Posted on 03/11/2002 12:24:59 PM PST by Don Joe
It's sickening! No more Ektar (25 & 100 missed the most), no more Royal Gold (25 & 100 as per Ektar), no more Pro100, no more Kodachrome 25, no more 120 Kodachrome, no more Verichrome Pan, no more Plus-X or Tri-X (although they will be delivering replacements -- different films -- with the same names for those two classics), and there was going to be no more Kodachrome 200, but they backed down -- they'll sell it at something like $23 a roll -- while there's still demand for it. (Gee, how long will that be at that price?)
They don't make a lot of noise about it, for (IMO) obvious reasons. So, I hear rumors here and rumblings there, then go nosing around the www.kodak.com site looking for press releases and/or updated comments on individual emulsions' tech pages, and lo and behold, it's all there. You just have to dig.
Mannes and Godowsky (two musicians!) invented it back in the 30s, originally as a two-color film (there were quite a few two-color films in the early days, the color rendition was not real good, but it was evidently good enough for some folks) and then when refined to a three-layer film, it went into production. IIRC it started out at ASA 8 (or the equiv in the pre-ASA days). When I started using it in the 1950s, it was ASA 10 (daylight), and Tungsten was ASA 16. There was a "Type F" for a while (for flashbulbs) which I think was ASA 12.
Then in the '60s they came out with "Kodachrome II", which was ASA 25, and sharper than the old ASA 10, with better color rendition. The K25 & K64 replacements came out in the '70s (with the new K14 process), and a lot of folks still lament KII, insisting that the "real reason" for the change was to use less silver.
K200 came out a little later, and there was a "secret" batch (kind of a beta test) of K100 a few years back that a select few got to play with. It never went into production.
The official story on why they killed K25 varies, they can't seem to get their story straight. :) One time they'll say it was because they can't get one of the key ingredients anymore, another time they say it's because the demand has dropped.
I've since heard that it's still in production for 16mm movie film, and if true, that would tend to clobber the first explanation. As to the second reason, when was the last time anyone saw any advertising for any Kodachrome?
My own conjecture is that they're letting it die because 1) E6 films have a better return, 2) they perceive "the market" as favoring speed over quality, and 3) they want to consolidate their lines in order to try to cut their production costs.
I think the "letting it die" theory is supported by the lack of advertising or other promotion.
BTW, E6 -- as well as all other chromogenic films (including C41 and the relatively new black and white C41 films) -- were originally off-limits to Kodak, because Agfa held the patents. After the war ended, the allies divvied up the spoils, negating German patents right and left. That's why there was a proliferation of Japanese cameras based on German designs.
"a lot of folks still lament KII, insisting that the "real reason" for the change was to use less silver."
IMO "the real reason" (in reality, there were likely several) was the changeover to tempered gelatin emulsions, which allowed for higher temp processing, shorter times (faster throughput), and rougher handling. (The tempered color films I've handled wet -- E6 & C41 -- were tougher than "normal" B&W films, whereas the older (i.e., E4) stuff was so delicate that if you looked at it cockeyed the yellow layer would slip off into the wash (literally!). It was almost impossible to hand-process the stuff without at the very least some nontrivial reticulation.)
Question.
For everyday photos in any light environment with a little thought the modern digitals are plenty adequate, infinitely more convenient, and tons cheaper over the long run.
Except for the most exacting professional or the anal.
Got 3 Nikon F(x)s that I haven't used in 2 years.
Oh yeah.
Kodak makes great digital cameras. :)
How right you are...$4,000 for the body and $6,000 for a Nikkor Telephoto 400mm f/2.8 IF AIS Manual Focus lense (for nature photography)...you're talking big $$$.
Yes, a red light re-exposes the cyan layer on the base side, and a blue light re-exposes the yellow layer on the emulsion side. The magenta layer can then be chemically re-exposed since the other two layers have already been developed. K-12 used a separate magenta reversal bath and wash, while in K-14 they incorporated the reversal agent into the developer itself, eliminating two steps.
Those re-exposure lights use very sharp cutoff filters to expose only the relevant layer, and adjusting the intensity of the lamps is an important factor in process control.
I'm afraid that Kodachrome may not be with us much longer. There are only a handful of labs left that run K-14 (mostly Qualex labs), and there is just not enough demand to keep justifying production on a long term basis. I think what has really been the biggest factor is the demise of super 8 movie film. When everyone stopped shooting movies and went to video tape, labs saw the super 8 volume decrease to a trickle. When I worked at the lab, movie film far surpassed slide production, and without the movies, there was not enough volume to keep the line going.
That is why its much easier to have E-6 developed. Just a guess
When I was in Austin and in West Palm Beach during the election dealings...the press photographers used Nikon Pro digitals, that had a wireless transfer to the the uplink truck. As soon as images were taken, they were downloaded to a wireless device on the photraphers LBV, wired over to the truck (could have been infrared). From there the images were beamed up to a satelite, down to HQ...processed into web images and print images literally within minutes....
I personally don't own a digital...prefer film...F5, F100 are my bodies of choice.
You're exactly right. When Kodak decided to create a new, higher temp process (K-14), they had to create new films that could withstand those higher temps (100 degrees F. versus 75 degrees). This allowed for faster developing times, as well as doing away with the prehardener, which was a surprisingly critical step; even the wash time was critical to process control.
Yep but we love our digital camera which happens to be a.........KODAK. heh heh No more film...hooray!
But, they sit in the warehouses, IMO because Kodak is not interested in promoting K14, which (I'm shocked! I'm shocked!) results in low volume, which translates into insufficient demand to warrant investing in a K-Lab, which itself contributes to less demand for the film (because it takes longer than E6 to get back from the lab when you have to mail it to Fairlawn).
Maybe I'm missing something but I see all of the above as "management issues" rather than "technical" or even "marketing" issues.
If someone with sufficient rank was to start kicking ass, I think some amazing stuff could happen. [fire up the cloud machine, start the woo woo music, enter Don Joe's Dream World...] If I was in charge, I'd make a standing offer to any lab in the US that met minimal qualifications (i.e., it's solvent, and it's located in a region with a minimum population density yet to be determined).
The offer would be this: I give you a K-Lab, and a six month supply of chemistry, with the following terms. I run national ads and give you co-op for regional ads that you are required to run. You are required to commit to running the machine for a minimum of two years. If you run it for five years, you own it. I would also require rigorous QC requirements, and put the labs on notice that I'd be putting anonymous "spot check" rolls through on a constant basis.
I'd then turn to our ad agency, and start barking out orders.
Then I'd start sending out bricks of my new, improved K14 emulsions to magazine editors, newspaper columnists, and prominent photography clubs.
I'd cut deals with all the slide scanner manufacturers to include a few free rolls with every scanner sold. I'd cut deals with camera manufacturers to include free Kodachrome with all their mid-range and up cameras.
Each roll would be distributed "European style", i.e., processing included in the price of the film, no mailer needed, but one included for convenience. (If it's lost, just send the film.)
The mailers would only be good at the K-Lab dealers, or, existing private K14 labs. (there are two or three, and I would not want to alienate them, but, in the interest of goodwill, I'd offer them the same free K-Lab machine offer the others got).
Inside of a year, when people thought "slide film", they'd think "Kodachrome" -- which is how it was for the longest time, until Kodak dropped the ball.
Chromogenic films have gotten better and better over the years, but the fact is that how ever good a chromogenic film is, a "comparable" (speed) Kodachrome type film will always be better. Instead of "dye clouds" that form in the proximity of a developing grain of silver salt, Kodachrome images are made of dye that replaces a grain of metalic silver. Kodachrome will always be sharper. And, the lack of dye-coupler migration issues means it'll always have better color purity too.
People who've never seen a good Kodachrome image are frequently shocked, not because the colors are so bright (i.e., "velviaesque"), but because they don't feel like they're looking at a picture, they feel like they're looking at the actual scene itself. There's something life-like about a good Kodachrome that nothing else can match. And as far as resolution is concerned, I've looked at Kodachromes with a 20X textile microscope, and there was still more detail in the image than my eye could resolve. Unbelievably sharp.
Seeing this amazing product languishing, while "Max Zoom!" and gaudy teenybopper hippityhop packaging and "speed speed speed!" is pushed... it's sad.
I managed to get ahold of some outdated (the only kind available anymore) 120 K64 and after a week on the phone to Rochester, Fairlawn, England, Switzerland, and I've forgotten where else, we got the lowdown on how to get it in for "the last run."
Then 9/11 happened.
I hoped they'd extended the deadline, but no such luck. So, we managed to get it Fedexed to Wimbledon for the October 1, 2001 run.
I'd originally heard that any 120 K64 they received sent in via mailers or pickups would be sent to the UK and put into cold storage until 10/1, but found out that they would return it unprocessed if I sent it that way, and that I'd have to get it to Wimbledon myself if I wanted it processed. Man, talk about making it easy, eh? No two people anywhere in Kodak knew the same details the same way. Half the phone numbers (for UK) didn't work. I was losing hope when we finally got someone who gave us a working phone number, and someone there knew the actual address, payment instructions, deadlines, etc. Argh!
They set up a machine for 120 film, and cold-stored all the rolls people sent to them prior to that date, and then they ran 'em all through, shut down the machine, and ended an era.
I still have a few rolls in the freezer, in the vain hope that some day they'll see the light and start rolling it in 120 spools again. Yeah, right. Fat chance. So, I hold onto them as keepsakes.
Um, right, "no problem". As long, that is, as there's "no problem" with snapshot quality prints of 8x10 or smaller, or, the inclination and ability to fork out 50 grand or so for a LF scanning back.
The only way that Mere Mortals can "go digital" and retain some of the intensely dense data packed into even a 24x36 mm silverworld image is to use a decent slide scanner. Go to MF or LF and you're talking about a pro grade drum scanner, and bingo, you're back to the 50 grand range again.
Digital as a replacement for film is Really Great Stuff for the same folks who find P&S "quality" to be just super, or for newspaper photographers for whom the "defining" issue is the size of the screen mask their halftone press guys use. (Or, for magazine photographers whose output never goes beyond the size of the inkprints on the page.)
For any application where traditional photography shines, digital has a long way to go. And there's no reasonable expectation that it'll get there any time soon, particularly when price is a factor.
The main driving force behind the popular acceptance of digital is the popular acceptance of mediocre snapshot-grade images produced by the dominant combination of mediocre P&S cameras and mediocre slackjaw-run minilabs. That cheap digital can produce work competitive with crap-on-crap traditional images is more of an indictment of the current state of the traditional image world than a vindication of digital.
Your a little out of touch when it comes to digital photography. Most newer 3 MegaPixel cameras in the highest quality mode can produce up to 16 x 20 size prints with no Pixelation and can be up sized to as large as 20 x 30 with the same print quality as 35mm film. And today's 3 megapixel cameras are quickly being replaced by 4, 5, and 6 megapixel cameras.
Just because a photograph is produced by digital means, does not make it an inferior photograph. It is the content of the photograph that matters. The digital photographer is still 'painting with light'.
Hint: there's a lot more than "4, 5, [or] 6 megapixel[s]" of information in a good 35mm image.
To put it in perspective, my 2700 DPI film scanner, which translates to ~10.9 megapixels -- doesn't approach what the medium is capable of delivering.
There's a lot of instant ex-spurts spouting nonsense as if it was gospel, with their ideas of reality filtered through the fifty cent molded plastic lenses of toss-away cardboard cameras.
Sad, but at least it proves my point about the tragic defining-down of photographic standards.
Danged blood pressure...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.