All I can say in response to this thread about how complex Kodachrome is compared to other sensitised materials, how easy it will be to manufacturer the material, processing, and marketing, is some folks need an education. If you think a third party can make Kodachrome as easily as Kodak can, think again. Kodachrome is most certainly not a simple product to make. Selling it is much more difficult these days. Do not get me wrong, I think the stuff is the finest color film ever made, bar none. "We" will be responsible for its demise because we did not use it as much as we should have. Retailers are also responsible because many are not stocking the film. Pros are responsible because many of them are clueless wonks that feel the need for speed. Manufacturing a film like Kodachrome is an exacting science and it requires an expertise most current manufacturers of film simply do not possess. Regardless of how excited other manufacturers might seem to be about making the stuff, chances are, it will never arrive because of the need to feed the bottom line. Once it is gone, that's it. It is gone forever. The film was once available in sheet form in all popularly used sizes of the day. Kodachrome prints were once available as well as several different 35mm loads like "Kodachrome For Stereo." 828 was available, as well as 126 and 110. We had many Kodachromes; including Kodachrome 2, Kodachrome 64, Kodachrome 25, Kodachrome X, Kodachrome 40, (Type "A") and a few others. Viewmaster once used the film because of its quality. What has happened over the years is a steady decline in Kodachrome's popularity. I remember when 120 Kodachrome was introduced. I danced a jig. I waited for signs that sheet film would arrive because it would blow all other films out of the water. Except for the "pro" that would not tolerate the time it took (would take) to have the sheet stuff processed. Incidentally, a roll of Kodachrome dropped in our dealer route bag on Monday would be returned on Tuesday/Wednesday. Certainly fast enough for the typical pro and certainly, every amateur walking the planet. Some assume Kodak will allow another company to manufacture the material. For all any of us know, regardless of the manufacturer, Kodak might never, ever allow anyone to make the material. Matrix film is an example of a product that was discontinued and despite the cash tossed Kodak's way, it is gone forever. Kodak would not run batches for people regardless of the amount of film being ordered. Perhaps corporate pride does not allow for Kodak to admit they cannot sell the material. I am almost positive Kodak does not want the film that helped build Kodak to be manufactured by other manufacturers. It would be like Harley-Davidson asking Honda to build Sporsters. Certainly not great for HD's image. Some very odd assumptions are being made that are not supported by facts or a knowledge of how film is made, processed, and marketed. If someone does this, it will be a very iffy proposition and it will not last. Specific comments and quotes: > 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? This was tried. Customers hated it because in some cases, if you lost the mailer, you lost the cost of processing. Kodak finally edge printed the film so the mailer was not needed. They also used a differently printed cartridge to show the stuff was bought prepaid. Combining the two is a good idea if the consumer is not forced into buying the processing from Kodak and a mailer is not required. By the way, have you asked Ferrania? >>>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?)>>> More to it than resolution. Longevity is a big reason Kodachrome such a great film. Well, grain and sharpness, too. >>>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....:)) >>> Why? You lose quality as you increase speed. Kodachrome 25 is demonstrably sharper than Kodachrome 64. I once shot everything on Kodachrome 25 because there is a difference. > 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. OK, provide some numbers. No offence, but you apparently cannot begin to appreciate what it will take to manufacture Kodachrome film. Not at all. > 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. Third party coating is a big deal. Again, Kodachrome is a complicated material and not everyone can coat the base with a useable emulsion. We know Kodachrome has a longevity but that assumes Kodak is manufacturing the stuff. A third party might make a terrible product. A third party lacks the vast numbers of chemists and experts available at Kodak, and the stuff would require testing. There are almost 1,000 patents covering Kodachrome, processing, dye chemistry, and the like. Do not over simplify this issue. > 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.) The government cannot compel Kodak to make film or any other product. Are you kidding? As for the buried film, I doubt it. You do not know what Kodak is "contractually obligated" to do, nor do I. You also assume Kodak will suddenly stop being able to process Kodachrome. They will, especially if a contract is in place. The public will not be able to, however. > 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. What is your selling point? What makes you think a group of foundations will fight to get an "obsolete" film back into production? Apparently, you have never tried to interest a foundation in anything that will cost them millions of dollars. > 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. Not exactly. It is not easy to make film or processing materials from scratch. You will require Kodak's cooperation to some extent -not to mention a raft full of very smart chemists. > 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). Not exactly. >>>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....>>> And you are certain there are no regulation in place? Research again and please post proof. > 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. Prove it. Provide some costs and a breakdown. I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, I mean no offence, but you have overly simplified a process that will cost you quite a bit of money. Perhaps not you, but whoever does the work. I seriously doubt you can get it done for less than fifty million dollars. I have tried to get matrix and Vectograph film made (both extremely simple formulas) and I know just how costly it can be and what is involved. > I'd consider that a small price to pay in return for the continued > availablilty of the Kodachrome heritage. Great. Fine. But you assume the new chrome stock will be as good as the original. Lots of bugs, no doubt. > 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), Do not assume they will listen to you. What is in it for them? Money is tight and with digital making such inroads, you better pack an extra pair of dancing shoes. > 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. Again, start running numbers and get back to me. I do not consider it to be "a national institution." Kodak made many films over the years. > 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. Most professionals probably know all about Kodachrome, yet they still choose not to use it. Try to convince them, I dare you. As for the public, they do not care. They have digital and they are use to instant computer prints at almost no cost. Most do not have a slide projector, so they are not interested in slides. Kodachrome is more costly and you need to pay for processing. > 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?" I am a lover of the stuff and I do not believe anyone other than Kodak can make and market it properly. If someone wants to manufacturer the material, they must never be met with an off the cuff, "and your point is" retort. Damn well better justify your plans and answer their concerns in a way that they will accept. > Look at the MILLIONS that the *government* "contributes" to "the artist > community" via the NEA. Look at the MILLIONS contributed via private > philantrhropic organizations. And your point is . . . LOL. Seriously, you are making assumptions and plenty of them. You assume the rich folk care about Kodachrome. Apparently you think prying free the cash will be easy. Trust me, it is the hardest thing you will ever do. > 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". Prove it. What you believe means zero. You need to prove it. The big fallacy with this argument is this: Kodachrome is dying (apparently) so we need to invest millions in a plant to make more Kodachrome the public apparently will not buy. Do you think the film will magically draw a following even though the stuff made by the experts is not making it due to poor sales? Why didn't more people buy the stuff all these years, if they really cared? > 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!) Yet, nobody buys the stiff. Before digital, we sold lots of the stuff. We sold very little compared to E6 materials, however. We sold very little 120 Kodachrome, incidentally. We always sold more print film than slide film. People do not like slides these days; at least compared to earlier times. If Kodak decided to promote the stuff, chances are sales would still be slim. > 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. The ability to get the stuff processed rapidly was with us for many years. Before the net and the one-hour labs, in fact. In by Monday, back by Tuesday/Wednesday. The film went from Utah to Palo Alto and back again. > 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. And to stem the suits brought by other processors. As I mentioned, it was once this way here in the United States. Finally the film was edge marked to indicate the stuff was sold prepaid. Otherwise, lose the mailer and you are out the processing fees. > Would it be necessary to come up with a different *name*? Would Yellow > Father raise a stink over the use of the "Kodachrome" name? They would be within their absolute rights to object. Again, you assume Kodak would allow others to make the stuff. You would need to licence the patents in place and that alone will cost lots of money. I just paid a fee for the rights to reproduce a Kodak Data Guide from 1943, so I know how they work and think. > 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*. More assumptions. It is not their "flagship product" or it would not disappear. > 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." They have been there before. Most people do not know about the vast variety of films and sizes Kodak once offered. Kodak, in fact, would keep films available in sizes for cameras that were obsolete many decades before. It was literally hundreds of films in sizes long since discontinued. Again, once it is gone, it is gone forever. Bob
