Sorry Folks, No Kodachrome: There were rumors that Kodak would begin making Kodachome again, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Restoring the entire infrastructure would be...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There were rumors that Kodak would begin making Kodachome again, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Restoring the entire infrastructure would be a huge endeavor, aside from simply cranking out the film. Kodak Alaris, a UK company, owns the rights to the film stock. Eastman Kodak is a different company. Confusing? Welcome to the 21st century.

BebuLamar

There is no need for Kodachrome. Just bring back the Ektachrome is good enough for me. I used to shoot only Kodachrome but when they discontinued it I tried some rolls of Ektachrome and I liked it.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Jerry, I do not see how Kodachrome will become so popular again. We can do with digital what we could never dream of using Kodachrome and dynamic range happens to be superior with digital.
I liked Kodachrome and I used it for many years but exposure was always a hit and miss and many slides went to the trash can. Some successes but many failures.
I wonder if the money involved in beginning to manufacture Kodachrome again is worth it.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

jerryc41 wrote:

There were rumors that Kodak would begin making Kodachome again, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Restoring the entire infrastructure would be a huge endeavor, aside from simply cranking out the film. Kodak Alaris, a UK company, owns the rights to the film stock. Eastman Kodak is a different company. Confusing? Welcome to the 21st century.

Never liked Kodachrome, now Agfa Chrome, what clean nice reds, and everything else good too, Fugi chrome wasn't bad either, Bob.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jerryc41 wrote:

There were rumors that Kodak would begin making Kodachome again, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Restoring the entire infrastructure would be a huge endeavor, aside from simply cranking out the film. Kodak Alaris, a UK company, owns the rights to the film stock. Eastman Kodak is a different company. Confusing? Welcome to the 21st century.

Paul Simon morns.

Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

One thing film and digital have on common is the 3 by 5 format. With film you get 3 inch by 5 in prints. With digital, I view images on my 3 ft by 5 ft monitor.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I'm prejudiced. Kodachrome was the richest in color for my poor eyes. But expensive. I tried many others but none matched my idiosyncratic (look that one up!) perspective like Kodachrome. But expensive. Digital so much easier to use and adjust colors so they look like Kodachrome. And cheaper.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

camerapapi wrote:

Jerry, I do not see how Kodachrome will become so popular again. We can do with digital what we could never dream of using Kodachrome and dynamic range happens to be superior with digital.
I liked Kodachrome and I used it for many years but exposure was always a hit and miss and many slides went to the trash can. Some successes but many failures.
I wonder if the money involved in beginning to manufacture Kodachrome again is worth it.

In the age of cellphone photography few would have the discipline to pick up a camera, properly meter and expose Kodachrome, then wait for mail in processing. Never happen. Go to a 4x5 digital back if you want high resolution today.

GWolf Loc: Ashland, OR

I loved Kodachrome. Years ago I worked in a camera store and actually salivated while stocking the warehouse shelves with 'bricks' of the stuff. I miss it but I'm too much into digital to go back. But there will always be a place in my heart for the little yellow and red box and the little yellow and red cans that were inside it.

Mercer Loc: Houston, TX, USA

Kodachrome forever, please. No other film has the brilliant,clean and accurate colors; nor does any other have the storage endurance of that great emulsion. I look at kodachrome like an old girlfriend. It was great, but now it has ended; I am lesser because of this, but nostalgia and fond memories endure. Vive la Kodachrome!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Kodachrome was fine for exposure. One just needed to take care....

ed b photo

Some schools of thought has two views on European casts of pastels in Agfa colors, verses green casts of Fugi pro to Kodachrome high reds
deep magenta an burnt umbers. Where as choices Ektachrome has more blue or cyan cast to it. Its alk how you like use each type.
Digital is still pleaged with filtering. Fugi made this mistake when it came to facial colors were flat grey haze to deal with. Nikon digital is more like Ektachrome. Although using its menues helps this factoring. Canon has more brilliant colors such as greens an bright yellows, sift blues. Ask your self what is most pleasing to your eye. The rest is Adobe CS6 an further skills.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

jerryc41 wrote:

There were rumors that Kodak would begin making Kodachome again, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Restoring the entire infrastructure would be a huge endeavor, aside from simply cranking out the film. Kodak Alaris, a UK company, owns the rights to the film stock. Eastman Kodak is a different company. Confusing? Welcome to the 21st century.

Where did you hear this?

The CEO of Kodak said:

Quote:

“We get asked all the time by filmmakers and photographers alike, ‘are you gonna bring back some of these iconic film stocks like Kodachrome (and) Ektachrome,' "I will say, we are investigating Kodachrome, looking at what it would take to bring that back
Ektachrome is a lot easier and faster to bring back to market but people love Kodak’s heritage products and I feel, personally, that we have a responsibility to deliver on that love.”

That isn't a slam dunk but it seems to be quite a different picture than the one you painted.

EDITED TO ADD:

I see. They backtracked on their statement a bit. They seem to be willing to bring out some film stocks but it appears that Kodachrome won't be one of them.

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/kodak-backtracks-says-difficult-revive-kodachrome/

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

bobmcculloch wrote:

Never liked Kodachrome, now Agfa Chrome, what clean nice reds, and everything else good too, Fugi chrome wasn't bad either, Bob.

I found that Agfa and Fuji did better with blues and greens and that Kodachrome did better with reds. Or maybe I just don’t remember, but that’s what I’m thinking.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Mark Bski wrote:

One thing film and digital have on common is the 3 by 5 format. With film you get 3 inch by 5 in prints. With digital, I view images on my 3 ft by 5 ft monitor.

You have a “3 ft by 5 ft monitor”????