kodachrome marketing project

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Robin-<br /> Slides can be put into storage and left there. I recently discovered Kodachrome slides from the 1950's which had been stored on a high shelf in a closet in the warm climate of inland Southern California. The color is still strong and accurate. I know because I compared some of the objects in the family photos with the actual objects which still exist. So old process Kodachrome, not well stored, has persisted over half a century.</p>

<p>I have some shots taken last November with a digital camera. One of them now won't display. I have a backup which should be fine, but the copy on my computer is toast. I have digital shots taken in 2000/2001, as part of my work at the time. More than half will not open or only load partially.<br>

<br /> With digital, redundancy and maintenance are key.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Re "Slides can be put into storage and left there."</p>

<p>(1)In SoCal the rain in LA is about 10 to 11 inches per year; thus it is VERY dry. Slides just get dusty if stored poorly.</p>

<p>(2) In the New Orleans/South East area; one has about 60 to 65 inches of rain per year; slides if stored poorly have crap that grows on them and it eats away the image. Slide carolsels from that area are often a moldy mess; with hairs and fungi at work. The slide mounts adhesive fails. Slides and mounts have little spots on them; slides develop "holes" that are eaten out spots. In scanning this crap one gets spores and fungi and crud in one scanner; to be laid down as little turds and specs on other folks originals. Often one just uses a lame flatbed and one scans poor slides at 2400 dpi; so one's scanner does not become a bio hazard.</p>

<p>As far as the Government using microfilm'; in many places this was once true; sort of like when newspapers used film or 4x5 speed graphics! :) Alot of my scanning work for government stuff since the late 1980's is to get around the obsolete microfilm practice. In doucment scanning the basic "group 4 TIFF format" with 400 dpi scans of plats and engineering drawings has been used since the 386 days; ie late 1980's. Microfilm's useage was waned alot.</p>

<p>A 400 dpi scan of a 32x32" Land plat down in 1988 is still printable today; its group 4 TIFF variant is what a modern Reprographic scanner oftens scans too; the same format after 22 years. In actual government useage; digital images goes back before photoshop. We scasnned this stuff in the 386 days with DOS. A bigger issue is maintaining obsolete microfilm scanners to move microfilm into the digital age.</p>

<p>Folks will bring in old Aperture cards and want a digital version.</p>

<p>Microfilm can last many centuries. Once we scanned some microfilms from a guys dad who worked at NASA; it was a V2 rocket scatter diagram of X and Y in kilometers; ie WW2 German stuff his dad had from when he was on the V2 project in WW2. His son found the microfilm strips in one of his dads old books. A piece of microfilm can be placed in a letter; book and go undetected and be found eons later.</p>

<p> </p>

[randrew1]

<p>I will repeat what I have written before in other threads:</p>

<p>I once attended a conference at the George Eastman house on image preservation. During a panel discussion, the question was asked: "What is the best way to preserve a collection of images?" The answer was:</p>

<ol>

<li>Digitize everything.</li>

<li>Store all image files on multiple redundant servers in geographically separate locations.</li>

<li>Endow the IT department in perpetuity.</li>

</ol>

<p>They went on to say that if you can't do all three, then don't start. They stated that ALL collection of digital images that are not actively managed will eventually be lost. Francois is correct that Hollywood has found it cheaper to store film. Since most of us cannot "Endow the IT department in perpetuity" we need other options. When I was still at Kodak, I participated in an ad hoc group to develop recommendations for amateur photographers to store their images long term. Our conclusion was that to preserve images for future generations, they should be in human readable form (prints, negatives, and slides). Our findings were never published because they conflicted with the corporate strategy which urged everyone to "Send you pictures to the Kodak Gallery and we will keep them forever." Now that Kodak is reportedly seeking a buyer or partner for the Kodak Gallery, the "forever" promise seems doubtful.<br>

 

<p >My bottom line: While I have scanned many of my slides and negatives (and have uploaded most to Smugmug.com), I have never thrown out an original.</p>

</p>

[d_f11]

<p> "The main reason for the stop of Kodachrome is that E-6 films surpassed Kodachrome in most relevant perameters..." Francois, don't let your rods & cones fool you. You obviously havn't shot too much Kodachrome or you'd realize it has a sharpness & contrast unique to itself, UNmatched by E-6 films. Tests - LLP's, RMS's, charts/graphs, etc, mean absolutely nothing. I agree E-6 films have superb color "saturation", but many photographic applications don't require, nor look at all pleasing using high sat films. Kodachrome has stopped for a variety of reasons, Kodak (like Fuji) not promoting film for the past decade reinforcing the publics ignorance for digital, sagging economics, high cost if processing, to name a few.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Rather than growing its film imaging products, Kodak is desperately trying to fit their business model into a digital age. Unfortunately there is no room in the digital world for Kodak's business model. <br>

Kodak would be wise, given the resurgence in amateur film photography, to go on the offensive. Embrace and promote their film heritage. Even bringing back "classic" and nostalgic products.<br>

I would love to see the return of the Instamatic 126. Cameras "Made in the USA". Sell the film with prepaid processing mailers. Make the boxes and packaging look like the old Disneyland days. No batteries required!<br>

Alas, their Chief Marketing Officer seems oblivious to their heritage. Press releases and videos I have seen lately make it appear he despises film.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I first started shooting film in the 1950's. A home my dad shot 35mm slides; Kodachromes. For store processed prints the masses with simple cameras got B&W prints; very few amateurs shot color print films. At school and home processing many of us developed B&W films; 35mm and 120/620 rolls.</p>

<p>The Kodapak/Instamatic of 1963 helped somewhat the usage of color print films; Kodacolor was asa 64 to 80 then. C41 with 1 hour processing in the 1970's ushed in rapid usage of color print films; color print films went from 125 to 400. the 1980's gave us 800 asa stuff.</p>

<p>The average shooter in America basically dropped shooting slides decades ago; they replaced slides with color prints. Newcomers to photography on this thread seem to have been asleep when slide usage dropped like a stone. Or was it those boring slide shows of 30 years ago that put you in a weird trance?</p>

<p>Slide usage as already in deep tailspin 20 years ago; when digital was just new. Kodachrome would have died off even if there was no digital cameras; the general public stopped shooting slides 20 to 30 years ago. If I use an average non pro "slide scan customer" of mine; slide usage peaked in the 1960's; and was dead for alot of folks by the early 1980's; ie they went to color prints.</p>

<p>There is no real resurgence of film but a contraction if one vists actual retailers in Midwest and California; I see less and less film types and less and less space allocated to selling film; it is a dying market. I bought some clearance items like 110 Kodacolor and 35mm Fuji asa 100 print film on fire sale at two stores. </p>

<p>Heck I miss Verichrome; Verichrome Pan; Panatomic-X; Royal-X; Super-X too ; I miss 4x5 film pack films; I miss having a local E6 lab; I miss 8mm cine Kodachrome. </p>

<p> Have younger friends who have never seen a slide before; that shoot with digital cameras. To them slides might as well be like going from a cellphone to a corded dial phone.</p>

<p>The last enlarger got was 7 years ago from thrift store; a local college dropped their chemical based darkroom. Two enlargers sat for 2 weeks. I got a Bessler 23 for 35 bucks with a Componon; a kid got the 35mm Durst with an el nikkor for 25 dollars.</p>

<p>At a ham radio swap meet 2 months ago a fellow there went 2 days without selling a box full of stainless reels and tanks for 10 bucks. It had 120, 35mm; tanks that hold 1,2,4 and 8 35mm reels. I almost bought it but then figured maybe it might spark somebody to take start an old darkroom.</p>

<p>The film ship is already sinking; every Kodak officer has had plans whether today ; 5; 10 or 15 years ago.<br>

Retail stores in the USA do not even sell new film cameras anymore; except disposables; you have to mailorder one in many places.</p>

<p>Kodaks model is about printing; inkjet ink; that is why they have a HP guy in place. what is left with film profits lets the leaders/baffoons attempt a non film resurrgence. It has failed or been lackluster at best. What is sad is even 10 to 15 years ago next year was going to be way better; with each new plan.</p>

[d_f11]

<p> Bill, you make good points. I bet film does gaul the higher-ups at Kodak alittle more than Fuji. Film could be saved if there was a way to manufacture & market it on a much smaller scale. Kodak should eventually divorce itself from film/paper/chemicals. A savy enlightened group of investors retains Kodak trademark as well as patents. A small size factory churn out a limited amount of our favorite films, according to demand. 'Course this is a fantasy. I wonder what Subho's working on.</p>