Kodachrome....AGAIN.

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Wasn't the introduction of Velvia one of the major factors in the downfall of Kodachrome? I'm not saying that the two films had the same look, but rather that the Velvia look sucked away a lot of sales to people who had been Kodachrome users.</p>

<p>Also, would it be fair to say that Kodak did not update Kodachrome emulsion technology for whatever reason? For example, is it not true that they never marketed an advanced emulsion technology version of Kodachrome (e.g. T-grain). If so then maybe Kodak let their flagship product line become obsolescent.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the ultimate failure of Kodachrome had at least as much to do with decisions made by Kodak management as anything else. Many of these have been discussed in this thread. Of course there is a the rise of digital photography which is killing off transparency film in general, but at least it seems to me that there was no fundamental reason why Kodachrome had to lose the war against E6 technology.</p>

<p>One more thing. I don't think that Kodak did a good job of making the general consumer aware of the good archival properties of Kodachrome technology.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>"Wasn't the introduction of Velvia one of the major factors in the downfall of Kodachrome? I'm not saying that the two films had the same look, but rather that the Velvia look sucked away a lot of sales to people who had been Kodachrome users." </p>

<p>I don't think so. Any new slide film is going to cut into the market of all other slide films. Other than that, I don't think it had a significant effect. The pumped up look of Velvia intrigued a lot of people who were using E-6, along with its extreme sharpness. It also arrived during a time that all style seemed to become exaggerated and over the top. The "reality" that was portrayed on TV, in films, and was sold in commercial advertisement, influenced social values. Life in general became a bit of an exaggeration and almost cartoonish. What was formerly considered "hype" was then considered more normal. Velvia probably both took advantage of this trend and may have even had a small hand in promoting it. </p>

<p>Now go back to the '50s and Kodachrome seems to have had the most pronounced colors. The original Anscochrome and the European versions of chrome from both Germany and Italy had a more subdued, supposedly refined look. In the last 10-15 years, Kodachrome has exhibited some of the more muted colors found in E-6. This is because of the other films getting more colorful while Kodachrome stayed about the same. </p>

<p>"Also, would it be fair to say that Kodak did not update Kodachrome emulsion technology for whatever reason? For example, is it not true that they never marketed an advanced emulsion technology version of Kodachrome (e.g. T-grain). If so then maybe Kodak let their flagship product line become obsolescent." </p>

<p>That would be fair. Several people in this thread and some other threads have written about the Kodachrome advanced products that never made it out of the factory. </p>

<p>"It seems to me that the ultimate failure of Kodachrome had at least as much to do with decisions made by Kodak management as anything else. Many of these have been discussed in this thread. Of course there is a the rise of digital photography which is killing off transparency film in general, but at least it seems to me that there was no fundamental reason why Kodachrome had to lose the war against E6 technology." </p>

<p>Most of the failure of Kodachrome, I feel, came from poor management decisions. Of course, the downfall of Kodachrome started with executive office greed when they attempted to increase Kodachrome's profitability by not meeting their processing commitment to the purchasers. I'm one of the people who feel that a unique product like Kodachrome could be brought back into prominence if the top corporate management is on the ball. GM let one of its top brands and earners, Oldsmobile, slide into obscurity until it had to be dropped from their line up. It should be no surprise that Kodak did the same thing with Kodachrome. </p>

<p>"One more thing. I don't think that Kodak did a good job of making the general consumer aware of the good archival properties of Kodachrome technology." </p>

<p>No argument there. Additionally, it is also said that Kodak was well aware of the poor archival properties of Ektachrome in the 1950s and 1960s, but did not make the public aware of that. Another photonet member (A. T. Burke) has posted an example that shows the difference in archival qualities of Ektachrome vs. Kodachrome, evidently both purchased in mid 1963. My family's old slides would certainly be consistent with his example. </p>

<p>There is a seller on the large auction site that sells pin-up/girlie transparencies, mostly shot for men's magazines in the 1970s. Within his medium format offerings, some of what appears to be Ektachrome looks very good, but most looks pretty discolored. On the other hand, not a single one of his 4X5 Ektachrome transparencies has minimally acceptable color left. Was that from processing or the emulsion? Why the difference between 120/220/70mm and 4x5?</p>