Jump to content

Kodachrome K64 has been discontinued...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I called Tempe Camera this morning to reserve five rolls of K64. There were 28 rolls in stock at that time (8:36 am local time, to be precise). By 4:45 this afternoon, probably much earlier than that, they were all gone, except for my five rolls. Now that I have them in my freezer, they really are out of K64.</p>

<p>What do people think are the odds of major camera stores across the country getting more Kodachrome to replace the run on it they all no doubt had today?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are unquestionably large subsidies from Kodak to Dwayne's for running the K-14 processing line. Kodak is paying a pretty penny for every PK36 Dwayne's receives, and was paying for all the European "processing prepaid" Kodachrome. There were probably other subsidies as well. But the subsidies were probably a lot less than running Fair Lawn cost, and probably has led to much happier customers. (The last years of K-14 processing at Fair Lawn weren't pretty.)<br>

But, it was a savvy move for Dwayne's to become the last K-14 line. It gave them a base volume, and it got their name out there. They're going to be one of the last "central labs" standing, and most reports are that they do good E-6 and C-41 as well. They handle "Fuji" E-6 processing these days as well.<br>

It will be interesting to see how long E-6 stays on the market. Those labs are struggling as well. Kodak made it pretty clear that they view Ektar 100 as their long-range replacement for Ektachrome E100VS and friends.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John<br>

You have a few great thoughts there.... But we have to remember that K14 was not home friendly At least a person can run E6 at home. But with the end of E6 mailers at the end of this year where does that leave things? Will anyone Have pre-payed slide film mailers? Will Dwayne's Offer them if they did they would make a fortune .. well a small one..</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If each of us could buy two dozen boxes of Elite Chromes daily, it would still ammount to less than a drop in the bucket for Kodak. Where talking about a company that once could rely on the sales to billions of regular everyday housholds in which 99.5% now shoot digital and have not bought a roll of film in years. It's only a matter of time when eventually we will be getting our chromes from third world manufacturers. One thing Kodak might could do to salvage more life and use for it's chromes, it to offer a substantially imporved method for duplicating digital images on film as a means for long term achive and preservation. Digital media and it's means of storage are constantlly being made obsolete each decade forward. Had Ansel Adams shot some of his last works on digital floppies and lost them in storage in his garage; only years later after his death to be rediscovered...they would likely be unreadable and fragmented data. Film was a medium for over a century, and I can still make images from negatives on my scanner that are over a hundred years old. Film has remained a fairly consistent record, where as digital methods continually obsoletes itself. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Only 3rd Wold manufacturer is Maco/Rollei and they are using old AGFA equipment and they are not 3rd World. No I think you are off base here... if you can't make a $ from it.. then it won't go... Kodak still makes money from film so buy it and Fuji..... "In the days of old when men were bold".... Be those people.</p>

<p> Only part of Kodak that made Money last year was the Film Division....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was wondering if the camera companies ever thought of making a two in one camera, one that both shoots digital and film. No need for digital backs. You can still keep your digital images and see what you are going to hopefully get on your film. If they can transfer digital images on to a roll of film why couldn't they make a digital/film camera? It would drive the film market back up hopefully as well as the consumers/students who want to try film but still want the convenience of digital. There would be no reason to discontinue film if that were the case. It could work.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If only Kodak could downsize it's means of production enough to make it still profitable. Most of their equipment and facilities are designed on a scale to the equivelent of an Anheuser Busch Brewery. It's an enormouse operation that accustomed to taking in chemicals from a tanker truck rather than a barrell. It would be much like asking Anheuser-Bush (InBev) to fuel and finance a football field sized facility to produce only 100,000 cans of beer a year. I am with you though Larry, even though I sound so rottenly pessimistic. If Kodak could downscale their means of production, perhaps outsource their formulations, they could still make money. The problem is, thier means of production are so large and costly. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let's see...In the past year, Kodak has discontinued 1 film:KR-64, and introduced one film: Ektar 100. </p>

<p>Fuji on the other hand has discontinued CDU-II dupe film and Fujichrome T64, and has not introduced any new films. Fuji has also pre-announced discontinuance of their Single-8 motion picture films.</p>

<p>Oh, that evil Kodak! Death to the yellow box! Long live Fuji! (if you can't tell, that was sarcasm).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, i am extremely disappointed and frustrated with this turn of events. Im young, i can't say i had a good bunch of years with the film and that it was time. Its like adopting an older dog then having it run over by a car... Sure, you knew it was gonna go, everything goes, but that doesnt mean you should expect it... All i can hope is that there is some company out there with enough money to buy the product and name and continue making the film, but Kodak would probably be too stupid to sell or the company to cheap to make the film right. I do not care for Ektachrome and i dont shoot color negatives, so its all Fuji color (and maybe ilford/agfa for BW. im seriously pissed) for me now.Just bought 140some dollars of the stuff for a trip to Israel, debating leaving a few rolls home now so i can save them for later.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow. And Dwaynes will only support it for 18 months from now for developing. I guess I should do something with my last remaining rolls of this stuff. Someone on here gave me some rolls of the 200 which I have yet to use. And I have 6 rolls of K40 Super 8 in the freezer to shoot. I was hoping to save one till I got my next car, but now that won't happen.<br>

<br />I can just see all those Kodachrome auctions on Ebay in 2011 selling any sort of Kodachrome film and neglecting to tell people you can't get it processed anywhere anymore. I saw that with K64 in 120.<br />Well I guess this summer I'll use my last roll of K64. I haven't shot slides for a couple years now. Seems like a fitting time to do so now.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just enjoy K64 while you can. If you like other Kodak products continue to buy them, lest Kodak shrug its coorporate shoulders and discontinue something else. IMHO, the only thing that would save Kodachrome is if enough people (who like Kodachrome and other discontinued EK products) all pooled their resources and bought Kodak out.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps it's only 'of-the-moment' pessimism, but hasn't the world as we knew it during the Kodachrome years pretty much faded away as well? The days when common living and simplicity was in the air? A time when peoples faces had a Koda-chromatic glow. Digital every bit has a rightful place in todays superficial and cultureless mainstream society.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Root,</p>

<p>I thank you for all the effort you put into photonet. You're one of the people who make a difference here. It's also good for all of us film users that your various efforts, like "Viva Film", continue awareness and recognition of film, which is not only interesting, but helps film sales. Your comments, whether I tend to agree or disagree, are thoughtful and purposeful. They set a good tone for the users of the photonet forums. I must respectfully disagree, however, with a lot of what you said about the end of Kodachrome. </p>

<p>Big corporations have learned most of us sheeple will buy the products they feel like selling us. They feel they do not have to respond to customer wants because the customer really won't hold out, but will use instant gratification. Their ads train customers to do so. Customers have become much more compliant in my years of being aware of things like that. Nevertheless, as perhaps a lone and foolish voice, I wrote them a letter. I realize that trying does not guarantee success but if no one at least tries, things will never get done. </p>

<p>When Ektar 100 turned out to be a good film in 35mm, I wrote the same person a note asking if they would consider making it in 120 size. The answer was a very polite, business-like, yet firm, "no way," "not on your life." I waited a while and sent him another request, attaching dozens of photonet comments positive to a 120 introduction. The answer again was they were gratified that people were receiving their new film well, but the chances of 120 were slim and none. I waited a while longer and sent him even a longer list of comments with another most polite request for reconsideration. Sometime after the third email, Ektar in 120 was announced and shortly thereafter on the shelves. No, I realized my letters to him weren't the sole reason the decision was made. What I don't know is how many other letters like it they received. Something motivated them to consider expending the startup costs to make Ektar available in 120 rolls. I'm sure the 35mm Ektar sold out in record time, but certainly did not have a track record to normally justify a subsequent startup expense during bad economic times in a declining market for film in general. One of the things I mentioned in my notes was a possibility of their promoting Kodak film through advertising, as they had once done. Within the last couple of months, I saw the first Kodak film ad I'd seen in years. I think both B&H and Adorama have been sold out of Ektar 120 twice in its short life, and have had to wait some time for a shipment from Kodak, which probably meant Kodak had to make a rolling run from their inital production and rolling a lot sooner than they anticipated. </p>

<p>Just to show you what a foolish cry in the dark I made, I quote my email to them below: </p>

<p>

<p>

<p>Hello again...</p>

 

<p></p>

 

<p>It was nice to know that Kodak revised its plans and made Ektar 100 in 120 size. Since the large photo houses like B&H found themselves on backorder more than once I presume sales are rewarding your meeting customer requests.</p>

<p>Your Kodachrome announcement on the other hand, is a REAL disappointment. I've used it since the 40s and my father since the late 30s. Three nights ago I watched the Military Channel's show "WWII In Color". The English and German films looked so crappy but the American Kodachrome still looked good after all these years. That type of thing gives Kodak a positive public image. Halting production of Kodachrome does not.</p>

<p>Modern manufacturers and retailers seem to have lost sight of the fact that most all buyers develop buying habits. It seems that when retailers made buying decisions at the local level, they were aware that people will stop in the store to pick up a low-volume or low-profit item and then continue shopping there out of habit. Now that are made in centralized corporate headquarters by people who do not know their customers, products are dropped at a certain volume or profitability level. The customer who has been using a particular store or line of products for years, upon finding a substitute, is likely to continue buying from that new source or manufacturer. Additionally there are people like me who purposely do not use and/or avoid products or companies they feel have worked against their interests. I used to use Kodak films almost exclusively. I was satisfied with the products and had no interest in trying others of unknown results. My main purchases were Ektar in 25 ASA and 125 ASA, Kodak Royal Gold in 25 ASA and 100 ASA, Tech-pan and Kodachrome in 25 ASA. Caught filmless on vacation at a tourist spot with limited options, I would then use Gold rather than take a chance with a Fuji, Agfa, or store-brand product. Well, you dropped all the good stuff. Looking for a substitute I found Reala and Velvia which became my mainstays as I retired and stepped up my use of photo products. Of course, I still use Kodachrome 25 ASA whenever I could get it.</p>

<p>Upon your dropping the Kodachrome 25 ASA, I emailed Kodak's customer service with a most polite letter. In it, I asked if they could reconsider, even if it was only to produce one production run a year or some other scheduled length of time, as people like me might buy it out pretty quickly, stocking up for future real or imagined use. "No", of course, would have been an acceptable answer, after all, it is your company, not mine. The rude, angry personal response that I got, accusing me, amongst other things of trying to tell Kodak how to run its business, was truly out of line. The tone, tenor, and suggestion of my request was clear that it was a suggestion or request. Reviewing it at the time, I could not see what could have inadvertantly triggered the arrogant anger expressed in Kodak's answer. Naturally, then I boycotted Kodak, except for using Kodachrome 64 ISO for important and permanent pictures and when a Kodak product was my only choice because of limited alternate opportunities.</p>

<p>I appreciated your bringing out the new Ektar 100 and lobbied you to get it in 120. Since then, I have been using Ektar as my main film. Liking the colors and hearing that 100G had a similar color pallette, I tried it. Upon Kodak's meeting its customer request (perhaps with a change to better top management?) by adding Ektar in 120 size, I felt I should respond by again making Kodak my preferred choice in general.</p>

<p>Now you've got a customer again asking you to reconsider what must already have been a thought process of some length. Could you consider an annual or semi-annual production run of Kodachrome 64, just to keep customers used to asking for Kodak products? I would suggest you might obtain a good portion of immediate sales from people like me who'd like to use it as long as Duane's has committed to processing through the end of 2010.</p>

<p>You were the person who responded to my requests to make Ektar in 120 size. Yes, at first, the answer was definitely no, but I continued to refer you to people hoping for the product and expressing their hope on Photonet. Although I doubt it is within your power to make the final decision, I hope you will at least see that management is aware of the many comments being made on the various internet photo sites and forums by Kodak customers about the loss of Kodachrome. AFter all, the comments you're hearing are from the people who are still using film, in other words, your best sales prospects.</p>

 

 

<p>Tom Burke</p>

 

<p></p>

</p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...