Azo and Kodachrome, it does not make sense to me.

IMHO, one of Kodak's biggest analog hurdles to overcome is PR. The shrunken market is both vocal and whiney(especially on the internet,) but not without cause---it is just that the "cause" is paradoxical. No company can survive by making prodcts that there isn't a big enough market for. But consider AZO. As Micheal posted, before he wrote about AZO, the 100 year old product was little used. I think the popularity of AZO in modern times is properly attributed to Micheal and Paula.
So there are all these new converts to AZO and Kodak quits making it, rather than aggressively marketing the paper in order to expand the market to a volume that would be even more profitable.
We hear that AZO is relatively easy to make (it is after all 19th century stuff) and if there were truly a viable market, other manufacturers would have jumped into the breech and be churning out the stuff today. But no one is!
It seems to me that Kodak has the opportunity to expand the market for AZO. If a tiny outfit like Micheal and Paula can promote AZO to a historic level of popularity, imagine what the resources of a giant like Kodak could have, might have,(should have) done?
What kind of signal is this sending to consumers?

Somewhere in the marketing department there has to be a "model" Kodak customer. Twenty years ago, the "model" would have a darkroom stocked entirely with yellow boxes and bottles and envelopes. What does this "mdel" look like today?

Kodak is out of the B&W paper business. Entirely. Is the "model" Kodak customer printing B&W digitally now? And if in B&W, why not in color too?
So why produce color printing paper?
In fact, why even manufacture chemicals for developing paper?

Commerce is far more complicated than this, but you can why it easy for consumers to loose faith in the Great Yellow Father in Rochester. And that is bad for business. Bad for photography.
Just bad!

FWIW, I think Photo Engineer is giving us straight info, but I'd be surprised to see the same info on Kodak's site. If I did, I admit that I probably wouldn't believe them.
Contrast that with Ilford's site, in particularly the interview with the chief of Harman Technologies a few months ago.. Contrast that with the statements made by Kodak's Perez.
Who understands film photography better? Who do you think can better serve the market?

Yep, bad PR.

Kodak could be the poster child for it!

Kodak has shown that it can change it's product line-up, but when will it show us that it can change it's PR?
New TMY is a start. But it's only just.

keithwms said:

Apologies if the answer is somewhere in this meandering thread, but what is the Fuji azo paper called?

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea. I have read the name, and more informaiton was posted here above.

PE

John;

Kodak still makes paper developer (under contract now) because it is so easy relative to making paper itself.

A lot of factors went into cancelling the papers, most of which I cannot discuss here, but the main fact was that in 2005, the models of all companies predicted a big loss in sales overall for analog products. This was 'the year' that digital would make the first big surge. So what happened that year?

The model predicted a huge 35% loss in sales for 2005, but in fact, there was a loss of 35% in just one quarter alone! This type of drop continued for the rest of the year. That fact is not as important as the fallout. At that same time, Ilford faltered, Agfa failed, and Kodak left the paper business. First they stopped making their own paper support and then they stopped coating B&W as well. One of the hidden factors in this is that they probably could not get all of the grades of Baryta paper that they wanted from outside suppliers. Or, conversely that it was not the same and they were not satisfied with the results being the same. As we have noted, small tests don't equal production runs.

Now, as to the efforts of M&P to promote Azo. AFAIK, there had been no 'surge' in Azo paper sales or manufacture in its last few years. Rather, it just gradually declined below a sustainable level just like other B&W products, so what we see is a very very vocal minority for a high quality product which has vanished. Thats about it as far as I know. I can't be sure because I have no data in front of me, just vocal comments from a lot of people who themselves have no data either, just general information. In fact, the only real piece of data is that the drop in Azo sales fell below a sustainable niche market at EK BEFORE the big drop mentioned above. Kodak exited Azo before exiting the rest of the market.

I can make enough Azo type emulsion for 100 sheets of 8x10 in less than 1 hour. I can make enough to do 800 sheets in 4 hours in a small stainless steel beaker I bought at BB&B for $9.95. It takes me 4 days to coat 100 sheets due to my limited drying space. If I had more, I could coat 100 sheets / day or more. Now, the point is that this might supply one person. If I kept on, it would supply (over a week) 7 people with 800 sheets of 8x10. Kodak could do this in about 1 day (to make and proof the emulsion) and 10' to coat the worlds supply of Azo. But, they cannot just coat one roll, they have to fill the machine with leader of SW baryta paper, and coat and then refill the machine with leader. The pumps to and from the machine contain emulsion, gelatin and hardener which is waste and they can't make less than 10 L of emulsion, but I can make as little as 100 ml.

The waste is the killer here. With little waste (about 10 ml / 20 sheets) I have to set my price at $5 - $10 / sheet, and if Kodak did the same, I would guess the price would have to be that high as well but for reasons set out above regarding capacity and waste.

So, it boils down to a very vocal minority of very dedicated artists. Can Ilford, Fuji or any other company afford to jump in? The answer says so far that the market is beneath their sustainable product levels with analog in the shape it is in.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

With little waste (about 10 ml / 20 sheets) I have to set my price at $5 - $10 / sheet

PE

Click to expand...

PE is the $5-$10/sheet just the cost of the raw materials? :confused:

This thread, for some reason, reminds me about the fact people (North Americans) are unwilling to pay $3 per gallon for gasoline but are lining up to pay $3 per 16oz cup of coffee. If one thinks about the value stream process from the extraction of raw materials to the manufacturing processes to the distribution channels to the disposal of the waste products, $3 per gallon of gasoline is incredibly cheap!

Anyway, this is OT.

Regards, Art.

Photo Engineer said:

Matt;
Kodak publishes a printed catalog and there is one on-line on their web site. If you take the published catalog numbers to your dealer and ask for it, there is little he can say about it being cancelled. Then you can point out to him that what he said is not true. This will do nothing but annoy him and give you a tiny glow of satisfaction, but you still will have no product. As you say, he wants to sell the digital equipment he has in the store.

Click to expand...

Yes but this wasn't Kodak (as they no longer make B+W paper). It can happen to any manufacturer and I think you're right, it does get worse with distance. So you have a situation where a (marginal?) product isn't even being sold by the people who are supposed to sell it and then it's sales are dropping and this can help it get discontinued.

Michael Kadillak said:

My point is that the entire product line from ALL analog manufacturers worldwide is constantly under optimization scrutiny and subject to the same financial scrutiny of being phased out and could be without any advance notification to anyone. Does this make the company bad? Hell no. Many take this as a personal insult because they look at this emotionally. "But I LOVED this product and now I can't get it any longer". "All of that time and investment down the drain'.

It is business and corporations make business decisions every day about the future as they see it. The only way to protect this investment as you say is to hedge forward your consumption. Absent that capability it is my opinion that in monitoring this and many other forums that most that convince themselves that they are one unit at a time consumers do in fact vent when a product gets phased out.

But lets face reality. The Achilles hell in this consumption model is not chemicals or paper as you can mix your own Xtol and Dektol (intensely close to it) or many other perfectly viable alternatives and you can coat paper. It is FILM. That is why I keep my two huge freezers constantly loaded to the brim with sheet film. You want to solve the problem that you are complaining could happen to you with the loss of time and investment in a particular sheet film? Step up to the plate and buy a case. If just a fraction of the individuals that constantly look at the glass half empty would just get off their ass and proactively purchase more than a unit of film at a time it would make an enormously positive impact on the future of this industry for everyone.

We are concurrently the solution and problem in this business model and a positive attitude that looks pragmatically at where we are RIGHT NOW instead of whining about the past is absolutely critical. I am not picking specifically at you Matt. You seem like a passionate photographer and your heart is in the right place, but I want to ask you and many others that might be in your same emotional position to take the high road and be thankful at where we are. Do what you can to make it better for all of us. After all. many of these naysayers were predicting that film would have been laid to rest by now and we are trucking down the highway at breakneck speed. To contemplate that Kodak would be spending R&D money in this market to improve T Max 400 is remarkable and it tells me that this film will be around for a long time so that they can capture their investment. Try it and you will not be disappointed.

I can tell you this. When you have some film from any manufacturer tucked away you feel a whole lot better about the situation.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say Michael but for me it's not an emotional argument. That's a really cheap way of misrepresenting what I'm saying.

I look at Kodak's decision not to invest in coating facilities for B+W paper as an indicator of what they are likely to do in the future. I don't (and haven't anywhere in these posts) blamed Kodak for this, I'm sure that at the time they had to make the decision there were many other ways they could use that investment for much better returns. However, what it says to me is, next time Kodak (with their corporate structure and specific circumstances) need to invest in coating technology they are likely to be unable to. So I don't use their products that will require very significant investment in coating capital in the future. I do use their chemicals because, as you point out, it would be very easy to replace them myself and they don't require anything more than a way to mix and bag them so Kodak can continue to make them as long as there is a reasonable market for them.

The fact that you can afford to keep a freezer full of sheet film is great Michael, congratulations. It has no bearing on my situation. As it is I use and buy as much film as I can; most of it from Ilford (the company that has just managed to acquire a second coating facility for its products).

The new Tmax 400 did seem to come out of the blue and does give me some hope that Kodak do stay in the film game. Maybe in the next year or two I will change my assessment of whether or not they will be able to keep making film. I don't think, as you do, that the new Tmax involved a massive R&D effort.

And just for the record, Thank you for popularising photography and making my participation possible Kodak.

jgjbowen said:

PE is the $5-$10/sheet just the cost of the raw materials? :confused:

Click to expand...

That is what I would sell it for.

Just go price sheets of Baryta paper in 11x14 size. I have to use 11x14 to make 8x10 to cut off the selvedge and the startup and shutdown marks. So, lets say $0.60 for 1 sheet of raw paper.

Hot water, cold water, electricity, silver nitrate (at about $300 / 1/2 KG), analytical grade salts, photo grade gelatin; these all run up the total as do the amortization on the blades, hotplate and then there is my time.

This is not production, it is hand made, so if I made it tomorrow, you would have to factor in the fact that I would charge you for my IRE at having to miss the Bills game.

So, I'm confused as to what has confused you. A lab can stamp out photos for the masses or you can print a hand made exclusive custom enlargement. Which is more expensive? Can you tell me why you are confused? I am not in the production or even 'handmaking' business. I'm doing a few sheets for friends and have estimated roughly what it would cost if I charged for it.

PE

Oh, I forgot hardener and surfactant in the above, lab time washing the equipment and paper towels (lots of rolls for each run) and developer, stop and fix to hand test each batch to insure quality.

PE

Mattg said:

I look at Kodak's decision not to invest in coating facilities for B+W paper as an indicator of what they are likely to do in the future.

Click to expand...

I simply do not agree with your statement above.

I have had a number of detailed conversations about this subject with Kodak management and nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the elimination of the paper business was actually a very positive event from a financial perspective in the sense that it positioned Kodak to consolidated their balance sheet to be in a position to survive and fight another day.

Yes, I was disappointed as we all were that the paper business did the dirt dance but in the interest in the bigger strategic picture I accept it as a necessary evil and I have moved on.

Onward!

Azo was not discontinued before other B&W papers. They were all discontinued at the same time. The marketing folks at EK Co. were as suprised as all of us were by the decision to eliminate B&W papers.

Kodak had a policy of every year evaluating all of their catalog numbers and eliminating the bottom 4% of revenue producers. It did not matter if a profit was made on them. If they were in the bottom 4%, they were cut.

At one time, grade 3 Azo 20x24 was in that bottom 4%. For a number of years I was the only one who bought that paper in that size. I convinced Kodak not to eliminate that catalog number--after the elimantion decision had already been made. I was told that was a Kodak "first."

Then, Paula and I made sure we bought enough of the paper, in all existing grades and sizes, every year to keep it above the 4% level. When a catalog number of Azo was up for cancellation, we were asked if they should go ahead and cancel it (4x5 paper, 5x7 paper, 8.5 x 11 paper). Since we did not have much of a demand for these sizes, we advised them to cancel these items. But they would have kept them in production if we could have promised more sales. It was a very interesting time, one that required us to keep on our toes all of the time--for years.

Michael;

AFAIK, Azo had hit that 4% marker but some of the other B&W papers had not. At least that was my understanding, and it seems to be supported by your comment. Perhaps I'm wrong or have misunderstood, but my information said that Azo was cancelled earlier than the rest in one of the evaluations you refer to.

In any event, Azo was at the bottom, but all FB papers were cut later that same year due to other internal problems coupled with a downturn. Sales of Polycontrast IV, both FB and RC were not all that bad.

PE

gr82bart said:

This thread, for some reason, reminds me about the fact people (North Americans) are unwilling to pay $3 per gallon for gasoline but are lining up to pay $3 per 16oz cup of coffee. If one thinks about the value stream process from the extraction of raw materials to the manufacturing processes to the distribution channels to the disposal of the waste products, $3 per gallon of gasoline is incredibly cheap!

Anyway, this is OT.

Regards, Art.

Click to expand...

and to think it cost me close to 100$ to fill a tiny little hatchback with
gas, and almost nothing for coffee the last time i was in france ... ( june )

sad thing is coffee is very cheep (pennies per cup ) ...

jnanian said:

and almost nothing for coffee the last time i was in france ...

Click to expand...

Well, wine's cheaper than water there too!

Regards, Art.

Hmmmm....a car that can run on coffee...if Photo-Engineer can make home brewed AZO----???
I'm tempted to pour a grande into the the ol' 240D and she what she does!
I wonder if Torani qualifies as a "high test" additive?

Photo Engineer said:

That is what I would sell it for.

Just go price sheets of Baryta paper in 11x14 size. I have to use 11x14 to make 8x10 to cut off the selvedge and the startup and shutdown marks. So, lets say $0.60 for 1 sheet of raw paper.

Hot water, cold water, electricity, silver nitrate (at about $300 / 1/2 KG), analytical grade salts, photo grade gelatin; these all run up the total as do the amortization on the blades, hotplate and then there is my time.

This is not production, it is hand made, so if I made it tomorrow, you would have to factor in the fact that I would charge you for my IRE at having to miss the Bills game.

So, I'm confused as to what has confused you. A lab can stamp out photos for the masses or you can print a hand made exclusive custom enlargement. Which is more expensive? Can you tell me why you are confused? I am not in the production or even 'handmaking' business. I'm doing a few sheets for friends and have estimated roughly what it would cost if I charged for it.

PE

Click to expand...

As a fellow Bills fan, I'd NEVER ask you to work during a Bills game. I don't!
We just don't see them very much down here in Richmond, VA. I was offered a ticket to today's game, but passed :0( because today is one of the few days they will actually be on TV.

I guess my question should have been....how much are the raw materials for producing 800 sheets of 8x10 PE Azo? I already own the heater/stirrer and have a blade on order, so those costs are sunk to me. I'll be first in line for your book and DVD.

As always, thanks for sharing your considerable knowledge with us.

Photo Engineer said:

Right now, Fuji makes an Azo type paper but does not sell it in the US AFAIK.
PE

Click to expand...

What is the full name of this paper and where is being sold?

JC Conrad said:

What is the full name of this paper and where is being sold?

Click to expand...

You will have to search for that one. I have forgotten the details. Several people have commented on it here in this thread and elsewhere but not by name. AFAIK, it is only sold in Japan.

PE

John;

You can cost it out easily just by looking in supply catalogs for the chemistry in an earlier post here. It is beyond the scope of this forum to search out each supplier and list the prices, as they vary so much. I buy almost everything from the Formulary, because I have gotten familiar with their chemicals and the quality is just fine for my work. I can get everything I need in one order that way.

In fact, Bud had told me earlier that he would be stocking more chemicals for emulsion making, and I now see that he has put that information up on his web site.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Sales of Polycontrast IV, both FB and RC were not all that bad.

Click to expand...

The one Kodak paper I really miss is Elite. I loved the weight of the base paper, and it had really nice tones. Unfortunately, I only caught the tail end of its production. It doesn't seem to keep well either, as I've tried some old paper and it was fogged right from the box.

Photo Engineer said:

John;

You can cost it out easily just by looking in supply catalogs for the chemistry in an earlier post here. It is beyond the scope of this forum to search out each supplier and list the prices, as they vary so much. I buy almost everything from the Formulary, because I have gotten familiar with their chemicals and the quality is just fine for my work. I can get everything I need in one order that way.

In fact, Bud had told me earlier that he would be stocking more chemicals for emulsion making, and I now see that he has put that information up on his web site.

PE

Click to expand...

That is really really cool!

Michael Kadillak said:

I simply do not agree with your statement above.

I have had a number of detailed conversations about this subject with Kodak management and nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the elimination of the paper business was actually a very positive event from a financial perspective in the sense that it positioned Kodak to consolidated their balance sheet to be in a position to survive and fight another day.

Yes, I was disappointed as we all were that the paper business did the dirt dance but in the interest in the bigger strategic picture I accept it as a necessary evil and I have moved on.

Onward!

Click to expand...

Well that's heartening to hear, although most of us don't have the benefit of a relationship with Kodak executives. Other's have alluded to Kodak's PR failure on this issue and it might be good if they were able to convince users of their genuine intention to stick around. I think that about the best thing for film user would be if the film business was split from the rest of Kodak, but that's just dreaming.

Mattg said:

I think that about the best thing for film user would be if the film business was split from the rest of Kodak, but that's just dreaming.

Click to expand...

Certainly as long as film continues to provide 50% of their gross income.