[originally posted to Kodachrome Mailinglist, CC to PhotoForum Mailinglist and IR Mailinglist] On 13 May 2005 at 5:41, Ron Schwarz wrote: > 08:21 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Steven Sawyer wrote: > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert Johnson" > > "I doubt Fuji would be interested. I hear they are in deeper trouble > than Eastman Kodak. I think Konica/Minolta has thrown in the towel on > most film, including the Infrared film, which was about the only 120 left > except Maco." > > > Ferrania might be interested but only if the equipment was sold at rock > bottom prices. I was wondering if an Act of Congress re-allowing Kodak > to package film and processing in the case of Kodachrome would help. Or > would this be too little too late? > > > <<<<<<<< > > > They could coat Kodachrome using the same equipment they use to coat C41 > or E6. > > > Kodachrome is an even *simpler* emulsion structure. All the "technology" > is in the processor! > > > And as far as processor machines are concerned, used KLAB machines are a > glut on the market. You can buy one for the price of a Porsche (or > less). > > > And that's just the *used* machines. If Kodak really did build a bunch > of them in anticipation of a market that they failed to pursue, then > there are probably scads of *new* KLABs sitting in a warehouse > somewhere. > > > Unless Dwayne's has picked up a KLAB to complement their Cine machine, > the only known KLAB in operation in the universe is the one Horiuchi runs > in Tokyo. The other two K14 lines in existence (Lausanne, Parsons) are > Cine machines. > > > Ironically, as demand allegedly drops, it would seem to me to open a door > of opportunity for a type of flexibility that *cannot* be justified in > times of *high* demand. > > > What I'm talking about is the ability of the K14 Cine machine to be > rigged to process 120 Kodachrome. <switch to Monthy Python's 'Jehova' scene> He said '120'!....:)) Got about 40 left! (of which 5 exposed, the ultimate horror!) > > If demand drops to a point that there is slack time, i.e., let's say they > can only keep the machine going for three days a week handling 35mm > Kodachrome, that would leave time to config the machine to handle a > weekly 120 Kodachrome run, and then reconfig it for 35mm. In fact, if > demand drop even a *little*, to the point that there are only a few slack > days a *month*, even a *monthly* 120 run would be a godsend. Even just before my freezer craps out on me would be good....8-)) > Now, this would be predicated on the idea of them *also* doing a periodic > coating run of 120 Kodachrome. Once every three years would probably be > sufficient. And I really doubt that there isn't any space to store it in > "the salt mines", given all the sturm und drang they've been crying over > drop in film production. Hurray! Loading my Noblex 150 once more with fresh Kodachrome!....:)) (anyone willing to bet that even within the next 5 years there will be a digital equivalent with the same resolution?) PS: I'd like some additional higher-ASA batch as well....that's exactly what I have been pestering MACO about with their IR-films too....:)) > What would that accomplish? > > > Two things. First, *lots* of excitement among the traditional > photography "base", but, countering that, would be what would be > perceived in Digital Park as a deal-killer -- it would be seen as keeping > real photography on life-suppport. > > > Given the statements coming out of Rochester as of late, I am convinced > that they are telling the truth. They really *do* want to kill off > silver photography. The "vision" of an "all-digital Kodak" is not > consonant with *anything* that protracts the viability of silver > photography. > > > So, unless there is some hope of getting a third party interested in > maintaining a national treasure -- something of a national institution -- > Kodachrome, I believe, is not long for this world. > > > The irony is that "Kodachrome can be saved" for an amount of money that > equates to pocket change for an awfully large number of deep-pocketed > philanthropists in this country alone. > > > In terms of raw dollars, it would be a trivial expense to purchase a used > K14 machine, chemistry for it, and contract-coated film via any third > party *willing* to coat for fee. > > > Sadly, the company best equipped to deliver it does not appear to be > inclined to do *anything* that would protract the life cycle of silver > photography. I honestly cannot see Kodak agreeing to coat a Kodachrome > analog "under contract", unless forced to do so via the government. > (There *is* that rumor that periodically pops up about there being > literally tons of Kodachrome II buried in Antarctica for some very long > term research project, with Kodak contractually bound to provide > processing for it until the project terminates. Whether true or not I > cannot say, but a simple google query should return one or more instances > of the rumor.) > > > But frankly I don't think that's the route to take. I think it *would* > be viable to interest a foundation -- or a group of foundations, with > each contribituing a fairly minor amount of funding -- to help get a > "Kodachrome Project" off the ground. > > > Again, all it would take would be the acquisition of at least one used > processor, for approx $45,000 bucks, some K14 chemicals (and the formula > is available, so even if Kodak refuses to sell it, it can be "made from > scratch"), and, contracting with a film company to coat some film. > > > If Rollei can contract with Maco to coat "R3", then "The Kodachrome > Foundation" could contract with Ferrania or Fuji or *any* company that IS > interested in making and selling film. > > > Remember, if they can coat C41, they can coat K14. Kodachrome is at its > heart three layers of B&W emulsion with a thin layer of colloidal silver > (as the "yellow filter" layer). On exactly that argument I am trying to talk MACO into it....;)) Add non-existent Chinese environmental regulations for final processing, and we might get somewhere....:)) > NO couplers, NO coupler-migration-preventers (or whatever the term is for > them), etc. There is MUCH less "stuff" in a roll of Kodachrome than > there is in a roll of E6 or C41. > > > As to the remjet, it might be something we'd have to sacrifice, unless > it's something that a "contract coater" could lay it on the back of the > support without any major investment in their coating infrastructure. > > > I'd consider that a small price to pay in return for the continued > availablilty of the Kodachrome heritage. > > > OK, there, I've "outted myself" as the guy Robert's been hinting about. > So be it. > > > My personal quandary is that while I believe that a project like this is > EMINIENTLY "do-able", my own health issues preclude me from taking much > of an active role. > > > I can write up "propaganda" <<g> to present to one or more foundations to > help persuade them of the need for something like this, and help with > press materials (I *are* a riter, after all), :)) > but as far as actually > running the show, someone younger, someone healthier, with the same > vision, would have to step to the fore. I do not have more than a couple > of "good" hours per day, and that's on a "good" day. And it's getting > worse. My heart is about shot, and my spine is a wreck. I have constant > pain, no energy, and I feel like I'm drowning. (This ain't a self-pity > moment -- it's just something to make it clear that I'm not into some > "false humility" thing, and to make it clear that any ideas of convincing > me to take an active role would be pointless. I don't expect to live all > that much longer.) Sorry & sad to hear that. Almost as if a part of the 'virtual' (humanoid) Kodachrome heritage is about to leave us too....:(( I vote for the Ron Schwarz Kodachrome Rescue Foundation....;)) > So, there's my mini-pitch. I firmly believe that this unique film, which > really IS "A National Institution" CAN be saved, and, at a fairly > *trivial* expense. What the earlier man said: we need an Act of Congress....;)) (not necessarily US-Congress; Chinese Peoples Congress is okay with me....;)) > > All it would take would be to convince one or more foundation, or > philanthropist, or "independently wealthy" individual to "make a > difference." 'You can choose any color, as long as it is Kodachrome.' > And who would *buy* the stuff? > > > Well, remember, Kodachrome has been "orphaned" for longer than I can > recall. When was the last time anyone has seen ANY promotion for K14? > ANY advertising, press kits, etc., etc., etc? > > > It's been left DYING ON THE VINE, with *everything* else actively > *promomted* -- and then we're insulted with stuff about how "demand is > dropping." Well gee, go figure. > > > It wouldn't take a major ad campaign. It wouldn't really take *any* ad > campaign. The news of something like this would take off by wildfire. > The trade press, *desperate* for *anything* NEW, would leap on the news, > and give lots of coverage. And the news would spread via word of mouth > like nothing in history, because there's never *been* anything like this > in history. > > > If naysayers try to argue that "the market" would be limited to a > relatively small percentage of "artist types", then my answer is, "Yeah? > And your point is?" > > > Look at the MILLIONS that the *government* "contributes" to "the artist > community" via the NEA. Look at the MILLIONS contributed via private > philantrhropic organizations. If they can restore buildings by the billions, they surely can save a film by the millions. > > Then tell me how it would be pointless to throw *Kodachrome* into the mix > of "worthy recipients of grant funding". > > > And, just to futher tweak the naysayers<<g>, I personally believe that if > something like this gets started, it wouldn't take long for it to become > self-supporting, and no longer *need* "funding". > > > I am firmly of the belief that the *reason* for the "lack of demand" for > Kodachrome is the lack of promotion, the lack of availability, etc. In > other words, it's been left out to die, so it's been dying. Give it a > shot in the arm, let people know that there's a *will* to keep it going, > and they'll line up in droves to buy it and use it. (Even more, if it's > also coated in 120!) He said '120' again!....;)) > > Obviously, in a perfect world, it wouldn't even be *necessary* for anyone > to purchase a K14 machine. I obviously cannot speak for them, but I > would be *very* surprised if Dwaynes wouldn't more than glad to be able > to keep *their* K14 line running if Kodak stops production of Kodachrome. > All that would be necessary would be for "The Kodachrome Foundation" to > ink an agreement with them to keep the machine hummin' as long as the > film continued to be coated. > > > In fact, it would probably be prudent to "go back to the old days", and > *bundle* processing *with* the film (as is still done in Europe). Each > roll of "Foundation Kodachrome" would be sold *with* "processing > included." > > > That would ensure a steady flow of money to cover processing expense, at > the *same* (volume) rate as film sales. > > > Would it be necessary to come up with a different *name*? Would Yellow > Father raise a stink over the use of the "Kodachrome" name? I'll happily learn to read the name in Chinese characters!....:)) > > Probably. > > > They didn't go after Simon and Garfunkle, but then, S&G weren't selling > film. > > > But that would not matter. Oh, sure, there'd be an ironic component. A > *big* ironic component. Think of the *massive* goodwill that would > accrue to EKC if they not only *approved* of the name, when used by a > non-profit foundation built to sustain *their* flagship product, but, > *also* helped by donating equipment, supplies, and *expertise*. > > > Yes, they would earn a *major* amount of goodwill. But I just can't see > that happening, unless the current management gets waken up in the middle > of the night by "The Ghost of Films Past." > > > There's my pitcn, mini-version. (I woke up to take my pain meds and saw > the traffic, and I could not resist.) > > > > > -- > > Website: http://www.michi-kogaku.com/ > > News alert! I've decided to sell off my notorious Killtrees.com domain: > > http://www.killtrees.com Got plenty of contacts in the US offroad community....want me to check interest for this domain with them?....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand <w.j.markerink@xxxxx> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
