Kodak CMO says the company is 'looking into' reviving Kodachrome

Lord, yeah, I have weird taste.

The people here are more enthusiast than the general population, by far. That's always true for any tech site. And people who visit those sites, and comment on them seems to assume that most other people feel the same as they do, which isn't true.

So, if 5% of the people here actually do begin to use film again, even part time, which means their film use will be much less than it used to be, what percentage would that be for the general population, for whom the most popular camera, by far, is an iPhone? Would it be 1%, .5%, less?

The entire population of the US is not the target market. The target market is people who like cameras. Focus on effect size, not percentages. Focusing on percentages without effect size like you have done is a misleading technique used in many fields to distract readers from the true message. Its overall #'s that matter, not %'s based on random denominators and reference groups. You are not competing with iphones with this product. Perhaps you work for Sony, or another industry that would not profit from people using film or buying used cameras? Anyway, moving on...

While we are at it, why don't you expand your market globally to the 7 billion people, 1/2 of which live on less than 2.50 a day. Hmmm, well then no product seems viable then now does it so why make any camera. Your argument does not hold water.

As long as you can make a profit in your target market then there is no reason not to do it.

5% is pretty good for a digital site

I'm sure they are on it.

In fact i wonder if some of the original chemistry still exists at this point....

@alang...the poll on the front page said 5.5%

I'd argue that this is one area of the market that is completely untapped. Its a small area relatively, but its an area nonetheless apparently for 1/20 camera enthusiasts that visit dpreview. I think that's a fairly good representative sample.

If kodak tries to make a digital, their product will be ripped apart. Been out of the game so long, too much R&D to get back to respectable sales. Canon and Nikon have the market in FF and crop sensors, and Pentax gets the leftovers. And 4/3rds is dominated by some big names as well. iphones have the point and shoots.

Kodak does however, make film better than anyone, so its a good bet on their part. I wouldn't be surprised if they released a series of film cameras eventually, from point and shoots to full on DSLR's. No market? Create the market. That's what they do with cars, they sell how driving it makes you feel, not how annoying it will be to change the oil. And you buy it, even though your old one still drives fine.

@alanG Right, so by that logic only about 700 people this year want to travel more? Haha. Ok, better shut down american airlines now. Seriously people.

What I'm saying is that it is foolish to project conclusions from a tiny unscientific poll. Kodak in the past did not have the capacity to scale production to serve a small market. The assumption is that this has changed but no evidence has been presented.

There have been plenty of examples of mismanagement and outright stupid decisions in Kodak's past that should prevent everyone from concluding they know what they are doing. So let's wait and see what they do and we'll learn if it is a good choice or not.

If it is so clear that re-introducing Kodachrome will be profitable then they should have no problem raising the money to do it.

The problem with posting, and polls, on an industry specific site that caters to enthusiasts is that it's self selecting. How many readers of this site even posted, or voted on that? I didn't. I didn't even see that.

So if .1% of the readers vote on a poll, what meaning can we ascribe to that poll? 3,000 people voting in a poll has about a + - of about 3%. That's pretty good, but it's only true if the poll was properly conducted. Online polls are mostly useless.

And maybe 2,000 film users didn't vote. But this site has a large readership, so possibly 100,000 non intending film users didn't vote. But we don't know any of that.

It's a sample that is hypothesized to represent the trends of the larger group since we don't have the resources to survey everyone. Do you have any reason to think that people who chose not to vote are less likely to want to use film? Do they hate polls?

Of course its self selecting. The people visiting this site ARE the market. Its the perfect venue for this question. If you like cameras, you visit here, likely at least once. So estimate 5% of this group people. If you have never visited here but you still like cameras, you may have visited another similar site. 5% likely applies to that group as well. If you have never visited any camera site, well then rates of "wanting to use film next year" are likely low. But that is the area for expansion. The core market is here, and 1/20 is good interest. "Will you buy the new pentax K1 next year", would struggle to get 1/20 even though its an amazing product.

More than twice that number said that in 2017 they want to Find a Cure to Gear Addiction Syndrome. So much for depending on polls like this.

Suggest anybody who thinks Kodak might re introduce Kodachrome has a look at the actual process and how difficult it is to keep temperatures across a wide range of chemicals at plus or minus half a degree f.
regrettably I would have to say "In your dreams" A different world now and,most oddly,we have Kodak to thank for that !!! (They were the ones to produce the very first digital cameras and then sat on it.Thanks Mr Perez and the then board of of a 14 Billion dollar company !

@gravis92 I have no doubt they've run the numbers and expect Ektachrome to be successful, which is why they're doing it. "Looking into" is running the numbers, which they should do, but I'm pessimistic on how feasible Kodachrome will be, largely because of the complexity of the K-14 process and that no one on the planet is doing it right now. There are several E-6 lines still in existence and you can do it at home if you want, so Ektachrome is an easier sell, Kodachrome requires a very complex development process. Unless they plan on making a new E-6 film and calling it Kodachrome, but that wouldn't have the same colors. Though I think as long as they popped, most people wouldn't know any better. If they wanted to sell Kodachrome as is, they'd have to invest not just in manufacturing the film but supplying a lab materials for development, which is problematic.

@kb2zuz There is still a network of stores that have photo labs. Up until a few years ago every London drugs in Canada still processed slide film in house I think. They still do it now, but ship it out to one store now.

They may not have to have a lab in every strip mall, just perhaps one or two in certain geographic regions. People could bring in their film, gets shipped out/shipped back...and 10 days later they have their scans or whatever.

There is no need for a 1 hour photo anymore. People have phones and digital for that. Those who want film are doing it under the expectation of waiting a week or so. In fact, the uptick in film has largely occurred in this scenario.

@gravis92 I am completely aware there are several labs that still process, slide film, the E-6 process. That's what Ektachrome uses. You can even get the chemicals and do it by hand yourself. I've done it. I've also run dip-and-dunk E-6 lines.

The issues is there are ZERO labs left on the PLANET that run the K-14 process (which is what Kodachrome requires and is a DRASTICALLY different process than E-6 and extremely complex). For a while Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas, USA was the only lab anywhere to develop Kodachrome. They killed that line in 2010.

It's not a matter of oh you'll have to wait a week to send it out to a lab that runs E-6, it's that there is NO LAB ON THE PLANET that develops Kodachrome anymore. If you have a roll of Kodachrome left, you can develop it as Black and White, that is your only option.

Exactly... that's why I take "Looking into it" as just that "looking into it" running numbers. But in the end I doubt there is enough interest to justify the process.

They could do it in 1935 because it was the only option for color and therefore had a pretty big marketshare. It comes down to if there is enough people to justify the costs of 1) making the film 2) making the chemicals 3) setting up and running or supporting a lab to develop the film 4) marketing and distribution etc. Parts 2 & 3 make the proposal a lot more difficult than reviving Ektachrome.

It's not impossible, but I'm not holding my breath.

What am I looking at besides posterization? Was the scan made in GIF mode because it kind of looks like it.

rsf, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Kodak evaluated Kodachrome using instrumentation that could measure that, and did extensive visual evaluation as well, and it's their own conclusion.

Guys it's not about building new cameras, that's not the point, the tech already exists and is cheap as chips and you can have any camera you have ever lusted over from Ebay. It will make you a far better "in camera" photographer because you really have to work for it.

Davinator, that's nonsense. I don't care what some guys did here. This was my business for several decades. When Kodak gives numbers, and other film manufacturers give numbers, they're far more accurate than those some guys generate here with the lack of understanding of what they're doing, and what they're seeing. Again, as I've stated here elsewhere, you can mistake edge grain sharpness, in a scan, with detail. Most people can't tell the difference, because they don't understand what they're looking at. Not happy with that? That's too bad.

And remember that film manufacturers have no reason to underreport these numbers, while film partisans here do.

With Slide film, correct exposure was a must. Overexposure clipped the highlights and if you were printing, underexposure created too much density for printing on Cibachrome, giving odd colours in the shadows.

Another factor is Kodak's principal income is not from film anymore.

In order for this to really take off, they'll have to include high quality scans in their processing fee. I'm pretty sure this can be automated and done at a very low cost per frame, even for MF film.

Recipe, who is making film cameras these days? This is nothing like making pens, which still have a vast market. It costs little to make a pen when compared to the R&D and manufacturing required to make a camera. Unless you want one of those plastic one time use film cameras they still make for $15 to 20.

Melgross - er there are millions of cameras out there that are *very* capable of using this film should it see the light of day. And anyone considering using this film or Ektachrome has not expectation of anyone actually producing a *new* film camera.

At the moment we have no idea if the economics make sense for Kodak but it's an odd thing to float if they didn't at least think it in the realms of possible.

A lot of those cameras won't work anymore. You could buy one on eBay, a lot of those are working, but many need adjustments. Shutter speeds are way off, lubricants are drying out, electronics and metering are out of whack. If you left batteries in, they may have damaged part of the camera. Even parts that haven't been touched directly by that acid can be damaged by the fumes.

There actually aren't that many people shooting film. This seems to be a quixotic attempt to attain some past glory. It certainly isn't going to happen. No company is going to newly produce film cameras, at least, not at a level that matters.

I'd like to know just what the data is for Kodak to think this is a good idea. Perhaps producing an Ektachrome, as that's a much simpler film to manufacture, and process, might work out.

But I doubt it. If we're seeing increased film shooting, that's because getting film is increasingly difficult, and so there will be some that want to shoot it for those reasons, as we see a very few B/W movies here and there.

But once it loses that mystique from rareness, people won't care again. At any rate, it's likely to be no more than a passing fad.

kodachrome would be a non instant hit

millions of cameras exist

The great thing about film is that you don't need new cameras. There is a huge, thriving used market of film cameras out there. Take a look at B&H and you'll see lots of selection for film from 35mm to 8x10. Many cities still have labs that develop on a regular basis. Yes, sales have certainly declined, but there's still a consumer market for it and it's getting larger. Much of the sales for Kodak and what drives their R&D is Hollywood. The link I posted earlier in this thread shows just how many big budget and independent movies are shot on film.

its not about sharpness for most people, its about feel. Most people want to replicate moments and the emotion of the moment, not individual well defined feathers in a 100% crop. Pros want that, which is fine. Some enthusiasts want that, which is fine too. But that doesn't mean both of these groups can't shoot film as well just for fun. There is a reason there are film grain and film filters in social media photo sharing sites, because people like it. Clearly there is a market for film or this story wouldn't exist.

Sure it takes more work to shoot film, but that doesn't mean anything. Everything is googled these days and people know what they are buying.

This is an alternative, not a replacement.

How come everyone trashing film is using terms like " killed " , " superior ", " Obviously " and " better " to describe films " demise ". It sounds like some kind of right wing obsession. I would think as a photographer hearing that Kodak is bringing back different film stocks would result in cheers rather than jeers.

The worst part of digital is the instant gratification. It's ruined a lot of careers and made people a ton of money.

Go to the national gallery and check out some of the prints. Go to AIPAD and check out some of the prints. There is still a place for film and it's not just emotional.

if you feel like selling any of those film camera outfits feel free to message me! Eov 1v please :)

If I sold them, how am I going to brag to my grandchildren (someday down the road) about all the gear I had used in my younger life??? :-)
Thanks for the chuckle!

Any emotional response you want to get from film, you can also get from digital. I can't understand why some people think that's not true. Can you really define what's so emotional about film vs digital? You know that once you scan film from a medium level scanner, which is the best you're going to get these days without going to a pro lab that still does it, and pay a fair amount for that scan, you're killing a lot of what the film looked like anyway.

It's funny, but it takes a scan of at least double the pixels the film is capable of in resolution to have that scan look as sharp as the film. No, it's not the resolution of the details the film is capable of, but rather, the sharpness of the grain itself. You won't gain any more resolution out of the frame, but it will have better edge definition and microcontrast, which is what made Kodachrome so special in that area. So you really need at least a true 24MP scan for most films to be sure, and closer to 40MP for a Kodachrome scan.

For the love of Azura.

We are back to sharpness again...

What does every film hater work for NASA?

@EzeE This is because in photography, there is a small but vocal segment who, using a painting analogy, strive to paint the straightest and most finest parallel lines that have ever existed. For for these painters, a sharper pencil is all that matters.

Correct. In the creative / artistic fields you rarely hear people bickering about which format is better. It doesn't exist actually. Behind closed doors artists intensely obsess on not which is better but rather which medium / format suits the image / style.

For getting the image to the client to get paid , digital is king.

The high end fine art community is shooting everything right now and there has been an uptick in the last few years in film.

The fuji instax is a instant camera that is selling extremely well, why?. Crappy images, silly colour, no jpeg, but that's not the point!. People are actually having FUN, laughing at silliness and how cool those stupid images are.
There isn't anything "madcap" about digital, as a matter of fact it's almost life and death. ( OMG is that potential grain???) yes, and it's OK.

I can understand that some movie producers still use film for the sake of look/atmosphere or whatever their reasons. They can actually shot the exact scene with film and 4K just to make sure they got it right, money is not an issue.

However for the general public the cost of the camera is relative to the perpetual spend in film and processing. I have around 8000 pictures on my iPhone. That would be roughly 2000 in film dollars plus thousands of pictures from my digital cameras. Thanks, but I rather have 2000 dollars invested in lenses than in nostalgia.

You also needed a special infra red absorption filter between the light source and the film. Otherwise, Kodachrome would give many problems in scanning, and reversal printing. Many labs didn't seem to understand that.

To scan Kodachrome, commercial scanners can be problematic as Kodachrome has a very different infrared absorption characteristic which made things complicated, but it can be done.

And yes while there are hipsters nostalgic for something they never used. It is worth noting that Kodachrome has a unique spectral response, which made for color separation that other film, digital sensors, and filters just do not replicate.

As much as I loved KC, I also had a hate relationship also. When the developed roll was good it was DARN GOOD. Then I would get some rolls and I was scratching my head what I did wrong. Drove me nuts. Anyway, I dont see this happening. Probably just a marketing/create a buzz ploy by Kodak to drum up some interest and interwebs chatter. They darn sure need it.

I dont think they are releasing this film with professional use in mind. Nothing can beat the ease of using the digital process to make money on photographs. This is probably for everyone else who just wants to play around with it, plus some professionals who want to dabble as well.

Snap shooters will never take to this. If the pro market isn't interested, in a big way, and it's not, then there will be small sales that will never pay off the expense of restarting all of this.

The fact of the matter is Provia is the preferred scan medium. So much more forgiving and the profile is far less invasive.

i for one dont get the film hate here , or the prediction that the revival of Kodachrome would be another of a long list of Kodak blunders
i would love to see Kodak revive as many film stocks and processing lines as possible and manufacture and soup them in their historic home in NY state .... digital has clearly won the imaging war..it is by far the most economical convenient and entrenched imaging choice of the world today, and the technology or process that will knock it from its perch is not even on the horizon.clearly there is room in the world for multiple ways of doing things
natural gas electricity and hardwood coexist as technologies to process food
electricity, kinetic energy self wind,& wind up mechanical watches coexist
the bicycle and the motorbike the bus or the train electric & petrol cars

film has proved itself in the permanence of the photographic record something digital probably never match will never match due to the march of technology formats

Well, digital cameras don't expose the way film cameras do, generally. For film, you underexposed slightly for best results, particularly because film emulations varies]d by a third stop in exposure. Kodachrome varies by one half stop.

But you overexpose slightly for digital. The cameras are slightly biased that way, too.

Old cameras, if they're still working, should be ok. But if they've been on the shelf for ten years, they may need a complete referb before using them.

And what new cameras are there? None, really.

How much does a refurb cost. Hmmm. 200 dollars? Camera 100 dollars? I have an old pentax with a f/1.4 lens that all in was 250 dollars. And it works, and is full frame. Try that with a digital. Are my scans are sharp? Maybe not, but they sure look nice.

Also, seems that I get paid every two weeks, not a lump sum for a year. So either I spend 10 dollars a week buying and processing film with my el cheapo camera, or I wait 2 years with no camera and take no pictures until I save up for a digital that will depreciate by half the moment I buy it. Even if I buy a used digital, its becomes more obsolete by the day. I choose to invest in images. They will never depreciate to me.

This is not my experience anymore just FYI, as I can now afford a digital as well, but it was at one time, and I don't think its uncommon.

My point is, its all based on perspective, and how you extract meaning from the process of taking pictures. Any way is fine, as long as you enjoy it.

My whole point was that if the person doesn't get "perfect" Kodachrome slides then they'll abandon it right away and Kodak loses sales. Then if that same person starts bad mouthing the film on social media saying it was horrible or it was a terrible experience (as people tend to do even if it's their fault) then that's more lost sales from people that listen to them.

As a couple people have correctly pointed out there are cameras with automation that should help. That's true, but many times the built-in light meter is based on 18% gray and some are even center-weighted metering only and not matrix metering where the camera compares 100,000 images to get the perfect exposure. That will lead to under/over exposures in slides with no way of recovering.

So, if it's not perfect out of the box will that new Kodachrome user see their mistake and try to learn again or take the easy way out and say "ah, forget this" and turn to their phone or digital?