Kodak discontinue E6 films

[Frank Petronio]

It probably allows them to lay off 3-4 people and reduce the number of SKUs offered so it looks like they did something. There was probably an edict to reduce 3% or something like that.

[D. Bryant]

Meanwhile, Kodak continues its efforts to screw its retirees.

http://soc.li/M41h5CG

My late father-n-law worked for EK for 33 years so this will definitely affect his widow who is 82. Sad news.

[Frank Petronio]

Many of the older retirees, who had better contracts, are protected, it is the current workers and the more recent retirees who will loose the most. My 85-year old MiL isn't loosing anything so far.

[Bruce Watson]

Sure, because we can't evaluate the results on the light table anymore.

Actually, you can. It takes some effort and practice, but the human visual system can be trained how to remove the orange color correction mask and invert the colors. Just like using a view camera -- after about six months I found that I saw the scene on the ground glass upside down and backwards only if I willed it. Same is true of C-41 on a light table. If I can do it, anyone can.

[toyotadesigner]

If I can do it, anyone can.

So why don't the global TV stations start to broadcast inverted videos?

[Frank Petronio]

So you throw the sleeved negs onto a flatbed and do quick proof scans. What's the big deal?

The whole chrome workflow was a kludge. Kodak's first color process was Kodachrome and projected slides used to be a huge amateur and later, professional, market that they addressed. But their intent, according to the old timers I've known, was to get commercial photographers to adopt color negative back in the 1950s. That way the photographer would be responsible for controlling the color and making repro-quality, retouched prints for four-color repro. That was the model they built and it would have been better for most serious photographers in terms of control and profit.

Remember that Kodak invented and wanted to control that early color repro workflow in the post WW2 period just like they invented and controlled the early digital imaging workflow in the 1990s (everything you do with your DSLR was pioneered and mostly perfected by Kodak, not Canon or Nikon. Simply use any Canon or Nikon software to confirm that they have no f-clue about workflow!)

Instead, the printing and advertising industry started to use slides/chromes for reproduction. This striped the photographer out of the post-production process but it also made it easier for photographers to simply hand over their film and bill the clients. So most photographers took the easy way out and the prints/ad agencies/pre-press houses went to a chrome-based workflow.

This sucked in hindsight because from 1950 until 2000, most commercial photographers were at the mercy of however the film rendered color. It wasn't until clients started asking photographers to scan and retouch that they got control back.

Tossing some pretty chromes on the light table and picking up the check was relatively easy for the duffers, and then the braindead art directors and pre-press people would "match the chrome" instead of making color decisions with any intent - it was such a waste and it deprived photographers (and Kodak) of a very large stream of revenue. But at least Kodak sold the film and chemistry, so they adapted to the market reality... at that time.

As for chromes "providing a reference" I've never understood that comment and it always rang stupid, even though I spent years in the pre-press business and did relatively high-end work. It's just laziness and people doing it that way because "it's the way it was always done".

So I'll miss chromes for all the memories and such but from a shooting perspective? hahaha no.

[Greg Lockrey]

So you throw the sleeved negs onto a flatbed and do quick proof scans. What's the big deal?

The whole chrome workflow was a kludge. Kodak's first color process was Kodachrome and projected slides used to be a huge amateur and later, professional, market that they addressed. But their intent, according to the old timers I've known, was to get commercial photographers to adopt color negative back in the 1950s. That way the photographer would be responsible for controlling the color and making repro-quality, retouched prints for four-color repro. That was the model they built and it would have been better for most serious photographers in terms of control and profit.

Remember that Kodak invented and wanted to control that early color repro workflow in the post WW2 period just like they invented and controlled the early digital imaging workflow in the 1990s (everything you do with your DSLR was pioneered and mostly perfected by Kodak, not Canon or Nikon. Simply use any Canon or Nikon software to confirm that they have no f-clue about workflow!)

Instead, the printing and advertising industry started to use slides/chromes for reproduction. This striped the photographer out of the post-production process but it also made it easier for photographers to simply hand over their film and bill the clients. So most photographers took the easy way out and the prints/ad agencies/pre-press houses went to a chrome-based workflow.

This sucked in hindsight because from 1950 until 2000, most commercial photographers were at the mercy of however the film rendered color. It wasn't until clients started asking photographers to scan and retouch that they got control back.

Tossing some pretty chromes on the light table and picking up the check was relatively easy for the duffers, and then the braindead art directors and pre-press people would "match the chrome" instead of making color decisions with any intent - it was such a waste and it deprived photographers (and Kodak) of a very large stream of revenue. But at least Kodak sold the film and chemistry, so they adapted to the market reality... at that time.

As for chromes "providing a reference" I've never understood that comment and it always rang stupid, even though I spent years in the pre-press business and did relatively high-end work. It's just laziness and people doing it that way because "it's the way it was always done".

So I'll miss chromes for all the memories and such but from a shooting perspective? hahaha no.

Dittos

[SamReeves]

This really sucks. But the silver lining is that many photographers will experience modern color negative for the first time, and be pleasantly surprised...

Don't hold your breath on Kodak's C-41 line sticking around. I think they shall be gone alltogether soon.

[Vlad Soare]

I'm not happy because of the symbolism but I haven't shot chromes since I was forced to by idiot clients. Never hearing the stupid phrase, "Match the chrome" is quite wonderful (or it's sister phrase, "CMYK can not reproduce that color".) Remember the "joy" of duping and internegatives?

Shooting chromes is like shooting digital. Short range, harsh blow outs, lousy highlights.

That may be, Frank, but on the other hand nothing compares to a projected slide.

[Brian Ellis]

You might want to read Thom Hogan's "Swimming in Ponds" article about Kodak and film.

Link doesn't work (for me, on Firefox).