Kodachrome Shooters-Does Kodak Care About Us?

[randrew1]

<p>Nicholas,</p>

<p>Do you know the emulsion number of that new run? I've been tracking them.</p>

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Do you know the emulsion number of that batch with the 07/2010 expiration date? This is the first time in over a year that I've seen a report of an expiration date that is 15 months in the future. This is the most favorable news I've read.</p>

[a._valerio]

<p>I find this this is a good, up-to-date reference on dates and emulsion numbers from Daniel's site: <a href="http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48&page=7">http://www.kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48&page=7</a></p>

[joshroot]

<p>3/2010 #1559 is the most recent I have.</p>

[heinz_anderle]

For 10 years now, Kodachrome is obsolete.

 

And the true successor still isn't one of the newer Ektachromes (these never have been). It's Fujichrome Provia 100F for K25 and 64 (and Provia 400F/Sensia 400 for Kodachrome 200).

 

For the price of one roll of Kodachrome 64 (36 exp., process-paid) one gets about two rolls Provia 100F (in bulk, but including the processing cost) here in Europe.

[randrew1]

<p>Heinz,</p>

<p>Depending on your criteria, you could say that Kodachrome was obsolete in 1965 (speed), 1975 (color saturation), or 1989 (grain). If your criteria is the Kodachrome look, then it is still not obsolete. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you know the emulsion number of that batch with the 07/2010 expiration date? This is the first time in over a year that I've seen a report of an expiration date that is 15 months in the future. This is the most favorable news I've read.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Emulsion #1562, 07/2010.<br>

Godachrome!</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>I must disagree Heinz. Kodak's E100g or E100gx is a very fine film which I started using after quitting Kodachrome. I shot Kodachrome for over 15 years but now prefer the look of E100g (and E100 gx). Of course it's only an opinion. One problem with Kodachrome is that the colors can deteriorate, when projected, faster than do the newer Ektachromes. </p>

[dangoldman]

<p>Heinz, film is inferior in all qualities to digital.... at least in all the qualities that one wants to reference to prove whatever point they might have....</p>

<p>As of march 8, B&H had 463rolls. By March 28 they were sold out. Today they have over 999rolls in stock.</p>

<p>There's an airshow coming up in a few weeks here. I'll stock up some more before that and will probably shoot exclusively Kodachrome, with a couple rolls of traditional BW.</p>

[heinz_anderle]

Aside from color rendition and subjective preferences, the MTF diagrams demonstrate that Kodachrome had lost its unique position in sharpness with Velvia (50) 20 years ago and in grain with Provia 100F 10 years ago.

 

Kodachrome isn't a competitive product any more by both pricing and processing time. In 2002, a brick of 10 rolls K64 (process.paid) was sold for about 60 Euros/USD by a German mail-order store. Today, one roll sells for 15 - 20 Euros. Processing now takes about 2 1/2 weeks to Dwayne's and back.

 

Kodak appears to have (European) customers frightened away intentionally. And both Fuji Velvia 50 and Provia 100F are available in a variety of formats.

[heinz_anderle]

Kodachrome 64 MTF:

[heinz_anderle]

Velvia 50 MTF:

[heinz_anderle]

Provia 100F MTF (one can clearly see how at low spatial frequencies the (micro-) contrast is enhanced up to 120 - 130 %. Although the Kodachromes appear under the microscope as "CMYK" films, and the E-6 films "only" as "CMY"-composites, the blacks in RVP50 and RDPIII are quite as dense and saturated as with the older Kodachrome technology). All this agrees well with my own experiences from scanning.

[randrew1]

<p>MTF curves don't tell the whole story. Most microdensitometers used to measure MTF targets have somewhat diffuse optics. They completely miss the effect of the pronounced relief image in Kodachrome. This relief image enhances the edge effects thus enhancing sharpness. Kodachrome slides projected with a good quality lens on a matte screen in a dark room are hard to beat.</p>

<p>MTF arguments aside, most of us appreciate the "Kodachrome look" that no other film replicates.</p>

[patrick_mont]

I appreciate the "Kodachrome Look". I wish I could still get the "Kodachrome Look" by using Kodachrome 25 and 200!

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Heinz,</p>

<p>You have to look with your eyes, not MTF graphs. Most of us are familiar with the Kodachrome look via the older National Geographic Magazines, which for years exclusively used Kodachrome. We like that look, slightly grainy etc, and all. Skin tones are rendered amazingly well by Kodachrome. I've always found Provia to be too bluish, and although E100Gx is also a favorite, and scans so easily it just doesn't have that same timeless "look". E100Gx does have it's own wonderful look. The Kodachrome look is what we want to keep perpetuating. </p>

<p>Heck, how old is Tri-X? It has golf-ball size grain, and people still shoot it because they like its look.</p>

<p>In spite of the name photoGRAPHY, it's about seeing images, not GRAPHS.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I agree with Patrick - I do miss K200. It was really a wonderful film, and seemed to have a bit less contrast than K64.</p>

[heinz_anderle]

For me it is not projection, but reproduction (scanning and offset printing) why I prefer slide film. With proper IT8-calibration, Provia 100F will deliver accurate colors in the shadows.

 

For me, the color and contrast perception of projected slides is too subjective to judge a film's quality, as human vision readily adapts to the color temperature of the projection lamp (usually a halogen bulb).

Grain and resolution are mitigated by the viewing distance and scale.

 

After about 1970, offset printing from Agfachrome (50 S, then the medium format standard) slide film here in Europe was capable to deliver a quality similar to Kodachrome from 35 mm slides. It depended more on the lithographer's skills and experience than on the source.

 

I have recently bought a used Rollei 35 Twin slide projector for a bargain price - a nice thing, but I do not mount my processed films any more. They are just filed cut in paper sleeves.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Velvia; ie Velveda isa favored my many folks newer to photgraphy who like pumped up saturated colors. Some of use like real cheese; other folks like processed stuff. :)<br>

<br /> Its funny how folks look pack at products and think they were always great. When Kodachrome 25 came out many of us hoarded Kodachrome II and used it until Kodachome 25's color issues were worked out. I always thaought the early 1960's Kodachrome-X was abit poor; late 1970's Kodachrome 64 stuff was great. Kodachrome in 120 format had zilch for sales; ponder why it died years back; or why labs stopped processing it.<br>

<br /> There was a time many decades ago that non-Kodachrome slides faded alot quicker than todays E6 products. The old 1940's and 1950's non kodachrome slides here in the house have radical color issues; while Kodachromes are in great shape as to colors.</p>

<p>I reproduction of artwork many of use use E6 4x5 or MF/120 stuff; non goosed up E6; NOT Velvia ie Kodak traditional E6; or a digital scan back. The main reason I got a 4x5 scan back 12 years ago was the E6 lab died.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ask yourself how long you will do a job or create a product that has a negative cash flow "due to caring".<br>

At some point if one does not have enough other income to support the cause ; the project may be halted.<br>

The world is in a recession; there is less cash flow for supporting marginal products.<br>

Kodak probably will look at actual REAL sales more than emotional emails and letters. The place is supported by cash flow; not emotions.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I think Kodak should at least be making enough off Kodachrome to at atleast brake even with it's costs. B&H sells at a few hundred rolls a month a Freestyle atleast 50. According the the video with Grant Steinle the owner of Dwayne's, he said that they process about 1000 rolls per day. How is does Kodak not make any money?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Look at something as simple as erasers.<br /> <br /> Electric Drafting Erasing machines that hold a 1/4" Diameter by 7" long eraser.<br /> <br /> A decade ago there were about 12 to 15 different types of erasers available; #72,73,74,75,76,77.78,79 and about 8 variants for inking work besides the #72. Today one has only about 2 to 3 grades available; manual drafting tanked. Demand dropped. Makers stopped making products with little demand; ie products that have a finite shelf life; they rot and grow hard. This product has no million buck cost; it doesnt have a mess of chemicals either.<br /> This product has no *lab* to support in Kansas either; it is just a dumb eraser. Thus a holdout that draws on Vellum or Mylar has is favorite erasers now mostly gone due to lack of demand.<br /> <br /> Take drafting Vellum National printfast in Indianpolis folded/closed its doors one year ago for a reason; folks bought less of their products; Mylar and Vellum. Take the classical Kohinoor/Alvin/K&E/Dietzgen/Post electric AC powered electric eraser; one factory made the same model and OEM'ed it for all of them; with different colored shells. They got to such a low volume that the dumb AC motor vendor got too expensive; and a retooled import motor was too much capital outlay; thus all was killed off. Thus you buy a used one from Ebay; or a whimpy clone; or chase down new old stock in stores.</p>

<p>All of these tales are with simple stuff; Mylar, Vellum, erasers; AC motors. Low sales volume caused plugs to be pulled.</p>

<p>A Kodachrome line or lab is like a fleet of Elephants; a bunch of ice rinks. Your NEED alot of decent cash flow to pay for the expenses involved.</p>

<p>Maybe Kodachrome; the Elephant show or the ice rink has positive cash flow today; but its dropping. Kodak or a rink would rather have a rising cash flow than a falling one to stay afloat. Issues with money and business seem to to be NOT understood by many photo.net folks. I often wonder if many do not run a business.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Heinz, many if not most people do not want accurate colors, they want colors that they like. I like Velvia, but I'd never call it accurate. The entire point of shooting Velvia is to have more saturation, not accuracy. If you don't like Velvia that's fine. If you don't like Kodachrome that's also fine. I haven't shot it in 15 years and I won't shed a tear when it's gone but the people on this thread like it. That's also fine. Shoot whatever you want.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>Ask yourself how long you will do a job or create a product that has a negative cash flow "due to caring".<br />At some point if one does not have enough other income to support the cause ; the project may be halted.<br />The world is in a recession; there is less cash flow for supporting marginal products.<br />Kodak probably will look at actual REAL sales more than emotional emails and letters. The place is supported by cash flow; not emotions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Kelly, <br>

I have regular contact with Kodak in regards to Kodachrome, use over this time last year has seen a spike, mostly due to the Associated Press article and awareness created by sites like Photo.net, APUG.org and my site, the Kodachrome Project. The equipment has been paid for long ago and Kodak is in the process of streamlining the product production and logistics even more. The fact of the matter is that Kodak will at some point, discontinue Kodachrome but not before 2011 since this is a landmark product for them and the history of photography. In other words, discontinue Kodachrome before 2011= bad press, keep it around until 2011 = good press.<br>

I have other facts about the product that are encouraging but I am not at liberty to share them under any circumstances as that would jeopardize my relationship with the company.<br>

So, you have been doing a lot of speculating which is typical or internet forums, but now you have some facts. So you are either a speculator or a photographer.<br>

I work full time as a photographer and direct the Kodachrome Project. I have also launched another book project that will take me beyond Kodachrome and already has a publisher:<br>

http://web.me.com/daniel_bayer/Aspen_People/Welcome.html<br>

This is what photographers do, they don't lens test, MTF test or any of that gear headed stuff, they simply see photos every day and insist on making them happen as best as they can.<br>

In this case, I am using Kodachrome..<br>

<br /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Daniel; I shot Kodachrome first in the 1950's; asa 10 stuff. My dad first Kodachrome slides go back right before WW2; shot with an Argus A series. I used to shoot alot of Kodachrome 8mm; ie regular 8. I have a pro Beaulieu regular 8mm camera with fades; 64 fps; variable shutter, TTL metering; D mount. I find it interesting that over my lifetime Kodachrome was once in 11x14 sheets; then just 8x10; then 4x5; then sheets went away in the mid 1950's. The biggest Kodachrome I have seen is an 8x10; a pro neighbor in Detroit has some from the late 1940's.<br>

<br /> My dad I use to used Kodachrome F for indoor shots of items in the late 1950's; it was balanced for clear flashbulbs. One used a filter for daylight; and a filter for 3200K lighting; and a filter for 3400K photoflood amateur stuff. One did NOT use a filter for clear flashbulbs. Regular Kodachrome was asa 10 then; about 5 with a filter for Photofloods. The type F variant was about 2.5 times faster than regular Kodachrome when using photofloods; ie asa 12 with a 82A and Kodachrome daylight was awsa 5 with a 80B filter and photofloods. Movie lamps; Photofloods are what many home photographers used for family stuff and indoor shots.</p>

<p>I agree that stopping Kodachrome would be bad press. I wish they would try marketing it in a few retail stores as an experiment. It use to be in Walgreens long after being dropped at Walmarts.<br /> In movie films regular 8mm that I often mailordered was made in France; ie like Pathe Kodak France or something. Kodak also made Kodachrome in 9.5mm cine and 16mm too; plus in Bantum 828 still format too; and once in 120 roll films.<br>

<br /> The peak usage for me with Kodachrome was in the early and mid 1970's both in cine and still; I bought bricks of it from either Garden Camera, Cambridge, Olden; even Wall Street Camera. I do not even know if B&H was around then.<br>

<br /> I even shot Kodachrome in 110 with my Rollei A110 camera in the mid 1970's. Kodak made Kodachrome- X in 110 with the old K12 process; the Kodachrome 64 in the K14 process until about 1982. Slides in 110 are abit hokey with a cheapie 110 camera; but are stellar with Rollei A110's 23mm F2.8 Tessar. Its resolves about 65 to 70 line pairs per mm on film. Verichrome Pan was also a decent film with this camera; one could make nice 5x7's prints; about equal to making a 11x14 with 35mm and good technique.<br>

<br /> When I was a kid Home movies were about all shot on Kodachrome. Some folks used even 16mm; either roll or magazine type load. Or they used 8mm (called regular 8mm after super 8 came out) in rolls or 8mm magazine loads. Surplus 16mm gun cameras were cheap; ie WW2 stuff that used a 16mm cine magazine.</p>

<p>Up the thread somebody asked about tri-x. It came out during WW2 in sheet films. It came out in 35mm in about 1954. The Ww2 surplus expired sheet 4x5 films I used in 4H club in the 1950's was tri-x. Tri-x had 3 notches; super Xx two edge notches; thats is what the X's mean!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I understand all of that Kelly, but the here and now is what we have. I think too many people wax poetic about the film when it is still here.....still here after 75 years. Patrick Mont started using Kodachrome at age 13, last year. This is what we need to focus on, the present and the not-so-distant future.<br /> If Kodachrome disappears after 2010, I will be a bit sad, but not nearly as sad as if I never thought to use it until that time or embrace the idea of a tribute to it. <br /> The history you describe is important, but it is in the past. The 600 rolls of KR64 and 300+ rolls of KM25 I have in my freezer are for the here and now and that is what makes photographs, the now.</p>