Kodak Kills Kodachrome Film

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Kodak Kills Kodachrome Film stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

CAROLYN THOMPSON | 06/22/09 03:15 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this photo taken on Sept. 15, 2008, a roll of Kodachrome 64 is seen in Tonawanda, N.Y. Kodak announced Monday that it is retiring its most senior film because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away.

The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its oldest film stock because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age.

The world's first commercially successful color film, immortalized in song by Simon, spent 74 years in Kodak's portfolio. It enjoyed its heyday in the 1950s and '60s but in recent years has nudged closer to obscurity: Sales of Kodachrome are now just a fraction of 1 percent of the company's total sales of still-picture films, and only one commercial lab in the world still processes it.

Those numbers and the unique materials needed to make it convinced Kodak to call its most recent manufacturing run the last, said Mary Jane Hellyar, the outgoing president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group.

"Kodachrome is particularly difficult (to retire) because it really has become kind of an icon," Hellyar said.

The company now gets about 70 percent of its revenue from its digital business, but plans to stay in the film business "as far into the future as possible," Hellyar said. She points to the seven new professional still films and several new motion picture films introduced in the last few years and to a strategy that emphasizes efficiency.

"Anywhere where we can have common components and common design and common chemistry that let us build multiple films off of those same components, then we're in a much stronger position to be able to continue to meet customers' needs," she said.

Kodachrome, because of a unique formula, didn't fit in with the philosophy and was made only about once a year.

Story continues below
advertisement

Simon sang about it in 1973 in the aptly titled "Kodachrome."

"They give us those nice bright colors. They give us the greens of summers. Makes you think all the world's a sunny day," he sang. "... So Mama don't take my Kodachrome away."

Indeed, Kodachrome was favored by still and motion picture photographers for its rich but realistic tones, vibrant colors and durability.

It was the basis not only for countless family slideshows on carousel projectors over the years but also for world-renowned images, including Abraham Zapruder's 8 mm reel of President John F. Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963.

Photojournalist Steve McCurry's widely recognized portrait of an Afghan refugee girl, shot on Kodachrome, appeared on the cover of National Geographic in 1985. At Kodak's request, McCurry will shoot one of the last rolls of Kodachrome film and donate the images to the George Eastman House museum, which honors the company's founder, in Rochester.

For McCurry, who after 25 years with Kodachrome moved on to digital photography and other films in the last few years, the project will close out an era.

"I want to take (the last roll) with me and somehow make every frame count ... just as a way to honor the memory and always be able to look back with fond memories at how it capped and ended my shooting Kodachrome," McCurry said last week from Singapore, where he has an exhibition at the Asian Civilizations Museum.

As a tribute to the film, Kodak has compiled on its Web site a gallery of iconic images, including McCurry's Afghan girl and others from photographers Eric Meola and Peter Guttman.

Guttman used Kodachrome for 16 years, until about 1990, before switching to Kodak's more modern Ektachrome film, and he calls it "the visual crib that I was nurtured in." He used it to create a widely published image of a snowman beneath a solar eclipse, shot in the dead of winter in North Dakota.

"I was pretty much entranced by the incredibly realistic tones and really beautiful color," Guttman said, "but it didn't have that artificial Crayola coloration of some of the other products that were out there."

Unlike any other color film, Kodachrome is purely black and white when exposed. The three primary colors that mix to form the spectrum are added in three development steps rather than built into its layers.

Because of the complexity, only Dwayne's Photo, in Parsons, Kan., still processes Kodachrome film. The lab has agreed to continue through 2010, Kodak said.

Grant Steinle, vice president of operations and head of lab operations at Dwayne's, said the southeast Kansas shop was fielding calls Monday from customers asking whether it would continue to handle Kodachrome, which accounts for 20 percent of the lab's business. Steinle said he understood why Kodak reached its decision, but it was still disappointing.

"Kodachrome is still an important part of our business," he said during a phone interview Monday.

Hellyar estimates the retail supply of Kodachrome will run out in the fall, though it could be sooner if devotees stockpile. In the U.S., Kodachrome film is available only through photo specialty dealers. In Europe, some retailers, including the Boots chain, carry it.

___

On the Net:

Kodak: http://www.kodak.com

___

Associated Press Writer Sheila Ellis contributed to this report from Kansas City, Mo.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away. The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its oldest film stock because of declining customer demand in an ...
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away. The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its oldest film stock because of declining customer demand in an ...
Loading...
 
Report Corrections
 
Comments
109
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
- KarelS I'm a Fan of KarelS 11 fans permalink

I used Kodachrome 25 and 64 almost exclusively for my 35mm photography going back to '66 with my Nikkormat FT. It may have had all of those "nice, bright colors" but it was also the sharpest film on the market (I could make 16 x 20 color glossies in my dark room that were virtually grain-less, even up close).
Today I shoot mostly digital but still take along my Nikon N80 as a "backup" camera. And I just bought a brand-new film scanner that I will use to copy digitally all of my slides and negatives.
The one thing that worries me about digital photography is that one must trust the longevity of CD's and DVD's to preserve the images. I still have slides going back to the 50's that my parents took and they are still in pristine condition--they still have those "nice, bright colors".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

It may not seem so now, but this may turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes that Kodak has made in its entire history. Needless to say, I will deeply miss this film.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 06/22/2009

Kodak was already too late to join the digital world. how can retiring film be a bigger mistake than anything they have done in the past :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 06/22/2009
- NorthSide I'm a Fan of NorthSide 2 fans permalink

I spent many years working with people who mass-produced slides for medical training programs, so i will mourn the loss of another version fo 35mm film. I think it will be a big problem for some kinds of photographers. Yes, digital methods are approaching the capbilities of film. However, sometimes the difficulty and limitations are the point of the artistic process. After all, painters still use oils, sculptors use chisels and mallets, musicians still use wind instruments. Creating new art from old methods is the challenge that animates the creative soul. Fooling around in the darkroom puts the artist in complete control from taking the picture to hanging it on the wall.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 06/22/2009
- marxmarv I'm a Fan of marxmarv 25 fans permalink
photo

it almost sounds as if you've never shot manual on a point-and-shoot digital camera -- which is its own set of limitations and difficulty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

It definitely sounds as if you've never had the opportunity to reach into your slide files and look at 30 year old slides that hold their accurate colors and beauty just as they did on the day you got them back from the lab! Too bad for you!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 06/23/2009
- PhoenixGSU I'm a Fan of PhoenixGSU 9 fans permalink

I never got to shoot with Kodachrome :(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 06/22/2009
- toypiano I'm a Fan of toypiano 12 fans permalink
photo

Hmm, bad news for art.
I'm still in mourning for Polaroid, and now this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 06/22/2009
- Walcraeb I'm a Fan of Walcraeb 4 fans permalink

Paul Simon might as well be singing "Deguerreotype " insted now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 06/22/2009
- larry278 I'm a Fan of larry278 50 fans permalink

Technology kills another song. When GM stopped making the Oldsmobile that was a blow to, "In my merry Oldsmobile..", or whatever the title was. It looks like a trend.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:51 PM on 06/22/2009
- drumz I'm a Fan of drumz 59 fans permalink
photo

Reagan's legacy right there, the elimination of manufacturing through Union busting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 06/22/2009

It is so unfortunate that Kodak has been going down the tubes for the last decade or so....upstate NY (and the entire USA, of course) needs all of the business success that it can get.

I can't help but wonder if Kodak would be more successful today if they had done a better job getting ahead of the curve with digital photography....for one of the world's imaging giants, they were really slow in coming to the party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 06/22/2009
- Nataloff I'm a Fan of Nataloff 2 fans permalink

All photographic processes are toxic to one degree or another, but at least we didn't throw away our Brownies and Instamatics the way we junk our monitors, CPUs, and printers every time a newer, faster model came out. Digital photography is permanent only as long as we migrate our ones and zeroes to each new archival storage technology, whereas those 2x2 Kodachrome slides stay where you put them. On a more philosophical level, losing the dye-transfer Kodachrome process symbolizes the loss of our collective sensibility about history and heritage. As we convert books, photos, periodicals and paintings to digital storage, we preserve the content but lose the form and, with that, a tactile connection to our shared cultural past. Do they still make Agfachrome?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 PM on 06/22/2009

I am not sure about you, but I still have operational computers and printers that I bought over a decade ago. They are by no means obsolete and I do not expect them to be taken out of service for another five years, at least.

There is no migration problem with digital files since the size of storage media keeps growing exponentially. The content of one hard drive typically takes less than 20% of the size of the hard drive by which it is replaced a couple years later. Hard drives are extremely sturdy when not used and the interfaces haven't lost compatibility in two decades, so that we can be almost sure that even twenty years from now there will still be hardware around to read old drives. File formats are trivial to replicate in new software, there is plenty of code around. Therefor everyone who cares can easily archive their data.

Technologies are not eternal. Especially the photographic process looks back at enormous changes over the years. It all began with jars of mercury and photography being one of the deadliest forms of art imaginable. Should we feel sorry that we do not practice the same process that killed tens of thousands of photographers a hundred and fifty years ago?

Hardly. Digital brings new challenges and new opportunities. There will always be those who can and want to master both.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 06/22/2009
- KarelS I'm a Fan of KarelS 11 fans permalink

The problem with digital storage is the medium. Hard drives fail. CD's and DVD's have a limited shelf life--and they may not be the medium tomorrow--so one must continually transfer images from old to new discs to ward off obsolescence and "pit failure".
Having said that, I use both and appreciate digital and analog photography equally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

I think there still is a version of Agfachrome. Fujichrome is still around. In my opinion Fuji was always a little blue. Kodak film colors tend to be warmer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 06/22/2009

Very sad. Kodachrome is the very best film for archival purposes as it retains the vibrant colors for decades. K-64 for slide production, fantastic. I use both digital and film cameras and lament the fact that the art & science of photography is being lost. I plan to keep my darkroom equipment for as long as the processing chemicals are available. I have hundreds of B&W negs that I've never gotten around to printing.

RIP KODACHROME.

Long live the Buggy Whip.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 06/22/2009
- missviv I'm a Fan of missviv 8 fans permalink
photo

Absolutely agreed, it makes me wonder/scared for the future of photography and for the art of it. It also makes me want to see more and more people following in the footsteps of someone like Wolfgang Tillmans who continues to ask these questions. I'm starting to think Kodak is going the way of Ford..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 06/22/2009

Yah, decades is the point. A year ago, or so, I scanned Kodachrome slides of my father from 1945, and the color was still good after all those decades. And to be honest, I believe you have to get to at least 20 megapixels to match the fine grain of film. When I scan my old negatives and slides, in color, at max res on my film/neg scanner (4000dpi), I end up with a 125 megapixel image. Film still has the resolution, but eventually digital will fully catch up. Such is the way of things...but when I was doing a lot of photography with my old Asahi Pentax film camera, I didn't use a light meter, and prided myself on knowing my film well enough to get the shot...and invariably I did. Now, it's incredibly convenient with digital (and don't get me wrong, I'm invested in digital) to get a good shot, since you can review it immediately, but there is definitely something of value lost in the translation to a purely digital photographic realm. That loss is the knowledge base required in the use of film, and the mindset required to have confidence in your own knowledge based abilities. Waiting for the film for days was inconvenient, but there was a special feel to it when you opened the envelope and found out if that ONE great shot really came out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 06/22/2009
- TakeSake I'm a Fan of TakeSake 24 fans permalink
photo

Looked at from the other direction, putting digital images onto film, actually does require source material in the range of 4000 x 3000 to avoid visible pixelization on the negative or slide for 35 mm formats. Therefore, scanning at 4000 dpi fits well - it can always be compressed later.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 06/22/2009
- TakeSake I'm a Fan of TakeSake 24 fans permalink
photo

The problem is that most digital imagery uses JPEG or MPEG, which amount to basically the same thing. 3 color channels of 8 bits per channel. 8 bit is not enough to cover the range from black to white without banding - you can see this with any ramping, even on a CRT TV connected to a satellite dish. The only solution to banding is to dither noise into it - which is hard to do automatically.

The effect is that JPEG images will lack both the "brilliance" and subtlety of a good chrome film - not only did they give up one, they gave up both.

We now have this infrastructure of digital imagery that is guaranteed to produce images with clearly identifiable flaws - and there is no good way around it due to all the equipment that's out there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

The number of pixels necessary to provide an equivelant to a Kodachrome negative in over a billion, so if you want to have a photograph and enlarge it to a size that film imagery allows, you better have an exceptionally commercial grade camera, not an under $500 digital of the current generation.

I do love film for that reason but do hate the storage needs of it, also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Nah, just shoot in RAW. A good digital camera will have that. I still use my Sigma SD-9 which only shoots in RAW.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 06/22/2009
- marxmarv I'm a Fan of marxmarv 25 fans permalink
photo

A JPEG is to a print as a raw file is to a negative. A camera that doesn't save raw files is equivalent to a Polaroid. You can still capture brilliance and subtlety if you shoot raw and work in 16 bits. Never complain about infrastructure -- even if there aren't many people who can view it in its full splendor just yet, within a few years 10-bit primaries could be standard in high-end applications and it will most likely trickle down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

Additionally, many digital photographers are using TN LCD panels and other low-gamut solutions. LCD technologies are improving, and wide-gamut panels are becoming quite affordable, although they still should be individually calibrated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 06/25/2009

The new White House victory garden.

I hope the photographer will capture that one. We are what we eat, American. And today, the First Lady is helping lead the way against obesity and for delicious food, in its vibrant color.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 06/22/2009
- Bitsko I'm a Fan of Bitsko 549 fans permalink
photo

Less pollutants in Rochester? Okay by me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 06/22/2009
- TJCole I'm a Fan of TJCole 172 fans permalink
photo

Less jobs too...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 06/22/2009

Jobs cleaning up toxic waste?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

There are people who prefer film (arty folks).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

It's a shame that it has to go, but look at the reason why...no one was buying it.
Who can make money manufacturing a product that no one buys?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 PM on 06/22/2009
photo

I think it's cool that they got a world-famous photographer to shoot one the last rolls.
Who wants to bet that one of his last photos will be the box the film came in?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 06/22/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect