I think the only path - unlikely but not impossible for the true film believer, as I am - is that film photography, and slide film in particular, begins a come back that will lead it, let's say in 10 years, to the levels of sales which existed during the first years of the digital revolution, when film sales were shrinking but not yet really in danger. For Europe that might mean something like 2006. For the US maybe something like 2003.
If and when film sales go back to that level, Kodak (or whoever purchased the technology using it with whichever brand name) might easily think about producing Kodachrome again. In 2006 Kodachrome was still a viable product and it would be some sort of a "flagship" product for Kodak, a bit like Porsche continues to sell their 911-family cars: even though they are not the latest in technology, there still is a market for "retro" technology provided it is well realized. Values like "tradition" and "history" do have a meaning, and Kodachrome might be the 911 (or the Morgan) of the future slide market.
The first condition to become true is that the market bounces back to where it was some 6 years ago. Not easy for sure, but not impossible either.
I think it would be easier to modify an E6 emulsion to give a Kodachrome like colour response and grain then to start making true Kodachrome film again. Would probably still cost millions to produce the first roll though.
The patents, yes but not the formulas. If Kodak really wants to say Kodachrome is dead, they should make the formulas available through something like a creative commons licence, with the only condition being that anyone who decides to use them must credit Eastman Kodak with the process design.
The formulas were published decades ago in the Dignan Newsletter. At one time all the newletters were available on microfiche.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
And legally in the state of Washington, as of four days ago...
Not until December, but the district prosecutor dismissed charges for all outstanding violations that would fall under this law.
And now back on topic...
The current price of Kodachrome developing has been set. I went and bought all of the Kodak E100G and E100VS I could, and those few boxes are in my freezer. Yeah, I'm going to miss E6. The limited range allows me to accentuate things, while C41 gives me too much in the background.
ILFOFLEX is an Ra-4 print material its Ilfords product similar to Fujiflex it is not like duraclear, fuji clear, ilfoclear. slides can not be made from this or from the other metioned display materials. they are not designed for projecting. Agfa however does make products that work like kodak 4111 print film which is process c-41. The colour and contrast of Ilfoflex is amazing and the paper Ra-4 reverses wonderfully. I have found no material to reverse as well as ilfoflex. I should also note when printing ilfochromes for exhibitions if there are also images form colour negative the Ilfoflex was the best choice for continuity.
Last edited by Stephen Frizza; 11-10-2012 at 04:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.
As the issue of print film used as camera film has come up a few posts ago, I was asked to comment on it:
Display films (and print films) in general have to 2 shortcomings concernig use as camera films:
-) very slow speed
-) their sensitization is optimised for the three dyes of the original film, not for the wide spectrum as in our environment
Something similar comes true for negative camera films. They are not necessarily good slide films. (Aside of the mask and Dmax issues.)
Here the problem may be that their dyes are to fit the sensitivity of the print material and vice-versa.
In the whole reproduction line we got the colour scope of the object world at the beginning and the viewers eyes at the end. What happens inbetween may be a total different story.