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

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

DBP;

The 620 problem was local, not with Kodak. They shipped 620 until the end of production. And, the Kodak web site is far more complete with film data than the Fuji site.

Also, not all companies make good decisions. Remember then Henry J and the Edsel. Yes, Kodak made bad decisions, but Fuji made none. They just followed Kodak and sold their products for less because they used Kodak process R&D to save them money. The less expensive but equivalent product will sell all the time and Fuji had that advantage.

PE

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

gr82bart said:
Just a note I'd like to point out: Here's Fuji's global English language website. Look for yourselves: http://www.fujifilm.com/ Exactly how does one 'measure' the Kodak website as "barely mentions film" in comparison to Fuji's website? Just exactly how much more 'easy' is it to find film products on their website?

Fuji:

Click on "Products" on the menu. You will see:

Kodak:

Click on "Consumer Products"

Looks almost the same to me, to find consumer film.

DBP · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
DBP;

The 620 problem was local, not with Kodak. They shipped 620 until the end of production. And, the Kodak web site is far more complete with film data than the Fuji site.

Also, not all companies make good decisions. Remember then Henry J and the Edsel. Yes, Kodak made bad decisions, but Fuji made none. They just followed Kodak and sold their products for less because they used Kodak process R&D to save them money. The less expensive but equivalent product will sell all the time and Fuji had that advantage.

PE

I know the problem with 620 was local, but it was widespread, including Virginia and the Carolinas. And I have wondered if it would have stayed on the market with better distributors.

As for the second point, I have never gone back to GM after the Vega.

gr82bart · Nov 19, 2007

At least Fujifilm UK isn't lying to us, right?

Seems that if Kodak is weaseling and lying to us, then Fujifilm UK is honouring their 'substantial' commitment to film by giving us - drum roll - a forum for film photographers. Yeah!

I thought film photographers wanted more film, not more places to talk about film ... guess I'm wrong. Warm and fuzzy is way more better than real, actual film.

My attachments highlight the substantial film commitment embedded in the Fujifilm UK website metadata for search engines. Seems like every second word is ... wait a sec ... sure says a lot of digital .... where's the film.

Well, they're not lying to us though. It's all right there in big bold letters - DIGITAL - so it's all OK then. Everyone go out now and buy more Fuji products.

Regards, Art.

roteague · Nov 19, 2007

I think everyone is making too much of this. Kodak and Fuji are two companies, each with its own individual marketing plans and strategies, each with its own product roadmap. Neither is any better than the other in respect to how it approaches a shrinking market, just different.

There was a time when I used Kodak products extensively, although I quite with Ektachrome Lumiere 100, switching to Fuji Velvia. I certainly don't have any anger towards Kodak because their products no longer met my needs, nor do I have any for products that are discontinued. Sure, I was disappointed when Fuji discontinued Velvia 50, but I moved on. Those who shoot Kodak need to do the same. Kodak still makes several really good products (Ektachrome VS100 is one of them).

Terence · Nov 19, 2007

gr82bart said:
OK I get it now. You actually believe us amateur still film users make up half their business. Terrance, we don't. Not even close.

Just a note I'd like to point out: Here's Fuji's global English language website. Look for yourselves: http://www.fujifilm.com/ Exactly how does one 'measure' the Kodak website as "barely mentions film" in comparison to Fuji's website? Just exactly how much more 'easy' is it to find film products on their website? Oh and I see the technical information is just oozing.

Where's the head of Fuji's film division on APUG? Someone tell me Fuji's 1-800 number so that I can order 15 sheets of 13" x 27" because apparently one has to beg Kodak to get that and spend $10k too, but not with Fuji ...

Regards, Art.

Let's see:
Pick North America then U.S. then Consumer Products then Professional Films and Product Line-up then a film and there's its data sheet. Yeah, I'd say that was a LOT easier. Took me about 20 seconds. And I've never even been to that site before. Your point again?

Fuji, to my knowledge has not been saying that film is not their future. They re-released a discontinued product in reponse to public demand.

And what I said, if you read my post, is that FILM makes up half their REVENUE. Digital and other portions make up the other half. I did NOT say amateurs make up half their revenue. As I DID say, I know the amateur market is a tiny segment. But it is probably as steady a segment as professional. Maybe try showing us that they intend to hang around a little longer, want our business and try not to lie. I may not have a business degree, but I BET they teach that somewhere in those MBA classes.

As to Kodak's minimum orders, go back and read the posts related to their special orders. They'll do the $10,000 minimum order, but they will make the unit price so high that it is not economically feasible to make the deal. It's their way of saying, "We don't want your business." It seems almost miraculous when someone DOES strike a deal with them. And how long did it take them to finally deliver on their ULF order? Waaaaaay past any prediction, if in fact it has even been completed.

Ilford on the other hand, has been pro-active, accomodating and straightforward on schedule and pricing. They even accomodated orders they didn't believe economically viable at first (if at all), because they saw the PR aspect of it.

I can spend my money with the people who almost seem to try to piss me off, or I can spend it with the people who seem to want my business.

gr82bart · Nov 19, 2007

roteague said:
I think everyone is making too much of this.

Robert,

My point is the Kodak bashing is just stupid. The excuses people come up with to justify their anti-Kodak posts and threads is equally stupid. There's little to no facts behind them, just raw emotion. It isn't going to do film any good.

We should all support Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and all other film and paper manufacturers with whatever product they have left.

Regards, Art.

Terence · Nov 19, 2007

I love many Kodak products and miss quite a few more. I was a defender of Kodak on this site, until they all but lied to me about HIE. I don't consider a lack of honesty a stupid excuse. I was never a large HIE user, and while I'll miss it, there are enough alternatives for my uses already on the market. My problem is with their business practices.

Your defense that they're no worse than anyone else is pretty weak.

Many have asked Ilford for Pan F in sheet film. Ilford has explained why they can't.

Ilford researched a 25 speed film, but explained why it isn't financially feasible at this time.

I do have a gripe with Ilford for canceling their Cooltone developer without warning.

Fuji listened to the calls for a return of Velvia 50.

Efke listened to the call for IR film, as did Rollei. Even if both were already pre-existing products, they brought them to a wider market because people asked for them.

I don't even ask for that from Kodak. All I ask is that they be straightforward with me as a customer of their admittedly wonderful products.

In an admittedly declining market, why throw my business to someone who shows me a complete lack of interest instead of to someone who courts it?

tim_walls · Nov 19, 2007

Terence said:
Let's see:
Pick North America then U.S. then Consumer Products then Professional Films and Product Line-up then a film and there's its data sheet. Yeah, I'd say that was a LOT easier. Took me about 20 seconds. And I've never even been to that site before. Your point again?

Yeah, I don't believe in Kodak bashing, but the "hey look how great Kodak's information is, noone else does anything like that" line I do find a bit odd.

For what it's worth, from the Fujifilm UK site the process for getting datasheets is as follows:

- Go to Fujifilm UK (fujifilm.co.uk, or else click on the map on the Fujifilm global site and pick United Kingdom.)
- Click 'Business'
- Click 'Professional photography' (subtitle: 'Superior quality film and state of the art film cameras.')
- As an aside - this takes you to the professional homepage; this is currently promoting a competition to celebrate the re-launch of Velvia 50.
- Click on Film.

Voila. At this point you can either download the excellent Dataguide document (which provides data on every film in a single book,) a quick-reference PDF reference to all their films, or click through to individual products to download their datasheets.

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

Well, if you guys are so adept at using the Fuji web site, try to find their contact paper which is still supposedly being made. I spent a big part of this afternoon searching.

As for films, let me make a point here. Have you ever been wrong and corrected yourself in public? Would you appreciate being called a liar for this error? Kodak did not cancel the B&W IR film earlier this year and was sincere in the statement that it was not being cancelled.

Later in the year, the sales crashed for this and several E6 films. The IR film cannot be kept well as you all know. They therefore changed their minds.

Now, if you think there is a little malevolent man named Filmoman Tepes (look up the last name) at Kodak dreaming up ways to lie to the public, you are wrong, flat out wrong. They are human beings wrestling with a sales figure that fell from $20B to $2B in about 15 yeras. Would you be error free in your budget if your pay fell 90% in the same time frame?

Think about it. They did not lie.

Now, go find me a reference to the Fuji contact paper like Azo.

PE

SchwinnParamount · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
John, you have a good point. One that I have been vocal about. I know that Kodak people lurk here!

But that is part of the problem. They have apparently stuck by us but have been bashed. And, other companies that could help us out with nitch products don't but get praise.

BTW, where is the Fuji rep here?

PE

Having worked for a corporate giant (Microsoft) for many years, I have experience enough to hazard a guess that the lurking Kodak people have been explicitly instructed not to post in this forum if identified as Kodak employees. Once identified as a Kodak employee, it is very difficult to convince post readers that the writing is ONLY THE OPINION of the Kodak employee and not an official Kodak statement. That being said, Kodak should have an official spokesman who is authorized to post here.

Photo Engineer · Nov 19, 2007

You got it in one!

Not only that, it is the bashing and the vituperation.

But, I agree. Someone should post here.

PE

Michael Kadillak · Nov 19, 2007

Don't waste your time. The Fuji contact printing paper is a cheap proofing paper for 35mm only. See the link below:

Cheers!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

tim_walls said:
Yeah, I don't believe in Kodak bashing, but the "hey look how great Kodak's information is, noone else does anything like that" line I do find a bit odd.

For what it's worth, from the Fujifilm UK site the process for getting datasheets is as follows:

- Go to Fujifilm UK (fujifilm.co.uk, or else click on the map on the Fujifilm global site and pick United Kingdom.)
- Click 'Business'
- Click 'Professional photography' (subtitle: 'Superior quality film and state of the art film cameras.')
- As an aside - this takes you to the professional homepage; this is currently promoting a competition to celebrate the re-launch of Velvia 50.
- Click on Film.

Voila. At this point you can either download the excellent Dataguide document (which provides data on every film in a single book,) a quick-reference PDF reference to all their films, or click through to individual products to download their datasheets.

ilya1963 · Nov 19, 2007

We had an old fellow that got cars ready for us, his name was "Curly"-he could not read or write , but a very loyal emploee and very good at what he did, every body new him and he new everybody, he had no teeth and always chewed his gumms ...
Once in a while when we had a difficult customer we send for "Curly" ,
"Curly" came out and the only thing he ever said
was :" WHAT ARE YOU DOING PAAAL?" with his gumms just a flopping,

every time, no kidding, it broke ice and we made a sale ...
___________________
COMMON KODAK FLAPP YOUR GUMMS FOR A MINUTE AND TELLS US WHAT'S UP
WE NEED TO KNOW IF WE CAN DEPEND ON YOU TO BE COMMITED TO ANALOG
BUT , you know all the signs indicate otherwise...

John Kasaian · Nov 19, 2007

I think TXP and TMY are excellent emulsions and Kodak chemicals are some of the very best.

Sure I miss several Kodak products, but I've been able to find good substitutes (Infra red and AZO are still wild cards. Perhaps Efke's Infra red and Foma's Fomabrom 111 will fill the bill---I haven't tried either yet though) That said,
I don't think that kicking Kodak when they're down is an especially heroic thing to do. Theres still plenty of good stuff in the yellow packages that I use and would like to continue using.

Traditional photographic products have become a "niche" market--Kodak, just like Ilford is going through shrinking pains (Agfa and Forte couldn't even survive after all!) We are free to use the materials we enjoy using and running Kodak down publicly (or Ilford or Foma or Efke for that matter) is IMHO simply counter productive to the health of traditional photography. Raising issues about quality problems are neccesary in order to correct the problems of course but really, when was the last time a Kodak product fell short when it comes to quality? I don't think even Ilford and certainly any of the others have as enviable a reputation as old yeller. If Kodak's marketing gurus cold do even half the job their technical peple do Kodak might once again be a household name (at least in households where there are film cameras)

Its not our father's (or grandfather's) Kodak, thats for sure but then neither is photography these days.

Terence · Nov 19, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Well, if you guys are so adept at using the Fuji web site, try to find their contact paper which is still supposedly being made. I spent a big part of this afternoon searching.

As for films, let me make a point here. Have you ever been wrong and corrected yourself in public? Would you appreciate being called a liar for this error? Kodak did not cancel the B&W IR film earlier this year and was sincere in the statement that it was not being cancelled.

Later in the year, the sales crashed for this and several E6 films. The IR film cannot be kept well as you all know. They therefore changed their minds.

Now, if you think there is a little malevolent man named Filmoman Tepes (look up the last name) at Kodak dreaming up ways to lie to the public, you are wrong, flat out wrong. They are human beings wrestling with a sales figure that fell from $20B to $2B in about 15 yeras. Would you be error free in your budget if your pay fell 90% in the same time frame?

Think about it. They did not lie.

Now, go find me a reference to the Fuji contact paper like Azo.

PE

Once again, if it is that simple, say it. How hard would it have been for Kodak to say, "Sales dropped 60% in the last quarter and HIE is no longer financially viable,"? Instead we get, "Kodak will continue to produce HIE," and "Kodak will NOT continue to produce HIE."

Did sales perhaps drop because of a combination of the previous rumor and the fact that nobody believed their protestation of it because they haven't been straight forward about such things before?

All I'm asking for is a little straightforward PR. It really is just that simple.

All I'm hearing is that Kodak does not market towards us because we are a tiny piece of the market and don't matter. No sweat. Then their loss of my business shouldn't matter, nor should any little ranting here, as I am only speaking to others who are also insigificant.

We didn't kill the good will towards Kodak. They have slowly pissed it away.

tjaded · Nov 20, 2007

I drive an Edsel, I own two of them. For the record, Edsels look even better on Kodachrome

The Ford mothership still, to this day, has little or no public comment on the Edsel. We just had the big 50th anniversary and nobody from Ford really gave a hoot. There is only one time where Ford will acknowledge their connection to the Edsel...if you try to produce a part with proper markings and forget to pay licensing. I wonder what would have happened if Paul Simon had begged Ford not to take his Edsel away...

Ok, I'll stop with the useless jibber-jabber and let everyone get back to the fun.

Photo Engineer said:
DBP;

The 620 problem was local, not with Kodak. They shipped 620 until the end of production. And, the Kodak web site is far more complete with film data than the Fuji site.

Also, not all companies make good decisions. Remember then Henry J and the Edsel. Yes, Kodak made bad decisions, but Fuji made none. They just followed Kodak and sold their products for less because they used Kodak process R&D to save them money. The less expensive but equivalent product will sell all the time and Fuji had that advantage.

PE

WarEaglemtn · Nov 20, 2007

"Castigating Kodak and saying you won't buy any more of their products --- bla, bla, bla will never help."

It helps me. Used to buy Kodachrome a case at a time and averaged 3 cases+ per year for a number of years. Had Kodak process it. Then they screwed up a large batch in processing, we negotiated a settlement through the Pro Rep... and they phased out the pro rep in the area and would not honor their agreement. I have never shot another roll of Kodachrome again.

Azo. Per their financial guys... it always made money. Never a loser. Just not enough money in the current market so it goes, along with all other B&W papers. I was not a big user, only four or so 500 sheet boxes per year. But it was a product I would buy year in and year out.

Then Kodak quits making it and the way they did it is spot on with their business practices of late. Their attitude is simple, F***you, we do as we please.

So, we use other products. If Kodak makes it I always look elsewhere first and if Kodak is the only supplier I go without and/or change what I am doing. I do not want to support them any longer. They have NO loyalty, why should I?

eddym · Nov 20, 2007

gr82bart said:
We should all support Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and all other film and paper manufacturers with whatever product they have left.

Regards, Art.

I think that is the bottom line... or it should be.

eddym · Nov 20, 2007

Well, I haven't had much to say about this... or maybe haven't been able to get a word in edgewise. So here's my take:
I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued Medalist paper. I think that was when I tried Ilford Galerie and liked it. And I still use it.
I was disappointed again when Kodak discontinued Ektalure. Very disappointed. But I tried Agfa Portriga and liked it... but then it disappeared too. So now I use Bergger Warm Tone... when I can get it.
There was something about the warm golden tones of Kodak Vericolor 100 film that I loved, especially for portraits. But that's been gone for a long time, and Portra, good as it is, doesn't have that look. But it is a really excellent film, and I do use it.
I used Tri-X until Kodak came out with T-Max. I tried that and hated it. But for a while there, Tri-X became scarce, and pimply-faced kids behind the counters of camera stores were telling me that T-Max had replaced it. I knew better, but started shooting HP5+ anyway.
Now they've discontinued another favorite film, EPN. It was my standard for shooting art works for reproduction. Don't know what I'll use now... but I guess I'll find something.
I may not be happy with Kodak for discontinuing the products that they did, but I'm not going to waste my time "bashing" them. What good would it do? I'd rather find a replacement product and keep shooting film.
Life's too short.

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2007

Terence said:
Once again, if it is that simple, say it. How hard would it have been for Kodak to say, "Sales dropped 60% in the last quarter and HIE is no longer financially viable,"? Instead we get, "Kodak will continue to produce HIE," and "Kodak will NOT continue to produce HIE."

Did sales perhaps drop because of a combination of the previous rumor and the fact that nobody believed their protestation of it because they haven't been straight forward about such things before?

All I'm asking for is a little straightforward PR. It really is just that simple.

All I'm hearing is that Kodak does not market towards us because we are a tiny piece of the market and don't matter. No sweat. Then their loss of my business shouldn't matter, nor should any little ranting here, as I am only speaking to others who are also insigificant.

We didn't kill the good will towards Kodak. They have slowly pissed it away.

Yes, they did cancel it in a bad way, but as far as I can determine, sales were good at the time they made the original statement and they told the truth then that it would be continued. Later in the year, sales made a big drop and they had to reasess the situation when the quarterly review came up.

I suspect customers became disgusted with the first cancellation and moved on to other B&W IR products or stopped doing IR. IDK, but the sales dropped. Then they just made a plain announcement. They should have given more information, I agree. That was the 'Edsel' type of decision.

However, I said that this thread was started, not in an attempt to bash Kodak, but to find out why others who can make these products do not.

Fuji, Ilford, and other can all make IR films, Kodachrome films and Azo paper. Well, Fuji does but does not sell it in the US as far as I can determine searching their web site. So, why not?

If the market is too small to get into in spite of having formulas, then Kodak was right to cancel Azo and IR films. If you can make money in these products then these companies are dumb not getting into them or restricting their sales market.

That is the point of this thread. We are told there is a profit opportunity. Why isn't anyone taking advantage of it?

PE

ilya1963 · Nov 20, 2007

I am still going back to my question

10 SHEETS PER NEW BOX OF 8x10 TMY

WHY?

WHY EVEN BOTHER ?

IT COSTS MORE FOR THE PACKAGE THEN WHAT'S INSIDE

PE , Could you inlighten me as to how this makes any financial sence?
May be I am missing somethig here?

I am going back

ILYA

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2007

ilya1963 said:
I am still going back to my question

10 SHEETS PER NEW BOX OF 8x10 TMY

WHY?

WHY EVEN BOTHER ?

IT COSTS MORE FOR THE PACKAGE THEN WHAT'S INSIDE

PE , Could you inlighten me as to how this makes any financial sence?
May be I am missing somethig here?

I am going back

ILYA

Ilya;

For as long as I can remember, sheet films were sold in 10, 25, 50 and 100 sheet boxes. Some of these have been eliminated for some products due to decreasing demand, but I have no idea otherwise what products are sold in what size packing.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 20, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Ilya;

For as long as I can remember, sheet films were sold in 10, 25, 50 and 100 sheet boxes. Some of these have been eliminated for some products due to decreasing demand, but I have no idea otherwise what products are sold in what size packing.

PE

I have often in the past purchased 10 sheet boxes of 8x10 transparency film. This is when I had a small job, and did not want to keep opened box of film for a period of time. Fitting the quantity of film used to the job. Next job might be larger and require more film, and I would want to shoot whole job with same emulsion batch.

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2007

Well, I remember 10 and 25 sheet boxes of 8x10 color film and paper both. IDK what they sell in now. I have not used that size film for many years.

PE

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

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency