Jump to content

Kodachrome K64 has been discontinued...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Speaking of 16mm film Minox used even narrower film, 9mm I think.</p>

<p>Kodachrome 25 II was also re-spooled by custom photo labs for the Minox. Using the later Complain lenses with the curved film path one could get enough resolution to make a 8000 PPI drum scan worth doing. It produced a file size of about 2612x3464. Cropping down the 11 side of the 8x11 mm exposure (cropping on a Minox???) one could print a pretty sharp 8x10 using the equivalent of 300 PPI printing. Printing at around 200 PPI digitally as many drugstore and mass merchandise box stores do today, would get you 13x17. I can do one on my 13" wide lower line Epson 1400 printer at a 13x17 print. It still looks great at arm's length. Try that with any other film without getting serious grain or sharpness issues. The non-Kodachrome color films of the 70s and 80s whch were not up to today's standards would look ridiculous. </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>A couple things wrong here.</p>

<ul>

<li>According to my reading, 20,000 is the production run they were doing. Not the sales figures. They may have been selling all of them, or they may have been throwing some number away if they didn't sell with a reasonable amount of time left on the expiration date.</li>

<li>As was stated, even if they were selling 20K rolls, that $100,000 number wouldn't be profit.</li>

<li>I think 50% profit on any product at the manufacturer level is probably VERY generous. Though I could be wrong.</li>

<li>Profit on a product is a hard thing to calculate. Are you going to call it just revenue minus the cost of materials? Or minus the cost of materials and labor? Or materials, labor, and facilities costs? Or materials, labor, facilities, and the cost of NOT using the facilities to produce a higher profit product? And so on.</li>

</ul>

<p>I tend to believe it when I hear that Kodak wasn't making money off of Kodachrome. But even if they were, it couldn't have been much. And when you start adding in the rest of the costs per-unit that occur when running a manufacturing business, I'm virtually positive that profit would have disappeared. Especially if we're talking about a number in the $50-100K range. Kodak's power bill for the month is probably more than $50k (I'm just making that up, but I wouldn't be surprised).</p>

<p>Now, does that mean that NOBODY could make money manufacturing Kodachrome? I truly think a company could. If they could balance demand with the correctly scaled production facilities. But as was mentioned earlier in the thread, that company is not Kodak. Kodak is set up for volume production. And when a company is set up for volume production, they save a lot of money on large production runs. but small production runs cost far more than they would for a smaller company. If there weren't any technological reasons that would make it impossible, a smaller company could go the polapremium route and buy/license the film from Kodak. But the fact that nobody has stepped up to the plate either means that there are technical reasons, or those with the money to do it have decided that it would be a bad investment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ian - that's the bargain of the century. 3 rolls of (process paid) K64 for £2. Thanks for the heads up. My store, whilst large, is in a popular tourist location and it's possible that they have more healthy sales of film....</p>

<p>Well worth keeping an eye on one's local Boots stores in case the offer is repeated in other stores. My Boots also stocks Ilford B&W along with the consumer colour C41 from Kodak and Fuji.</p>

<p>Adey</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You know this speculation on whether Kodak could keep Kodachrome going or not is counter productive to making photos, right ( Josh excluded )? <br>

It's done, we have 18 months, just enough time to have one last dance with it and celebrate in the images we make. Talking about what could have been is what I will do years from now when I have shot all my Kodachrome and the opportunity to get it developed is gone.<br>

Just food for thought....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the availabilty of chemistry (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process</a>) might make it difficult for others to replicate the process. For example if the specific color couplers for cyan, yellow, and magenta are no longer produced, then the process couldn't be precisely duplicated. I suppose through trial and error, workable chemistry might be eventually produced, but I wouldn't count on it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You're assuming that Dwayne's would want to continue developing this film. Almost certainly there would be a drop off in the number of users due to the Kodak name not being on the package, and that drop off may make it an unsound business for Dwayne's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are contracted through the end of 2010. And, unoficially I have heard that if demand is still there, they will keep running the machine until demand drops to a point where it is unprofitable. While I wouldn't bet on a rumor and I intend to shoot my kodachrome before dec 2010, the rumor makes sense as K14 probably has done well for Dwaynes. Even a small monopoly is good for business.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just curious, would be more expensive to manufacture Kodachrome or to process it? Both Kodak and Dwayne's having the monopoly on manufacturing/processing Kodachromes it looks like good business for Dwayne's and bad business for Kodak... I recall paying 9 dollars a roll of 36 for processing at Dwayne's, seems to be ten now.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been Kodachrome (I, K-11) "clones", as the first color slide films by Konishiroku (a.k.a. Konica), Fujifilm, and Ilford were all based on Kodak's patents, just as the Dynachrome slide film made at Rochester, USA - by a company built up by former Kodak employees. Also Gevaert in Belgium tried to emulate the Kodachrome process before WWII, but sooner or later these companies switched to Agfacolor- or Ektachrome-type films with embedded color couplers.

 

It would not be too difficult to manufacture a K-14 "clone", as the patents have all expired, which describe the basics, and the technical skills of casting film and processing still exist. However, K-14 processing appears as too particular, since even some Kodak-run labs are said to have had troubles in the past with processing consistency (Stuttgart, Fair Lawn, ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe now is the time to turn attentions away from high volumn producers and perhaps focus on smaller independant companies. Unless they needed to be rid of their K-14 processing machine?... Dwayne's for a period after the deadline (OR maybe do such NOW)only fire up the big-girl when they had received enough rolls of (still/motion) K-14 film to do a run? Per say on a bi weekly or once a month and basis... keeping the incomming films in cold storage before a scheduled run. Maybe someone might even suggest they do a reasonable increase in their processing fees? If they are doing a hundred a day now, it might could total (with some added dwindle in consideration) into rougly a thousand rolls or more a month. If they went to charging from $9 a roll to maybe $12 it would total $12,000 for a one thousand roll run, which might appeal being lucrative enough for them to go on another year or so? I don't know what their cost of operation is however. In other avenues, maybe Photographer's Formulary Inc. might want to take up the challenge in offering a do-it-at-home for K-14? (If anyone had enough patience or Gin to endure such?) I know I am being silly, as I'm a mere amature and small fish in this pond. Many of you however seem to have a groundful name that could maybe influence the pulling of stings. With film of all formats gradually facing it's 'final' demise, maybe now is the time to conglomerate the numbers of dedicated film users and know just exactly what market still remains. As I indicated, I'm (often) a bit silly in my imagination, but I keep thinking now is the crucial time to grow beyond web forums. Maybe find a bored and wealthy benefactor with a lot of spare time on his hand to help launch a National Endowment of Film Photography? If it could comprise such members and dedicated film users such as Leibovitz,Demarcheller, and so on, we could maybe help reveal the actual market potential for film sales and influence smaller companies to take on production of film on a smaller scale. (If appear stupid and suddenly over the top, please blame it on the two cups of coffee I just had.) Charles</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe I have been very fortunate, but I have never had a poorly processed roll of K64, K200 or super8 K40 from either Fair Lawn or Dwayne's. Everything looked perfect, except for my own screw-ups! I have had, however, poorly lubricated super8 K40 carts from Kodak that caused headaches for super8 filmmakers for a few years.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>I tend to believe it when I hear that Kodak wasn't making money off of Kodachrome. But even if they were, it couldn't have been much. And when you start adding in the rest of the costs per-unit that occur when running a manufacturing business, I'm virtually positive that profit would have disappeared. Especially if we're talking about a number in the $50-100K range. Kodak's power bill for the month is probably more than $50k (I'm just making that up, but I wouldn't be surprised).</em></p>

<p>I think it's important to bear in mind that like many publicly held companies, Kodak dances to Wall Street's tune. Kodak has to be profitable and seem both profitable and seem to be a safe investment, not for you and me but for investment banks, mutual fund managers et al. While Wall Street is too often accused of being very near sighted, that's the pond where Kodak swims, myopic as it may be.<br>

Henry Posner <br /> <strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

Henry Posner

B&H Photo-Video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>They are contracted through the end of 2010. And, unoficially I have heard that if demand is still there, they will keep running the machine until demand drops to a point where it is unprofitable. While I wouldn't bet on a rumor and I intend to shoot my kodachrome before dec 2010, the rumor makes sense as K14 probably has done well for Dwaynes. Even a small monopoly is good for business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In talking to Dwayne's yesterday, they seemed to be fairly confident K-14 processing will not go beyond 12/2010. So in my mind, even if processing does literally extend beyond 12/2010, it would not be advertised as such for as you could imagine, the last minute rush is going to be substansial, so Dwayne's in effect could be souping Kodachrome orders from the deadline date a month or two beyond 2010 just to get caught up.<br>

<br /> But all in all, I think it is best to plan with 99.999% certainty that sometime in 12/2010 is the deadline to get your film in. Otherwise, if people start relying on rumors, it just gets nasty when people are let down by the actual circumstances.<br>

<br /> Also consider that *if* Dwayne's is even going to remotely consider processing past 2010, the numbers around Fall of next year have to support the extension as well as the availability of K-14 chemistry.<br /> This is all just so new and fresh that I think we need to focus on the facts for awhile. And the debate about having another company make the film, I just can't begin to fathom why this is still going on. Kodak made the announcement, the film is going away and we have 18 months to get it processed, end of story.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Following up on my previous post: Jun 23, 2009; 09:28 p.m. Looking for Kodachrome? Get on the B&H waiting list......</p>

<p>I have received the following, even-more-positive response from Mr. Posner from B&H regarding their continuing committment to stock Kodachrome: </p>

<p>"No matter what sort of rumors and nonsense you read online, B&H has an order in for a carload of Kodachrome and we will continue to stock it as long as it is possible to do so. Right now we have no idea when our next shipment will arrive. We do not know how much we'll get either. What I know with absolute certainly is we will have Kodachrome as long as it is possible to do so. "</p>

<p>Might I also point out that we, although the ultimate consumers of Kodachrome, don't really place orders directly with Kodak. Jobbers, wholesalers, suppliers, and big retailers such as B&H place the orders. Big orders to Kodak from their big buyers can't help but make a strong point to Kodak to pour another sheet. So....it is to our benefit for those companies to have a good reason to assume the sales risk of placing a big order of Kodachrome from Kodak. That's why, even though I just bought what I need for the immediate future, I am putting my name on the waiting list with B&H. I will also complete my order when they get it in. It's only fair and honorable, but it's also good for us because how else would B&H be motivated to place another order?</p>

<p><br />Additionally, I have received a response to my first request to Kodak to keep Kodachrome. Yes, Mr. Bayer, although most polite and perhaps even with a hint of sadness on the part of respondent Peter V., it was a definite "no." On the other hand, it was just as definite a no that I got the first time I wrote him about marketing their new Ektar 100 in 120 size.</p>

<p><br />Mr. Posner, a few posts earlier, gave us a most insightful comment about who really sways large corporate decisions. Mr. Posner, as an executive of B&H, probably attends a certain amount of downtown New York business club meetings that include senior personnel from the nearby investment and financial firms. At least some of the same type of people surely must be customers of their nearby B&H superstore, where Mr. Posner has an opportunity to speak with them from time to time.</p>

<p>While the announcement of dropping Kodachrome is fresh and current, the blogs and news groups are full of Kodachrome comments and columnists are devoting part or all of a column to Kodachrome, perhaps someone on photonet has a friend or acquaintance at the Wall Street Journal. If so, would they be so kind as to suggest an article, perhaps with a theme like "Will dropping Kodachrome help or hurt Kodak's bottom line in the long run?"</p>

<p><br />I'm old enough to remember the mid-50s quite well. General Motors scooped Ford badly with their 1954 highly altered offerings. They were able to showcase them at the popular GM Motorama which left Ford in the "me-too" also-ran category. The new GM offerings were the talk of a quite car-conscious 1950's American society. What was Ford to do to get somebody to notice them? They tried to play catch-up with somewhat altered 1955 models, only to be countered with the new Chevy and Pontiac V8s from GM. Oops, not good enough. So Ford consciously made the decision to produce the semi-custom-made, most expensive car in the USA, and quite unique, Continental Mark II at $10,000 each, when a new Cadillac cost about $5000. Ford made this decision, knowing they were going to lose money on every car, even at $10,000. It was a good decision. It brought a little something new and excitement to the Ford name and into the Ford showrooms, where they displayed each car for a time before "allowing" it to be sold. <br />Kodak was once the General Motors of the photo industry. Today, most of my photo friends consider them the Ford of 1954. Ektar 100 has brought them some new sales, as well as an image boost. But that just brings them to 1955, as it was a defensive strike.</p>

<p>I ask, why is Kodak top management not making hay out of all this Kodachrome publicity? They could let the photo public wait anxiously for the decision, only to announce they were going to do a full 75 years, with an institutional advertising program that would give a little glow to Kodak imaging products, where they feel their future is. At $50,000 to produce the 20,000 rolls of Kodachrome, they would sell for $100,000 or more, could be the cheapest and most effective corporate publicity coup in the current competitive photo industry. </p>

<p><br />Tom Burke</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A smart move by Kodak would have been to come up with a new formulation of an existing Ektachrome film like Fuji did with Provia 400X, which is an improvement of the older 400H. Kodak did this with TMAX films. They could have retained customers by saying, "even though we have to retire Kodachrome, we have this NEW version of Ektachrome ______ that has the lowest grain, blah blah blah". It seems to me that Fuji has stolen a lot of formerly loyal Kodak users, myself included. I'm primarily a Kodachrome and Fuji Provia user, but I'm going to end up shooting Fuji exclusively when K64 is gone.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Kodachrome<br /> They give us those nice bright colors<br /> They give us the greens of summers<br /> Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah<br /> I got a Nikon camera<br /> I love to take a photograph<br /> So mama don't take my Kodachrome away..." </em></p>

<p><em>Even though I haven't shot film in years, it will be a piece of Americana missed.<br /> </em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Even thought all online retailers are out of stock right now get your orders in. The more K64 that is backordered the more retailers will order from Kodak. If we can clear out the Kodak warehouse in a week they may decided it is worth makning another batch. It may not extend the deadline past 2010 but at least we may get enought film to enjoy until then. I now have orders with 3 retailers. 20 to 40 rolls with each of them. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<p>The fate of K-64 was sealed a long time ago. I have written before that I had been told on 4 separate occasions that the last batch of Kodachrome had been coated. Three of those messages were wrong. I had hoped that the fourth time would also be proven wrong, but such was not the case. While the last batch of production (slitting, spooling, and packaging) has yet to occur, the last coating of K-64 occurred in 2006. There are some unique chemicals in the product. It would be difficult to find suppliers to make these chemicals again. </p>

<p>The formula is indeed proprietary. Sure all of the patents have long since expired, but many important details were never published. In the late 80's, I was the formulation engineer for the product. Even if I still had all of the information I had at the time, there is no way I could go to another company and start production. There might be a patent that lists most of the chemical ingredients and their quantities, but there is nothing out there that lists the procedures used for each step.</p>

<p>The stages of grief include denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance. You can see all of these stages in this thread. They are all normal and I wont criticize anyone for feeling the way they do. I will echo the refrain of many others--we've got 18 months to use this unique product. Lets make the most of it. </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



×
×
  • Create New...