Kodak Retires Kodachrome Film

[Dave in Kansas]

I have to admit that I have some Ektachrome that was shot on a 1966 vacation processed apparently by Kodak that still looks good. A little strong on the blues, but at least not pink. Some other E6 film processed in the late 70's is going pink. That might be Brand-X film (perhaps K-mart Focal film, whoever made that), and was certainly not processed by Kodak.

[Kirk Keyes]

So then we might expect in ten years or so Kodak, Sony, Viacom, and players to be named at a future date, will distribute digital motion pictures to remotely operated chains of digital theaters while only small "art houses" show vintage MP print films.

I saw "War Games" last year - a 25th Anniversary screening. It was shown across the country in a handfull of theaters. 20 minutes from the end, the screen went blank. It took a few minutes for anything to reappear, and when it did, it was a Windows XP boot screen. The movie was being broadcast and shown using a digital projector.

We don't have to wait 10 years. The future is now.

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Early Kodachrome is known to fade, it supposedly became more stable with KII etc, KII fdaesbut not as badly, my K25's are still close to or are perfect.

The only Kodachrome that is universally "known to fade" is that from the very first years (1935-1938 or thereabouts) which had poor dye stability. After that, by far most of what's out there, from the 1940s onward, seem to have held up very well. There's plenty of evidence of this. The earliest Kodachromes in my possession are from 1950 (that was before K-11), shot by my grandfather, and they're flawless. A few slides from the 1960s have worse color; that may be poor processing or just poor exposure (they seem overexposed). None of the 8mm movie film my grandfather shot from 1956 to 1985 (ie K-11, K-12 and K-14) show any signs of fading.

I do not doubt your findings, but I do believe you're mistaken in that the earlier processes were less stable.

[rternbach]

I saw "War Games" last year - a 25th Anniversary screening. It was shown across the country in a handfull of theaters. 20 minutes from the end, the screen went blank. It took a few minutes for anything to reappear, and when it did, it was a Windows XP boot screen. The movie was being broadcast and shown using a digital projector. We don't have to wait 10 years. The future is now.

So did someone shoot the projectionist or did someone break into the locked unattended booth and steal the projector? Perhaps it took a phonecall from theater operations 1,500 miles away to get someone to come to the theater and get the other projector out of storage and boot it up.

[BetterSense]

There is no way they are going to be able to actually reproduce Kodachrome as it was made in 2009, the best they can hope to do is merely make something that, if they are lucky, looks like and earlier version of Kodachrome.

I don't think they will even try. To them, "reproducing Kodachrome" will be creating a photoshop filter to emulate the look of scanned kodachrome digitally. We have a whole generation convinced that digital photography is a substitute for film photography. Nobody values film's film-ness enough to shoot available films in the first place, much less attempt to recreate old discontinued ones. I hate to be realistic but I can't see it happening.

[rternbach]

I agree that they, Kodak, will probably never try reproducing Kodachrome films unless it is in regards to digital "look and feel". But from the stats reported by clayne it appears they may not survive to innovate anything for very long.

[Ian Grant]

Thank Ron, my wife wants a new camera but it won't be from the "Consumer Digital Imaging Group = CDG" it'll be Canon, Fuji or similar.

You made me think, and I suddenly realised why Kodak have such a poor name/reputation etc for many non film products. Kodak itself is a Brand name, but so is Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Kodacolor, so was Brownie, Retina etc. But they haven't re-invented themselves for their CDG products, they have no sub brand. Kodak is too big and diverse and shouldn't assume that just sticking Kodak on a product will sell it.

Kodak = Film, Papers, Developers and the following . . .
Ektachrome, Kodachrome = Slide films
Kodacolor = Print film, as do/did Verichrome & Vericolor
Retina - Kodak Nagel manufactured cameras.
Polychrome - printing trade

I could keep going but Kodak sold all their major lines under sub-brands that everyone knew were made by parts of the Eastman Kodak group.

The problem now is the Kodak name is being use to re-badge items built by non Kodak manufacturers, that doesn't give you confidence, and it also gives the impression (to the public) that Kodak are no longer at the cutting edge of technology, despite the truth being quite different. I'd guess that George Eastman would turn in his grave if he saw how badly the company had lost market share to competitors.

Ian

[rternbach]

...George Eastman would turn in his grave if he saw how badly the company had lost market share to competitors.

So when did the deathwatch for Kodak begin? Surely it wasn't with the announcement that Kodachrome was to be discontinued. I'm sure it was long before this thread or forum were begun. Perhaps the deathwatch started way back when some smart engineer pointed out at a Kodak board meeting that the digital age had been spotted looming on the horizon and was immediately told to shut up or he would adversely affect the stock's rating.

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

I agree and it was well put. Thanks.

Interestingly, people here often say that Kodak lagged in making digital equipment, but Kodak was into digital in the 70s and 80s quite seriously. I saw sensors back then and digital still cameras. However, the error was in not taking it seriously until much later. One group of pundits at Kodak proclaimed that digital would not become a significant threat until 2020. Sounds like a repeat of what they said to Chester Carlson when they compared Verifax to Xerox. I have read that top secret 5 star classified report. I'll say no more.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

So when did the deathwatch for Kodak begin? Surely it wasn't with the announcement that Kodachrome was to be discontinued. I'm sure it was long before this thread or forum were begun. Perhaps the deathwatch started way back when some smart engineer pointed out at a Kodak board meeting that the digital age had been spotted looming on the horizon and was immediately told to shut up or he would adversely affect the stock's rating.

Kodak's stock dropped from a high in the vicinity of $120 back in the early 90s IIRC and it is about $1.20 now (not that low I hope, but it is close to that sadly). So, we are looking at a real meltdown and no-one wants to buy it due to the risk involved.

PE