Kodachrome MIGHT be coming back!!!

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How would Kodak accomplish that? Here is an idea, create economical, small Kodachrome labs everywhere. Might that work? NO! Kodak tried that with their K-Lab program. It failed. What is different today to obviate the same failure?

.

I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm saying, Pico. I am pointing out that international mail order worked for me 30 years ago, and is a lot better now. That means that, for the customer, it doesn't matter where the Lab is, thus it is conceivable that Kodak could operate with a single lab, or whatever makes business sense for them. The opposite of what you are thinking I am saying.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

And that is just one more uninformed personal opinion.  I really hope it's proven wrong.

 

 

So do I, but I do try to learn from history. Exactly what has actually changed since Kodachrome and its processing ceased? Why are the economic conditions now viable? Is demand significantly higher? And so on. The answers to all these questions have to be positive. Leica is one of the very few manufacturers still making 35mm cameras - its a very, very small market today - sadly. Uninformed opinion maybe - but I'm an ex-user (it was the film I shot for stock images for two decades) and one of the potential future users of Kodachrome so I'd say I'm part of the aim market. Can I see my use of Kodachrome being a viable one for Kodak? Honestly? No I can't. I might use the odd roll but no more I'm afraid. If they relaunch Kodachrome it will need a significant market and I just can't see it myself.

[mikemgb]

So do I, but I do try to learn from history. Exactly what has actually changed since Kodachrome and its processing ceased? Why are the economic conditions now viable? Is demand significantly higher? And so on. The answers to all these questions have to be positive. Leica is one of the very few manufacturers still making 35mm cameras - its a very, very small market today - sadly. Uninformed opinion maybe - but I'm an ex-user (it was the film I shot for stock images for two decades) and one of the potential future users of Kodachrome so I'd say I'm part of the aim market. Can I see my use of Kodachrome being a viable one for Kodak? Honestly? No I can't. I might use the odd roll but no more I'm afraid. If they relaunch Kodachrome it will need a significant market and I just can't see it myself.

 

I don't agree that it needs to be a significant market, a small, niche market can also be a viable proposition. As long as all parts of the system, manufacturing, distribution and processing are sized correctly for that market it can be profitable.

[earleygallery]

I don't agree that it needs to be a significant market, a small, niche market can also be a viable proposition. As long as all parts of the system, manufacturing, distribution and processing are sized correctly for that market it can be profitable.

 

Indeed.

 

Film may be a 'small market' compared to what it was in the 90's but it's still a big market, and by all accounts a growing one.

 

Ektachrome and Kodachrome were just tow of many options for transparency users. There's less choice now so Kodak have the chance of a larger slice of a smaller pie.

 

By announcing the reintroduction of Ektachrome surely they've already done their sums and feel confident that it's a viable enterprise for them. If that proves right then most likely other products will follow.

 

But I do think that they need to support the product with options for processing and scanning, and home processing even (which is why Kodachrome would be a great reintroduction). The more convenient they make it to use to more they'll sell. IMHO.

[pico]

Go back to including the processing cost in the cost of the film (remember the little yellow baggy things?), and establish processing centres in Europe, the US and Asia.  Economies of scale, new technologies and excellent courier/postal services.

 

The US Commerce Commission (I think) declared that illegals in the Fities. Perhaps it is good for other countries.

[earleygallery]

The US Commerce Commission (I think) declared that illegals in the Fities. Perhaps it is good for other countries.

 

Not an issue in the UK. We could only buy KR process paid. Doesn't mean it can't work now, the market for film was rather different in the 50's.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm saying, Pico. I am pointing out that international mail order worked for me 30 years ago, and is a lot better now. That means that, for the customer, it doesn't matter where the Lab is, thus it is conceivable that Kodak could operate with a single lab, or whatever makes business sense for them. The opposite of what you are thinking I am saying.

 

Towards the end, there was only one Kodachrome lab. Even film sent to GB was remailed to the US processor.

[TomB_tx]

The US Commerce Commission (I think) declared that illegals in the Fities. Perhaps it is good for other countries.

That was at a time when Kodak was a huge near monopoly, and the prepaid processing made it hard for other labs to compete. The market is very different now, and all other Kodachrome labs folded gradually, shifting to other films and processes.

The injunction against Kodak may still be on the books, but if there are no other sources for Kodachrome processing it might be appealed.

[AlanG]

So do I, but I do try to learn from history. Exactly what has actually changed since Kodachrome and its processing ceased? Why are the economic conditions now viable? Is demand significantly higher? And so on. The answers to all these questions have to be positive. Leica is one of the very few manufacturers still making 35mm cameras - its a very, very small market today - sadly. Uninformed opinion maybe - but I'm an ex-user (it was the film I shot for stock images for two decades) and one of the potential future users of Kodachrome so I'd say I'm part of the aim market. Can I see my use of Kodachrome being a viable one for Kodak? Honestly? No I can't. I might use the odd roll but no more I'm afraid. If they relaunch Kodachrome it will need a significant market and I just can't see it myself.The

Yes, for starters, the entire world has changed via computers. So photography became digital just as many industries did. How many people send emails instead of writing letters and mailing them?  The idea of dropping film in the mail and getting to see your pictures days or weeks later will not fit into the mindset and needs of many today... even if film and processing were free. (I remember when Kodak and Fuji found no takers at ASMP meetings when they tried to give away bricks of film as door prizes 10 years ago.)

Edited January 17, 2017 by AlanG

[AlanG]

I don't agree that it needs to be a significant market, a small, niche market can also be a viable proposition. As long as all parts of the system, manufacturing, distribution and processing are sized correctly for that market it can be profitable.

That is the $64,000,000 question. The cost for restarting production and processing can be calculated by Kodak to make and process X number of rolls. Then they can add a marketing budget. So they have a budget let's say for a couple of years. They will have to sell X amount of film for $Y amount per roll to make their projected profit.  So we don't have the answer to the variable X or Y so we're just guessing. Kodak may get the answer to X but how much is at risk if they get Y wrong?   And do they have less risky options for this investment money?

[earleygallery]

Yes, for starters, the entire world has changed via computers. So photography became digital just as many industries did. How many people send emails instead of writing letters and mailing them?  The idea of dropping film in the mail and getting to see your pictures days or weeks later will not fit into the mindset and needs of many today... even if film and processing were free. (I remember when Kodak and Fuji found no takers at ASMP meetings when they tried to give away bricks of film as door prizes 10 years ago.)

 

Yes Alan, email has killed off letter writing. Nobody writes letters these days. I still get a lot of post mind you, most of it gets opened and filed straight in the bin.

 

OTOH the internet has created a boom in parcel delivery services. On line shopping.

 

I think a large number of current users of E6 film are already resigned to posting their rolls of film off for processing, so the kind of Kodachrome mailer service would IMHO be actually very desirable to many users and potential users.

 

Most of us film users also shoot digital - if we need instant results we can use digital. If we can wait a while for our photos and want the Kodachrome look, we might be able to have that option again.

 

As I said before, Kodak could even offer a process/scan service. The film is processed and scanned, the customer receives an email to notify them that their images are available to download. In the meantime the film is being mounted, packaged and posted back.

 

Lots of possibilities really.

[pgk]

I don't agree that it needs to be a significant market, a small, niche market can also be a viable proposition. As long as all parts of the system, manufacturing, distribution and processing are sized correctly for that market it can be profitable.

 

I seem to remember that for the complex processing system which Kodachrome requires there is less economy of scale - to process viably requires significant amounts of chemical with very carefully controlled replenishments and so on. I think that I remember that the process is too difficult to control below a certain throughput. But I may be wrong because its a long time ago since I looked at the Kodachrome process.

 

And the world has changed. Vinyl is making a comeback but a lot of turntables connect via usb I believe. Kodachrome cost including film, processing and scanning may well be prohibitive and my guess is that the scanning would be a requirement, perhaps not in every, but certainly in many cases (Ilford offer a similar service). 

 

Believe me I hope I'm wrong and if I am I'll be delighted and will buy some Kodachrome as soon as its available, but I am not holding my breath because I doubt it will ever be possible.

[EoinC]

That was at a time when Kodak was a huge near monopoly, and the prepaid processing made it hard for other labs to compete. The market is very different now, and all other Kodachrome labs folded gradually, shifting to other films and processes.

The injunction against Kodak may still be on the books, but if there are no other sources for Kodachrome processing it might be appealed.

They could also turn it around and come from the basis of being a film processing service, who provide free films with that service.

Towards the end, there was only one Kodachrome lab. Even film sent to GB was remailed to the US processor.

Noted. At that time, Kodak was in decline, with (I suspect) high volume facilities under-utilised, and mail order was still something of an anomaly. Today mail order is very common (nearly all of my items and supplies come via mail order, groceries being an unnecessary exception). I regularly purchase from USA, Europe, China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia etc, and don't see any difference.

I don't know about the down-scalability of the K-14M process, but it wouldn't concern me where a plant was located. If they can create a viable model that accounts for capital costs, operating costs, volume build and fluctuations, overall life-cycle of the market, producing an acceptable ROI, all is good. If such a model is not viable, they should not do it.

 

I hope they can produce a viable model. I have no expectation on this one way or the other.

[wlaidlaw]

Maybe Kodak can resurrect and modernise the Mini-Lab K14 machines, that they tried to introduce and were a financial failure, with just one to each major market. I occasionally used to crew on Norman Brick's yacht, Chastenet. Norman was the MD of Kodak Europe in the 1970's. He claimed that Kodak had lost money on every single roll of pre-paid processing Kodachrome, since it first came out in 1935. I suspect he was exaggerating but they probably never made much money on it, due to both processing and handling frictional costs. 

 

Wilson

[Michael Geschlecht]

Maybe Kodak can resurrect and modernise the Mini-Lab K14 machines, that they tried to introduce and were a financial failure, with just one to each major market. I occasionally used to crew on Norman Brick's yacht, Chastenet. Norman was the MD of Kodak Europe in the 1970's. He claimed that Kodak had lost money on every single roll of pre-paid processing Kodachrome, since it first came out in 1935. I suspect he was exaggerating but they probably never made much money on it, due to both processing and handling frictional costs. 

 

Wilson

 

Hello Wilson,

 

That might be true about Kodak not making much on selling & processing Kodachrome because the very existence of a film like Kodachrome was a large "feather in the hat" for Kodak.

 

For years, well ahead of its competitors, Kodachrome offered:

 

Unparalleled fine grain.

 

Rich, pure colors which were difficult for its contemporaries to equal.

 

Unparalleled archival stability for a 35mm film.

 

What might have led to Kodachrome's discontinuance may not only have been the need for costly & complex high quality production & processing facilities: But may have also had something to do with increased environmental impact considerations in terms of the handling of the production & processing materials along with their by products.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Guest]

If you notice how Ferrania fails to restart a minimal production of films, I won't believe in the resurrection of Ektachrome - or even of Kodachrome - until I see processed colorslides of them on my lightbox.

[pop]

If you notice how Ferrania fails to restart a minimal production of films, I won't believe in the resurrection of Ektachrome - or even of Kodachrome - until I see processed colorslides of them on my lightbox.

I don't think the cases are comparable. Ferrania is trying to get the machines working again that have been mothballed under adverse conditions, and to do it on a shoestring budget.

[Guest]

I don't think the cases are comparable. Ferrania is trying to get the machines working again that have been mothballed under adverse conditions, and to do it on a shoestring budget.

 

As far as I know, Ferrania only tries to renew the former research lab combined with a small film production, never the old long time disused mass-production machines.

 

But without some visible results anyone may speculate in any way, here my insignificant forecasts:

1. Ektachrome - maybe, but what will we say if only green Fujis are hidden in the yellow boxes?

2. Kodachrome - never.

3. Ferrania - no chance because of too much rotting rust.

 

Here around there are so many analog cameras that I would be happy about every again deliverable 135 film - but I lack the right faith.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

 

As far as I know, Ferrania only tries to renew the former research lab combined with a small film production, never the old long time disused mass-production machines.

 

But without some visible results anyone may speculate in any way, ....

They do send status information and pictures of the gear they are trying to make usable again. They have succeeded in making a small batch of film. As a first run it has too many faults to be fit for sale, of course.

[EoinC]

If you notice how Ferrania fails to restart a minimal production of films, I won't believe in the resurrection of Ektachrome - or even of Kodachrome - until I see processed colorslides of them on my lightbox.

Unless you're expecting someone to come in and put their slides on your lightbox, there may be a small requirement of belief included in the preceding purchasing, shooting, and processing in order to get to the lightbox confirmation.