What exactly was the announcement from Kodak? I missed the original post. thank you. -dam c. At 10:37 PM 18-05-05 +0200, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > >------- Forwarded message follows ------- >Date sent: Wed, 18 May 2005 01:20:30 +0200 >From: Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.markerink@xxxxx> >Subject: Re: Announcement about Kodak >To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - >Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Copies to: photo@xxxxxxxx, photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, >infrared@xxxxx >Send reply to: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Priority: normal > >[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'!] > >* >**** >******* >****************************************************** >* To remove yourself from this list, send: * >* UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED * >* to * >* MAJORDOMO@xxxxx * >*----------------------------------------------------* >* For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links: * >* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm * >****************************************************** >
