Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,285   Posts: 1,535,270   Online: 881
      
Page 7 of 50 FirstFirst 1234567891011121317 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 493
  1. #61
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    The issue becomes making film stocks in small enough quantities that it could be all sold before it expired. Also to make the chemicals in small enough quantities that it was used up, before it expired.
    A few things come to mind.

    AT WHAT PRICE??? The price to develop the film will be $250 per roll. The price per roll might be, what, $200? So nobody will pay to buy the film, and nobody will pay to have the film developed. Any Kodachrome replacement would not be cheap, as in under $50 per roll. Face it, when it was only double the price of E6, it wasn't popular. Steve McCurry started shooting digital instead of Kodachrome in 2005, and Kodachrome was discontinued in 2009.

    Like PE said, there's nothing special about the process, because several other manufacturers have done the same thing, and dropped it. Kodak held out. Finally Kodak dropped it. I can't imagine anybody bringing back Kodachrome, especially investing millions in redevelopment, as long as Fuji is making E6. Fact is, I can't imagine anybody bringing it back as long as C41 is available.

    If somebody wants to shoot Kodachrome "at any price," that person can do it right now. The price and the minimum order has been stated, and it isn't that exorbitant.

  2. #62
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    A few things come to mind.

    AT WHAT PRICE??? The price to develop the film will be $250 per roll. The price per roll might be, what, $200? So nobody will pay to buy the film, and nobody will pay to have the film developed. Any Kodachrome replacement would not be cheap, as in under $50 per roll. Face it, when it was only double the price of E6, it wasn't popular. Steve McCurry started shooting digital instead of Kodachrome in 2005, and Kodachrome was discontinued in 2009.

    Like PE said, there's nothing special about the process, because several other manufacturers have done the same thing, and dropped it. Kodak held out. Finally Kodak dropped it. I can't imagine anybody bringing back Kodachrome, especially investing millions in redevelopment, as long as Fuji is making E6. Fact is, I can't imagine anybody bringing it back as long as C41 is available.

    If somebody wants to shoot Kodachrome "at any price," that person can do it right now. The price and the minimum order has been stated, and it isn't that exorbitant.
    I think the real case was three technologies doing the same thing, and when the market began to shrink, one of them had to go. Rather then dwelling on the past, here is another idea, to save slide imagery.

    They coat RA4 emulsion on a film base, the film comes in 8x10 sheets, you take a C41 negative and contact print it on a portion of the film, you can contact print an entire roll if you like, or just selected images, someone can then build an easel to do this, I am sure. Process in RA4 chemicals like a normal print. Then use a paper cutter to cut the images out of the sheet and mount them for projection. Now you have one film technology (C41) and one print technology (RA4), keeping film alive until it becomes retro and everyone wants to get in on the action again.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    They coat RA4 emulsion on a film base.
    You can't simply coat the emulsion layers of color print material on a transparent base to make a transparency.

    Color print dyes 'get 2 shots at the light' when viewed (light passes through the dyes - hits the base - and is reflected back through the dyes on its way to your eyes) and would make a pretty 'weak' transparency. In addition, color print materials have much lower maximum densities than transparencies (it would be wasted because of front surface reflections of prints).

    There WERE Kodak products in the past designed to make display transparencies from color negatives.

  4. #64
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    You can't simply coat the emulsion layers of color print material on a transparent base to make a transparency.

    Color print dyes 'get 2 shots at the light' when viewed (light passes through the dyes - hits the base - and is reflected back through the dyes on its way to your eyes) and would make a pretty 'weak' transparency. In addition, color print materials have much lower maximum densities than transparencies (it would be wasted because of front surface reflections of prints).

    There WERE Kodak products in the past designed to make display transparencies from color negatives.
    Duratrans.

    I wasn't even completely sure it's gone. Too bad. And another one gone and another one gone... glad I'm really in love with black and white.

  5. #65
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    The real problem, besides the fact there's no real market, with anyone coming out with a new Kodachrome like process is that those chemicals would also have to serve the commercial photo finishing business, where the infrastructure is already tiny and still shrinking. The few remaining labs, few enough of whom even do E6 any more, would have to set up whole new lines. It isn't going to happen. Just won't. Even if a new film were made easier to manually process somehow the market for home processed color is tiny. It wouldn't exist at all except that C41 and E6 materials made for commercial use are pretty easily adapted.

    The only way I can see it even COULD happen would be for a new, re-invented, leaner Kodak by whatever name to do occasional runs and supply maybe one or two contracted labs with chemicals for periodic batch runs, maybe in something like a K-lab. I doubt there's a market for this. If there were, and if the price could be kept competitive with E6, then I'd still put the odds at maybe 0.001% or so. Of course I pulled that number out of my changing tent as it were - it's possible, but it's vanishingly unlikely.

    I agree with PE that it's gone. I just still like talking about it.

  6. #66
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    As I have said time after time, Kodak has abandoned the patents for K-14 allowing anyone to use them. They are open and clearly disclosed.

    PE

  7. #67
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,212
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    The only way I can see it even COULD happen would be for a new, re-invented, leaner Kodak by whatever name to do occasional runs...
    At least one current Kodak representative has already publicly hinted that something like this might be... well, not necessarily impossible in a post-Kodak world.

    One never knows until one does. Stranger things have happened in the long history of our species...



    (TWO of these, just so no one gets confused.)

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #68
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    At least one current Kodak representative has already publicly hinted that something like this might be... well, not necessarily impossible in a post-Kodak world.

    One never knows until one does. Stranger things have happened in the long history of our species...



    (TWO of these, just so no one gets confused.)

    Ken
    Yeah, and that's pretty much what I'm acknowledging. Not impossible, just very, very unlikely. Like the flaming monkeys...

  9. #69
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,212
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Like the flaming monkeys...
    If you teach a monkey to start a fire, you'll keep him warm for a night. If you set a monkey on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life...



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I agree with PE that it's gone. I just still like talking about it.
    I like thinking about Kodachrome, too. I think, though, that we need to put as much money and effort as possible in keeping E6 alive, since it's more economical. In several hours, I should be getting 9 rolls of slides and 2 reels of Super 8 back that I shot at Caprock Canyons State Park. I scrounged up enough money to shoot it and plan to keep doing so into the future. I'll post links to my flickr page.

    One thing I want to ask, PE (it's not about Kodachrome, I promise ). Let's say that commercial E6 went the way of Kodachrome. Would it be far more economical and easier to start a small commercial E6 line (say, like Ilford with black and white). I hope this doesn't happen, but I pay good money to shoot E6, because it's really good stuff. I'd hate to see that happen to E6.
    Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

    Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
    Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
    Medium Format: Mamiya RB67



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin