Kodachrome: Gone Forever, Or……? What would it take to bring it back? You don’t want to know!

Kodachrome: Gone Forever, Or……?
What would it take to bring it back? You don’t want to know!

By Jason Schneider

It’s now been 15 years since Kodak stopped making Kodachrome color transparency film in 2009, and nearly 90 years since Kodak first introduced it to the market in 1935, but it’s still regarded by millions of photo enthusiasts and professionals as the finest color film ever made. Invented by two friends, Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, both talented musicians with a passion for science and photography, the manufacture and processing of Kodachrome is probably the most complex system of color photography ever invented. The fact that it was literally cooked up (at least in protype form) by two scientists in a home kitchen converted into an impromptu lab is nothing short of astonishing.

Mannes and Godowsky, inventors of Kodachrome, in their lab.jpg
Leopold Mannes (left) and Leopold Godowsky, inventors of Kodachrome, in their lab, date unknown.

Kodachrome inventors Leopold Godowsky (left) accompanied by Leopold Mannes on the piano.jpg
Kodachrome inventors Leopold Godowsky (left) accompanied by Leopold Mannes on the piano. Date unknown.

When Kodak announced it was discontinuing Kodachrome in 2009 it created quite a stir, and there were howls of disappointment from diehard Kodachrome fans. But the final nail in the coffin (and the loudest, most widespread expressions of outrage) occurred in 2010, when the last Kodachrome lab, Dwayne’s of Parsons, Kansas, announced that the last Kodachrome processing machine would be shut down and sold for scrap. In its last weeks of operation, Dwayne’s received thousands of overnight packages. One railroad worker drove from Arkansas to pick up 1,580 rolls, mostly pictures of trains, that he’d paid $15,798 to develop, and an artist based in London, England flew to Wichita KS to turn in 3 rolls of Kodachrome and shoot 5 more before the processing deadline. Dwayne’s Photo soldiered on as long as it could—its staff had been cut from 200 to 60 in its last decade of operation. But in the end, they had no choice because Kodak had stopped producing the chemicals needed to process Kodachrome, and in its the last week of operation the lab opened the last cannister of cyan dye. Dwayne’s owner, Dwayne Steinle, had the honor of shooting the last roll of Kodachrome to be processed. It included a picture of all the remaining employees standing in front of Dwayne’s wearing shirts emblazoned with the heartfelt epitaph, “The best slide and movie film in history is now officially retired. Kodachrome: 1935-2010.”

Dwayne's Photo commemorative Kodachrome tee shirt of 2010.jpg
Dwayne's Photo wistful commemorative Kodachrome tee shirt of 2010. It's still available online!

In response to the brouhaha over the official announcement of the termination of Kodachrome in 2009, some marketing mavens at Kodak decided to conduct an informal survey of Kodachrome users. They concluded that nearly 100% of the target group said they loved the film and praised it effusively. But when asked “When was the last time you shot Kodachrome?” an alarming percentage admitted it that it had been “a while” or even “a few years” since they had done so. Their conclusion: while having a beloved, iconic product is a great thing in itself, if it doesn’t sell in sufficient quantities, it’s hard to justify keeping it in the line, particularly when manufacturing and processing it are both labor- and capital-intensive undertakings that divert resources from other potentially more lucrative projects.

But Kodachrome is more than just a film—it’s an American cultural icon, celebrated in song, myriad incredible images, and even has a state park named after it! That’s why the re-release of Kodachrome is a dream that never dies. It has captured the imagination of countless photographers of all stripes, even those who’ve never shot a single frame of Kodachrome or experienced viewing a a projected, perfectly exposed Kodachrome slide in all its stunning beauty.

Kodachrome is the only film to have a state park (in Cannonville UT) named in its honor. It ha...jpg
Kodachrome is the only film to have a state park (in Cannonville UT), a hit song, and a movie named in its honor. It has become a cultural icon.

Kodachrome was initially released in 1935 as a 16mm motion picture film in this colorful box.jpg
Kodachrome was initially released in 1935 as a 16mm motion picture film in this colorful box.

45 RPM disc of %22Kodachrome> by Paul Simon c.1973.jpg
45 RPM disc of "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon c.1973. "Those nice bright colors...the world's a sunny day..."

What’s so great (and not) about Kodachrome?

Kodachrome has a uniquely rich color palette, with the warmish color balance many prefer, and has an elevated level of color saturation, capturing a kind “hyper reality” that presents things “just a little better than they really are.” Consisting of a stack of low ISO emulsions, it’s capable of rendering extremely sharp, detailed images that seem to stand out in bold relief. And when stored properly in the dark, at cool temperatures and low humidity, Kodachrome images are archivally stable, possibly lasting 100 years or more without noticeable fading.

Like all great things Kodachrome has its downsides. To begin with t’s slow. The first “perfected” Kodachrome iterations of the late ‘30s through the ‘50s were ISO 10 (daylight). The very best Kodachrome in terms of overall performance was Kodachrome 25 (ISO 25), and the fastest “good” Kodachrome was Kodachrome 64 (ISO 64). Most Kodachrome aficionados (including yours truly) are not big fans of Kodachrome 200, which is noticeably grainier and has less brilliance and lower color saturation. Kodachrome has far less exposure latitude than most other films, including other color slide films, which generally have less exposure latitude than color print films. With Kodachrome the exposure must be within 1/3 of a stop of the “optimum” exposure to avoid blown out highlights or murky shadows, and some say it tends to “go blue” in the shadows. Finally, Kodachrome images are prone to fading when projected often or stored in places that are hot, or where daylight can reach them. Contrary to popular belief, Kodachrome is more susceptible to color fading than Ektachrome 100 or Fujichrome (Velvia or Provia) when it’s not placed in dark storage.

Original 1935 Kodachrome fiilm box, cartridge, cannister, and mailer.jpg
Original 1935 Kodachrome fiilm box, cartridge, canister, and Kodak mailer that cost 1-1/2 cents to mail in!

Kodachrome 64 120 roll film of c.1990.jpg
Kodachrome 64 120 roll film of c.1990. It was challenging to process. Too bad they never made Kodachrome 25 in 120 rolls.

Because of its proven ability to “take great pictures” with a unique look that combines vivid color and exquisite image quality, a coterie of analog enthusiasts has continued, albeit without success, to plead with Kodak to bring back their beloved Kodachrome. That mini movement gained some traction in 2017 when it was widely reported that Kodak’s then chief marketing officer Steven Overman stated in “The Kodakery” podcast, “we are investigating what it would take to bring back Kodachrome, but it would be a lot easier and faster to bring back Ektachrome.” We now know that Kodak had no intention of reviving Kodachrome at that time, but merely mentioning the possibility put the rumor mill into high gear.

1934 Kodak Retina 117 with c.1940 Kodacrome cartridge and can.jpg
1934 Kodak Retina Model 117 with c.1940 Kodachrome cartridge and canister--a formidable combo in its day.

What was left unsaid is that the challenge of reviving Kodachrome lies in the extreme complexity of the entire process. Redesigning and manufacturing a novel 6-layer film was the “easy” part. The re-creation of an entire ecosystem for a new Kodachrome that used new EPA-approved dyes, and creating new labs to process the film and produce mounted slides and prints to the consumer was beyond the capabilities of a diminished Eastman Kodak Co. The company no longer had enough engineers, scientists, and production managers (not to mention the film production capacity) to tackle such an ambitious project.

Indeed, what happened was that in 2017 Kodak embarked on a project to manufacture a limited run of a new Ektachrome to test the waters. The company soon discovered that it no longer had enough scientists and engineers needed to complete the project and had to lure some former Kodak employees out of retirement. Due to this and other snags the project took about 3 times as long to execute as had been anticipated, and though the entire run of Ektachrome was eventually sold, in the end the project lost money. While Ektachrome 100 Professional was eventually brought forth as a successful film that remains in current production, the money losing 2017 Ektachrome project remains a cautionary tale for anyone at Kodak thinking of reviving Kodachrome, a far more complex, expensive, technically challenging, and risky undertaking.

The Kodachrome Process of color photography, schematic. It's complicated! .gif.gif
The Kodachrome Process of color photography, schematic. Yes, it's really complicated!

Just how complex is Kodachrome? Here’s an edited version of the K-14 process used to process the last Kodachrome from Wikipedia.

K-14 was the most recent version of the developing process for Kodachrome transparency film before it was discontinued (the last revision having been designated Process K-14M). It superseded previous versions of the Kodachrome process used with older films (such as K-12 for Kodachrome II and Kodachrome-X).

Backing removal

An alkaline bath softens the cellulose acetate phthalate binder. A spray wash and buffer removes the rem-jet anti-halation backing.

First developer

All exposed sliver halide crystals are developed to metallic silver via a PQ (phenidone/hydroquinone) developer. The yellow filter layer becomes opaque because it has a combination of Lippmann emulsion (very tiny grains) and Carey Lea silver (metallic silver particles that are small enough that they are yellow rather than gray.)

Wash

Stops development and removes the PQ developer.

Red light re-exposure through the base

This makes the remaining undeveloped silver halide in the cyan layer developable.

Cyan developer

The solution contains a color developer and a cyan coupler. These are colorless in solution. After the color developer develops the silver, the oxidized developer reacts with the cyan coupler to form cyan dye. The dye is much less soluble than either the developer or the coupler, so it stays in the blue-red sensitive layer of the film.

Blue light re-exposure from the top

This makes the remaining undeveloped silver halide grains in the blue sensitive layer (the yellow layer) developable. The now opaque yellow filter layers prevent the blue light from exposing the magenta layer (the green sensitive layer, which is also sensitive to blue light). It’s vital to avoid stray printing light exposing the film base of film.

Yellow developer
Its action is analogous to the cyan developer.

Magenta developer
This contains a chemical fogging agent that makes all the remaining undeveloped silver halide developable. If everything has worked correctly, nearly all this silver halide is in the magenta layers. The developer and magenta coupler work just like the cyan and yellow developers to produce magenta dye that is insoluble and stays in the film.

Wash
As above.

Conditioner
Prepares the metallic silver for the bleach step.

Bleach
Oxidizes the metallic silver to silver halide. The bleach (ferric EDTA) must be aerated. The former ferricyanide bleach did not require aeration and did not require a conditioner.

Fix
Converts the silver halide to soluble silver compounds which are then dissolved and washed from the film.

Rinse
Contains a wetting agent to reduce water spots.

Dry

The result of this 17-step (!) process is 3 different color records each with the appropriate dye, just like other color films. The original Kodachrome process in 1935 used dye bleaches and was far more complex; the dyes themselves were unstable and faded at high temperature. Although the formulas have changed over the years, the basic process steps have followed a similar pattern since the introduction of stable "selective re-exposure" Kodachrome in 1938.

Late examples of Kodachreome 25, 64 and 200 35mm packaging.jpg
Late examples of 35mm packaging of Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200.

What would it take create a new Kodachrome up to EPA standards?

A group of topnotch scientists, technicians, and production engineers would have to reconfigure the film, eliminating any toxic dyes or other chemicals, and developing suitable non-toxic dyes with very high stability.

The group would have to design and build facilities to manufacture the film, and set up at least a few labs capable of receiving, processing, mounting, and shipping the film back to customers.

A separate group devoted to promotion and marketing the film would have to be created.
All the people (perhaps a few dozen) assigned to the Kodachrome project would have to be hired and paid, a challenging undertaking, particularly when it comes finding trained scientists with experience in emulsion technology and relocating at least some of them to Rochester, NY.

At a conservative estimate, initializing such a project would cost $10-20M and take 2-3 years before the first rolls of New Kodachrome would reach the production line.

At present, Kodak has only one production line devoted to making film (down from 10 in the mid ‘60s), and due to the recent resurgence in film sales (reportedly up over 40% in the last few years alone) that line now running 24 hours a day. Adding Kodachrome to the mix would therefore require a huge and potentially risky investment in a second film line, or a cooperative arrangement with another film manufacturer such as Fuji or Ilford.

Is creating a New Kodachrome technically feasible? Absolutely, but it would require a well-heeled partner, a devoted billionaire, or both!

The Kodachrome process is well understood and it’s an accessible part of Kodak’s legacy dating back to the recent past. There would surely be technical and operational hurdles to overcome, but basically all it would take is time, effort, and lots of money. If a multi-billionaire like Elon Musk or Bill Gates wanted to throw a paltry $100M at the project to burnish his image and offer the great gift of Kodachrome to the world, the project could (with the assumed cooperation of Kodak) commence tomorrow.

Fuji has worked with Kodak in the past, and according to unsubstantiated rumors they still tacitly collaborate on film manufacture. However, it’s doubtful that Fujifilm would want to collaborate on a project to recreate Kodak’s signature film which would have the potential of cutting into the sales of Fuji’s Velvia and Provia slide films (which use Kodak’s E-6 process!)

And a new Kodachrome would undoubtedly impact the sales of Kodak’s very successful Ekrachrome E100 professional films that are now available in 35mm, 120 rolls, 16mm, 4x5, and 8 x10 sizes. For the record, Ektachrome E100 Professional is said to be the closest alternative to Kodachrome in terms of color palette, color rendition, and overall image quality currently on the market.

Economics: What would a roll of New Kodachrome have to sell for in order to turn a profit, and would anyone buy it at that price?
Most people are under the impression that film prices have soared since the good old days, and they’ve certainly increased by about 20-25% in dollars over the last 5 years. However, when they’re calculated in terms of constant dollars, taking inflation into account, the price of film has in fact gone down consistently. To put it in perspective a 35mm 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost $1.15 in 1956 (equal to about $11.60 today) and the current price ranges from $9.09 to $9.95. In 1935 an 18-exposure roll of Kodachrome, which included a Kodak processing mailer, was $3.50, the equivalent in current purchasing power of a staggering $80.36!

Assuming Kodak could and would foot the entire bill of $10-20M for creating, processing, and marketing a new Kodachrome, how much would they have to charge for a roll of 35mm, 36-expoure Kodachrome to turn a profit, and would people be willing to pay it?

Right now, a 35mm 36-exposure roll of Ektachrome E 100 Professional goes for $21.99, and an equivalent roll of Fujichrome Velvia 50 runs $29.95. The closest equivalents in “self-processing” “Polaroid instant picture film would be a 40-exposure 5-pack of Color i-Type Instant Film at $62.91 or a 40-exposure 5-pack of Polaroid Color 600 for $73.95, the latter working out to $1.85 per picture. If potential New Kodachrome shooters would be willing to pay $1.85 per shot to acquire a 35mm 36-exposure roll of New Kodachrome, that would come to $66.56 per roll! That would be a stretch, but still well within the realm of possibility.

1935 price list for Kodachrome from The Kodak Salesman.jpg
1935 price list for Kodachrome from The Kodak Salesman. At $3.50 including processing, an 18-exposure roll would cost over $80 today.

Announcement of Kodachrome from 1935 issue of The Kodak Salesman.jpg
Announcement of Kodachrome from a 1935 issue of The Kodak Salesman, an in-house publication,

Of course, nobody really knows what the true front-end cost of creating, servicing, and marketing a brave new Kodachrome system would be, so estimates on profitability and the break-even point can only be “good faith conjectures.” It is evident that Kodak would have to sell of hell of a lot of it at a rather steep price just to break even. As an inveterate dreamer and a lifetime Kodachrome fanatic I sure hope it happens. So if you are on good terms with any audacious billionaires who want to enshrine their names eternally in the hearts and minds of millions of photographers worldwide, do them (and all of us) a big favor and get in touch with them pronto.
.


 
Last edited:
I remember using Kodak mail envelopes I bought at Target to process Kodachrome slide film.

Days long ago!

However, when I was in business it was 100% digital. Sorry to you film users.
 
What is an "elderly digital Leica"? Is any digileica even old enough to vote? A camera has to be of pensionable age to qualify (I, IIIa, IIIb, IIIf). IIIg and M2 not far behind.

And on the subject, I too miss K25. I really miss the sheer awkwardness of using a slow film and having to get everything right in camera, but then I'm a masochist.
The M 240 came out in 2012. 14 years is getting to the point where one can begin to have concerns about surface mount capacitors in electronics. It doesn't mean that it couldn't last for decades yet but it also doesn't mean that the magic smoke couldn't escape it tomorrow.
 
What is an "elderly digital Leica"? Is any digileica even old enough to vote? A camera has to be of pensionable age to qualify (I, IIIa, IIIb, IIIf). IIIg and M2 not far behind.

And on the subject, I too miss K25. I really miss the sheer awkwardness of using a slow film and having to get everything right in camera, but then I'm a masochist.
...and trying hard to make each one count. 36 images all spread out on a lightbox.
 
What is an "elderly digital Leica"? Is any digileica even old enough to vote? A camera has to be of pensionable age to qualify (I, IIIa, IIIb, IIIf). IIIg and M2 not far behind.
...
IIRC, the Leica M8 was released in 2006, which means the eldest examples are now 18 years old. 18 is voting age in the United States. In the time scale of consumer electronics, that's a Methusela ... 😇

My 2003 Olympus E-1 certainly qualifies as elderly; at 21 years old, it could head out to the bar and order a stiff drink in any state in the USA. And it is still working perfectly. :devilish:

G
 
Maybe it's because the Kodachrome "creation story" is well known, but the idea that two amateurs, and noted musicians at that, came up with Kodachrome (a complicated process, as Jason shows), just amazes me.
 
The M 240 came out in 2012. 14 years is getting to the point where one can begin to have concerns about surface mount capacitors in electronics. It doesn't mean that it couldn't last for decades yet but it also doesn't mean that the magic smoke couldn't escape it tomorrow.
I literally just bought an M240 - my first digital Leica, no less - on Saturday. I didn't need to read this today. 😅
 
Yup.

This thread does have me pondering trying some E100D, if I can scrape the budget up and find a processor. My local lab doesn't do E6 anymore so probably Dwayne's I suppose. 15+14/12=$2.42 per shot in my Rolleiflex ... yoikes!
Yoikes, yes, but worth it. Dwayne's does great work, and, if you purchase prepaid Fuji processing mailers (B&H sells them), they will go to Dwayne's. The mailers are good for any E6 film, not just Fuji.
I should warn you: shoot a roll in your Rolleiflex, and you'll be hooked. Down that path lies madness, and soon it will be 4x5 color transparencies.
 
I literally just bought an M240 - my first digital Leica, no less - on Saturday. I didn't need to read this today. 😅
It is an excellent camera that I shoot daily and just because I'm slightly paranoid because I have a thing for antique computers that are 50+ years old that really do let the magic smoke out easily, don't let it scare you. You'll get years of service out of it.

Suggestions: get the Adobe DCP file and use it's tone curve rather than the one built into the camera. Much better colors to my eyes. I use the free ART to process the raw files. Classic metering. Horizon on. Auto Review off.

I've owned mine for 4 years and have shot more photos than with (literally) any other camera I have ever owned. So don't mind me :)
 
I literally just bought an M240 - my first digital Leica, no less - on Saturday. I didn't need to read this today. 😅
I used to suffer that kind of paranoia about electronics, but I've gotten over it. I'm old and I figure that the electronics will probably outlast me. Enjoy your M240, use it, and run that sucker into the ground! ;)
 
The M 240 came out in 2012. 14 years is getting to the point where one can begin to have concerns about surface mount capacitors in electronics. It doesn't mean that it couldn't last for decades yet but it also doesn't mean that the magic smoke couldn't escape it tomorrow.


I have many 30+ year old electronic devices that are still working just fine. Why raise this unfounded fear? My M240 is working just fine, also. How much longer will it work? Who knows? Does Leica build junk? We will find out, won't we. My M8.2 and M9 are working just fine, too.
 
Suggestions: get the Adobe DCP file and use it's tone curve rather than the one built into the camera. Much better colors to my eyes. I use the free ART to process the raw files. Classic metering. Horizon on. Auto Review off.
First thing I did was set the camera to black and white, turn the review off, and figure out which of the classic metering options worked for me (center-weighted... the matrix one seemed to constantly be out).

I probably should have sprang the extra for a Monochrom but £2,200 for a basically brand-new 240 (less than 300 shutter actuations in its whole life, if the filenames are to be believed) in box with a spare battery seemed like too good of a deal.

I have no idea what a DCP file is, though. Can I put it on my Meopta Axomat 4?

I've owned mine for 4 years and have shot more photos than with (literally) any other camera I have ever owned. So don't mind me :)
It's got some way to go to match the amount of frames I've shot with my IIIf over the years...
 
DCP files are used for processing the RAW files after you download them to the computer. I use them to set the tone curve of the colors before conversion to monochrome. I find I get better results that way. You'll find your own best results, though. Enjoy!
 
The M 240 came out in 2012. 14 years is getting to the point where one can begin to have concerns about surface mount capacitors in electronics. It doesn't mean that it couldn't last for decades yet but it also doesn't mean that the magic smoke couldn't escape it tomorrow.
I think for digital cameras the biggest thing that will get them is the batteries. Both internal and external.

I've had several digitals that the small internal battery (clock and sometimes settings) has died and that means every time you change the main battery the camera resets. Keep a chanrged battery in your digitals so it powers the clock and settings, not the internal battery. The internal battery is a per camera problem. Same thing if the camera has a rechargable main battery that is internal.

The external battery is more of an entire model of camera problem if the camera uses an older,or custom, battery that isn't being made any more at some point the supply will dry up. The Leica Digilux 2/Panasonic DMC-1 are starting to run into this. Aftermarket stopped making those batteries years ago and the supply is drying up.
 
The acronym DCP (Digital Cinema Platform, Digital Color Profile, etc) can stand for a lot of different things but what I've most often heard it naming is a "Digital Camera Profile" in the context of photographic raw file image processing ... in other words, a color calibration profile designed for a specific digital camera which enables standard reference targets (for instance, a Color Checker) to be matched by that camera's captures.

Tuning raw conversion software for a specific camera's use most of the time means tailoring the DCP file used in raw conversion processing, with the assumption that by the time you're doing raw conversions, the camera hardware is pretty close to locked and unchangeable.


Yes, the largest single point of failure for digital cameras is most likely the availability of new batteries. Even with the best maintenance techniques, Li-Ion batteries have a life span. Most of the internal 'batteries' used to power closes and settings are essentially condensers now and re-charge quickly once the main battery has been refreshed. Condensers last a long, long time.

My Light L16 has a built-in battery. It is slowly losing its charge capacity, year by year. I know that it could be replaced by dismantling the camera and unsoldering the old one, soldering in a new one, but it is likely to work fine for another 8 to ten years, at which point the camera will be over 15 years old, and whether it's worth the cost to do that work is the real question mark rather than "is it possible?", presuming that you don't have the skills to do it yourself.

G
 
Kodachrome was once sold in 8x10 size WiTH mail in processing included to about the mid 1950's.

Through at least the 1970's Kodak would still set up hand processing for those Kodachrome 8x10's whenever they were mailed into Rochester.
I had the privilege of looking at some 8x10 Kodachrome transparencies years ago I think at George Eastman House and they were a thing of beauty.
 
Back
Top