a._t._burke Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Mr. Watkins...</p> <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?"</p> <p>Well said. </p> <p>Mr. Lewis...</p> <p>But...Kodachrome is the only film that could make strip malls and Starbucks look good. </p> <p>Tom Burke</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>It is not the film. It is not the camera.. Ot is not anything but the Photographer that can make any photo look as it is ment to look. No Tom I think I am correct here as in when we are missing a tool in our box we find another way to make or fix what we are working on. To all of you who were using Kodachrome And I think that is not as many of you that are posting in this thread. I say. "Start using and processing B&W in your home. You know it is next on the list after E6 ...Oh and you can do that at home too."</p> <p>Larry</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 <blockquote> <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...Sometime after the third email, Ektar in 120 was announced and shortly thereafter on the shelves.</p> </blockquote> <p>I did not mean to imply that consumers could not make a difference as far as products and decisions made by corporations. But you have to understand that you are talking about two vastly different things here. When made by Kodak, film comes in sheets 5 ft wide and 1/2 a mile to two miles long. It is then cut, slit, perforated, etc for whatever purpose they have in mind for it. So all it took for Ektar 120 to be created was for a few people in the film marketing/sales department to decide that there was a market for Ektar in 120. Emails like your no doubt made that happen.</p> <p>But Kodachrome is film that uses a vastly different set of chemicals in production then anything else they have. The makes the labor and cost of creating such a film go way up (not even getting into the processing mess here). Kodak came to the conclusion that sales weren't enough to support such an expensive orphan. And then we get the announcement we have today. Getting them to change their mind is going to be a order of magnitude harder than getting them to slit an already in-production film into a different format. In fact, you'd probably have a better chance of convincing them to slit some of the remaining Kodachrome into 120 (and convincing Dwayne's to process it) than you would getting them to change this decision.</p> <p>The fact of the matter is that we've been talking about Kodachrome's possible death for years. And despite all of us who rang alarm bells saying "If you want to keep Kodachrome, you need to shoot more of it every day and convince others to do the same" sales kept declining. Despite efforts like PN member Daniel Bayer's Kodachrome Project, sales kept declining. Despite the constant references to Paul Simon's song on every photography forum out there, sales kept declining. There had been plenty of warning over the past 5 years for lovers of Kodachrome to make a difference. But it didn't happen and now that time is past. The die is cast, the deal is done. I honestly do not believe, both as a photographer and as the guy running photo.net, that there is a snowball's chance in hell of Kodak changing their minds and Kodachrome not being discontinued.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 <blockquote> <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.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do thank you for the kind words. I put a lot of my life and energy into PN and it's always nice to hear a compliment and know that at least some of the work is appreciated.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Josh</p> <p> Read your mail I sent you a nice note earlyer today.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Josh<br> Read your mail I sent you a nice note earlyer today.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes you did. I am still behind on my email replies from the trip to NY and family functions over the father's day weekend, so I apologize for the delay in replying.</p> <p>To answer your question, any statement I make about a new Ektar 400 (or any forthcoming film) should be taken as pure speculation on my part. I used Ektar 400 as an example because it seemed like a logical next step for Kodak to make, given the success of Ektar 100.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Josh</p> <p> Well with the looks of Ektar 100 and the knowlege from my friends who shoot 35mm Cine film it would be a next move. I know many who Love the 500 but welll just wish it was tweeked a little.</p> <p> They dumped 400UC but added the little tweek to to the newer Porta VC I think a toned down Ektar in 400 is not too far off the mark.. and regardless what others say printing/scanning can make a world of differance in any film you can't fake a direct positive in projection though.</p> <p> Maybe an Ektar NC LOL</p> <p>Larry</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a._t._burke Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Mr. Dressler...</p> <p>In the early 1950s with the expenses of a first new home, I had to fix the aging car (except tires and brakes) with lesser than spec parts. I did a good job, was sometimes able to make the cheap part a little better with some elbow grease and the car still got the family to school and work on time. However it was not the same as when I could afford high quality parts. For one thing the repair did not hold up as long, like the Ektachrome of the 50s not holding up as long as Kodachrome. I find it is the same with photography. I can make a purse from either a sow's ear or silk with the same level of creativity and workmanship. Are they going to be the same?</p> <p>I treasure the old photos made with my Argus AF ($12.00 at the PX) 50 and 60 years ago. I'm glad to have them in my declining years. They sure would have had more detail had I been able to buy the quality of camera/lens that I have today. But then I won't be looking at those currently taken sharp pictures 50 to 60 years from now!</p> <p>Tom Burke</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Tom<br> As a Vet who retired in 97 after 20+ years I understand. Nothing can replace Kodachrome. I Have Kodachromes I shot in the 70's and they were kept in a box at my mothers home.. along with the Kodachromes... The Ektachromes have lost some lust but then so have I. The Ektachromes I shot in the 80s are better and the ones from the last 9 are fine. In the future we won't have Kodachrome. I am just trying to tell the people if we don't support what we have left we won't have much left. It is much easier to restart a whole government than it is to restart a factory...<br> I am scanning a roll of APX25 at the moment I am talking to you so My name is Larry Tom not Mister Dressler if you please.</p> <p> Thank you</p> <p>Larry</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSXKjHDKkY</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p>What I wish kodak would do is sell the formulas of all the films they have discontinued to other film companies so they can make it for us .</p> </blockquote> <p>I think they abandoned the patents years ago. As far as I know, it's public domain now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p> Agfa could not even get their own correct after a break Old APX 100 and 400 / Last Run APX 100/400 and now the Dredful Rollei/Maco Retro. Why do you think anyone could get the Kodak stuff correct?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Just to let you know that the online store 7dayshop has 'plenty' in stock at this time. Order in bulk and it gets cheaper. They are based in the Channel Isles.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Good if you are in the U.K. U.S and Mainland Europe pays tax on it of 15-30% and then shipping.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Also, if you are in the U.K., check your Boots store - Hemel Hempstead branch is doing 2010 dated Kodachrome at 3 rolls for 2 pounds. Bigger stores are doing this offer too I have been informed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>I bet not after today....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>There's an excellent rant in yesterday's BJP from a columnist who obviously hasn't drunk the corporate Kool-Aid on this one:</p> <p>http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=863523</p> <p>'What the penny pinchers at Kodak do not seem to appreciate is the thousands of photographers worldwide who make up the less than 1% of Kodachrome users are a special breed with a head full of Kodachrome colour. We see things differently. In the world of colour photography, the Kodachrome palette is unique. There isn't another emulsion remotely like it and no amount of reviewing, trialling other stock or embracing the digital substitute and trying to kid myself I can get close to what Paul Simon sung about, will ever persuade me it can be replaced'</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel_martinez2 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Well I am very sad to see Kodachrome discountinued, I credit Kodachrome film with it's unforgiving exposure latitude affording me the discipline that I needed as a young photographer to take the incredible images that are part of my portfolio today. Does contraints gave me the patients to take my time with what I was seeing through my lens. Like many people the amount of Kodachrome that I have used in recent time has become minimal due to the fact that has become hard to find. I have about 20 rolls left that I have kept in a small refrigerator in my darkroom I guess the best advise is to go out and take photographs before the 2010 deadline. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adey Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Re. 3 rolls for £2.</p> <p>Ian - Boots have been running an offer for some time of "3 rolls for the price of 2" on K64. I find the offer of 3 rolls for £2 a little hard to swallow. I hope it's correct though - I'll wander over to my larger Boots store this afternoon.<br> The 3 for 2 offer was/is based on £13 per single roll, coming out at ~ £8.60 per roll for three. This isn't too much more than the bulk price from 7 day shop. All prices include processing (but not postage).<br> I'll report back after visiting Boots.</p> <p>Adey</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adey Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Re. 3 rolls for £2.</p> <p>Just back from my local Boots store. I am afraid it's still the "3 for the price of 2" in this large Boots store.</p> <p>Adey</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_livacich Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>A couple of days ago, I was looking at K64 prices online. B+H was I think $8.50, Adorama was $7.99, where it had been $8.50 or $8.75, as I recall. Freestyle was $8.09. Early yesterday morning, I read the awful news and immediately went online to buy some before the rush began. California sales tax made Freestyle more expensive w/ shipping being almost as much as Adorama's shipping. I bought 20 rolls from Adorama and today considered buying 20 more. Whoa! Adorama today is $9.49, B+H is $11.20! Yeesh! Freestyle is still $8.09. Of course, all are out of stock. I sure hope things settle down soon. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Adey, some larger stores are cutting back on film. Hemel Hempstead is one store doing this, but St Albans is not - worth checking though. The 3 rolls for 2 pounds applies to most films (apart from Boots own and the 110 cartridges) - Superia, Kodak B&W and Fuji Sensia are all the low price in my branch.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Only thing I can add to this discussion is that I went through my Kodachrome grieving process 4-5 years ago when Kodak discountinued Super 8 Kodachrome. I bought as many as I could afford and ironically just shot a roll on Father's Day of my kids. So many home movies from 60+ years ago still look great because they were shot on Kodachrome Cine film. Few realize it, but the original release of Kodachrome was as a Cine film! The still film came along a year or two later.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lewis1664881697 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>Russ, make that twice with Super 8 Kodachrome.... First it was the sound film, then the silent a few years later.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredonian Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 <p>If anyone had any influence with the upper Kodak management, it would be nice if they could persuey the company into seeking forms of micro production of many of their reveled films. As many of you have indicated, that 1% (for Kodachrome alone) accounts into thousands of photographers worldwide. If they could find a means of a smaller facility that could operate on a supply that would use barrels as opposed to pipelines and tanker trucks, smaller manpower, it may be a lucrative option. I'm speaking of a smaller production base that could calander a limited supply of all their films that still have some level of market, not just Kodachrome. Of course, I know that I am dreaming in the daylight as I type this.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now