Your KODACHROME...How do you plan to spend it?

[DickArnold]

<p>That is except the several hundred Kodachrome slides I have in a box, that is. My great grand children might get something out of them as they really do last while fading some.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Brian Shaw Wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The KODACHROME project is interesting and I wish them well. But frankly, they started too late and didn't plan ahead if they don't have enough film. Unfortunate... but what does that have to do with me? They might as well have started the "1957 T-Bird Project". It too has been discontinued, sells for more money than originally, etc, etc. Same concept, don't you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You assume a lot. I did plan ahead, I have over 320 rolls of perfect 2003 Kodachrome 25, 100 KL-200 and 600 rolls of Kodachrome 64 for my needs in the project which is not counting the 200 more rolls I have on order for project members who can't afford your jacked up "happy 4th of July" prices. <br /> <br /> More power too you I guess, but Kodak is actually trying to distribute the film in such a way that people who want to use the film for photography get to use it.</p>

<p> </p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>What is this, the USSA? Since when is it Kodak's responsibility to worry about what anyone does with its film? Congratulations for stocking up on your film and all and more power to you. What about me though? I was poor back in 2001 and couldn't afford to stock up then, but I have more money now, so I can buy today.</p>

<p>Would you consider selling me 100 rolls of Kodachrome 25 at your cost? Or maybe, how about at the price it sold at B&H in 2001 or so when you could last order it? I promise, I'll use it for photography. I hope you weren't the one paying $600 for a 10-pack on fleabay a few years ago.</p>

<p>Come on, what if you couldn't finish all 320 rolls? Would you rather it went to waste?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p> I feel sorry for those of you who have a deep freezer full of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, why would that be? I have made the time to shoot all of it.</p>

[mikal_grass]

<p>I have about 30 rolls of K25 and plan to buy as much as I can. I am not a fan of K64 but will buy some as well. I am taking photos of anything and everything I can, my kids, my wife, business related photos (adoptions), etc. South Florida is a very colorful place, with beautiful colors; it is the perfect place to shoot the last of my stock. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>What is this, the USSA? Since when is it Kodak's responsibility to worry about what anyone does with its film? Congratulations for stocking up on your film and all and more power to you. What about me though? I was poor back in 2001 and couldn't afford to stock up then, but I have more money now, so I can buy today.<br /> Would you consider selling me 100 rolls of Kodachrome 25 at your cost? Or maybe, how about at the price it sold at B&H in 2001 or so when you could last order it? I promise, I'll use it for photography. I hope you weren't the one paying $600 for a 10-pack on fleabay a few years ago.<br /> Come on, what if you couldn't finish all 320 rolls? Would you rather it went to waste?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was poor in 2001 too...<br>

I bought 400 rolls of the KM-25 last year from a East Coast photo store that was consigning it for a woman who bought it, froze it and never found the time to use it. I cost me nearly triple what it cost when she bought it, but half of what it would normally go for. I sold some to project members and now the rest will be shot in either Leica or Hasselblad XPan cameras.<br>

Trust me, none of my film will go to waste.<br>

I am really glad I ordered 200 rolls of KR for folks who need it around this time next year. I just thought it was in poor taste to boast about hoarding for profit on a photo related forum.</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>So then, you do agree that it was the speculation of that woman that makes your misson possible, yes?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Not exactly, she is a well known photographer who does not need profits from flipping film, she speculated her use of the film, not her potential profit from it. The fact she went digital and never used it is what gave me the opportunity to obtain it.</p>

<p>Again, it is in poor taste to boast on a forum with photographers who want to actually use the film about profiting from it.</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>Then why did she want 3x her cost for it?</p>

<p>And if someone else had sold it at exactly the same price as her and on the same day as her, but had bought with the intention of making a profit, that would have made him evil?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>Then why did she want 3x her cost for it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is what the store pegged it at, $15 a roll, I have no idea what she wanted.<br>

<br /> A third and last time, boasting about selling Kodachrome for a big markup on a forum with passionate photographers who are looking for the film is in poor taste, that is what I posted about, do you get that yet?</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>Who was boasting? Brian was engaging in a little dry humor (getting 100x the real value should be the dead giveaway), and Partrick overreacted (and Mr. Burke sorta implied that Brian was beneath our respect) so I attempted to correct some of those misconceptions.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Ah, OK, well, I am pretty tired from nearly two straight weeks of commercial shooting, onward...</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Daniel... I'm really glad that you have the film you'll need to achieve your goal. It is a good project; I never intended to imply anything to the contrary. I really love that pic on your opening page!</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Bayer...</p>

<p>Referring to your 09:28 p.m post...Well said.</p>

<p>Somewhere above you said that you were poor in 2001. You might have not had a lot of money but you were hardly poor in sprit and effort as your Kodachrome Project clearly shows. I continue to enjoy the project and thank you for it. You are a man who put his time, effort and money where his mouth was. People like you are usually winners in life no matter how much money they have in the bank. </p>

<p>Mr. Arnold...</p>

<p>At 77 you're just a kid! The DC 3 was certainly a milestone airplane. I always wanted to fly one. When the chance finally came where time, money and opportunity coincided I had just lost my medical by a few days. A DC 3 is one of the things on my "last rolls of Kodachrome" list (the somewhat forgotten subject of this thread). I live in a small remote town. Usually some organization of old time airplanes does a fly-in at our old country airport about twice a year. Should one of them have a nicely restored DC 3 I'll try to Kodachrome it twice, not once so that I have a slide to offer you. </p>

<p>Mr. Flanigan....</p>

<p>You're right. I remember a while back when several posters were bemoaning the upcoming demise of Kodachrome but did not shoot it. Someone here on the board, I think Mr. Bayer, suggested that we Kodachrome boosters should try to shoot and process a roll a week. I thought that a good idea and did my 50+ rolls a year since then. Sometimes I had to use it up as a lens test roll or such but I made it. The day of the announcement I had just gotten back a box of slides and had a roll in the mail. Did the effort succeed? No. Was giving it a good and proper go worth it? Always. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Nebhrajani...</p>

<p>You said "and Mr. Burke sorta implied that Brian was beneath our respect". No, Sir. I said that Americans did not have to respect him or his expressed thought and I still say that they do not. I also see that I could have "implied" that I did not. That was my error as I did want to imply that I did not respect the concept he was referring to and in that case agreeing with the tenor of Mr. Mont's post. I had not yet passed judgment as to Mr. Shaw's personal character or respectability and did not mean to address that aspect. I do now see that common reading of my comment would lead a reasonable person to believe otherwise. In Mr. Shaw's further posts, including how he treated my retort he proved worthy of respect as a person. I still disagree with the thought in his first post, and to a great degree, but judge him well as a whole person. I look forward to his continued thoughtful posts. </p>

<p>I can also not like and/or respect some trait or action of a person and yet not think poorly of them in total. Take yourself. I disagree with your stance above but also recognize that you support the Photonet board that you use as evidenced by your "9" flag. I certainly think well of that. You also took the time to give a thoughtful, well laid out argument in defense of your position showing obvious thought and intelligence. You contribute to the board in the spirit that Mr. Philip Greenspun originally went to all the trouble to create. </p>

<p>Mr. Shaw...</p>

<p>May I be clearer this time? Whether what you originally said was in jest or seriousness, I continue disagree with and do not respect the concept expressed. As to you as an individual, the sum of your posts have shown you to be in my opinion, since formed, to be a respectable person. I also realize that my opinion is like a rectal orifice, everyone has one. You have been kind enough not to have pointed that out, Curly. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p> </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Nebhrajani...</p>

<p>So, OK, how do you intend to use your Kodachrome (if you have some)? Or did I miss your answer in all the above posting? </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[fredonian]

<p><strong><em>Kelly Flanigan wrote: "Dwayne's (in Kansas) may be struck by a tornado"</em></strong><br>

I'd always wondered how the middle portion of <em>The</em> <em>Wizard of OZ </em>came to being in color...now I know.</p>

<p><strong><em>Daniel Bayer: "Charles, why would that be? I have made the time to shoot all of it."</em></strong><br>

Daniel, Perhaps I was useing poor word selection when using <strong><em>"sorry"</em></strong> and should have used <strong><em>"bad". </em></strong>The word "sorry" leans too much toward "pitty" and is a bit unwaranted. <strong><em> </em></strong>I do feel bad for those who have a large stock of film in which , unless they were to sell or give it away, would be on a fairly short time limit to use it and have it processed. For those who may have 300 rolls Kodchrome in their freezer and would shoot it all, they are looking at roughly between $2400-$3000 worth of processing expense alone not including shipping. For a professional as you must clearly be...<strong><em>"I am pretty tired from nearly two straight weeks of commercial shooting, onward..." </em></strong>I can see why there is no need for me to feel <strong><em>"sorry"</em></strong> for you, as your cameras don't gather much dust as some of mine do. I gather you profit from your work. I still feel bad for you however, but in an HONORABLE way. It's not out of pity, but of respect and admiration, as anytime an artist, esspecially a pasionate one, looses their medium of choice for which they've put to such masterful use, can only command some level of empathy from those who appreciated thier work. </p>

<p> </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Charles, thanks for hosting this discussion. Even though it wandered a bit from the original question it was, no doubt, interesting. I hope you got enough answers to your question! I found the varied answers quite interesting and learned more than I ever expected to learn.</p>

<p>I'm always amazed at the emotion that something like film and cameras can generate. I stay out of hte "red dot" discussions because they get ugly fast. I guess Kodachrome is another one of those emotionally-charged topics too. I had no idea exactly how emotional some people are on the topic.</p>

<p>When Polaroid "met its demise" there was a lot of chatter, back beating, brow beating and a lot of conversation that started with "I always meant to shoot some..." or "I had better shoot some while I still have the opportunity...". It was just a few months ago, but remember how quickly "the opportunity" faded? It was only about 2 weeks before the supplies dried up and the remaining stock was priced beyond reality. Well, folks, here we are again. And this is not the first time, nor the only product line to experience this phenomemon. At this point Kodachrome will either be shot by the luck few who stockpiled when the prices were reasonable or who are willing to pay the going rate. What's more... those who paid $15/roll (no implications toward anyone in particular... really!) will likely be willing to pay $30 two months from now. And those selling will be making $$ in honest profit. The difference between profit and profiteering is a whole other discussion. As Vijay has repeatedly stated - this is our economic system works: a balance of supply and demand. Some may not feel that is right, but it is the way it is. "Right" is a value judgement and value judgements are like (ahem)... everyone has one.</p>

<p>I sincerely appreciate the conversation in this thread. I sincerely hope nobody is taking these differences of opinion in a personal way. I'm not. I'm the "opinionated kind" so I'm well used to having a different opinion and as a result tend to be somewhat tolerant of others opinions -- even if I consider theirs to be "wacky".</p>

<p>Re: Mr. Burke's 0139 AM posting (were you really banging away at the keyboard in the middle of the night?): there's no heartburn on my part; there never has been. I appreciate your forthrightness. You remind me very much of the father I had until recently. We could be very good friends... as long as you don't mind my occasionally wacky opinions!</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Even if we are not all Americans, perhaps we should asolutely act like we are. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I have 3 rolls of K64 that were frozen, and I just found a roll and a half that were stored hot in an old camera bag.</p>

<p>I'm not really sure what to shoot with it, desert scenery in the SW I guess, does anyone have some suggestions?</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"No thanks."</p>

<p>This is not a requirement, but a suggestion... should you so choose, which you chose not. Then feel free to be a great whatever-you-are-"ican". Please turn in your Levis jeans and any Kodachrome you may have to the nearest US embassy.</p>

<p>:) (That's a smile, to let you know I'm kidding with you!)</p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<p>Mr. Burke - I do have some KM left - not too much, just enough to photograph my family until processing runs out. If I go on a trip somewhere, my stock will run out faster.</p>

<p>I was a Kodachrome 25 fan - actually I still am, but availability and cost are deterrents. When KM was discontinued back in 2001 or so, I stocked up a bit, but I also moved to medium and large format around the same time. Now my workflow is E100SW - another fine film that Kodak saw fit to discontinue, and that old faithful - EPP in Medium format, 4x5 and 8x10. Yes, I stocked up lots of E100SW, which was around $2 - short dated or out of date - for a 120 roll around 2004. Everyone had gone gaga over E100GX, which I loathe, so E100SW was cheap.</p>

<p>On an unrelated note, I have always found KM's greens very natural and punchy enough - a common complaint with Kodachromes as opposed to the lurid greens of Fuji. Maybe those who prefer Fuji's greens have somewhat abnormal green perception - see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Prevalence">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Prevalence</a> - after all nearly one in ten males have some kind of red-green vision problem. My friend, who does have a form of color blindness that makes him confuse red and green does not like Kodachrome 25 at all. He prefers Astia. Anyway, this topic is controversial so might as well drop it.</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Nebhrajani...</p>

<p>Kodachrome 25 was my favorite too. Second was Ektar/Royal Gold 25. I was also sad at the demise of EPN for the "natural" look in MF and LF. Ektar 25 also made a good quick-n-dirty interneg in 35mm. </p>

<p>I took the USAF's pilot color exam. I was one of the few (who have ever taken over all the years it was used) who made it faultless to the back of the book. That was almost 50 years ago. Color perception fades over the years but I still like the Kodachrome 25 look, and liked it in 10/8 too. </p>

<p>Tom Burke </p>

<p>P.S. See, I was right. A guy can't be all bad and love Kodachrome 25! :)</p>

[michael_riggs]

<p>I have 3 rolls of Kodachrome 25 left. One will be for my wedding, one for fall foilage, and one for family pics. It'll be great to have shots that don't fade over time, but will I be able to dig up a slide projector in 50 years?</p>

[fredonian]

<p>Thanks for sharing Michael! That's the kind of response I've yearned for.</p>