Jump to content

Kodachrome K64 has been discontinued...


Recommended Posts

<p>I guess I don't feel as passionately about this as others do, because I don't use Kodachrome. I pretty much stick with what I can do myself. That said, sorry to see it go. It's been an obvious industry leader; Kodachrome has been a pillar of influence. </p>

<p>Like the Polaroid peel apart films I tried when I was younger, I thought this was a nice idea, but I just wasn't sustaining it on a tight budget. I pretty much have to stick with the homebrew processing, or it isn't really a good option. </p>

<p>If I can't do it at home, I feel like there's too much trusting people on the outside. I'm sure they do a great job; but by the time I got around to being able to have a chance to afford it, there was only one place left. I just didn't want to get used to something and have it gone forever. For a specialized process like Kodachrome, I think I would have felt better if I could have just sent it to Kodak themselves. Then, too, I would have felt better about Dwayne's. Admittedly, I never gave those guys a chance, either; so, please don't misinterpret it as a dislike for them or anything. From what I hear, they do a great job with pretty much everything. But, by the time I saw a chance, they were the last ones. Not a good criteria for adopting a new syntax. </p>

<p>I chose what I chose, and that's not why I am in the 1% of Kodachrome shooters. Still, sorry to see it go because Kodachrome has so much social influence. </p>

<p>Whether I'm right or not, and I know they are now all digital, I associate Kodachrome with National Georgraphic. And, even though it's cheesy, and over-commercialized in its presentation of "photographers" now, it was those National Geographic photographers from the late 1960s to the late 1980s that set me to daydreaming as a kid about what it would be like to see the world and photograph it. I associate Kodachrome with those people, and their work. </p>

<p>The loss of Kodachrome, as news, is as though a hero has died, is on his deathbed and will soon rest. I suppose we worry about the future of the kingdom as we see the death of a king.</p>

<p>The E-6 films are nice, but I feel like there's a great big ol' bullseye on them now, too. We'll see. It'll pare down and change some, but we need to keep going. Stay positive. Proceed with confidence. Don't get to letting the tigers eat their own young over one option. We know we need a good spread to make a survivable choice.</p>

<p>Sorry to see Kodachrome go. And, you know I'd be raising hell if my last favorite option was about to be gone. But you can keep on going. I know you can do it. Drive on, Kodachrome shooters! Perhaps I will shoot one roll of Kodachrome for a grandchildren's generation to view.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Sad to see the end of an era, although I was never a full-time Kodachrome user, was pretty much part of the E6 generation. I did use PKR200 at times when light was low, and was always glad I did, it had such a unique look. This shark shot was made on an overcast day, and I still don't believe there's any E6 or digital set-up that would create anything quite like it. Here's to Kodachrome... <<sound of glasses clinking>></p>

<div>00Tjo3-147355584.jpg.0849732e996839c7d003cdd381cc0cea.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The E-6 films are nice, but I feel like there's a great big ol' bullseye on them now, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've heard this from a couple people as the Kodachrome discussion has come up. And while I don't think that film photographers should ever be taking the "everything will always be rosy" stance, it seems to me that there are a number of reasons why we shouldn't worry nearly as much about E-6 film as we might have worried about Kodachrome.</p>

<ul>

<li>There are a few companies still making E-6 films. Fuji and Kodak dominate. But Rollie and Foma/agfa still make niche products. I even had heard at one point that Lucky had a slide film, though I've never seen it.</li>

<li>Far more photographers are shooting slide film still than were shooting Kodachrome. Kodachrome sales and use had dwindled further and further down over recent years. While I'm sure E-6 sales are dropping as well, the numbers are still much higher than Kodachrome.</li>

<li>There are still, even in 2009, thousands of places to get E-6 run. The lab situation isn't as good as it was in the past (and won't ever be again). But most decent sized towns still have at least one lab that can run E-6. This is, of course, compared to the single lab in the whole world that is still running Kodachrome. </li>

<li>Not only can E-6 be run at home with the E-3 type system (or whatever they call it), but it really isn't that hard to get ahold of an E-6 machine and run it yourself. K14 took a massive amount of specialized knowledge to run properly. E-6 is much more within the grasp of the average person. With a little time and dedication, any one of us could have an E-6 system in our basements if we had enough photographers who wanted to run film with us. </li>

</ul>

<p>Yes, we should be working hard on trying to introduce other photographers to the joys of film imaging. But the situation with E-6 is much different than the Kodachrome situation and we should be careful not to misdirect our disappointment over one onto the other.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>WRT E-6: It's not the same as Kodachrome, anybody can see that from looking at the photos. But there are E-6 films that are <em>really good</em> on their own merits, from the Kodak line as well as the Fujichromes, and a lot of photographers doing some great work with them.</p>

<p>Heck, Kodachrome hasn't been available in sizes larger than 35mm for a while, so everybody shooting 120 and larger chromes, e.g. a lot of landscape photographers, has been shooting E-6. So has everybody who needs their film processed locally.</p>

<p>This doesn't mean the end of chromes, or that everybody should be giving up on them, it means that one film - a good one, though apparently very impractical to make and process - is going away. Have a look at what else is out their, because, again, some of the E-6 films are really good. Even Ektar 100, when scanned and/or printed well - which is <em>hard</em>, BTW - is amazing stuff.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's a Time article on the demise of Kodachrome.<br>

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1906503,00.html</p>

<p>These are the only hard numbers I've ever seen on how popular Kodachrome still is.<br>

"Dwayne's Photo — and even through it is the only center left in the world, the company only processes a few hundred rolls a day."</p>

<p>Personally I don't care for Kodachrome but it's passing will make me defrost some E6 and shoot it this weekend.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I grew up watching slide shows taken by my father. He shot slides from 1958 until 1986. Many of his early slides were Kodachromes and still look as colorful today as they did then, having all been stored carefully in slide caroulsels in a cool and dry room. I began shooting slides in 1983 and first shot Kodachrome in 1987. Here is a Kodachrome I shot in 1996 in San Francisco with my Nikon FE2 and a 50mm 1.8 AIS lens (this was scanned in 1999 by Kodak on to a PhotoCD):<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/572076614_buFgE-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="537" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I didn't really use a lot of KR64 after KL200 came out, but after its demise along with KM25 I used the KR64 from time to time. I also shot a roll of PKR64 in 120 back in the early 1990's. During the 70's though, I shot some KR64 after it replaced Kodachrome-X, but tended to shoot Fuji R100 (E4) and High Speed Ektachrome. I also shot a lot of Ektachrome 64. When I look back at my slides from the 70's, the KR has a quality to it the others couldn't touch.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>They discontinued Kodachrome when they stopped making 25 - a truely awesome film. Only nostalgia has kept 64 alive. Good riddance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More like good thing opinions don't speak for everyone, and I happen to own a *bunch* of perfect KM-25 by the way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now would be a good time to start visiting some of the small drug stores, discount stores, etc, that may have stocked some K64 without realizing what they were getting. Even if slightly out of date you might could get a deal. I remember back when K200 had just been released in amatuer version (KL instead of PKL) that a Gulf Coast drugstore inadvertantly stocked up on it thinking it was print film. Luckily I came along with some $$$$ to ease their suffering and fill my fridge. So, check. You never know what you might find.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Have any of you tried Dwayne's Photo in Kansas to see if they had any on stock? They advertise it on their order forms as being for sale, but I could not assert if they still have it on hand or not.<br />Daniel- Thank you for issuing out such a well written email which put the thought for me to order more film. I was fortunate to read it minutes after you had released it, but this did not prevent me from taking my time to put in the order as it was so busy at work. When I did finally manage time, I nearly missed out but managed to get a box on E_ay for a fair price before it went crazy. Had I not opened your email, I would have missed out for sure.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>why hasn't other film companies put out similiar brands of films that kodak has discontinued? Someone here responded to my initial post about that saying the patents on these discontinued films have expired.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Root...</p>

<p>You said "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>From my e-mails back and forth with Peter V at Kodak professional technical support where he indicated the production was different, I thought they might be made on different bases as some other films are in 135 vs 120. I looked up the Kodak datasheet, Feb 2009 which said that the 35mm Ektar emulsion was put on 0.13mm base and 120 was put on 0.10 mm base. This means that Kodak did indeed have to make a separate batch of film to be cut into 120 rolls. </p>

<p>May I respectfully refer you to:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf</a></p>

<p>to see for yourself? </p>

<p>Unless they have already started to destroy the metal block on which the base and then the emulsion are poured (as they did on the Techpan plate before the announcement for its withdrawal from the market) we may yet have a chance, however small. I'd rather try and fail than give up without trying. Are you too young to remember Frankie Lane's song "It's Better To Have Loved And Lost Than Never To Have Loved At All"? If customers just let it go without even a wimper, the company has got every right to think they didn't really want it that bad anyway. And..They will. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Williams...</p>

<p>I like your style! </p>

<p>Larry...</p>

<p>In that YouTube video you refer to..Is the white bottom on the girl on the beach bikini bottom or un-tanned skin? </p>

<p>Mr. Flanagan...</p>

<p>Thanks for the production quote. 20,000 rolls at the price it goes out of Kodak's door which is probably $4.00 to $6.00 a cartridge, say $5.00 each is only $100,000 plus or minus. Are things so bad at Kodak that they cannot risk not selling a small part of that amount in a year. My-my, have they truly downsized. Couldn't even hold on one more year to make 75? Now -that- is lack of any company pride. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the production quote. 20,000 rolls at the price it goes out of Kodak's door which is probably $4.00 to $6.00 a cartridge, say $5.00 each is only $100,000 plus or minus. Are things so bad at Kodak that they cannot risk not selling a small part of that amount in a year. My-my, have they truly downsized. Couldn't even hold on one more year to make 75? Now -that- is lack of any company pride.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be revenue of $100K. Assuming a generous 50% profit margin that only brings in a net $50K. That is virtually nothing for a large corporation. It's basically a rounding error. That number is so low I'm surprised Kodak didn't kill Kodachrome years ago.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Looking for Kodachrome? Get on the B&H waiting list. </p>

<p>I've noticed several folks posting above asking where to get Kodachrome now that everybody seems to be out. I tried to get some a day or two before the announcement from B&H while ordering other film. The salesman told me they were out and did not expect any more to come in. So, I e-mailed Henry Posner, an executive with B&H as well as a friend and respondent to Photonet and its members. I quote his answer to my asking if the "no more Kodachrome at B&H was true". </p>

<p>"As far as I know our buyer intends to restock Kodachrome as long as it's<br />possible to do so. While I know film demand is a shadow of what it was once<br />I mourn Kodachrome's passing as much as anyone. I have exposed miles and<br />miles of the stuff." </p>

<p>He is obviously a Kodachrome fan to boot! I would suggest getting on their waiting list if possible. B&H is probably one of the larger Kodak customers and will get its fair share of the future rolling. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mr. Flanagan...</p>

<p>At least they'd have another $50,000 to help offset the other divisions' losses. I quote a MSNBC web posting from Jan, 2009:<br>

"ROCHESTER, N.Y. - Eastman Kodak Co. said Thursday it is cutting 3,500 to 4,500 jobs, or 14 percent to 18 percent of its work force, as it posted a fourth-quarter loss of $137 million on plunging sales of both digital and film-based photography products. Its stock tumbled more than 23 percent."</p>

<p><br />$50,000 here --- $50,000 there, pretty soon you don't have such big losses.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I thought they might be made on different bases as some other films are in 135 vs 120. I looked up the Kodak datasheet, Feb 2009 which said that the 35mm Ektar emulsion was put on 0.13mm base and 120 was put on 0.10 mm base. This means that Kodak did indeed have to make a separate batch of film to be cut into 120 rolls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stand corrected on that. I'm not sure how I forgot about the fact that most (if not all) 35mm and 120 films have different weight bases.</p>

<p>However, while that reduces the "debate" points of my comparison, I do not believe that is changes my overall point. the fact is that getting Kodak to run an existing emulsion onto a different base is far easier than getting them to continue to produce an orphan product that shares virtually nothing with any other product in their line. I fully believe that trying to organize some sort of "protest" to get Kodak to reconsider their Kodachrome decision is a waste of time. If Daniel Bayer and his Kodachrome project couldn't make a difference with all the press coverage that it got, I seriously doubt that a bunch of photographers writing letters will make a difference. After all, Kodak can still point to the sales numbers and say "Well just how many rolls of Kodachrome did YOU buy last year?" There are very few of us on this thread that can honestly say we purchased 5-10. Let alone 2-3 dozen.</p>

<p>Now, that having been said, just because I think something is a waste of time doesn't mean that someone shouldn't do it if they want to. There are many things that I can't imagine spending my time doing that many others love more than anything. I would just expect to be disappointed if I were you. As I don't think there is much chance of success.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Between 1972 and 1982, I shot quite a bit of Kodachrome-X and later Kodachrome 64 in a Pocket Instamatic 60. The 110 format earned its reputation as a sub-par shapshooter format based on Kodacolor II negative film, which was grainy and muddy despite its improvement over the old C-22. But Kodachrome really showed off what the 16mm format could do with a sharp lens. I projected the slides on a 50x50-inch matte screen with a Pocket Carousel projector. The projected slides were (and still are) tack-sharp and fine-grained. And when I project them today (which isn't often, since the projector's special bulb was discontinued years ago), they look just like they did 35 years ago. I also shot a few rolls of Ektachrome-X, which lacked much of the sharpness and impact of Kodachrome. <br /> <br /> I doubt many 110 shooters used Kodachrome. But Kodak's management at the time were visionaries who saw the 110 format as a "system" suitable for serious photographers as well as the more numerous snapshooters. So they made a range of cameras, and kept Kodachrome on the market for a decade despite sales that probably did not please the bean-counters. But times have certainly changed. Even if today's management had authorized the sale of Kodachrome and projectors, they probably would have discontinued both after one or maybe two quarters. <br /> <br /> I stopped using Kodachrome (and 110) in 1982, when a box of slides came back from the Kodak lab with a note that slide film was being discontinued in the 110 format. With a switch to 35mm came a wider selection of film. I liked the Fujichrome RD100 palette better than Kodachrome, and eventually found that sending ISO 400 color negative film to Dale Labs for printing as slides best suited my needs (until I bought a DSLR, which suits my needs even better).<br /> <br /> I learned that Kodachrome was ill-suited to the 21st century when I started scanning some of my 1970s slides in 2004. (A few of them are <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/eurfd.htm">here</a>.) Those unique dyes make scanning unnecessarily difficult, between the strange color balance and the unpredictable performance of infrared cleaning. Since by then my photography was entirely "hybrid," I had no use for a film that was such trouble to scan. I think the scanning incompatibility was the penultimate nail in Kodachrome's coffin-- after Velvia changed photographers' tastes, K-14 labs dwindled to one, and the general decline of slide film (and film in general). The Great Recession surely was the final nail. <br /> <br /> Yes, it's sad to lose a product that inaugurated practical color photography and defined an era. But its only place in a digital world is as a very specialized niche product. And unfortunately, there's no business case for a foundering company to continue selling any such thing.</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...