PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Discontinues K64



David Luttmann
22-Jun-2009, 08:02
I think we saw this coming from a way back....but it's official:

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Tj1r

http://photo.net/learn/film/slide-film/kodachrome-discontinued/

Athiril
22-Jun-2009, 08:26
Living in Australia and given that shops and US eBay sellers generally like to charge US $40 shipping to Australia for a single roll of film, I never got to try this.

Though I have some HIE and EIR in my fridge.

Joseph O'Neil
22-Jun-2009, 10:33
Kodak, IMO, had made it difficult to have Kodkachrome processed at all for the past few years, so IMO, this is something of a self inflicted wound on purpose if you will.

Also, in any field of business, there are many products that are "not profitable" by large corporate standards, but if you or I owned them, we would likely be happy with the income at the end of the day.
:)

Ben Syverson
22-Jun-2009, 10:47
Let the hoarding begin!

Ash
22-Jun-2009, 10:53
"Kodak sees steep increase in sales of Kodachrome just weeks before the last production run dispatched to stores"

David Luttmann
22-Jun-2009, 11:13
"Kodak sees steep increase in sales of Kodachrome just weeks before the last production run dispatched to stores"

Now that's the Kodak we've all come to know!

Bruce Watson
22-Jun-2009, 11:20
Now that's the Kodak we've all come to know!

Um... no. That's the weird behavior of photographers that we've all come to know.

Kodak didn't cause the demise of K64. It was photographers who weren't buying it that caused its demise. Kodak can't force people to buy a film they don't want.

What those photographers were buying instead is the new E-6 and C-41 films. I'll take 160PortraVC over KodaChrome any day of the week myself.

BrianShaw
22-Jun-2009, 11:22
Kodak didn't cause the demise of K64. It was ...

Can't we blame the tree-hugging environmentalists also?

Bill_1856
22-Jun-2009, 11:25
RIP!
It's been 4 years since I sold the last of my freezer full of Professional K25, in anticipation of this happening even sooner. The processing situation, which was once so wonderful, had deteriorated into a nightmare many years ago.

Bruce Watson
22-Jun-2009, 11:31
Can't we blame the tree-hugging environmentalists also?

You can if you want. That is, you can blame me. I'm a tree hugging environmentalist, and I haven't bought any K-64 in about 30 years! And it's people like me who wouldn't buy it that caused it's demise.

But I'm keeping 160PortraNC, 400PortaNC, and TMY-2 alive because I'm buying those. And XTOL too. But when Kodak comes out with something better I'll probably abandon these too!

David Luttmann
22-Jun-2009, 11:32
You're probably right Bruce. K64 has been neglected by photographers for a good many years. What we don't use, the Big Yellow will take away. In the end, no one to blame but ourselves.

I still love that K64 look though!

Mark Sampson
22-Jun-2009, 11:53
The demise of Koadachrome can be attributed to several things.
1) the rise of good color negative film and cheap '1-hour photo' labs in the 1980s. People stopped shooting slides on vacation, and stopped having slide shows afterwards.
2) The improvement in Kodak's E-6 films, and the emergence of Fuji slide films, turned the professional (advertising & editorial) market away from Kodachrome. As far back as 1994 I attended a workshop where the teacher showed a comparison between K64 and the then-current Fujichrome and Ektachromes. In short K64, didn't look as good. That, added to 3-hour E-6 turnaround vs. 1-day (at best) K-14, sealed the deal for the pros.
3) Kodak's lab woes in the 90s didn't help either. And when there's one lab left for the entire world...
4) Digital imaging, of course, looms larger than any of those other factors.
I shot some K64 last fall, at foliage time, and the colors are indeed beautiful. But not enough people have wanted to put up with the (percieved) drawbacks, and so a beautiful, if antiquated, technology goes away.

BrianShaw
22-Jun-2009, 12:17
You can if you want. That is, you can blame me. I'm a tree hugging environmentalist...

I really don't want to blame anyone in particular, especailly you... but weren't there also some serious environmental concerns associated with the manufacturing or processing that may have led to the "demise"? I seem to recall some chatter but cn't recall any specifics.

Drew Wiley
22-Jun-2009, 12:18
I don't see what K64 has in common with Portra. In fact, I don't see any real replacement for Kodachrome, although I stopped using it way back when the quality
control of the labs was forfeited by Kodak. I still have a roll of 120 Kodachrome in the
freezer as a sort of momento. Now that was nice stuff, which Kodak spent a lot of
money to set up a couple of processing lines for, then promptly discontinued. Typical.
But since my color shooting is 99% large format, none of this particularly affects me
personally.

D. Bryant
22-Jun-2009, 14:19
The demise of Kodachrome can be attributed to several things.
1) the rise of good color negative film and cheap '1-hour photo' labs in the 1980s. People stopped shooting slides on vacation, and stopped having slide shows afterwards.
2) The improvement in Kodak's E-6 films, and the emergence of Fuji slide films, turned the professional (advertising & editorial) market away from Kodachrome. As far back as 1994 I attended a workshop where the teacher showed a comparison between K64 and the then-current Fujichrome and Ektachromes. In short K64, didn't look as good. That, added to 3-hour E-6 turnaround vs. 1-day (at best) K-14, sealed the deal for the pros.
3) Kodak's lab woes in the 90s didn't help either. And when there's one lab left for the entire world...
4) Digital imaging, of course, looms larger than any of those other factors.
I shot some K64 last fall, at foliage time, and the colors are indeed beautiful. But not enough people have wanted to put up with the (perceived) drawbacks, and so a beautiful, if antiquated, technology goes away.

You sort of missed one Mark. Kodachrome is an expensive process line to maintain and the environmental problems caused by the processing effluents only increased that cost. Added to the decline in sales, labs that formerly processed smaller volumes of Kodachrome couldn't make a profit processing the film, hence the steep decline in processing availability.

Also in play was the decline in Super 8 film consumption which was supplanted by the acceptance of consumer video cameras. At one point photo pundits predicted that video cameras would replace the still camera in the recreational photo segment.

It was a good run while it lasted but I don't fault Kodak for the decision. I'm sure the tongues will be wagging over on APUG cursing Kodak.

Don Bryant

Toyon
22-Jun-2009, 16:41
When was Kodachrome last available in sheets?

SamReeves
22-Jun-2009, 16:59
Kodachrome should have been discontinued five to ten years ago! I'm surprised it has lasted this long into the digital age. Kodachrome has its biggest following among railroad fans who swore by its longevity and colors. I used it for several years before switching to Agfachrome for 35mm. My gripe was that processing got sloppy around 2000 by the K-14 lab in the Bay Area, and often my slides would come back scratched or exposed to light. Then of course digital came. Why scan a slide when you can have a scanner in your camera! ;)

John Kasaian
22-Jun-2009, 17:47
Kodachrome should have been discontinued five to ten years ago! I'm surprised it has lasted this long into the digital age. Kodachrome has its biggest following among railroad fans who swore by its longevity and colors. I used it for several years before switching to Agfachrome for 35mm. My gripe was that processing got sloppy around 2000 by the K-14 lab in the Bay Area, and often my slides would come back scratched or exposed to light. Then of course digital came. Why scan a slide when you can have a scanner in your camera! ;)

So true! Processing did get sloppy. A scandal! The great film didn't deserve that idignity. Kodachrome was a lovely film and the slides were something to see projected in the darkened living room of a friend's apartment, listening to their stories about adventures in exotic places.

Now we get itty bitty digi dittys in the email. Heaven forbid we get to interact with other human beans in person!

Chesterton said it best...the exact qoute escapes me but it goes sort of like this:
I am of a different age. Most of the things that I love have been banned or are extinct.

In Kodachrome's defense, how many other films have geological features or Paul Sion songs named after them? I'm officially retiring my Nikon camera.

Frank Bagbey
22-Jun-2009, 19:06
Kodak sucks! Does Kodak care about photography? HELL NO! Let Kodak die as fast as they are killing off their products. I never recommend Kodak film (except Kodachrome) and definitely NO to any Kodak digitial products.

SamReeves
22-Jun-2009, 19:14
In Kodachrome's defense, how many other films have geological features or Paul Sion songs named after them? I'm officially retiring my Nikon camera.

He he, don't forget a national park! :)

Drew Wiley
22-Jun-2009, 19:48
That's right! What will we rename Kodachrome Basin in Utah? Since this is now the
digital age, it's inevitable that it will have to be renamed at least every year to two,
since that's about how long it typically takes for the coolest DLSR to be superseded.

John Kasaian
22-Jun-2009, 21:45
Hmmmm...how about instead of Kodachrome Basin we call it The Digital Depression?:rolleyes:

Wallace_Billingham
23-Jun-2009, 08:15
Kodak sucks! Does Kodak care about photography? HELL NO! Let Kodak die as fast as they are killing off their products. I never recommend Kodak film (except Kodachrome) and definitely NO to any Kodak digitial products.

Kodak did not kill off K64, photographers did since they did not buy enough of it to keep it viable on the production and processing end. Kodak is not a non-profit company. Like any other company they will be more than happy to make and sell anything as long as they can make a profit doing so.

I wonder how you can say Kodak does not care about Photography when they sell billions of dollars worth of photography products?

I wonder how many photographers who complain about a film being taken off the market due to poor sales, would make and sell a large volume of prints at a major loss on an ongoing basis

iamjanco
23-Jun-2009, 08:21
How about "64 gigs?"


That's right! What will we rename Kodachrome Basin in Utah?

David Luttmann
23-Jun-2009, 08:22
How about "64 gigs?"

What for? We only need 640k ;)

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 08:57
I'm sure the tongues will be wagging over on APUG cursing Kodak.

Don Bryant

The usual bitchfest - 26 screens of whining by this morning, mostly by those who haven't shot a frame of it in a long while. But that's fine, it's their raison d'Ítre. ;)

Since Kodachrome had as much to do with LF as Kodak's digital p&s if not less, the question is, why here?

Mark Sampson
23-Jun-2009, 09:21
Marko, ask not for whom the bell tolls...

IanG
23-Jun-2009, 09:28
Since Kodachrome had as much to do with LF as Kodak's digital p&s if not less, the question is, why here?

It was available in sheet film sizes at one time, Edward Weston used it.

Yesterdays announcement was the final phase of a decision & plan originally made maybe 5 years ago to phase the film out, and as such wasn't unexpected.

Ian

D. Bryant
23-Jun-2009, 09:36
It was available in sheet film sizes at one time, Edward Weston used it.

Yesterdays announcement was the final phase of a decision & plan originally made maybe 5 years ago to phase the film out, and as such wasn't unexpected.

Ian

10 years ago Kodak promised to keep making Kodachrome for 10 more years. So they kept their promise.

Don Bryant

Colin Corneau
23-Jun-2009, 09:36
I didn't shoot it for years simply because I didn't know it was still sold -- not a single thing in any camera store I ever went to that pointed to its existence. At some point, you have to think "self fulfilling prophecy".

Once I did find out - by accident - it was still sold, I promptly bought 20 rolls. This is one individual example, of course. But it's a point worth making.

Kodak, I commend you for the products you still have. TMax is a great B&W film, for starters. However, a complete lack of support for Kodachrome by your corporation made June 22, 2009 what it was - not a lack of support from the public.
Coles Notes version: Kodak abandoned Kodachrome before we ever did.

D. Bryant
23-Jun-2009, 09:38
Since Kodachrome had as much to do with LF as Kodak's digital p&s if not less, the question is, why here?

So the usual suspects can whine about what monster Kodak and Perez are abd bitch about digital imaging.

They live for these Kodak moments! :)

Don Bryant

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 10:30
Marko, ask not for whom the bell tolls...


It was available in sheet film sizes at one time, Edward Weston used it.

Yesterdays announcement was the final phase of a decision & plan originally made maybe 5 years ago to phase the film out, and as such wasn't unexpected.

Ian

Hey guys, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not asking why commemorate Kodachrome here, I'm asking:

a) why bitch here - i.e. what's wrong with APUG since all those who feel compelled to whine about Kodak and digital are already members there? ;)

and

b) why bitch here and not in The Lounge since this was not (for a very long time) an LF emulsion?

That said, Kodachrome certainly made a significant part of photographic history and should be fondly remembered as such, that's all.

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 10:31
So the usual suspects can whine about what monster Kodak and Perez are abd bitch about digital imaging.

They live for these Kodak moments! :)

Don Bryant

LOL, I love this! :)

BrianShaw
23-Jun-2009, 10:53
why bitch here

If you think it's bad here or at APUG... you should see the threads over at RFF: they are demonizing the retailers for profiteering... jacking up the prices now that the remaining stock of kodachrome is drying up faster than Polaroid's remaining stock.

IanG
23-Jun-2009, 11:00
a) why bitch here - i.e. what's wrong with APUG since all those who feel compelled to whine about Kodak and digital are already members there? ;)


Don't assume everyone is bitching about the demise of Kodachrome. A great many of used it in the past, then later moved on to the superb Fuji E6 films 50D & 100D which had two major advantages - they were available in all formats, and processing was very widely available with a very short turn around.

It's going to be part of history, if people still want to use it to the end that's their choice.

Ian

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 11:44
Don't assume everyone is bitching about the demise of Kodachrome. A great many of used it in the past, then later moved on to the superb Fuji E6 films 50D & 100D which had two major advantages - they were available in all formats, and processing was very widely available with a very short turn around.

It's going to be part of history, if people still want to use it to the end that's their choice.

Ian

That's perfectly fine and understandable, if I were using it, I'd want to make it last as long as I can.

I'm not assuming everyone is bitching, that's why I chose this particular word to describe a specific "flavor" of certain posts. Just scroll back and you'll easily spot those I'm talking about. In other words, the type that never misses a good oportunity to bash Kodak and/or digital...

As you said, it's going to be part of history - actually, it is already! - no need for bashing in this instance, that's all.

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 11:46
If you think it's bad here or at APUG... you should see the threads over at RFF: they are demonizing the retailers for profiteering... jacking up the prices now that the remaining stock of kodachrome is drying up faster than Polaroid's remaining stock.

Of course, that's why I'm here and not there.

BTW, feels good to be considered "somebody" - much better than being "anybody", not to mention "nobody"... :D

BrianShaw
23-Jun-2009, 11:52
BTW, feels good to be considered "somebody" - much better than being "anybody", not to mention "nobody"... :D

:D Is this better? :D

David Luttmann
23-Jun-2009, 12:15
It was available in sheet film sizes at one time, Edward Weston used it.

Yesterdays announcement was the final phase of a decision & plan originally made maybe 5 years ago to phase the film out, and as such wasn't unexpected.

Ian


I'd love to see one of those on a light table!

As to why here.....because many of us cut our teeth on one variant of Kodachrome or another.....and it's still a shame to see another choice in the film pool vanish.....especially one that is part of Kodaks identity.

Marko
23-Jun-2009, 12:34
:D Is this better? :D

You're too kind, but it certainly matches the company ;)

sgelb
23-Jun-2009, 12:42
i have 25 rolls of ektachrome 64 in my freezer. And I bet it will start going for a lot of $$$. a wonderful film. the only thing keeping film alive is movie prints.

thats it. when the majority of movie theatres in the US go digital, you will kiss portra and ektachrome good bye because the profits wont support the infastructure they have to have to produce it.

shame isnt it...

sgelb
23-Jun-2009, 12:44
Don't assume everyone is bitching about the demise of Kodachrome. A great many of used it in the past, then later moved on to the superb Fuji E6 films 50D & 100D which had two major advantages - they were available in all formats, and processing was very widely available with a very short turn around.

It's going to be part of history, if people still want to use it to the end that's their choice.

Ian

no offense, but fuji has the worst red/green crossover ever. its so damn red its not even funny. ill take kodaks yellow glaze any day of the week. provia and velvia suck. IM(humble) O Ive shot stuff with E100VS 5 yrs after expiration that would knock your socks off. I hope, long live kodak.

IanG
23-Jun-2009, 12:52
no offense, but fuji has the worst red/green crossover ever. its so damn red its not even funny. ill take kodaks yellow glaze any day of the week. provia and velvia suck. IM(humble) O Ive shot stuff with E100VS 5 yrs after expiration that would knock your socks off. I hope, long live kodak.

Many of us would disagree.

Kodak films have always been poor in comparison & always have been, it's horses for courses.

If I had to choose between Kodak & Fuji it's always Fuji, Kodak material is poor in comparison, but those comparisons are subjective.

Ian

David Luttmann
23-Jun-2009, 13:08
Many of us would disagree.

Kodak films have always been poor in comparison & always have been, it's horses for courses.

If I had to choose between Kodak & Fuji it's always Fuji, Kodak material is poor in comparison, but those comparisons are subjective.

Ian

Fuji Astia any day of the week over anything left from Kodak....well, maybe except for Ektar.

GPS
23-Jun-2009, 13:22
Many of us would disagree.

Kodak films have always been poor in comparison & always have been, it's horses for courses.

If I had to choose between Kodak & Fuji it's always Fuji, Kodak material is poor in comparison, but those comparisons are subjective.

Ian

I agree with you Ian. If Kodak discontinued K64 it's just one more acknowledgment of the lost battle with Fuji film. K64, like Kodak itself, lived long time from its lost old glory...

IanG
23-Jun-2009, 13:32
K64 wqas an awfully bad film, well at least used in the dismal conditions inn the UK, most of the year. It's only glory was in the south of the US in the wide open spaces :D

Ian

Drew Wiley
23-Jun-2009, 15:05
I mainly used Kodachrome 25. It was the only thing around with good neutrality in the
shadows combined with good color saturation. One of the best films ever made. But I
remember when Kodak sold off their process lines to Kodalux and you started getting
scratches and poor color balance. That's why a lot of people stopped using it. The E6
films at that time weren't anywhere near as good as now, so they're not the reason
per se for the initial long decline in Kodachrome sales. Of course, this was way back
before Marko had received even his first Nobel Prize in economics.