Couldn't Kodak just save themselves with Kodakchrome and an X100 competitor

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I was thinking about it.......I was reading a Gizmodo article about Kodak and how they are basically up the creek.......and I was thinking about it....They still make film, whats so hard about even if they don't bring back the exact Kodakchrome formula, bring back the name and some new films under that name, and possibly something like the original again....why wouldn't people buy it? Heck I'm sure hipsters alone would make them solvent again buying it for their Lomo cameras. But I mean come out with stuff under that name for 35mm and 120mm and I would think that could be a very easy boost to their business that wouldn't be the worst idea in the world either....again I mean its not like some of the most amazing images of the past half of the century were taken on Kodakchrome or anything.....

Also, Kodak makes sensors, they make the sensor in my M9, and the amazing S2, They clearly have the production capability.....Is it really that hard to come up with a camera design from that point? Like look at an Epson RD-1, Look at an M9, Look at an X100, and come up with something! X100 right now is entirely vulnerable since it doesn't have a interchangeable lens version...and since M-mount can now be used by other people then Leica, why not go for it? worst that happens is it fails and the end is brought around sooner...but what if they made something good, or at least adequate that competes, options in that market could make it very competitive I think....or am I crazy?

[JBerardi]

Too little, too late. There's just not enough film business left in the world to support a company of Kodak's size, and they've already sold their sensor division.

[Rob C]

It really is a shame about Kodachrome, but I feel that they were sort of making the bed in which they eventually had to lie.

In my view, Kodachrome was the perfect emulsion in that you could take it anywhere and as long as you kept it out of the sunshine you could expect to have a damned good chance of not losing latent image even after a few weeks between exposure and processing. Not many films could really claim that other, perhaps, than Velvia which was quite good that way too.

Though I never had the chance to try Kodachrome in 120 - I'd given up that format by then - I'm told that it was a little bit naughty: when it was good it was very very good, but when it wasn't it was terrible.

Another problem I found with Kodachrome was that processing varied from country to country. It was usually okay in Britain if you took it to the lab in Hemel H. by hand for the Pro deal, but if you were in Spain it was a disaster (in my experience) and then the best quality was to be found in Lausanne, which meant posting-and-praying to Switzerland.

However, of all of my own work, either on b/w or colour film, the work I've got on my website and the b/whites on the wall that most please me were all originated on Kodachrome. If there was a further problem with Kodachrome, and the reason that I ended up holding on to so much now useless film, it was the matter of cost and selling technique: where you used to buy it processing incuded, in later years they developed the ruse of selling it with separate mailing bags which you were supposed to buy when you needed them; cheaper initial purchase, but a friggin disincentive to later use if you weren't living near a large city that could supply said bags!

As for cameras - I'm only amazed that Nikon, with its great low-light sensor/processor science hasn't come up with its own M9 killer; it used to do great rf cameras...

Rob C