Demise of Kodachrome 200?

I read that Kodachrome 200 has been effectively discontinued, but that
Kodak isn't making any official announcements. Is this rumour, or
pretty much known fact?

If it's true, and 64 is the only version left, what would be the
long-term potential for developing is one were to stockpile a bunch of
rolls?

I'd be interested in buying some and tossing it in the freezer. I
don't use it alot, but I do like it and would like to have some
available.

TheDave© writes:

If it's true, and 64 is the only version left, what would be the
long-term potential for developing is one were to stockpile a bunch of
rolls?

I'd rate it as "exciting" as there's only 2 places left to develop it,
in the world...

On Mar 12, 3:15 pm, TheDave© wrote:
I read that Kodachrome 200 has been effectively discontinued, but that
Kodak isn't making any official announcements. Is this rumour, or
pretty much known fact?

If it's true, and 64 is the only version left, what would be the
long-term potential for developing is one were to stockpile a bunch of
rolls?

I'd be interested in buying some and tossing it in the freezer. I
don't use it alot, but I do like it and would like to have some
available.

I'm not answering, just reminiscing.. I could never come to terms
with K200. I loved the slow Kodachromes (K25 and K64 in that order)
for their pristine, understated colours and that wonderful
grainlessness. K200 was/is a good film, but I just didn't like it
because of the inevitable, but rather odd, graininess it has - it just
didn't look right, with the K-colour and grain together.... Only ever
shot two rolls.

And I *really* started to lose interest in film the day K25 was
withdrawn. That, to me, was the day film died... (sob) I still use
film, but it's not the same without my old friend...

On Mar 12, 9:54 am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:15 pm, TheDave© wrote:

I read that Kodachrome 200 has been effectively discontinued, but that
Kodak isn't making any official announcements. Is this rumour, or
pretty much known fact?

If it's true, and 64 is the only version left, what would be the
long-term potential for developing is one were to stockpile a bunch of
rolls?

I'd be interested in buying some and tossing it in the freezer. I
don't use it alot, but I do like it and would like to have some
available.


If they do stop making the Kodachromes I wonder how long they would
keep the processing lab(s) open. A stock in the freezer is no use of
there's nowhere to send it for processing.

Robert
(who has a stock in the freezer)

"Robert" wrote:

On Mar 12, 9:54 am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 3:15 pm, TheDave© wrote:

I read that Kodachrome 200 has been effectively discontinued, but that
Kodak isn't making any official announcements. Is this rumour, or
pretty much known fact?

If it's true, and 64 is the only version left, what would be the
long-term potential for developing is one were to stockpile a bunch of
rolls?

I'd be interested in buying some and tossing it in the freezer. I
don't use it alot, but I do like it and would like to have some
available.


If they do stop making the Kodachromes I wonder how long they would
keep the processing lab(s) open. A stock in the freezer is no use of
there's nowhere to send it for processing.


I think a closure date for the lab in Switzerland has already been
announced, although it is still operating at this time. That will
leave just one lab in the USA.

Tony Polson writes:

I think a closure date for the lab in Switzerland has already been
announced, although it is still operating at this time. That will
leave just one lab in the USA.

Wasn't the lab in Switzerland already closed last autumn? Anyway,
there's also a lab in Japan, making it a grand total of two labs,
neither of which are Kodak-owned.

By the way, if Kodak indeed sells its film division as has been
rumoured, what would Kodakchrome lovers suggest to the new management
if they want to give a shot at keeping the stuff alive? And please do
keep the concept of profitable business in mind.

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
By the way, if Kodak indeed sells its film division as has been
rumoured, what would Kodakchrome lovers suggest to the new management
if they want to give a shot at keeping the stuff alive? And please do
keep the concept of profitable business in mind.

I think the problem is that your average customer does not like the
Kodachrome "look". Everyone complains that Kodachrome is next
to impossible to process (it uses 14 steps and several of them are
enviornmentaly "unfriendly"), uses a different manufacturing
process so it needs special machines, and produces slides.

At one time Kodak produced a negative film, Ektar 25 and 100 that had the
same "look". Prints from Ektar 25 were very close to prints from K25 slides.
It was a standard C-41 film and produced on the same line as their other
color films.

While I and several other people on this list loved it, most people did not
and the 25 was dropped and the 100 "replaced" with something more conventional
looking.

In the end I don't think that it's the special manufacturing or processing
that is killing of Kodachrome, it's the lack of customers.

While many black and white films have become the products of small
manufacturers, Kodachrome is too complex and too expensive for them
to manufacture, even if Kodak gave them a license for free.

It's like several of the other classic films such as Panatomic-X, Tech-Pan,
etc. How much would you pay for a roll? How many would you buy? One
roll at $10 each won't make it worth it. 100 at $20 each might, but how
many people would do it, and how often?

I think at one time Kodak said they would produce anything they could if
you bought 10,000 rolls. Could you get 1000 people to buy 10? Cash in
advance?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
By the way, if Kodak indeed sells its film division as has been
rumoured, what would Kodakchrome lovers suggest to the new
management if they want to give a shot at keeping the stuff alive?
And please do keep the concept of profitable business in mind.

I think the problem is that your average customer does not like the
Kodachrome "look". Everyone complains that Kodachrome is next
to impossible to process (it uses 14 steps and several of them are
enviornmentaly "unfriendly"), uses a different manufacturing
process so it needs special machines, and produces slides.

Yet, the average customer will marvel at National Geographic pictures.
Go figure.

At one time Kodak produced a negative film, Ektar 25 and 100 that had
the same "look". Prints from Ektar 25 were very close to prints from
K25 slides. It was a standard C-41 film and produced on the same
line as their other color films.

While I and several other people on this list loved it, most people
did not and the 25 was dropped and the 100 "replaced" with something
more conventional looking.

In the end I don't think that it's the special manufacturing or
processing that is killing of Kodachrome, it's the lack of customers.

I kind of vaguely remember something like that. I guess for the loyal
customers who did/do like Kodochrome, they weren't ready for "new and
improved".

While many black and white films have become the products of small
manufacturers, Kodachrome is too complex and too expensive for them
to manufacture, even if Kodak gave them a license for free.

I think this hits the nail on the head. The expense and complexity
almost requires that you have a larger than normal minimum customer
base to make it worthwhile. Business-wise, I mean.

It's like several of the other classic films such as Panatomic-X,
Tech-Pan, etc. How much would you pay for a roll? How many would you
buy? One roll at $10 each won't make it worth it. 100 at $20 each
might, but how many people would do it, and how often?

I think at one time Kodak said they would produce anything they could
if you bought 10,000 rolls. Could you get 1000 people to buy 10? Cash
in advance?

Ten isn't much. I would think 1000 would buy 10. It's the rounding up
of these 1000 people that would be difficult.

wrote:
I'm not answering, just reminiscing.. I could never come to terms
with K200. I loved the slow Kodachromes (K25 and K64 in that order)
for their pristine, understated colours and that wonderful
grainlessness. K200 was/is a good film, but I just didn't like it
because of the inevitable, but rather odd, graininess it has - it just
didn't look right, with the K-colour and grain together.... Only ever
shot two rolls.

Overall, I prefer 64, also, but I find 200 great for winter. The grain
of 200 can make snow look great.

Toni Nikkanen wrote:

Tony Polson writes:

I think a closure date for the lab in Switzerland has already been
announced, although it is still operating at this time. That will
leave just one lab in the USA.

Wasn't the lab in Switzerland already closed last autumn?


I received three sets of slides from the Swiss lab in this morning's
mail, so I have an inkling that it might still be open. g

there's also a lab in Japan, making it a grand total of two labs,
neither of which are Kodak-owned.

Surely the Swiss lab is Kodak-owned?

By the way, if Kodak indeed sells its film division as has been
rumoured, what would Kodakchrome lovers suggest to the new management
if they want to give a shot at keeping the stuff alive? And please do
keep the concept of profitable business in mind.

I don't think that Kodachrome will last much longer than a couple of
years, regardless of who owns Kodak's film business by then. In the
meantime, am shooting as much as I can on Kodachrome before it goes
for good.