 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006Kodachrome
Must have been asleep for the past few months - seems that there is now only a single Kodachrome lab left in the world and Kodachrome super 8 is no more as well. How the mighty have fallen... Chris > Must have been asleep for the past few months - seems that there is now > only a single Kodachrome lab left in the world I think there are still two: <http://www.horiuchi-color.co.jp/index2/english/english.html> and <http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/> both claim on their websites to do K-14. Kodak sent my last roll of super-8 to Dwayne's after I just missed the deadline for Kodak processing. > How the mighty have fallen... It is too bad. I'm not sure I want to try Ektachrome in Super-8. I may just stick with black and white. Peter.  Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> Must have been asleep for the past few months - seems that there is now >> only a single Kodachrome lab left in the world [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Peter. I just had a roll of Kodachrome done at my local, "Shutterbug". They sent it to Dwayne's. It didn't cost too much, and they did a good job, but it took me three weeks to get it back....... > Must have been asleep for the past few months - seems that there is now > only a single Kodachrome lab left in the world and Kodachrome super 8 is > no more as well. I used mostly E-6 film when I was doing a lot of food photography about ten years ago, but I would shoot the occasional roll of Kodachrome, mainly because of its status as a classic. Kodachrome 64 was available at Wal-Mart and Target in those days. While I liked the results, the wait to get the chromes back from Kodak was excruciating, and the quality of their service was deteriorating by that time. The slides were delivered in cheapo cardboard mounts and were often dusty. I eventually concluded that Kodachrome wasn't worth the trouble. I still have the Kodachrome Super-8 movies I shot as a teen in the 1960s and they looked great the last time I viewed them, about two years ago while transferring them to Mini-DV. While I haven't used it in a long time, my Kodak Instamatic M2 looks to be in working order and I might run some film through it while I can still get it. My Super-8 camera, close-up lens, and projector, all in their original boxes, are tucked away in a closet. The smell of a Kodachrome Super-8 cartridge when you opened the foil package is a pleasant memory from my teen years. Does anyone happen to know if Kodachrome was the first film to use the suffix "chrome"? SW > Does anyone happen to know if Kodachrome was the first film to use the > suffix "chrome"? IIRC (I'm not going to check it now), Agfachrome may have been the first. > Does anyone happen to know if Kodachrome was the first film to use the > suffix "chrome"? No, it wasn't even the first stuff that Kodak called "Kodachrome". The first material of that name was a two colour process on glass plates from around 1916. see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_color_film_systems> "-chrome" was also a common suffix for highly orthochromatic black and white films of the Verichrome type. Kodak Verichrome, Ilford Selochrome and Agfa Plenichrome were all black and white films launched in the early 1930s. People even talked about "chrome" film meaning film of the Verichrome type. Both Kodak and Ilford later made panchromatic versions called "Verichrome Pan" and "Selochrome Pan" respectively. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > Must have been asleep for the past few months - seems that there is now > only a single Kodachrome lab left in the world and Kodachrome super 8 is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Chris Here in the UK we used to have a lab in hemel hempstead. When it closed many years ago we had to send to France, now the only lab is in Switzerland. Until a month or so ago, they used to offer as choice of card or plastic mounts but now they only offer cardboard (or unmounted). We can still buy process-paid Kodachrom 64 and 200 at about ?7-8 for 10 rolls. Robert > Here in the UK we used to have a lab in hemel hempstead. When it > closed many years ago we had to send to France, now the only lab is in > Switzerland. The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. The only two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. > The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. The only > two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. That's what everyone says, but someone who sent Kodachromes to Lausanne 2 weeks ago got them back, developed, yesterday. It could be the films made the trip across the ocean and back in two weeks, though. >> The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. >> The only two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the films made the trip across the ocean and back in two weeks, > though. There is a Wikipedia page that goes into a bit more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome "On June 30, 2006, Eastman Kodak announced the closure of the Lausanne Kodachrome lab, the world's only remaining lab for Kodachrome processing owned by Eastman Kodak itself. Since September 30, 2006, only Dwayne's Photo in Kansas and the Horiuchi Color Lab in Tokyo remain: two private Kodachrome laboratories, both monitored by Kodak. ... From October 2006 onwards, all Kodachrome processing for Europe and North America will be consolidated to Dwayne's." > >> The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. > >> The only two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > onwards, all Kodachrome processing for Europe and North America will be > consolidated to Dwayne's." Goodness me, so the dropping of plastic mounts by Lausanne was proably actually because of the change of lab. i still post the film to Lausanne but this suggests they then ship them in bulk to the USA and back for processing. They did the same thing when the Hemel lab (UK) closed; yo ucould still mail to Hemel but the films were taken to France for processing. It doesn't look good does it :-( Robert > It doesn't look good does it :-( It doesn't look as bad as it could, though; you can still mail them to the address given in the mailer bag and get them developed without knowing anything. It'll just take a few days longer to get them back. >>It doesn't look good does it :-( > > It doesn't look as bad as it could, though; you can still mail them to > the address given in the mailer bag and get them developed without knowing > anything. It'll just take a few days longer to get them back. Ah, an optimist :-). At least Kodachrome is not dead yet - it's been the bedrock of all my outdoor photo work for over 25 years and is still peerless. A hidden gem indeed... Chris >> >> The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. >> >> The only two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Robert My slides came back in cardboard mounts, which were marked, "Kodachrome film" at the top, and "Kodak Slide Processing" at the bottom. (From Dwaynes) > >> >> The Lausanne lab has also stopped processing Kodachrome recently. > >> >> The only two labs left in the world are in the USA and Japan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > the films made the trip across the ocean and back in two weeks, > >> > though. One final thought: It's cheaper to post the films from the UK to Lausanne than it would be to a UK collection address. It costs 64p to post a film to Lausanne; it would be ?1 (1st class) or 84p (2nd) to a UK address because the packet is more than 25mm thick. Robert > One final thought: It's cheaper to post the films from the UK to > Lausanne than it would be to a UK collection address. It costs 64p to > post a film to Lausanne; it would be £1 (1st class) or 84p (2nd) to a > UK address because the packet is more than 25mm thick. > > Robert Yes, that's the insanity of the "revised" tarif structure for Royal Mail / Parcelforce. Parcelforce rates have risen considerably recently. I send a lot of stuff international and the Parcelforce rates are outrageously expensive compared to couriers now, whereas they used to be much cheaper. The best courier rates that i've found are from www.interparcel.com and you can book online. (No connection, just good service) Yes, I know it's off topic, but needed to have a rant about that :-)... Chris >> One final thought: It's cheaper to post the films from the UK to >> Lausanne than it would be to a UK collection address. It costs 64p to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Chris I am afraid that Kodak is going to kill Kodachrome off by making it too difficult to buy the film and to have it processed. For most places in the world, the only way to find it is to get it online or via mail-order. Velvia is not a bad replacement, though, so I won't grieve too much when the announcement comes telling us what the last day for Kodachrome processing will be. It is difficult to understand why Kodak would strangle one of its finest products. Is EVERYTHING about the bottom line? > It is difficult to understand why Kodak would strangle one of its finest > products. Is EVERYTHING about the bottom line? When you stock is doing as poorly as Kodak's is, yes it is all about the bottom line. We may not like it but that is the way it is. Scott >> It is difficult to understand why Kodak would strangle one of its finest >> products. Is EVERYTHING about the bottom line? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Scott That doesn't have to be the way it is. But that is the way of Kodak, which has never quit figured out how to continue to make money off their profitable (or could be profitable) film products, while doing an unsuccessful transition to digital. A example of truly brilliant management leading a company through a strategic change. (not!) Almost makes me want to change my 'nym. Father Kodak "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message > That doesn't have to be the way it is. But that is the way of Kodak, > which has never quit figured out how to continue to make money off > their profitable (or could be profitable) film products, while doing > an unsuccessful transition to digital. Kodak has met a killer technology, and I wonder just how they can become a master of digital technology. It was one thing back in the film days. Kodak had a monopoly, both in terms of customers and the KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE they possessed. It was difficult for any company to do battle with Kodak for market share. Not so today. Printers and inks are not sold under the Kodak brand, and consumers that buy digital cameras may well never have any contact with Kodak products again. Gone are the days of seeing the slogan "We use Kodak paper--for a good look." Now consumers can buy their photo paper at all sorts of places not strongly associated with photography--and most of that paper is NOT Kodak. So what does Kodak do with its premiere film product? Promote it? Advertise how it is so much "different" from anything else out there? No, they close their processing labs, interfere with distribution so the product cannot be found on retailers' shelves, and they make it so tough for users that we throw our hands up in disgust. I realize that Kodachrome is not the biggest profit-maker in Kodak's lineup, but when something ain't broke, why try to fix it? > "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >> That doesn't have to be the way it is. But that is the way of Kodak, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > EXPERIENCE they possessed. It was difficult for any company to do battle > with Kodak for market share. Kodak never had a monopoly. For a while they had market dominance because of the quality of their products. I don't think anyone's arguing Kodak shouldn't have moved into digital technology, only that neglecting the film business while doing so wasn't a good idea. I realize costs were going up, and profits were down, but if they'd really put some thought into what they were doing (and perhaps invested a little in new processes) film could have remained profitable for Kodak. >> "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >>> That doesn't have to be the way it is. But that is the way of Kodak, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > invested a little in new processes) film could have remained profitable > for Kodak. Kodak was the dominant force in photography for decades, at least in the United States. I remember the days before Fuji entered the American market, when the only competition to Kodak film was Ansco and some local store-brands of discount film. Every time a photograph was take, Kodak stood to benefit--from the sale of film, to the chemicals and paper used in its processing, whether the consumer processed it himself or sent it to a lab. I do not believe that Kodak will ever hold a commanding percentage of the photography market again. Certainly not the consumer part of the market at any rate. > So what does Kodak do with its premiere film product? Promote it? > Advertise how it is so much "different" from anything else out there? > No, they close their processing labs, interfere with distribution so the > product cannot be found on retailers' shelves, and they make it so tough > for users that we throw our hands up in disgust. > I realize that Kodachrome is not the biggest profit-maker in Kodak's > lineup, but when something ain't broke, why try to fix it? Short answer? Kodak realizes that Kodachrome is doomed, and is milking the last few dollars/yen/euros out of the few remaining customers. The slow decline of Kodachrome predates widespread adoption of digital. To my mind, the slide started over a decade ago, when Kodachrome was discontined in medium format. One has to wonder why. After all, while the minilab had killed consumer "slide shows," high quality chromes were still needed for a lot of non-portraiture studio work. Then in 2001-2, Kodak discontinued Kodachrome 200, but then decided to revive it. They discontinued Kodachrome 25 and didn't revive it. My guess is that like Ektar 25, enthusiasts loved the film, but that love didn't translate into sales. Consumers had abandoned slides for minilab 4x6" prints, and had shifted from SLR's with fast primes to a mix of SLR's and point-and-shoots with slower zooms. Professionals had a number of excellent alternatives. For landscapes, Velvia had great saturation and produced cleaner purples. For studio photography, E6 films allowed faster turnaround and was easier to scan. And for portraiture, ISO 100-160 C41 films had become the norm. So like traditional black and white, Kodachrome became a niche product. But unlike traditional black and white, Kodachrome manufacture and processing are both capital intensive. That's why you haven't seen anyone else come out with a K-14 film, even though the patents have long since expired. So once digital began eating into the sales of all film, the endgame we're seeing today shouldn't surprise anyone. I don't know how many rolls make up a manufacturing run of Kodachrome, but once Kodak can't get that amount though the channel before it expires, Kodachrome will follow Tech Pan and others into the history books. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >>I realize that Kodachrome is not the biggest profit-maker in Kodak's >>lineup, but when something ain't broke, why try to fix it? What is interesting / surprising is that Kodachrome is alive at all now, since the only lab left is not even Kodak owned. My guess is that various official bodies / governments still demand it for archival purposes and they have their own internal K14 labs to process it. Or is it that even Kodak are sentimental to a degree ?... Chris >>> I realize that Kodachrome is not the biggest profit-maker in Kodak's >>> lineup, but when something ain't broke, why try to fix it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > various official bodies / governments still demand it for archival > purposes and they have their own internal K14 labs to process it. I doubt it. I know the US government standard for historical preservation documentation (can't remember right off what dept that falls under) is T-max 100 in 4x5 format. Someone posted a link in one of the photography groups a while back where to go to bid on some of that work. > Or is it that even Kodak are sentimental to a degree ?... > > Chris > Kodachrome will follow Tech Pan ... into the history books. One would think that the last two films to be manufactured would be the two that have the performance to trump digital. Instead the last film to be made will likely be MAX800, a film a $79 digi-P&S can put to shame. But then I have heard rumor of Delta 25?????? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > But then I have heard rumor of Delta 25?????? I haven't heard rumors of Delta 25. However, there are two ISO 25 panchromatic films available, one from Rollei and one from Efke/Adox. I've got some Tech Pan stashed away in both 35mm and 70mm. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > However, there are two ISO 25 panchromatic films available, one from > Rollei and one from Efke/Adox. ISO 25 does not a TechPan make... > I've got some Tech Pan stashed away in both 35mm and 70mm. Ditto. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > I haven't heard rumors of Delta 25. However, there are > two ISO 25 panchromatic films available, one from Rollei > and one from Efke/Adox. ..and about one ISO 20 film from Adox.. :) >Short answer? Kodak realizes that Kodachrome is doomed, and is milking >the last few dollars/yen/euros out of the few remaining customers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >get that amount though the channel before it expires, Kodachrome will >follow Tech Pan and others into the history books. I think Kodak, Fuji, etc. had two options: 1) maximize profits on film while it lasts and use the money to enter new markets. 2) re-focus the film part of the company to support the niche market that will be left after the bulk film sales are gone. It looks very much like Kodak has chosen the first option, and Fuji is taking the second one. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I think Kodak, Fuji, etc. had two options: > 1) maximize profits on film while it lasts and use the money to enter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > taking > the second one. I'd argue that Kodak turned Kodachrome into a niche product in 2001, and the niche has grown small enough to only support a couple of labs. Fuji has its own problems. While they are shrinking more slowly than Kodak, in FY 2006 their imaging group took a 77.4 billion yen restructuring charge, which it blamed on "quicker-than-expected deterioration in [color film] market conditions and expectations of further declines in demand. And if I'm reading the Fujifilm global site correctly, unlike Kodak they've abandoned the black and white film market entirely. The problem both companies face is that their manufacturing facilities were designed for large runs. When Kodak discontinued Tech Pan in 2003, it mentioned that the last coating run had been done "several years" prior to that. I wouldn't be shocked if Kodak's Kodachrome coating runs also provide several years worth of stock at current sales levels. In summary, as both companies try to find a survivable niche, expect more options to fall by the wayside. As an aside, in early 2003 I predicted here that APS film would be hard to find by 2006 and that film makers would drop the format by 2008. Suffice it to say that my crystal ball hasn't gotten any better. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >I'd argue that Kodak turned Kodachrome into a niche product in 2001, >and the niche has grown small enough to only support a couple of labs. In a niche market, the buyer are usually people who pay extra for something special. The problem with Kodak is that are just marketing Kodachrome like any other product. They just tell people that a lab closed. Instead (in niche market) they should have made sure that shipping to and from the remaining labs is as easy as possible. >Fuji has its own problems. While they are shrinking more slowly than >Kodak, in FY 2006 their imaging group took a 77.4 billion yen [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >site correctly, unlike Kodak they've abandoned the black and white >film market entirely. It is not always clear what restructuring charges mean exactly. Abandoning B/W may make sense. It is much better to have a small selection of great products than a big catalog of also runs. Maybe Fuji figured out that they do not want to compete with Ilford. >The problem both companies face is that their manufacturing facilities >were designed for large runs. When Kodak discontinued Tech Pan in 2003, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In summary, as both companies try to find a survivable niche, expect >more options to fall by the wayside. I don't expect much Kodak film to survive. Fuji introduced too many new films to assume that they are giving up. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In a niche market, the buyer are usually people who pay extra for > something special. The problem with Kodak is that are just marketing > Kodachrome like any other product. They just tell people that a lab > closed. But how to convince people to pay a lot more? I think most people would just be upset if they raise prices significantly. Actually they might just try that when they're nearing the end of their current batch.. when they are evaluating whether to do another production run or not. > Instead (in niche market) they should have made sure that > shipping to and from the remaining labs is as easy as possible. Well, apparently the mailer bags still work in Europe so it's about as easy as it can be, at least in regard to Europe. > Abandoning B/W may make sense. It is much better to have a small selection > of great products than a big catalog of also runs. Maybe Fuji figured > out that they do not want to compete with Ilford. Does this mean there's no more Neopan 100/400/1600 made? And I haven't gotten around to trying it, yet. >> In a niche market, the buyer are usually people who pay extra for >> something special. The problem with Kodak is that are just marketing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But how to convince people to pay a lot more? I think most people would >just be upset if they raise prices significantly. Why? The people who are still using slide film are probably the ones who have particular cameras, lenses, etc. they want to use. Or they get a certain look from slide film they can't easily duplicate using digital. If you shoot film like large format (i.e. carefully pick a subject, wait until everything is exactly right, etc.) then film costs are are not significant compared to all other costs. Usually, I spend a lot more money on prints than I spend on film. >> Instead (in niche market) they should have made sure that >> shipping to and from the remaining labs is as easy as possible. > >Well, apparently the mailer bags still work in Europe so it's about as >easy as it can be, at least in regard to Europe. The problem is, they don't seem to be telling anybody. The message Kodak seems to convey is that if you are really stupid enough to still want to use Kodachrome, then they may want to sell it to you. The .nl Kodak site doesn't even provide a hint that mailer bags may exist. >Does this mean there's no more Neopan 100/400/1600 made? And I haven't >gotten around to trying it, yet. In .nl, it is still listed as available. Though it may be old stock. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >> It is difficult to understand why Kodak would strangle one of its finest > >> products. Is EVERYTHING about the bottom line? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > A example of truly brilliant management leading a company through a > strategic change. (not!) Kodak is in a hard place, they really don't have the option of just shrinking in size as the market from film shrinks, not if they want to maintain the value of their stock. Investors like companies that have growth potential and hate companies that are shirking. Even if you could continue to make a money as you shrink your stock will lose much of it value. And the management at Kodak has a responsibility to look after their investors, who after all are the owners of the company. Scott > that is the way of Kodak, which has never quite > figured out how to continue to make money off [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A example of truly brilliant management leading > a company through a strategic change. (not!) That is the way of a lot of companies in Rochester. There is something peculiar about the city: lots of innovation that just fizzles out. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> that is the way of Kodak, which has never quite >> figured out how to continue to make money off [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That is the way of a lot of companies in Rochester. Not just Xerox??? >There is something peculiar about the city: lots >of innovation that just fizzles out. Well for many years both Kodak and Xerox were the bluest of the blue chip stocks. Of course, those years ended many years ago. I think that what also ended was a good imagination and a willingness to take risks. Just my opinion. Father Kodak > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote: > > > A example of truly brilliant management leading [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think that what also ended was a good imagination and a willingness > to take risks. I am familiar with Taylor Instruments in the 1983-87 time period. I worked for Booz-Allen on the acquisition and later for CE in an effort to turn Taylor around (until ABB bought CE...). Only the turned-around part survives. The feeling I got was the place was inbred. Rochester never looked beyond it's own borders. Any success quickly married it's cousin and soon honest-to-god pencil-neck geeks were in charge. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > It is difficult to understand why Kodak would strangle one of its finest > products. Is EVERYTHING about the bottom line? Pretty much, when it's corporations. > Yes, that's the insanity of the "revised" tarif structure for Royal Mail / > Parcelforce. Parcelforce rates have risen considerably recently. I send a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chris It's never off topic to complain about the stupidities of government. Everything they do has a profound effect on everything people try to accomplish and enjoy.......It's just too bad they don't think things through thoroughly before they act...... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.