Dwayne's Photo (Kodachrome) in the news ...

dmr · 10-20-2009

Hope this link works for you.

http://www.koamtv.com/global/video/f...o&rnd=61798195

Al Kaplan · 10-20-2009

Thanks. It works. Nothing else looks like Kodachrome.

35mmdelux · 10-20-2009

Astia 100F comes close.

dmr · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35mmdelux

Astia 100F comes close.

Kodachrome-Astia challenge.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=62841

sanmich · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

Thanks. It works. Nothing else looks like Kodachrome.

...after 50 years. which is why I can't belive Kodak has decided to shut down Kchrome (after having shooting it down)

Do anyone have any idea on which color film is the most stable/archival solution after Kchrome?

Rob-F · 10-20-2009

The Kodachrome I liked best was Kodachrome-X. It was ASA 64. I lived in the Nevada desert at the time, in the 1960's. Kodachrome-X captured the colors there in a warm, vivid way that was just right. If they had continued it, I'd have continued using it. To my eye, Astia has a different look. I think it's cooler in color balance. Not a bad thing, but not the same as Kodachrome.

FallisPhoto · 10-20-2009

If they're not careful, it won't be long before Kodak has nothing left worth buying.

dmr · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanmich

...after 50 years. which is why I can't belive Kodak has decided to shut down Kchrome (after having shooting it down)

I find it very hard to believe that Kodak is losing money on Kodachrome. I mean, all of the R&D is done, tooling is in place, distribution channels are in place, product is well-known and has a good reputation.

It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.

degruyl · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr

I find it very hard to believe that Kodak is losing money on Kodachrome. I mean, all of the R&D is done, tooling is in place, distribution channels are in place, product is well-known and has a good reputation.

It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.

Was it made in the US? I suspect they could manage to loose money if they had attempted to move production to China. In the same vein, they should have just upped the price (because people apparently want to pay $15/roll for it).

Personally, I don't understand the fascination. I can just barely swallow $6/roll. But, to each his own. I suspect that will change when Fuji's prices go up.

bean_counter · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr

It has to be a cash cow for them! All they have to do is make it and sell it.

IIRC, somebody "in the know" said there's a lot of risk involved - it hasn't been made recently, and a failed run would be a large financial hit.

It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.

It is a victim of its own prior success and the old American "bigger is better" business model; a long, but smaller volume line might be financially viable as a boutique product.

oftheherd · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bean_counter

IIRC, somebody "in the know" said there's a lot of risk involved - it hasn't been made recently, and a failed run would be a large financial hit.

It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.

It is a victim of its own prior success and the old American "bigger is better" business model; a long, but smaller volume line might be financially viable as a boutique product.

There was a time when kodak was totally devoted to film and serving its public. That's no longer true: the bean counters took over.

It is a shame. I really liked Kodachrome. I liked 25 over 64, but both were such great producers. For reasons mentioned above, it would probably be difficult to start up production again, even if anybody at Kodak was interested. Sad.

ampguy · 10-20-2009

What am I missing here? Why not develop your own?

buzzardkid · 10-20-2009

One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome

Tuolumne · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLE-RF

One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome

I believe it even requires a staff chemist to get it right.

/T

dmr · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLE-RF

One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome

Actually, several people have been playing around with this. The process is well-documented and even the intimate details of the chemistry are available to those who really want them.

A certain Photo Engineer on 'another network' has convincingly stated that he's done small runs in the lab using a plain old tank.

The tricky part seems to be the two re-exposures. These need to be precisely controlled.

dmr · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bean_counter

It's a very complicated line that hasn't run in a couple (or more) years; statistically, it's nearly certain that some system or sub-sytem that has been sitting idle would not work as intended. Long production lines with many sequential process steps run best when kept in motion.

One item of speculation has been that Kodachrome would be made until something critical for its production breaks down.

Maybe that time has come.

Another speculation is that they are losing the talent necessary to produce it, you know, that legendary "knowing where to tap" type of thing. Kind of like the fact that Autochrome is well understood and documented, but the skills necessary to produce it no longer exist.

ampguy · 10-20-2009

That sounds like what a Jiffy Lube tech would tell you if you asked them about changing your own oil ...

turns out that the inventors of Kodachrome developed it in their sinks, and throughout the R&D of Kodachrome, the processing was done in sinks without machines, same for non-roll sheet films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLE-RF

One cannot process Kodachrome at home, Ampguy.

It needs a very complex developing process, it needs multiple baths in exotic chemicals at the exact right temps, etc.

When Dwayne quits, its over and out with Kchrome

Santafecino · 10-20-2009

It's true that in the 40's Kodak used to offer Kodachrome sheet film. You couldn't process that in cine machines; sinks and tanks must have been the method. Maybe K-14 could be done at home. But three separate reversal exposures and color development!

varjag · 10-20-2009

Some things are harder than others, live with it. K-14 is fairly different from Kodachrome process of 1930s.

There was a "simplified" K-lab process available in the 1980s, it required just some 20 square meters and $150,000 in machinery. One was recently for sale on Ebay, just for a few thousands.

sanmich · 10-20-2009

My understanding is that processing, as complex as it may be is not the issue here.
Dwayne would love to continue doing the job.
And if not Dwayne, I guess we could have seen an independant lab running the simplified lab mentioned by Eugene.
The problem is that no Kodachrome will be produced anymore.

Al Patterson · 10-20-2009

I'm sure it is the bean counters getting in the way. if they had to decide on only one slide process going Forward, E-6 or Kodachrome, the winner will always be E-6. Cheaper to make, easier to develop.

You do realize the film market is shrinking, right?

degruyl · 10-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Patterson

I'm sure it is the bean counters getting in the way.

Thank god we can all do wet plate in our homes... or course, paper might be difficult. But then we can cyanotype. or something.

Michael Markey · 10-20-2009

Thanks for that DMR .I sent the last (for me) off last week.It`s nice to see behind the scenes at Dwaynes. I hope the workers there will be secure in their jobs.

Ronald M · 10-20-2009

Digital is here to stay.

I took my my M6 out for a walk after using nikon D700 for a year and some other Nikon Dslrs before that. I forgot what I was missing. As nice as a Nikon is, it just does not match my Leicas M or R.

But we move forward. Or sideways. Or where the powers that be want us to go.

Trius · 10-21-2009

If Ron (photoengineer on APUG) says it's diificult at home, then believe him.

Kodachrome is (was) made in Rochester, though there may have been some production elsewhere at one time. I'd be shocked if it were ever produced in China or a country other than Canada, UK or Switzerland.