Kodak Retires Kodachrome Film

[PKM-25]

Thank you, Jason.

Acco, can I quote your other post and send it to contacts at Kodak even though I am absolutely positive they read this already?

[nickrapak]

In the last few months in the UK, I have bought Kodak-branded household batteries, blank DVD's, and A4 copier paper (ordinary paper, not inkjet)...all these seem to have been made-under-licence and all on special offers...either very much cheaper than the better known brands of these goods, or on a "buy-one-get-one-free" offer.

Not sure what, if anything, can be inferred from this, but I can't think that it can be very effective or profitable business?

Seeing this happen near me as well leads me to fear "Polaroid 2.0", where the original product becomes an afterthought, and the name is licensed to whatever crappy Chinese company wants to make a buck.


There is one thing that wasn't discussed in the topic of the theoretical new master roll of Kodachrome. Cost to the consumer. Now, we pay ~$25 per roll for the film and developing. Would we be willing to pay $20 per roll, and $20 for processing? How about $30? $50? The problem is that running a unique coating line and a unique developing is pricey, and that price will be passed on to the purchasers.

[PKM-25]

I wrote Dwayne's yesterday about Terry's ideas. In short, where are we going to get the dye couplers for processing? Kodak is not going to be making them anymore, they are expensive and complex as Ron has often pointed out.

[accozzaglia]

Acco, can I quote your other post and send it to contacts at Kodak?

Knock yourself flat, Dan. I doubt it matters, but you're welcome to it.

[PKM-25]

Knock yourself flat, Dan. I doubt it matters, but you're welcome to it.

It's too late for Kodachrome, but it might help for future product considerations.

The thing of it is for me is that the brand is huge, the presence in advertising had been too. So when advertising and products start to fall off the radar screen, people don't know what to think and go elsewhere. It's human nature to expect what you are used to, including advertising.

Thanks for the other email by the way, very cool!

[JBrunner]

One thing I have noticed:

It seems to me many products are greatly lamented after demise, in seemingly direct juxtaposition to the overall popularity enjoyed while available.

It's kind of like, since you can't have it anymore, now you want it more than you did. How much Kodachrome does the average poster to this thread really shoot? I know it will vary, but I bet the overall amount won't be surprisingly large. It may be more an issue of wanting to be able to shoot it if one chooses, rather than a huge new gap in the arsenal. That would be how I feel. Of course I'd like it to continue, and I love it for certain things, but I personally don't use enough Kodachrome to honestly say I'm supporting it as a customer. Just a thought.

[Q.G.]

I guess Kodachrome is the last true flagship Kodak product

Don't dismiss Portra too soon.

[Q.G.]

One thing I have noticed:[...]
Just a thought.

Spot on, i'd say.

[Ian Grant]

Don't dismiss Portra too soon.

Can't dismiss what I don't know, what is it ? If it's not a Fuji colour film then I wouldn't really consider buying it. Remember Fuji is now the only company offering a full range of Colour & B&W films and papers as well as producing high end products in the other sphere (not mentioned here).

Fuji might be the smaller company but it kicks a bigger punch, after all they've just released a new film camera. They are also dominant in most countries other than the US. They made the films that effectively killed Kodachrome, 50D & 100D.

Ian

[wogster]

All valid, but can that be fixed at this point in regard to a niche product with a limited market that has been in decline for some time? It would be nice, but in context we are discussing a specific emulsion that is expensive and difficult to process from the standpoint of today's consumer. I have clients these days that chafe at the idea of an afternoon E-6 turnaround. Joe Six Pack has had his expectations programmed to an even higher degree. It seems to me that leaves Kodachrome as a product for the Kodachrome enthusiast, someone who shoots it because they love it and are willing to go that extra mile or two for the result. Are there enough of them? I don't know.

I think one of the problems for Kodachrome was that film manufacturers didn't really push the better for scanning attributes of transparency films, so at a time when home slide shows became less popular, and digital video shows became more popular, it was easier for people to scan negatives or get the lab to do the scanning. So rather then competing with 7 or 8 E6 slide films, the competition exploded with film devotees able to use negative films and many others using digital capture. So the odd ball film that needed a licenced lab to process, became a statistically insignificant part of the overall market. Then rather then starting to push it, Kodak decides to throw away it's primary market and compete with the 100 or so companies in the digital market. A market that has 4 players (Nikon and Canon on the camera side, and Epson and HP on the printing side) that together own about 99% of the market. The rest split up the 1% that is left.

In a shrinking market where the biggest player is interested in something else, it becomes difficult to maintain products that require unique processes to manufacture, and unique processes to provide the end result. Seriously Kodachrome probably should have gone away in the 1980's once the E6 process had stabilized and given good results. in the market we have it would probably be better to have an E7 process, which would add a first developer and reversal step followed by a C41 type process. This would have meant being able to add the two steps to the front of a C41 processor. Unfortunately nobody would now be willing to do the R&D to develop this.