OT: Status of Kodachrome processing (article)

[Richard Williams]

Interesting little article on the current status of Kodachrome processing here:

 

http://www.parsonssun.com/news/articles/dwaynes100606.shtml

 

'Eastman Kodak Co. this summer decided to consolidate all processing for

Kodachrome slide film for North America and Europe at the Parsons facility...The

change was made effective on Saturday...Dwayne's hired seven people to fill

European orders. The company had been processing about 1,500 rolls of Kodachrome

a day. The European orders have added about another 1,000...Film coming from

Europe gets to the Parsons plant in one day. Workers can usually process the

film the same day and ship it out. The developed slides take two days on the

return trip to Europe.'

 

This is consistent with what Kodak told me last month (expect to add another 5

days processing time for films sent to Lausanne, which will remain as the

European collection address). Not great news for us in Europe, but at least it

should help keep the lab at Dwayne's running for now.

[leon chang]

Kodachrome is a beautiful film! Let's hope people will start using it more. I once saw a slideshow of Kodachrome shots. I felt I was part of the picture! Amazing, beautiful!

[stuart_richardson]

Duggal in New York still lists Kodachrome as in by 4, back by noon on their website. I wonder

if they are sending it to Dwaynes or do it in house (they are huge). Does anyone know?

[Troll]

I sold my last bricks of frozen Professional Kodachrome 25 two years ago in the assumption that processing would be discontinued. Maybe I made a big mistake. On the other hand, for several years I had been unhappy with the quality of Kodak processing, and had switched to Portra negative film, with processing and conversion to slides by Dales Labs.

<p>I still think that for beauty and honesty, Kodachrome II shot with Summicron glass, is/was the ultimate in 35mm color photography.

[Richard Williams]

Stuart, Dwayne's is now officially the 'only facility in the Western Hemisphere' for Kodachrome, so anywhere in NY must be sending it out (unless they're using the secret Government/military K-14 lab rumoured in another thread!).

[jtk]

A mere 2500 rolls daily of Kodachrome...for all of the known world...hmm. I think that's about the amount of C41 processed daily in the mega-minilab in Paris Metro.

 

Comparison with just two lab operators: there are about 3300 Walmarts with photolabs (not counting Sam's Club) and there are over 4000 Walgreens, many or most with photolabs (of course there are all sorts of other minilab operators in the US).

 

Inquiring last year, I've heard that my local half dozen Walmarts averaged 100-200 rolls each daily... if there wasn't a booming biz in printing from digital files, that wouldn't be enough to justify the floor space (vs a half dozen gondolas of retail junque).

 

Seems reasonable to guess that Walmart and Walgreen alone process 150,000 rolls of C41 daily. Vs. Dwayne's 250 :-(

 

Kodak's assertions aside, I wonder if Kodachrome has actually been coated in the past few years, considering only 2500 rolls processed daily and the certainty for the past 5 years of its demise.

[jtk]

oops...Vs Dwayne's 2500.

[Richard Williams]

I think I'll buy a couple of rolls this month to see how the whole London->Lausanne->Kansas->London thing works out. It'll be a real shame to see this stuff go.

 

Random Kodachrome stuff from Googling this afternoon -

 

Very good photo.net thread, including some informed speculation about the frequency of film coating, and Kodak's emergency plans (in case Dwayne's gets hit by a tornado!):

 

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

 

Kodachrome mailing list:

 

http://lists.kjsl.com/mailman/listinfo/kodachrome

 

K-lab for sale:

 

http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/equipment/klab.htm

 

(set this up and you could increase the total number of world K-14 facilities by 50%! anyone got space in their garage?)

 

Unfortunately, these are the gory details of running the process:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/photofinishing/klab/index.shtml

[stephen_w.]

I bought 20 rolls (64/200) and mailers four days ago from B+H.

[robert_m_johnson]

<div></div>

[robert_m_johnson]

<div></div>

[randrew1]

I've learned since that thread in July that there has been another coating of K-64 in Rochester. I will stick by that prediction that there will be K-14 processing available in 2010.

[robert_johnson15]

Oh No! Another Robert Johnson that likes Kodachrome! Seriously, I think Kodachrome has a couple of more years because the people in Rochester that could kill it are afraid for "their lives", well not seriously, if they kill Kodachrome. The letters just wouldn't stop. Mailbag upon mailbag sent to 343 State St, Rochester, NY 14650 would overwhelm CEO Perez!

 

I've been offered two and maybe more K-lab processors in the $40,000 range. Trouble is, EK will not make me the chemistry I have been told. They must make it for Horiuchi in Tokyo because a K-lab is what they have. Dwayne's has a cine processor. I "think" it's a Houston-Feerless.

 

Those rumors of an old KII machine run by the government at the south pole surface every year. Got me - I've never been there.

 

I just noticed that Adorama has been out of KL200 for a week or two and will be longer because of the Jewish "holidays." B&H has more than a thousand of all types at last check.

 

Last emulsion I've heard about are #2671 for KL200 expiring in 10/2007 and various expirations for K64 #1532. Don't know about PKR since it's been a while since I bought any of that.

 

In the midwest today, it was a Kodachrome type day. Lots of blue sky and not a cloud in sight.

 

Like I've said before, use it or loose it.

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com e-mail me if you would like to hear more!

[john_shriver]

I'll second the "use it or lose it" sentiment. Dwayne's does a very fine job, Fair Lawn's bad processing did a lot to hurt Kodachrome. I'm sorry I didn't appreciate Kodachrome 25 more when it was available, I always used Kodachrome 64 so I could take the occassional interior shot.

 

But I think a big "thank you" is also due to Kodak, because I doubt the Kodachrome product line is making money. Maybe the film makes money, but they also have to make the two different sets of chemicals for the two processing lines. Kodak has to synthesize the strange chemicals (dyes, etc.) that have no other use in the world. The price Kodak is paying Dwayne's also probably has an implicit subsidy (they are almost certainly paying more per roll than Wal-Mart does), and all those old mailers sold for a lot less than they are paying Dwayne's.

 

Of course, apparently Kodachrome Professional 200 wasn't making money, must have been expiring on too many professional dealers' shelves, so it got the axe again. I did like that particular one, my luck with color balance on the consumer Kodachrome 200 has been bad.

 

I do wish Kodak could figure out how to sell some films through boutique channels. Just a few internet dealers. They are used to a particular distribution channel that demands high volumes. Of course, they did finally work out a deal with J&C Photo for ULF sheet film, so they ARE getting more flexible.

[terence_spross1]

Based on these numbers compared to some I've read a couple years ago suggest that Kodachrome usage may be increasing some in North America.

 

Dwaynes Kodachrome operation is just a small portion of their processing business. Slide films in general are not as popular as they used to be in proportion to prints. But, when people who havent seen slides in a long time, or some who have never seen well projected slides, see them they are surprised by the clarity. I shoot Stereo photos and transparency film is almost a must (although stereo photos can be viewed on a computer screen with shutter glasses.)

 

Some years ago I designed a film tank for processing single 35mm rolls in a long strip with Kodachrome's requirement to do colored reversal exposures from both sides of the film. I started building it but when I realised I couldn't just mix chemicals that are purchasable in small quantities (like I can with C41 chemicals from scratch.) I stoped working on it. I thought it would be quite an adventure - sort of like climbing a mountain. The mountain got considerably taller with the key chemical in the Yellow developer requiring analytic chemistry skills to synthesize it.

[tjaded]

I try to shoot as much Kodachrome as I can...the probelm is that I almost never shoot 35mm. If it was still available in 120, that would be the only chrome I would buy. If, in my little dream world in my head, Kodachrome 4x5 was around I would be in absolute heaven. As well as taking photos, I also collect old photos (mostly slides) and there just is nothing quite like Kodachrome. My heart still skips a beat when I come across a box of red frame Kodachromes at a garage sale. It's sort of odd that companies like Kodak don't do small runs of "classic" films, the same way there are vintage re-issue guitars and such. I swear, if they did a small run of something like Technical Pan, in 35mm 120 & 4x5, it would all sell. It also just about kills me that I have a few rolls of Kodachrome 120 that are just sitting and waiting for the day (probably non-existant day) when someone will be able to process it. I even keep it in deep freeze...just in case. All that jibberish being said, I will still shoot Kodachrome whenever I do stereo photos. Heck, maybe I'll make a panaramic pinhole creation just to make sure to send a few more rolls to Kansas.

[randrew1]

Kodak built coating machines to make large volumes of film very efficiently. Many years ago I hosted a group from National Geographic on a tour through the production facilities. At the time, they were the largest user of Kodachrome film. They asked me how long it would take to coat a years supply for them. They were a bit surprised when we told them it would take 15 minutes. The coating machines run faster today.

 

There were several programs over the years that proposed using one of the small experimental machines for production. These were for trial products to see if there might be a market for them. None of these proposals acutally made it into production and these were cases that had significant upside potential. There was never any interest in moving declining products into small scale coating machines.

[robert_johnson15]

Ron, Back in 1981 at the National Press Photographers convention in St. Louis, I had a chance to ask Bob Gilka, at the time head of the photography section at Nat. Geo., about the rumor I had been hearing for years that they indeed would obtain a number of rolls from each coating of Kodachrome and decide whether they would buy the whole run or pass. He said yes, that was true and in so many words they weren't stupid because the whole run would be many thousands of dollars. They only wanted the best! I then asked how many rolls that would be? He said it averaged 15,000, but could be as high as 16,000 or as low as 12,000+ depending on the spoilage in finishing, etc. That's where I obtained my average of 15,000 finished rolls per master roll. Ron Mowrey has told me that's not always correct for all Kodak films. That's far more than I can afford or even expose. When the newspaper was still shooting film, I averaged around 1,000+ rolls a year. 800 Tri-X and maybe 200 E-6 types along with maybe 50+ privately rolls of various K-14 emulsions. Back then, we could take it to the dealer this morning (Monday) and it would be back Wednesday afternoon. Now it's take it to Wal-Mart on Monday morning and get it back the next Monday. Still not bad!

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

[randrew1]

Robert, The numbers you are talking about are about the right order of magnitude for a single stock roll (a few dozen slits wide and a few thousand feet long). The smallest coating production event I recall was 2 stock rolls. This was for an obscure niche product. We once had a run of K-64 that was over 100 stock rolls.

 

National Geo did indeed test a few rolls before accepting a larger shipment. We used to select some emulsion bathes that we thought they would like and send samples. Their large purchases and high visibility earned them some special service. Even though they were the largest single user of Kodachrome, their purchases were a fraction of one percent of the total.

[reuben_c]

A medley of comments, in no particular order:

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

I still think that for beauty and honesty, Kodachrome II shot with Summicron glass, is/was the ultimate in 35mm color photography.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

Back in the glory days of Kodachrome II, I recall examining some slides shot with the equally glorious Rodenstock Heligon, matched to a humble Kodak Retina. There was something about that lens that just clicked with that film. There are no words to describe the sensation of "being there", falling into the image -- while viewing it with a <I>microscope</I>! It wasn't mere resolution. There was, and still is, "something" about Kodachrome that imparts a presence to the image that nothing else can match. As I said, words can't describe it, so I won't try, other than to suggest <i>doing</I> it -- using the stuff -- if you haven't yet done so yourself. Then you'll know what I'm talking about (but you still won't be able to describe it!)

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

I've learned since that thread in July that there has been another coating of K-64 in Rochester.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

This is probably gonna come off as sarcastic, but it's not. <i>Which</I> Kodachrome 64 did they allow the reprieve? Was it the consumer version? Or the pro version? Or, was it <I>both</I> versions, with the "pro version" staying in storage, ripening until it's time to chill it down to lock it in?

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

Some years ago I designed a film tank for processing single 35mm rolls in a long strip with Kodachrome's requirement to do colored reversal exposures from both sides of the film. I started building it but when I realised I couldn't just mix chemicals that are purchasable in small quantities (like I can with C41 chemicals from scratch.) I stoped working on it. I thought it would be quite an adventure - sort of like climbing a mountain. The mountain got considerably taller with the key chemical in the Yellow developer requiring analytic chemistry skills to synthesize it.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

You wouldn't have been the first. If you spend some quality time scouring the Internet, you'll find that there are a few known instances of "home processing" of Kodachrome over the years. By "a few", I mean something less than a half-dozen -- but, they did it. So, it <i>can</I> be done.

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

Kodak has to synthesize the strange chemicals (dyes, etc.) that have no other use in the world.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

Are you sure of that? I seem to recall reading something, somewhere, some time back about various arcane color couplers and color developing agents being used for various biological purposes (stuff like tissue analysis, I think).

<p>

And here's something else to think about while listening to the Lunestra commercials running in the background :)

<p>

The fact is -- for the time being, at least -- that <I>someone</I> is making -- and selling -- those chemicals. In the case of Horiuchi, who, unless I'm mistaken, is using a K-Lab, that "someone" is EKC, who sells it prepackaged, ready to go. They list the CAT numbers somewhere online, I've seen them.

<p>

Now, if a feller happened to live near one of the many (um, I mean "two") labs running their own K14 lines, <I>and</I> if that feller was friendly with the operators, then that feller might be sore tempted to beg up a storm, asking for the "discarded" chemistry when the machine is reloaded with a fresh batch.

<p>

Here's what I'm thinking: They load the machine with fresh soup, and then replenish it for a while, and then dump it out, and repeat the process.

<p>

And speaking of "the process", logic would seem to dictate that right up to the moment they dump it -- when they've put the last roll through it before shutting the machine down for the dump/refill operation -- the process <i>must</I> be running up to snuff, turning out good quality results. I assume, in other words, that they're dumping GOOD chemistry -- chemistry that, while "good", is expected to be on its last legs, and, if replenished much longer, won't <I>stay</I> "good" -- so, they dump it <i>before</I> it goes bad.

<p>

Can you see what I'm thinking? I'm thinking that the "old" soup, dumped out of the machine, unable to take any further replenishment, <i>might</I> turn out to be just what the doctor ordered for <i>one-shot</I> use at home!

<p>

 

And now, three that sort of fall into a category of their own:

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr><i>

It's sort of odd that companies like Kodak don't do small runs of "classic" films, the same way there are vintage re-issue guitars and such. I swear, if they did a small run of something like Technical Pan, in 35mm 120 & 4x5, it would all sell.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

It <I>already</I> sells -- for a king's ransom, even though a glance at the expiration date will reveal that it's getting quite long in the tooth. You'd think <i>someone</I> in Yellowville would be kicking themselves every time they see a roll of "killed-off" film selling for truly staggering prices as the buyers line up to bid each other into the nosebleed section, all desperately trying to be the one who walks home with the brass ring that day. The prices this stuff fetches on ebay are truly mind-boggling.

<p>

But then, I think about it, and I recall the stuff I've heard from The Leaders -- stuff about moving toward "The all-digital Kodak" and similar sentiments -- and I start to think that maybe some folks <i>are</I> kicking themselves, cursing "The Beast That Would Not Die!"

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

I do wish Kodak could figure out how to sell some films through boutique channels. Just a few internet dealers.

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

I got a chuckle out of reading that. It's not exactly like they'd be forging any new trails, after all. There are plenty of <i>others</I> who are <i>already</I> doing stuff like that, with product types that I guess don't dovetail with an "all-digital" agenda. Hell, they've even got dye transfer materials back in production, and every few months there are more new... um, "old"... um... well, you get the idea. There are <i>more</I> "forgotten" products put into production, and they are aparently being lapped up by a growing segment of aficionados of traditional photography.

<p>

This entire market segment -- which increasingly seems to be headed toward what might be described as the non-digital segment -- appears to be at once thriving, and of no interest whatsoever to Kodak.

<p>

(Or am I missing something really obvious???)

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

There were several programs over the years that proposed using one of the small experimental machines for production. These were for trial products to see if there might be a market for them. None of these proposals acutally made it into production and these were cases that had significant upside potential. <b>There was never any interest in moving declining products into small scale coating machines.</b> [emphasis added]

</i><hr></blockquote>

 

LOL! No interest? Um, I think you mean no interest in <i>Rochester</I>, with the result being that <I>others</I> have taken up the mantle and are running with it.

<hr></blockquote>

 

It's not too late, of course. Kodak <I>could</I> do what <I>others</I> are <i>already</I> doing. And Kodak still owns quite a few <i>very</I> deeply honored brands. Just a quiet little announcement to the effect of a limited run of Panatomic X being released via lottery would result in a <I>massive</I> stampede. And that's just <i>one</I> example out of many.

<p>

Please, no one cough up any of the stock answers as to why it can't be done, why it's not practical, blah blah blah. I've heard the party line <I>so</I> many times that I could recite it in my sleep.

<p>

The fact is, after all the storm and stress about the "can't happen won't happen that's that" saga, there is one incontrovertible fact staring us in the face: OTHERS <i>are</I> doing it.

<p>

And please, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that these other outfits have some kind of leg up on Big Yeller. Don't tell me that <i>Kodak</I> couldn't make use of the same "advantages" these other outfits have (i.e., regional realities, global cost issues, blah blah blah). Kodak is still a heavy hitter multinational player, with arms all around the globe. If smaller outfits can turn out "boutique" emulsions in Eastern Europe, then <I>certainly</I> KODAK could manage to get "Classic Emulsions" rolling in China, at a cost structure that would likely leave those "poor" Europeans feeling like high-rollers by comparison.

<p>

No, I do NOT believe it's a matter of "cannot"; I believe it's a matter of WILL-not. Kodak has made no secret of its sentiments toward what has become the red-haired stepchild of their product lines. The "will" is simply not there, from all appearance that I can see. I don't think it's a matter of convincing them that they could indeed make a go of it (in terms of "boutique films" or how ever you want to phrase it), because I don't think they <I>want</I> to go anywhere <i>near</I> that direction..

<p>

I think the decision has been made that digital=good, non-digital=bad, and therefore anything that breathes further life into "that stuff" they've managed to kill off is by its very nature a strategic <I>threat</I> to "digital".

<p>

I feel like saying something like, "Yeah, right -- once they take my Kodachrome away I'll have no choice but to scoot down to the Happymart, belly up to the "helpyousir" counter and say, "I'll buy me one a' them thar KODAK cameras -- a Kodak <i>digital</I> camera! Wrap it up, I'm a-takin' this baby HOME!"

<p>

And in my darker moments, I feel like some "strategy wonks" upstate are thinking the same kind of thing -- only <i>they're</I> not joking!

<p>

And on that note, goodnight.

[robert_johnson15]

Well said Reuben C - I second that motion, er uh comment! It's a shame I didn't freeze many more bricks of the last run of Kodachrome 25, because the last one brought me $37.50 A ROLL! Unvelievable! Staggering! I only have 3 left and are NOT for sale!

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

[reuben_c]

Robert -- keep your eye on your [snail] mail box. Give me a day or so (you know what I'm dealing with at the moment), and I will take a jaunt out to my freezer, and see if I can help keep those three rolls of yours from feeling quite so lonesome by themselves. (Hopefully *before* "peak fall" hits your region.)

 

I'm putting this "public" so that you can't graciously decline, heheheheh :)

[robert_johnson15]

Thanks! Can't I decline? I do have maybe a dozen rolls from the early 80's (various emulsion numbers) that have lost some d-max, a half stop speed, but still has great color and sharpness!

 

Robert Johnson

[reuben_c]

<i>"Can't I decline?"</i>

<p>

:) You know me better than that.

<p>

Just enjoy it -- this is my good deed for the year, no strings attached. (I gotta do <i>something</I> to "feel good about myself" :)

[randrew1]

Reuben,

 

When I wrote there there was no interest in moving declining film products to small coating machines, I was speaking of Kodak management. There are plenty of people in Rochester (a few of whom are still employed at Kodak) who would would like to manage a boutique film business.