left EK and founded their own company! It was an exact duplicate of Kodachrome in every way, but since the patents had expired, they were free to go ahead and produce the film.

    Yes, the information you have on Fuji is correct, but so is mine. They are both part of an untold story that is much broader than anyone knows. And no, EK did not cut and run. In fact let me tell you something of a secret... Here it is for the first time in public...

    I was working on the next generation of instant film at the time we lost the case. The next generation instant film had a speed of GET THIS GUYS >>> 3000 <<<< yes. that was the EI of the next generation, and you say EK cut and run. Let me tell you something else. The dye stability was better than any product on the market then or NOW. The dyes were so stable they were almost permanent. This product would have blown Polaroid out of the water.

    So, see how wrong you can be?

    No, EK was very upset at the loss and tried everything to win and then when they didn't, they spent more $$ to forge ahead with an appeal so that they could recoup the investment and release our new 3000 speed instant color film.

    I still have pictures here in my album shot with it. I was testing pre-production runs as the lawsuit was going ahead.

    That is when I transferred out of product building into the emulsion end of the work. A lot of our instant people were given 90 days to find jobs elsewhere in EK or face layoffs. That was a very tough time for all of us.

    So, Reuben, you have your story and thoughts wrong on that one by a long margin.

    Ron Mowrey
  44. The current Kodak 800 Max color print film needs some field sampling testing; pulling actual 35mm film from dealers shelves; on a random basis; measuring performance verus age and vendor; emulsion number; etc.. It seems to get a bad PR; here on; and other places. Some folks call it total crap; when many times it is ok. I have found it to be equal; better; or sometimes worse than the Fuji 800 color print films. This must be either a "film baked in the delivery truck" problem; shelf life problem; or manufacturing problem. I use the Fuji 800 product more because it is more consistant; not because it is always better. Faster films age quicker.<BR><br>The Kodak reps I remember seemed to be pushing APS once very strong; like it was going to replace 35mm; just like the Kodak disc system was going to do; and 110 film too...<BR><BR>It is abit unsettling to see the local Walmart drop all but one reloadable film camera in June; when the month before they carried about a 15 film cameras; 3 which were slrs; most 35mm P&S's.
  45. So I'm still wondering if Super 8 Kodachrome will be discontinued with the other product lines or if it will survive. Anyone in the know on this one?
  46. Scott;

    Buy a video camera.

    Ron Mowrey
  47. Rowland,

    I would absolutelyu not disagree with yo on any of your facts; however, whether a company is run well, or whether a product could have been better promoted, and so done better financially, is a matter of opinion.

    A lot of people do like to bash Kodak. I'm generally not one of them. For my needs Kodak makes better products than Fuji. Despite my problems with a lot of their managemtn decisions, I still buy Kodak products (although not exclusively).

    As for information on sales of Kodachrome there is no argument, sales are low, and sales have been low for a long time. I'm not the lat unlamented Hans and I wouldn't try and argue Kodachrome was popular. I do not believe Kodak should be required to produce a money loosig product for my convienance. The marketplace's decisions are final and there is no appeal. I DO question whether Kodak could have turned Kodachrome into a moneymaker, and I do think they are making a mistake as I know several people who WILL be so angry they stop buying Kodak products. I think Kodachrome was a loss leader, and I think Kodak will find that out if they are discontinuing it. I suspect Tech Pan was alos a loss leader for the Black and White Market.

    I absolutely bow to you on knowing facts about EK. Numbers are facts, how the numbers might have been changed are opinion.
  48. Rowland,
    Regarding "Buy a video camera". I am artistic director of a film/theatre company. We own several video cameras from 1 and 3 ccd models, to huge industrial cameras which can be docked to any format.

    We also own several super 8 cameras. In the film I am editing (in fact waiting for a render right now), of Macbeth we used Black and White super 8 in several scenes for the look. It is still a useful tool. I will mourn when it passes away (but understand why). Major filmmakers often do this as well. Oliver Stone often uses super 8, and Neil Young's recent feature was shot entirely on it.

    It's another tool in the toolbox.
  49. Buy a video camera? That'll leave my Maier Hancock 16mm hot splicer "lonely!"

    FYI, EK still sells film cement in the GALLON size. Someone in Hollywood must use the stuff. I buy mine by the QUART from B&H, an item which they stock everyday! Movie film must still be popular in some circles!

    Robert Johnson
  50. "BTW, most managers at EK have gotten advanced degrees from Harvard Business School."

    And I've never met a Harvard grad that didn't feel compelled to let me know where he received his degree within the first half an hour of meeting him. Kodak has been stumbling along for quite a long time. Let's find something more substantive then where their management got their degree to support the validity of their business decisions.
  51. C'mon guys, I was kidding about the video camera.

    I don't have a video camera as a matter of fact. I have 2 8mm cameras and one super 8. I have lots of rolls of film, almost all Kodachrome, but I have not shot motion picture for years.

    I do agree with a lot of your comments, but regarding Kodachrome, there were a lot of marketing efforts to sell it, and no one would buy it. EK knows there is a loyal core market for it, but the big problem is quality processing.

    No one wants to do it, and even EK has trouble keeping the process in control. The pH is high and the solutions are unstable and prone to decompose. It simply costs a processor too much money for the amount of film coming in. The film processors cannot make a profit even if EK could make a profit making the film.

    If the consent decree had never been made, and EK was allowed to sell film with processing included (other companies can still do this BTW) then this all would be a moot point and Kodachrome would probably still be going strong.

    If you remember the Pavelle and Ansco cases I mentioned above, they alone devastated a decade of plans by Kodak WRT processing chemistry. EK was essentially fined for introducing the C41, E6 or E4 (I can't remember which), and Ektaprint 3 processes and told not to do it again unless certain conditions were met, and therefore RA procssing was delayed and several other process changes never came about. (this is a gross over simplification of the actual cases)

    As one example, EK had a rapid access color paper with virtually zero pollution undergoing research but decided not to introduce it due to the court decision. This was in about 1975, over 15 years before RA chemistry. Among other things, this process used CD6 instead of CD3. The actual histories of many of these things will never be written but would open your eyes and perhaps shock you into better understanding or maybe sympathy for the 'hands tied' position that EK was often forced to adopt.

    I could say more, but I would probably get in a lot of trouble. Oh well. I've probably said too much already.

    Ron Mowrey
  52. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Perhaps the current house cleaning of deadwood product line is compensation for the approach Kodak took in the past. In my long-ago youth I was a fan of the 110 Pocket Instamatic system. I was one of the "serious" users who shot almost entirely Kodachrome slides with the very nice Pocket Instamatic 60 (you can see 50 or so painstakingly-scanned examples here). Although the market for 110 was very clearly the snapshooter who made 3.5x5-inch prints from grainy negatives, someone at Kodak was clearly a visionary who had a well-conceived concept of a "system" that included slide projectors. And those slides looked very nice indeed with those projectors.
    Even more visionary was the fact that they kept Kodachrome (and Ektachrome) slide film in production for ten years, despite the fact that the 110 slide proved economically stillborn from the outset. Today's MBA Suits would probably have pulled it after a month of non-spectacular sales. When they discontinued 110 Kodachrome in 1982, I felt as many people here do now about the demise of their favorite niche product. But I really wasn't surprised.
    I don't think any company in today's competitive environment (made more competitive by the need of executives to view Wall Street analysts as their primary "customers") could keep a money-losing product like 110-format slide film on the market for ten months, let alone ten years. But somewhere, I think, there needs to be some happy medium that encourages visionaries to dream while keeping the results grounded in reality.
    Now that I've grown up (physically if not mentally), ISO 400 color negative film has replaced my former 110 Kodachrome. For the moment, Kodak has the best such product in Portra 400UC/Ultra Color 400. I am not exactly happy that over the last four years I have had to switch from Supra 400 to Portra 400UC to Ultra Color 400 (with a detour to High Definition 400). Yes, I'm told that Portra 400UC and Ultra Color 400 are the same film, but that information did not come from any official Kodak representative (indeed, the Kodak representative I e-mailed told me that High Definition 400 was the same as Portra 400UC). No matter how good the product is, I'm not happy that its manufacturer jerks us around so much-- will they replace Ultra Color 400UC with another film (or another name) just as we've figured out how to scan it properly? That's not to bash Kodak per se, but it seems their management is now 180 degrees away from their predecessors who gave us 110 Kodachrome and let it lose money for a decade. Neither extreme is good.
  53. The Dynachrome story is interesting if it came about because Kodak's patents had expired. Doesn't this mean that anybody who thought it economically viable could still produce a Kodachrome clone? Maybe some devoted group of Kodachrome fanciers should float a new company.

    I shot some 3M Dynachrome back in the 60's, and thought it stank. Maybe the processing was bad, or the film was old, but it had poor, unsaturated color, and faded fast. The one virtue I remember was that, like Kodachrome, it had juicy greens. Oh, and it was very cheap.
  54. Ted;

    Very nice pictures.

    I was once told that in the USA, a company was required by law to support a proprietary product for a given number of years? That is why you can buy parts for a 20 year old Chevy or Ford. They must make parts in support of a product for a fixed number of years, so that that product can be kept operational for an expected 'lifetime'.

    I got that from a car dealer when I was thinking of buying an old car.

    Well anyhow, IDK if it is true. Never looked into it, but maybe EK is just obeying the law.

    I prefer to think of them as being altruistic as you feel, but maybe they are just toeing the line for the Feds.

    Thanks for sharing your pictures.

    Ron Mowrey
  55. The time to supply spare parts varies; sometimes it is only 7 years.
  56. Matthew;

    AFAIK, Dynachrome was identical to Kodachrome as was Sakura color.

    When a patent expires, anyone is free to use the technology.

    This is my understanding of what took place. A group of engineers from EK left and formed Dyanchrome and made film using the EK formulas when the patents expired.

    When the market began declining, they went bankrupt, even though they had been bought by 3M. The decline affected them as well as EK when Kodachrome began dying. It also affected Sakura. (Konishiroku or Konica).

    So, right now, anyone can manufacture Kodachrome like films, including Fuji. Free and clear. But, no one wants to. Doesn't that tell you something?

    Ron Mowrey
  57. Ron,

    I sure do hope your joking about Super 8. Love the stuff. Anyway since Kodachrome will go out with a year, how long will labs support processing this stuff before they shut down? 1 year? 5 years? I'm asking because it will depend on how much I stock up on 35mm and Super 8mm film to put in the freezer. I don't want to go overboard since I have 120 PKR in my freezer that I can't do a thing with now because of processing. Any ideas?
  58. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Super 8mm? 16mm is where it is at.
    Kodak Cine II Special
    Yes, Kodak used to make some fine cameras, too.
  59. 16mm. Blaa. 70mm is the stuff man. :) Top that one. :p I used to shoot on 16mm, but it became too expensive to shoot with Kodachrome not being offered anymore in that, and then having to do positives from negs. I just like to shoot and watch what went through the camera. My old Bolex barely got any use. Just for fun I priced out a rental on the Panavision 70mm system for a day. It didn't cost much more then the Panavision Platinum Panaflex system per day. Now IMAX- now we're talking!

    Seriously I think Kodachrome will be sorely missed once it goes and can't be processed anymore. I can just see Ebay and its Kodachrome auctions now. Some poor guy a year ago bought 83 rolls of PKR 120. I really wonder what he ended up doing with it all.
  60. I still think everyone is premature in this discussion...Kodak has made no announcement as of yet about stopping Kodachrome production...they are reducing their costs by not processing it themselves in the U.S. anymore, so one would think it would be around, at least a little while longer...if they do discontinue it, there will be a fair number of Super 8 users angry as well. As far as Kodak keeping it's word about supporting old formats, I was just informed by my Camera Shop dealer that Kodak told him they would no longer be able to supply Carousel trays ....Kodak had previously told the camera store that they would supply ancillary projector supplies for at least 2 years after this July, then abruptly stopped everything...just an FYI.
  61. Better get over to quick! They still have approximately 30 of each type in stock!

    I thought Kodak sold the rights for the carousel projectors to a German company. There was a press release on that, but I can't find it at the moment - the Kodak search engine is DOWN!

    Robert Johnson
  62. AFAIK, EK has no plans to drop Kodachrome.

    If it were to be dropped, the process lines would be continued until at least the expiration date of the last batch of film produced had passed plus some extra time for insurance to catch late submissions to labs.

    I worked with the guys who did research on Kodachrome. They were very enthusiastic about it, kind of like all of you. They loved it, but they were disappointed when the product came out and was not recieved with enthusiasm by the customers.

    I remember how much the public complained about how bad Kodachrome 25 was over the old classic Kodachrome 10 (those are ASA ratings) and then they complained at how bad the Kodachrome 64 was vs the 'classic' 25 speed. No one was ever happy. I guess now the 64 is 'classic' Kodachrome.

    Ron Mowrey
  63. The flap I got into was over the transistion from Kodachrome II (asa25 old K-12 process) to Kodachrome 25 (asa 25 K-14 process) in the early 1970's. Alot of us horded bricks of Kodachrome II; of the same emulsion number. <BR><BR>The initial Kodachrome 25 I shot was ALOT worse in color accuracy in the greens; when it first came out. We used the older film; kept frozen; until the color weirdness was worked out. At a Nikon School then; one instructor worked for National Geographic; they were hording known bricks of Kodachrome II also.( abit funny; since that is what me and my friends were doing on a smaller basis; to regain color control). It took awhile for some of us to gain confidence; in Kodachrome 25; that was abit bad when it first came out.
  64. If it were to be dropped, the process lines would be continued until at least the expiration date of the last batch of film produced had passed plus some extra time for insurance to catch late submissions to labs.
    Guess what?
    The last Kodak process line in the USA will be closing down this month. Fair Lawn New Jersey. It may already be shut down.
    That leaves exactly ONE Kodak process line for K14 in the world, in Switzerland.
    With the one private lab in Japan, and the one private lab in Kansas, that will mean that there are only three K14 labs in existence, and only one of them will be run by Kodak, and that will be in Switzerland.
    They have already sent out written notice that they will no longer sell or process Kodachrome in Australia. They shut the Australian lab down a couple of months ago, and last month they announced that they are no longer selling the film on that continent.
    So for all intents and purposes, they have shut down the last process line (their own) in North America.
    Duanes in Kansas is "it" for everyone in the USA, Canada, Mexico, South America, etc.
    If their machine goes down for repair, well... I don't want to think about what happens.
  65. The flap I got into was over the transistion from Kodachrome II (asa25 old K-12 process) to Kodachrome 25 (asa 25 K-14 process) in the early 1970's. Alot of us horded bricks of Kodachrome II; of the same emulsion number.
    I remember that period, but I was among the ones who liked KII better than "Kodachrome" (ASA 10).
    I do find it humorous that people complain that ASA 25 is "too slow" to use, especially for handheld use. I used ASA 10, handheld, and got razor sharp results. People have gotten spoiled, and the easier the tools get to use, the worse the results that are turned out.
  66. Reuben;

    I know that there is only one lab in the USA. I also know that, as Kelly seconded, law requires that a lab remain open to service all film processing requests for a suitable length of time. EK will see to it somehow.

    As a matter of fact, EK does have a Kodachrome processing line at Kodak Park for process QC on the chemistry and film still being made. And if that fails, there is the Research Lab Dip-N-Dunk Kodachrome processor that can revived in a pinch.

    I guess you are not reading the posts. :-(

    Hmmm, come to think of it, I know that you aren't, or you would be able to spell my name. See your posts on the other Kodachrome thread.

    Ron Mowrey (if you wish to be formal Reuben its Rowland)
  67. Ron,

    I know this has been bantered around a lot, but I thought I'd ask. A seller on Ebay is selling off 35 rolls of PKR 120. When I emailed him saying he should put a disclaimer in his auction that the film can no longer be developed in color, he came back stating he's been told some lab in Massachusetts does a run every quarter or so to do this stuff. Is there any validity or confirmation on this? I have 4 rolls of this I'd like to use up if this is the case, but I find what he says hard to believe given no one else seems to know about it. He said they keep saying they've done a final run, but end up doing another one every so often due to demand. Any ideas on this one?
  68. Also Ron- what would happen to PKR if it was put through C-41? I heard there may be a Remjet type layer or so that is a problem. Others state its a B&W film technically and can be treated as such with special treatment.
  69. I know that there is only one lab in the USA. I also know that, as Kelly seconded, law requires that a lab remain open to service all film processing requests for a suitable length of time. EK will see to it somehow.
    As a matter of fact, EK does have a Kodachrome processing line at Kodak Park for process QC on the chemistry and film still being made. And if that fails, there is the Research Lab Dip-N-Dunk Kodachrome processor that can revived in a pinch.
    I guess you are not reading the posts. :-(
    Hmmm, come to think of it, I know that you aren't, or you would be able to spell my name. See your posts on the other Kodachrome thread.
    Ron Mowrey (if you wish to be formal Reuben its Rowland)
    Wowie. Didn't mean to piss in your wheaties. Didn't think I did piss in your wheaties!
    I guess all I'll say is "pardon the typo", and "go look up what they say about people who engage in Internet spelling flames", and then I'll get to what's left of my point ;) and say that I am unaware of any law requiring film manufacturers to supply ANY photofinishing services at all!
    If you know of anything to the contrary, please give me the contact information for the company owned labs for EFKE, ORWO, AGFA, Ilford, and for good measure, Smena.
    Thanks! ;)
  70. what would happen to PKR if it was put through C-41?
    I'll jump in here while (I won't type his name, lest I make another typo and send him into orbit again ;) his blood pressure cools off. ;)
    If you run Kodachrome through any chromogenic process (E6/C41/etc) you will get a clear film base.
    No dye couplers = no dye image, and bleach/fix = no silver image. The combination = no image.
    You can run Kodachrome through a B&W reversal process and get nice B&W slides, or, you can run it through a B&W negative process, and get B&W negatives with a yellow tint, due to the colloidal silver yellow filter layer (removed in the reversal process's silver bleach stage).
    You can try running it through a light bleach (farmer's reducer, maybe diluted) and cross your fingers. If you leave it in too long, you'll bleach out your shadow detail along with the yellow filter layer.
  71. Reuben;

    I don't like wheaties. Geez man, don't you have a sense of humor?

    Ah well, as for the 'law', it only requires support for a given length of time, not forever, and it is a US law. IDK whether it is a law anywhere else in the world. This reasonable length of time for automobiles would be the expected lifetime of the car, and for film it would be the time to expiration of the last roll of film manufactured plus a shipping margin for delivery to the lab. That is my guess anyhow. I did qualify that statement in that I have no factual proof, but it was verified by at least one other post.

    But you missed the point that EK still has a processing facility right now today to test their own production of Kodachrome film and Kodachrome chemistry. That will run until the last roll of Kodachrome rolls off the production line. Having said that, I would add that EK would probably make arrangements to process any late arrivals.

    As far as PKR, I didn't know you could no longer get it processed. As part of the Kodachrome family, it should be processable somewhere AFAIK.

    In any event, if Kodachrome production stops, I'll give you the formulas so you can mix your own. I'll even give you sources for the couplers and the CD6. Ok? Then you can run your own to your hearts content. You do know that you can make 3 separation exposures on Tri X or other film, and then process in a Kodachrome type process in your own darkroom and then by registering the individual color separations, you create your own Kodachrome.. Right?

    BTW, an answer to another post somewhere. Kodachrome is not a hard film to manufacture when compared to Ektachrome or the negative color films. It is essentially a B&W film with many layers and thats about it. It is the process that is hard.

    Running any Kodachrome family of film through any other color process will result in clear support with patches of rem-jet clinging to the back, if it had rem-jet. The rem-jet will also mess up any other color film in the same process, so if you send Kodachrome to your favorite photofinisher, and he accidentally processes it in C-41 or E6, you will no longer be his favorite customer.

    One of the known defects of a bad Kodachrome process are black dots on the transparencies due to improper removal of rem-jet and the suspension of the black material in processing solutions. It then adheres to the film and dries there.

    Don't worry Reuben, I'm not mad nor do I want to 'flame' you or anyone else. I was just amused that you claimed I had not read your post, but you misspelled my name in several of your posts. I was just sitting here laughing as I typed because of the irony.

    Best wishes to you, and I did like your comment about me, and thank you for it. I also agree with a good bit of what you have said.

    Ron Mowrey
  72. I just e-mailed Kodak asking them about the fate of Kodachrome and Techincal Pan. They did, in fact, give me the straight answer that Technical Pan is going to the chopping block, but as to my question about Kodachrome, they gave me a very ambiguous answer. Read it for youself.

    Greetings Andrew,

    We received your e-mail regarding KODACHROME Film and appreciate the
    opportunity to comment.

    We can neither confirm nor deny rumors relating to new product
    development or potential changes to current products. Eastman Kodak
    Company is constantly researching and developing many new items. If a
    new product were to be made available, or an existing one changed or
    discontinued, it would be formally announced and distributed to dealers
    just as other new products are.

    Qualex, Inc has announced plans to close its film processing lab in Fair
    Lawn, NJ in September, 2004. As a result of this decision, all Kodak
    mailers will be sent to District Photo in Beltsville, Maryland for
    processing. District Photo will process all mailer orders, except those
    for KODACHROME Film, in their Beltsville facility. KODACHROME Film will
    be forwarded to Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas for processing, where
    orders will now be mounted in cardboard mounts only. Service times for
    mailers will not be impacted by this change.

    If you need to reply to this e-mail, please reply 'with history'
    (include any previous e-mail) so we can expedite our service to you. If
    you should have future questions on Kodak products or services, please
    be sure to revisit our Web site as we are continually adding information
    to enhance our service.


    Dale P.

    Kodak Information and Technical Support

    Such a nice, diplomatic answer, don't you think? At least they answered my question about Qualex closing down it's New Jersey facility. Wonder why they're not up front with me. Rowland, can you shed some light on this?

    On another note...

    In my un-professional opinion, I do think that it is the K-14 processing that keeps Kodachrome from being used more widely. I believe that many people who have tried it may like its color palatte, but just can't stand the inconvienience of processing. Kodachrome used to have a huge hold on the color slide market (indeed, the color film market in general). What happened? E-3 is what happened. With it's MUCH easier processing, the market for Kodachrome slowly began to decrease. As we all know, E-3 was followed by E-4, and E-4 by E-6, the current standard in slide processing. So, if Kodak were to do some R&D and come up with and E-6 process film with the same color palatte as Kodachrome (Maybe call it "Ektachrome-K"), would you use it? I would. It would become so much more compatable with today's photography. We could get it processed along with all of our other slide films, and scan it with digital-ICE, just to name a few. All while maintaining that distinct color. Just a thought. What do you all think?
  73. No PKR 35mm is still developable (is that a word?), but PKR 120 rolls aren't. Last run was in Europe 2001. But as this guy said someone in MA is doing it every quarter or so- if there is any truth to that.
  74. I did a Google search and I could only find this remark from Kodak in 2001 concerning Kodachrome 120 processing:

    Subject: [Kodachrome] Re: Kodachrome 120 processing
    Send reply to:
    Date sent: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:49:57 -0400

    From: William S. Lane
    A short time ago, Dennis Schulmerich, Kodak's Kodachrome film Product
    Manager began participating in the chat room. One
    additional Kodak person may participate in the discussion. Bill Lane is member
    of Kodak's Marketing Technical Support (MTS) organization. Bill is responsible
    for Kodachrome film processing and film issues on a world-wide basis. Bill has
    spent a significant portion of his Kodak career in activities related to
    Kodachrome film and processing and is a very good resource on technical issues.
    The chat room contains many knowledgeable individuals and most issues are
    resolved without outside intervention. We may address issues which do not
    appear to be resolved within the group which deal with the Kodachrome film
    products and processing. We will steer clear of discussions involving
    techniques and equipment.
    The Wimbledon laboratory still has the machine which they used to process the
    120 format Kodachrome film. They are storing the 120 format film and will
    recharge the machine with chemistry for one last processing run on October 1,
    The other format Kodachrome films submitted for processing in the UK are
    transshipped to the laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Lausanne
    laboratory does not have the capability to process the 120 format films. These
    must go to Wimbledon.
    The Wimbledon site was the last location equipped to process the 120 format
    film. There is no location in the US that has the capability to process this
    film and produce color transparencies.

    Ron Schwarz <> on 08/06/2001 06:12:19 PM

    Please respond to

    cc: (bcc: William S. Lane/563370/EKC)
    Subject: [Kodachrome] Re: Kodachrome 120 processing
  75. Scott;

    Sorry, I missed that 120 in the post. Of course, you are right.


    EK, like any company probably cannot or has not made a definite decision. For legal reasons, they cannot make a statement about what might be, and they don't want to come right out and say anything that would damage the product line before a decision is made.

    You are correct about the E6 process. And, an Ektachrome that was like Kodachrome would scan as poorly. You see, the "unit neutral" has a strong cyan bias in Kodachrome (go look on the EK web site for dye curves). This cyan bias means that neutrals are bluish, and it also means that greens are 'juicy', but the film scans poorly. It is one of the tradeoffs of making a reversal film. OTOH, the factors which made the unit neutral the way it is also contribute to the superb dye stability of the film. So there you are. Win some, lose some. Oh, and that factor that does this probably cannot be pulled off in Ektachrome type films due to the chemistry involved.

    Dyes in conventional films are not crystalline, but Kodachrome dyes are crystalline due to the way they form. The dye forms and precipitates out in the film as a dye crystal. Something that cannot be achieved in any other color process.

    It would be more possible to achieve this type of color rendition using a specialized neg-pos system through manipulation of curve shapes, interimage, and masking, but Eric and Scott won't allow EK to do that with a neg-pos system. ;-D (that was a joke that I hope Eric and Scott appreciate, but no offense was intended.) Anyhow, that would be moot as the market would be so small.

    Ron Mowrey
  76. I'm pleased to see that Denny Schulmerich is now in Kodachrome. You guys have an excellent man there on your side, I'm sure.

    If anyone would do his best for the product, knowing Denny, he will. He is a very respected member of the Kodak team and a hard worker.

    Ron Mowrey
  77. But still Rowland, the question remains. If the EK engineers could find some way of faking the Kodachrome color palatte onto an E-6 film, would you use it?
  78. Andrew;

    No, I would not due to other color reproduction faults. If you wish to verify this, take a picture of a MacBeth color checker and then project the transparency and put the checker up beside it with identical illumination. You may also want to compare with an Ektachrome slide. You will find that the Kodachrome is actually not very good when compared to the Ektachrome. If they made an Ektachrome that looked like Kodachrome it would not be a very good film IMHO.

    Due to the nature of the process, color errors or contamination take place in Kodachrome. This creates errors in the final image. Some people like the result, but I don't. Contrast is too high, greens are too dark for me, and flesh is 'beefy' to me.

    I use Kodachrome very seldom anymore. I use Ektachrome or Portra VC or UC. I just got some Astia to try, and I do use Fuji color negative films as well, but not often.

    Ron Mowrey
  79. Ron,

    Could Kodak's dip and dunk Kodachrome processor handle 120 film? The place I send my 120 to uses such a machine, so it makes me wonder if they can still do it. And if so- what are the odds of getting them to do it on that machine? There are hundreds of these rolls still being sold on auction sites, plus the ones still in freezers now- so there must be some demand for someone to want to process this stuff in color.
  80. If the EK engineers could find some way of faking the Kodachrome color palatte onto an E-6 film, would you use it?
    If we're taking a poll, then I'll vote NO, because the palatte is only part of the reason I use Kodachrome, and the resolution (which cannot be duplicated with chromogenic films) is the greater part.
    While other films can claim a high LPPM number, there is something about the razor sharp Kodachrome rendition that they simply can't duplicate. You can even see it when looking at the emulsion, it looks like the image is carved into the gelatine. Normal color films images are formed with dye clouds that form near the silver grains. As R.M. pointed out, Kodachrome dyes form as crystals.
    So, if they do away with Kodachrome, I can't say what I'd use, but simply offering up one more E6 film with a "Kodachrome look" won't cut it. I may just toss in the towel and take up some other hobby. It's like asking a sportscar enthusiast "if we make it illegal to drive your Porsche down the country road, would you be willing to ride in a Grayhound, if they put in Porsche-like seats?" He'd probably say "no, I'll just stay home."
  81. Could Kodak's dip and dunk Kodachrome processor handle 120 film? The place I send my 120 to uses such a machine, so it makes me wonder if they can still do it. And if so- what are the odds of getting them to do it on that machine?
    I don't know how you'd manage to do the reexposures (one red, one blue) in a dip and dunk machine.
    I doubt you'd be able to get anyone to process it. They'd need to buy the K14 chemicals from Kodak, and then they'd probably need two machines back to back (there are something like 15 steps to the process) and they'd need to configure both machines, and then they'd need to figure out a way to translate the replenishment routines to batch mode...
    If you find someone to do it, let me know and I'll line up to buy some of that film. But I just don't see it happening.
  82. " And if that fails, there is the Research Lab Dip-N-Dunk Kodachrome processor that can revived in a pinch."

    I'm assuming this is at Kodak's lab itself.
  83. The dip-n-dunk machine was in the research labs. It was retired at the end of Kodachrome R&D, but is probably there in property storage in the sub-basement of B-59.

    Yes, it handled the reversal exposures. Yes it also handled films to 120 or (surprise) 4x5 size. But I have seen Kodachrome processed on simple film clips with good result.

    The sharpness of Kodachrome is a function of the process which imparts a tanned image to the film. If you look at the emulsion side of a Kodachrome slide you will see a relief image there. The 'edges' of the gelatin relief impart the sharpness. It is simply a procesing artifact, and nothing magic if you know about it.

    You can simulate it in other processes if you wish, but it is too much trouble IMHO.

    And, no, EK would not resurect the dip-n-dunk for your 120 film, but as I indicated above, it is not hard to process Kodachrome, it is just time consuming and expensive.

    We used to mix up the 3 color developers as 'blanks' minus CD and coupler until use to prevent the severe keeping problems inherent in Kodachrome. But other than being a long process and having expensive couplers, it isn't so bad. Read up about it on the EK web site.

    You can even buy the chemistry in prepacked kit form. Made up that way it is rather stable. If a group of you went together you could make it economical.


    Ron Mowrey
  84. Reuben;

    I have posted answers to your other questions / comments on the other threads..

    Ron Mowrey
  85. I just posted a reply to your post in the CD1 thread, if there is anything else you'd like me to look at, let me know where it is, that was the only one I could find.
    As far as the Kodak chemistry, I do have a copy of the formulas for the K14 chemicals, the document was making the rounds a few years ago, and I was one of the "lucky ones" to get a copy, but I don't know where to get some of the more esoteric components, such as the couplers and CD6.
    I have been told that any Kodak "stockhouse" dealer can order the KLAB chemical packs, so with those, it should be possible to home process Kodachrome. I don't know how much they cost, or how long they will keep them available. I understand that the only remaining KLAB machine in the world is the one in Japan, so when that one goes T/U, it will probably be sayonara for the chemicals, unless some old timer in Rochester takes pity on us poor fools and decides to leave those CAT numbers active.
    If you know any old timers in Rochester, don't hesitate to leave that bee in his ear, OK? ;)
  86. Kodak management do not know their products or market very well. It seems that they often axe their niche products at the peak of their popularity. And they do this when the Kodak version is clearly preferred by photographers and there is no real competition.

    Remember dye transfer about 25/30 years ago, when they stopped making the most popular and best film for that use .. just as it was becoming seriously popular worldwide.

    And now, despite an steadily increasing interest in lith printing, thanks largely to excellent photographers and writers like Tim Rudman, Kodak have discontinued Kodalith Super RT developer.

    Upon hearing this, I have made a conscious decision to avoid all Kodak products of any type in my darkroom.
  87. Gregory,
    It makes sense when you look at the upper management. They are a bunch of beancounters. They look at the numbers, and they discover that they can save a few cents by dropping a product, and then that's that.
    They can't think "outside the box" or maybe a better metaphor would be that they can't think "off the spreadsheet".
    In the grocery business there are products that you carry because they bring people into the store. The trade is filled with tales of scads of lost customers when a store decided to drop some brand of yoghurt (or whatever) because "we only made thirty cents on it and we only sold a dozen jars a week". The lesson was that the shoppers went somewhere else for that yoghurt, and filled their carts up at those other stores.
    Someone who knows the business (i.e., grocery for grocers, photography for photograpic stuff) will see the big picture, and say "over my dead body!" when his accountant says "dump the damn yoghurt!"
    They know that the "thirty cent yoghurt" brings in customers who come to the store because you carry that "thirty cent yoghurt", and then they plunk another hundred fifty in sales into the cart while they're there.
    And they know that if you stop carrying that "thirty cent yoghurt", those customers will go to the guy who does carry it -- and they'll take the rest of their shopping there too.
    But when the beancounters are running the ship, the guy who "discovers that we can save a bunch of money by dropping this damn yoghurt" will get a pat on the back, a raise, and a plaque on "saved money for the corporation."
    What beancounters can't seem to realize is that you don't run a business by "saving" money, you run a business by making money.
    And you don't make money by driving your customers to the other guy's store!
  88. I think it is entirely possible that the decision-makers at Kodak do not know that Kodalith Super RT lith developer ( a film developer ) is also increasingly used as a print developer in the production of lith prints. Of all the lith developers sold, it was the best and easiest to use, and lots of work had been done by many people in learning how to get the best out of it.

    I can imagine them throwing it out with the fine-grain/lith/copy films they are canning .... and I can imagine someone in the boardroom saying something like " hey, if they don't have these sorts of film any more they sure as hell won't need the developer for 'em, will they ".

    I do not believe this company's management know either their products or their market .. I reckon I've got to the point where, if I never use a Kodak product again, I really won't be missing anything ( with the possible exception of HIE infrared film ).

    Its Kodak's timing that is, once again, so galling .. lith printing is really gaining popularity at the moment .. has been for some time. The results can be an utterly sublime expression of photographic vision. And mixing dry chemicals, putting them in a bag and selling it at a profit when the R&D has been done and you've already got a winning formula is pretty simple stuff .... a lot easier than making film.

    I'll just have to make my own now, or use one of the other commercially available ones. Fortunately, I'm an industrial chemist, so it will probably be the former.
  89. I just phoned Kodak Canada and they had no listing on their system about Tech Pan or Kodachrome being discontinued. So as far as they're concerned, its still active indefinately. I enquired about the Kodachrome chemicals too. She said only some labs have access to that. Personally I wouldn't have a clue on going about developing this stuff at home, especially since I think Ron said it has to be 100 degrees in temp. What I do wonder is why some lab wouldn't give an offer for Kodak's dip and dunk machine of this that is sitting, buy it, get it running, and develop all the Kodachrome they can get their hands on with it in any format.
  90. Here's the reply they sent...
    There is no message in any of my programs regarding the discontinuance of either product.
    Thank you for contacting Kodak. If we can be of any further assistance, please give us a call at 1-800-465-6325 extension 36100. We can be reached Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    Doug B. KODAK Information and Technical Support Kodak Canada, Inc.
  91. ONE BIG QUESTION - is there anyone participating in this thread that has actually seen the fax from Kodak saying that KODACHROME film has been discontinued? NOT, I was told by some clerk at a camera store! NOT, XYZ camera said Kodak faxed them! NOT, I heard a rumor! Does someone actually have/had the fax in their hand or have seen it with their own eyes?

    Does anyone actually have a copy of the fax from Kodak about KODACHROME? If you do, I have corresponded with a senior employee at Kodak that would like to see the fax ASAP!

    Robert Johnson
  92. Reuben;

    I have posted answers to your questions / comments on the threads on Kodachrome and on CD1.


    I have information on the original K14 process. It is about 1 hour long and runs at 27 deg C. It used a prehardener. The newer process does not IIRC. I have read a 100 deg (37 dec C) process on the internet at the EK site about a year ago.

    You may wish to look at USP 3.658,525.


    I agree with you that dye transfer was a superb product, but there were so few customers that there were hardly any sales. Ctein knows more about that than I do. See his web site for details. Anyhow, the matrix and pan matrix films were hard to make and the process was very complex. You can only lose so much money on a product before you just have to stop making it.

    I have made dye transfers, have you? If you have, you know how backbreaking it is to do and that is why a dye transfer costs so much. It is worth the trouble, but RA prints are almost as good most people at 1/10th the cost, time, and trouble, and about 50% less space. I abandoned it long ago, very reluctantly. I couldn't afford the cost of the film and my time.

    EK managers try to do the best. They do get input from market research and your input is used there, so call them or write them.

    Thats all I can add.

    Ron Mowrey
  93. I just received a message from Charles S. Smith, senior public relations spokesman for Eastman Kodak. I have copied his message below in its entirety. Basically it says that the rumors of the "death" of Kodachrome are NOT true! They continue to make and market the product. Sorry, but he can't say the same for Technical Pan. All of you that use that film better buy some and make space in the freezer just as soon as possible. The part about Technical Pan is true!

    We better use it or loose it! Have a Kodachrome Day!

    Robert Johnson
    Nashville, TN

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: Kodachrome again]
    Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:16:32 -0400

    I have learned that we did send a letter (Aug. 1) to dealers that we will discontinue Technical Pan film. However, there was no mention of Kodachrome in the letter.

    We will discontinue 120 format in December of this year; 135 and long rolls April of 2005; and sheets films in June. The letter suggests photographers use T-Max 100 as an alternative and suggests processing support.

    As for a reason, the volumes of Technical Pan films are declining and changes in our manufacturing processes would make it impractical to support at the low levels of today.

    Again, there was no mention of Kodachrome and we continue to make and market Kodachrome... hope this helps.... csmith..
  94. There have been several statements posted that came from e-mail replys from Kodak.

    Let me add this one (with a huge sigh of relief) This is the most unequivical response I have seen yet

    I said I ahd heard rumors of Kodachrome being discontinued. The gentleman who responded from Kodak evidently thought hat rumor came from a dealer as here is his reply.

    Dear Jason:

    Thank you for contacting Eastman Kodak Company regarding availability of
    KODACHROME 64 and 200 Films.

    Please be advised that we are NOT discontinuing KODACHROME 64 and
    KODACHROME 200. Please ask your dealer to show you the document that he
    saw stating that we are discontinuing these films and verify if indeed
    it says that. What you may find is that the announcement says that the
    Fair lawn, NJ lab is closing and KODACHROME orders will now be going to
    Dwayne's Photo Lab in Parson, KS (via District Photo in Beltsville, MD).
    The orders will still go through normal channels and there will be no
    interruption in service nor service times.

    Below is how the announcement read:

    Qualex, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidary of Eastman Kodak Company, has
    announced plans to close its film processing lab in Fair Lawn, NJ in
    September 2004. As a result of this decision, all Kodak prepaid
    processing mailers will be sent to District Photo in Beltsville,
    Maryland. District Photo will process all mailer orders, except those
    for KODACHROME Film, which will now be forwarded to Dwayne's Photo in
    Parsons, Kansas. Those slides will be returned in cardboard mounts

    Service times for mailers will not be impacted by this change, and you
    can expect to continue to receive the same high level of service you
    have enjoyed in the past.

    Please begin using the following address when submitting future mailers
    for processing:

    Kodak Mailer Processing
    c/o District Photo
    PO Box 3640
    Hampton Park, MD 20791

    (Note: This address has been changed to the following address, in lieu
    of a PO Box since Fed-X and Airborne cannot ship to a PO Box:
    10501 Rhode Island Avenue, MD 20705
    HAMPTON PARK, MD 20791
    (301) 937-5300 x240

    Please continue to use the same toll free number to contact our customer
    service department at 1-800-345-6973 for questions regarding this
    communication or for any other KODAK mailer related questions.)

    If the dealer has some other written notice saying otherwise, I'd like
    to see a copy of it. Please fax to: (585) 724-9581, Attn: G. Spence.
  95. It appears that Kodak/Qualex is going to have major problems with the addresses they list for District Photo.

    The P. O. Box address listed is actually in Capitol Heights, MD, less than a mile outside the District of Columbia.

    The physical street adress is actually in Beltsville, MD, maybe 8 miles away to the north. None are in the Hampton Park, MD USPS zone!

    Looks like Kodak has shot themselves in the foot again! Why do it think that so unusual? It's not!
  96. Isn't everything mailed to that region sent through the irradiation machines?
    I remember reading that National Geographic had some developed slides destroyed by the irradiation machine. Irradiation is much more powerful than xrays. It's designed to kill, not to detect.
  97. As of 2002, the zipcode they listed is OK (if that's even the right zipcode), according to this thread; Damage caused by USPS irradiation of mail
    I will see what more recent info I can find after I finish waking up, unless someone beats me to the punch. (And please, someone beat me to the punch!)
  98. Well, I haven't waken up yet, but this is worrying me, so I looked up what I think is the definitive source:
    USPS - Mail Facilities Updates - Washington, DC
    The U.S. Postal Service will continue for the foreseeable future to irradiate letters, flats, Express and Priority Mail with stamps for postage and other packages with stamps for postage destined to government agencies in the ZIP Code ranges 202-205.
    Mail from known mailers - such as Express with meter strips or corporate accounts, Priority mail with meter strips or permit indicia and registered mail - is not irradiated. At this time, irradiation is the only process used by the Postal Service to sanitize the mail.
    Mail that is irradiated may exhibit a discolored (tan-colored) quality, as well as be brittle, show spots on envelopes and make address labels unreadable. Documents bound with glue may have loose pages and some mail may have fused pages. If tape is affixed to address labels, the address will likely not be readable after being irradiated. The type of damage depends on the fiber content of the paper.
    Customers and businesses sending mail to ZIP Codes 202-205 can avoid the irradiation process by affixing postage meter strips or permit indicia instead of postage stamps to Express or Priority Mail. The use of corporate accounts for Express Mail or registered mail also is another way to avoid the irradiation process.​
    What this does not address is mail that passes through these facilities.
    I don't know whether that's an issue or not, but I guess I am not going to gamble, so I'll use Fedex. It would be nice if they'd give us a direct address to use in Kansas, but I understand that Dwaynes will not accept Kodak mailers if send to them directly.
  99. One last note (Google returned a huge stack of links I haven't yet waded through, this like the other was near the top).
    It looks like irradiation can even damage digital stuff!
    And it looks like others are also concerned about routing issues.
    There seems to be a large FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about the whole irradiation thing. Officially, USPS claims they only irradiate incoming mail to certain zipcodes. But mail distribution routes can be very complex nowadays. The notice of compactflash damage was released by the Compact Flash Association.​
    It looks like irradiation can even damage digital stuff!
  100. One last bad news item and then I really am out of here for a while.
    It looks like due to the current scare, they are irradiating mail in the entire northeast:
    USPS follow up
    And if anyone wants to try to allege that DC isn't geographically part of the "northeast", all I'll say is "get real" -- it's all about DC, for the most part!
  101. I recently sent a roll of film to Snapfish. The mailer had an address in Beltsville, MD. I got my negs and prints back and they're fine.

    (I know, I know... Snapfish sucks... but it was an unimportant roll and I had a free credit that I wanted to use up. :p )
  102. Just to add a comment to what Rowland has said "Suddenly, in the 80s, the public wanted color prints rather than slides." - One of the prime reasons for this was the birth of the one-hour mini-labs! People could get their pictures processed and printed while they did their grocery shopping, or while they were at the hairdressers. Why wait? It wasn't so much the unpacking of the projector - Kodachrome slides had to be sent away, and came back days later. The current success of the digital revolution is due in part to the same reason - IMMEDIACY!!
  103. Graham;

    Minilabs became popular in the 90s with the introduction of the RA paper process.

    Color prints gained over transparencies in the 70s and 80s in the absence of the minilab.

    Ron Mowrey
  104. Just to add a comment to what Rowland has said "Suddenly, in the 80s, the public wanted color prints rather than slides." - One of the prime reasons for this was the birth of the one-hour mini-labs! People could get their pictures processed and printed while they did their grocery shopping, or while they were at the hairdressers. Why wait? It wasn't so much the unpacking of the projector - Kodachrome slides had to be sent away, and came back days later. The current success of the digital revolution is due in part to the same reason - IMMEDIACY!! - Graham Serretta
    Well, living across the river from the Fair Lawn facility, I've been able to get my Kodachrome (on the rare occasions I've used it lately) turned around in a day, from a local lab in Brooklyn that has daily pick-ups by Kodak. Not the ready-in-a-few-hours convenience of E6 and C41 that I can get at many labs in town, but better than what most people who shoot K'chrome normally put up with. The closing of the Fair Lawn facility puts the kibosh on this quick turnaround, and with it any further use of Kodachrome on my part.
    This seems a bit sneaky on Kodak's part: people (both average snapshooters and us El Serioso types) have been more-or-less conditioned to expect quick turnaround (brought about by the popularity of one-hour labs from the 80s onward, now even moreso by digital). Having to (1) mail off film and (2) wait about a week or so to see results isn't going to fly anymore, especially in urban locations like the greater NY area. Kodachrome sales are going to take another hit because of this, and not long from now the gang in Rochester will punch up a PowerPoint chart (might as well blame Bill Gates for his part in this mess, too) showing a sad, red line heading downward, and saying "Well, we tried...what else do you want us to do?"
    In my case, nothing...just keep that good E6 and C41 film coming (and conventional b/w, which I'm gradually getting back into again). And, no, dIgital capture doesn't quite do it for me yet. - Barrett
  105. Barrett;

    Please don't quote me out of the entire context. The minilab came on-line about 10 - 15 years after the public began converting to color negative film. Therefore, the 'instant gratification' of a minilab had little to do with this trend.

    What had an impact was the convenience of a print. The average consumer did not like using a projector. This is what ultimately killed super 8 and 8 mm photography as well as 35 mm slide popularity. The VCR and prints of high quality are what did the trick.

    I really do love slides. What I don't like is moving furniture around to make space for my screen, for setting up the projector and for the bulk of slides in trays. I can pack a lot more prints into the same space as slides and be able to show them on a moments notice without tying up the whole 'audience' in my living room.

    These are ergonomic factors that have largely been ignored on PN. Now I know that devoted slide people will argue this point, but the fact is that the average customer has already voted.

    Along with that is the difficulty in controlling a reversal process of any sort. E6 and K14 are included in this. Reversal processing is more complicated than negative processing, and keeping the results on aim is a greater problem for the labs.

    So, it is not just getting the prints faster. If that were so, then this trend would have started in the 90s, not the 70s. In fact, this trend is what started the downward spiral of Kodachrome film in the early 80s and led to the cancellation of further Kodacrhome improvements.

    Ron Mowrey
  106. Ask anyone is business school and they'll tell you that the best way to suceed is to change the perception not the product​

    I don't know who you kno in business school, but that's absolute nonsense. It is far from the "best way" to remain profitable to maintain product lines that aren't making money, especially in a product segment that has been shrinking by double-digit percentages in recent years ... and whose sales decreases have been accelerating.
    I fully believe Kodak looses money on Kodachrome and Tech Pan.​

    Belief, as within the realm of religion -- faith without evidence? No thanks.
  107. The WSJ and others seem to think Kodak is just awaking to digital.​

    Kelly seems not to be much of a WSJ reader.
  108. According to latest reports, EK is second only to Sony in sales of digital still cameras in the US.

    EK is still #1 in film sales in Africa, South America, and Asia according to some sources. (I'm not sure about this having heard it second hand but from some film sales figures I've seen, they are doing very well at least, if not #1)

    Ron Mowrey
  109. Re .[. Z , aug 14, 2004; 08:40 a.m. The WSJ and others seem to think Kodak is just awaking to digital. Kelly seems not to be much of a WSJ reader. Bailey; .[. Z , here we have had a subscription to the WSJ since before WW2. It has followed us thru dozens of households; over several generations. I have read the WSJ since the 1950's; probably before you were born.

    Kodak was "into digital" in the 1970's. Optical recording, mass memory projects; and electronic still capture were being experimented with in the 1970's. The US Navy used electronic still capture cameras decades ago. Both the US Navy and the Kodak skunk works were in the San Deigo area in the 1970's; doing "pre digital" analog electronic still image capture.

    Some of the recent Kodak WSJ articles read like moronic sometimes; like Kodak just read about digital; when they have been deeply involved in "Non-photo" still imagery for 3 decades. The WSJ doesnt know everything; and sometimes omits produsts that are not much publically known; or are prototypes.

    At one factory I worked; we got "digital" cameras over a decade ago; and shot images for assembly manuals; and used Photoshop 2.5; serial cables to transfer images. It saved alot of money; and replaced the older method of hand drawing 3d sketches. The method of shooting prints; scanning them; was slow; shadow detail was horrible. Getting outside negative scans was expensive and slow. The digital image; even then with a thousand dollar VGA camera; proved profitable. The rest of the world was still hawking APS; P&S cameras; and closed their eyes to the new cool toys.
  110. Kelly;

    Good for you. You are correct.

    In fact, EK used the KS Paul digital scanner in the 80s, and worked on digital and "Electrocolor" in the 70s. Many pioneering patents in electronic and digital photography came from EK. I remember seeing Japanese digital imaging companies work compared to EK work and taking into account the lag in publication and the 'secrecy factors' involved, EK had parity or a clear lead in the 80s. That is why today EK is second only to Sony in the US in still digital sales.

    Today, EK makes the most sophisticated digital sensors, and some of the largest.

    It has done all of that while being on the cutting edge of conventional films as well as including processing chemistry, which none of the competitors seem to be interested in. In fact, Fuji, Konica, and Agfa ride on the EK coattails as far as process development work is concerned.

    Ron Mowrey
  111. With old giant mapping & process camera type work; the transistion from Process camera to Digital Bond/scanners occured about a decade plus ago. Dupont; Fuji; and Kodak made giant rolls of film; papers; lith materials 15 years ago; then wide 36 inch digital bond copiers arrived. I think Dupont dropped their graphics arts items first; then it dropped alot with Fuji and Kodak; maybe just a trickle today; or gone. The transision from Photo film to digital is about complete with wide format mapping. Any graphics art materials executive at Fuji; Dupont; or Kodak has seen this death; and might wonder if it might happen with regular photography materials. It is happening. A quicker product came out; and the existing film product production tanked. Costs went up with lower processing volumes; and process camera darkroom costs increased; and then the entire process was scrapped. One has to make enough on one processing job to pay for the chemicals; that would not last until the next lone job. <BR><BR>
  112. here we have had a subscription to the WSJ since before WW2. It has followed us thru dozens of households; over several generations. I have read the WSJ since the 1950's; probably before you were born.​

    So you're a subscriber; doesn't mean you're much of a reader, or retained any knowledge of numerous, consistent coverage in the WSJ over the years. Had I not recently dropped my online sub to I'd have been happy to plaster your in-box with supportive evidence from a quick archive search.
  113. .[. Z , aug 16, 2004; 09:26 a.m.<BR><BR>Actually I was a Kodak stockholder for many years; and read the 10K's and 10Q's; annual reports; and have a subscription the the WSJ online and in print. Plus I have a subcription to Value Line; and Barrons....<BR><BR>Plastering my email box with info that I have already read does no good.<BR><BR>Many of the WSJ articles do read like Kodak was slow to get into digital; when they have been dabbling in it for many many decades; and/or ignored the rapid growing area. <BR><BR>At photo trade shows I remember how Kodak really pressed the APS camera; when I was already using a primative SONY digital camera; for real work. The corporate darkroom was shut down; the expensive corporate photographer let go; and an illustrator; when this place I worked at went digital about a decade ago.<BR><BR> The inhouse photographer wanted nothing to do with the new digital tools/toys; nothing to do with Photostyler or Photoshop; nothing to do with "photographing" the assembly tooling that we needed shot and documented....The negative attitude of the chap; saying it will never work didnt help any. I was asked to do the job; while I was working as an Engineer; doing the work at odd times..The corporate photog was first tried; but he prefered to escape to his office; reading magazines; playing with his film cameras; the steady paycheck rolling in.. I hand stiched the VGA images to creat a higher resolution image; ie about 4x the area of a VGA image; for some "photos". The Kodak rep that called on the golden boy corporate staff photographer visted our work "digital" work area/hole; and wasnt positive either....Kodak has seen digital growing for along time; and simply kept blinders on in the consumer area..<BR><BR>Long ago the WSJ was alot more regional; a smaller Kodak article in the northeast may not be in the Los Angeles area edition. Major articles would be national; minor articles would be more regional. Thus an major article about Kodak in San Diego might be covered by the west coast and east coast WSJ; and a minor article only in one edition.<BR><BR>The WSJ also publishes what it legally can. If one works at a skunk works; or government project; the info can take awhile to make it to publication. If one invents a new gizmo in college; the student writes a paper; gets published; info gets to the world; he gets his Phd :). In secret projects; one is prohibited from publishing trade secrets; so the usage can be years or decades before the school crowd "discovers" it. Many times in trade workshops a chap will present a new found method; that one used a decade ago. Manufacturing processes are often secretive; with subtle ways that boost quality. <BR><BR>Barrons often reads abit more bearist.
  114. Your subscriptions and readings do not mean you retaine what you read. I'm not
    interested in describing my current work, but I can pretty confidently tell you that your
    claims that the WSJ 'seems to think Kodak just awaked to digital' is absurdly off the
    mark, as was your simplistic "blubbler management" (sic) advice.
  115. Kodak was interested in digital for years before the first product was released to the public. I have seen the actual first generation digital still cameras, and have held a handful of the first sensors that EK produced long before there were any digital cameras worth the name.

    I have seen color prints on "Electrocolor Paper" back before anyone thought color could be produced by any electronic means.

    That does not automatically mean that a company that pioneers will therefore lead the industry. EK may not lead, but the recent data show that it is second only to Sony in US sales of digital still cameras. They are doing similarly well in other digital products for the consumer and for the professional.

    Ron Mowrey
  116. Almost 4 year later and this is still a very interesting thread.

    Wasn't EK very active in space based digital imaging? If I remember a WSJ (I coan't bother with a subscription), at one time Kodak held more patents in the digital realm then any other company. From what little I know of space based digital recon imagery, EK was the pioneering company.

    I still mis TP, and still shoot K64.

Share This Page