Kodachrome

[gwpics]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am intrigued that Kodak are now pushing Kodachrome photography (note, I did not say Kodachrome is back) by publishing a new Kodachrome magazine, edition 2 of which is now available at a price of £20 here in the UK. It features Kodachrome images from the archives but is very expensive for what it is. I also note that a contact sheet featured in Edition 2 was shot on Ilford HP5, but it is what the featured photographer was using ‘back in the day’.

 

Does this re-emergence mean that they are trying to raise interest in Kodachrome again? Pretty unlikely, but a strange move.

 

Gerry

[andybarton]

It's all about the "brand"

[Advertisement]

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

[mikemgb]

Is it published by Kodak or Kodak Alaris? Either way, Kodak are in financial trouble and doing everything they can to stay alive.

[RoySmith]

There's a wonderful film (a movie shot on film) on Netflix called Kodachrome . It stars Ed Harris portraying a dying photographer going to get some last rolls of Kodachrome developed. He uses a M4-P. The film was made by Netflix and released in 2017. It's interesting that a digital company like Netflix produced a film about film and shot on film.

[MarkP]

I would go back to shooting Kodachrome 64 in a heartbeat.

However, I think I'll get to my last heartbeat without shooting Kodachrome again.

Edited June 2, 2018 by MarkP

[TomB_tx]

When Kodak announced the decision to bring back Ektachrome, one of their employees indicated they would love to bring back Kodachrome too, but the company quickly followed an official statement that they did not believe that was feasible, but their employees really were enthusiastic about bringing back film.

However, as you say it is about the value of the brand. Although the new Ektachrome will have to use different formulations, chemistry, and such, so is really a different film, Kodak has pushed the idea that they are trying to duplicate the Ektachrome look and "experience" as closely as possible. If they are successful and sell more than expected, I guess they might try introducing a "Kodachrome-look" film with the old name. 

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would go back to shooting Kodachrome 64 in a heartbeat.

However, I think I'll get to my last heartbeat without shooting Kodachrome again.

I would too if they promised not to go back to screwing up the processing, like before. Actually, I liked the sharpness of K25 and the the pointillism of K200 more, but I can do that because none of this is going to happen. Except that last heartbeat. That's a given

[gwpics]

When Kodak announced the decision to bring back Ektachrome, one of their employees indicated they would love to bring back Kodachrome too, but the company quickly followed an official statement that they did not believe that was feasible, but their employees really were enthusiastic about bringing back film.

However, as you say it is about the value of the brand. Although the new Ektachrome will have to use different formulations, chemistry, and such, so is really a different film, Kodak has pushed the idea that they are trying to duplicate the Ektachrome look and "experience" as closely as possible. If they are successful and sell more than expected, I guess they might try introducing a "Kodachrome-look" film with the old name. 

 

 

I understand that one big problem is the silver content of traditional Kodachrome which today makes it environmentally 'unfriendly' - and it was the silver content that was so important to its looks and longevity. It was a tremendous film (I used an awful lot of it) but I question whether there are enough analogue shooters out there now to make it financially viable.

 

Gerry

[sblitz]

I understand that one big problem is the silver content of traditional Kodachrome which today makes it environmentally 'unfriendly' - and it was the silver content that was so important to its looks and longevity. It was a tremendous film (I used an awful lot of it) but I question whether there are enough analogue shooters out there now to make it financially viable.

 

Gerry

 

It isn't coming back, but if it did I think volume and a much higher price than we remember would make it commercially viable. Pipe dreams though.

[Guest]

It would be much easier for Kodak to bring us back Plus X-125.

[Ambro51]

Was there or IS there a Kodachrome developing unit in Russia?

[mikemgb]

Was there or IS there a Kodachrome developing unit in Russia?

 

I'm sure that if there was Lomo would have bought it and been using it for something by now.

[otto.f]

There's a wonderful film (a movie shot on film) on Netflix called Kodachrome . It stars Ed Harris portraying a dying photographer going to get some last rolls of Kodachrome developed. He uses a M4-P. The film was made by Netflix and released in 2017. It's interesting that a digital company like Netflix produced a film about film and shot on film.

Yes I saw that film yesterday night and I loved it. It would deserve a place in the cinema instead of ‘just’ on Netflix, it reminded me a bit of ‘Manchester by the Sea’ in the sense of relational drama. I never disliked Ed Harris at all, but if my memory is correct I found him better than what I’ve ever seen from him as an actor. The Kodachrome slideshow at the end gave me the sigh: why was it so necessary to let this unique medium go? Pure commercial motives, or are there environmental arguments?

[gwpics]

Yes I saw that film yesterday night and I loved it. It would deserve a place in the cinema instead of ‘just’ on Netflix, it reminded me a bit of ‘Manchester by the Sea’ in the sense of relational drama. I never disliked Ed Harris at all, but if my memory is correct I found him better than what I’ve ever seen from him as an actor. The Kodachrome slideshow at the end gave me the sigh: why was it so necessary to let this unique medium go? Pure commercial motives, or are there environmental arguments?

 

 

I can't see the film as I don't have the luxury of Netflicks although i do have the option of a free trial. My understanding at the time was that the environmental situation, especially in relation to the silver usage coupled with the disposal costs of the chemicals made it uneconomic. Kodak would have had to pay a high price for their environmental licence, and put all kinds of environmental safeguards in place, to satisfy the authorities and the falling demand made this impracticable.

 

Gerry

[Michael Hiles]

I believe that poor sales was a key issue. It always had to be processed at a remote lab, and that took time. No longer acceptable to the mass market.

[otto.f]

He uses a M4-P.

I was wondering what lens he had, sometimes it looked like the 50APO.

[otto.f]

It’s the latest Summicron 50 and he leaves the hood recessed

[wlaidlaw]

It’s the latest Summicron 50 and he leaves the hood recessed

 

That Summicron has been around for a long time, with the IV and V versions, essentially having the same optics. I currently have the 1999 special edition in LTM mount. I have had a number of these Summicron 50 IV and V lenses at various times in the past and could never quite see what the fuss was until I got my most recent one, which works beautifully, especially on film. On digital, I prefer my LTM 50 Summilux III special edition but again that is superb on film and is the most used lens on my M7. 

 

Wilson

[edstock]

I used to shoot Kodachrome, 25. 64 and 200 almost exclusively. The resolution of the 25 was incomparable to anything else. Used up to the time it disappeared though I had a good supply in a freezer. I used it up then the processing labs disappeared. Shame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear