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

[PHOTOTONE]

But how many Sinars are still doing commercial work?

Me, me. I raise my hand. I use a Sinar P-expert multi-format camera for all my studio product photography on Ektachrome EPP. I use thousands of sheets a year.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Very informative and interesting thread...I just spent the last hour reading every post.

I am a dedicated Kodak user for B&W films and chemistry...have been since high school yearbook class (remember those?) and will be Kodak for our new color (C-41) darkroom. Last year I used many rolls of Fujichrome - simply because Velvia is well, Velvia and I was scanning to print.
But, I will be getting away from chromes and onto color negs now that the darkroom is coming together.

I love Kodak's quality control and committment to excellence in the films they do produce. My only request is for some direct input ... in this day and age of the Internet, etc - we should be able to have something like that here or elsewhere. You know they are making tough decisions probably on a monthly basis concerning their legacy analog products.
What better way than to make your consumer part of the process? Come to us (their pros, their users such as here, and their labs/stores) with a poll every once in a while - we have choice A or B - what should we [Kodak] do? Test the waters like they did with the film usage survey to digital photographers. I'm sure the amount of pros that still use and like film blew them away - apparanetly they've referred to it a few times in their marketing releases, so you know it got their attention.
More of that line of thinking can't hurt them. Ask us what we think good service is. Then deliver - we'll say "great!" every time. Ask us what we want to buy - then offer it for sale! We'll buy it every time.
All the best, I'm off to bed.
Jed

 

[ilya1963]

All of this is pointless , I am going to continue my ""INCREMENTAL MARCH"- DJ
___________________________________
Following is from KODAK's Website :

Nov. 1, 2007
Print

Kodak Reports Third Quarter Profit on Sales of $2.581 Billion

Third Quarter Net Earnings From Continuing Operations of $34 Million, up $117 Million; Digital Revenues Grow 12%, Driven by Digital Plates, NEXPRESS, Consumer Digital Capture, and Kiosk Sales; Third Quarter Digital Earnings Nearly Triple From Year-Ago Quarter




"Film Products Group earnings from operations were $122 million, compared with $115 million in the year-ago quarter, representing continuing operational improvement in the face of declining revenue. During the third quarter of 2007, the group achieved a 25% operating margin, as compared with 19% in the year-ago quarter. The operating margin performance resulted from the company’s continued focus on reducing manufacturing and SG&A costs ahead of anticipated revenue declines. Film Products Group sales were $488 million, down from $593 million in the year-ago quarter, representing a decrease of 18%, in line with expectations.

“Our relentless focus on digital business model innovation and the dramatic operational improvements we have achieved over the past four years have created a solid foundation for our future,” said Perez. “We have the right talent, business structure, technology, brand, and growing product portfolio to generate sustainable, profitable growth and significant value for our shareholders.”

 

[Photo Engineer]

All of this is interesting but off-topic when you consider my OP and the purpose of the thread.

The questions have not even been approached for the most part.

Premise: There are markets for Azo paper and Kodachrome.

Answer: If yes, then why are people who can make these products not selling them?

Answer: If no, then we can't complain if Kodak does not sell them, right?

The question has nothing to do with EK when you get down to it.

PE

 

[Terence]

My guess would be that the longer we get from AZO's demise, the smaller the market for such a paper will get. New LF shooters will never have had a chance to try it, so the ready demand for it will diminsh. The time to have tried it would have been when Kodak cancelled it and there was still a developed market. unfortunately, that was also when all the film companies were seeing huge declines in sales, and probably didn't see it as sensible to bring a new product out.

As for Kodachrome, even when it was available it was a small and declining user group. I can't imagine one of the remaining color film producers seeing any worthwhile amount of production in it, even in smaller batches.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

As for Kodachrome, even when it was available it was a small and declining user group. I can't imagine one of the remaining color film producers seeing any worthwhile amount of production in it, even in smaller batches.

Uh, unless I missed it, Kodachrome IS STILL A CURRENT PRODUCT. Not discontinued.

 

[Terence]

I keep doing that . . . my apologies.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

All of this is interesting but off-topic when you consider my OP and the purpose of the thread.

The questions have not even been approached for the most part.

Premise: There are markets for Azo paper and Kodachrome.

Answer: If yes, then why are people who can make these products not selling them?

Answer: If no, then we can't complain if Kodak does not sell them, right?

The question has nothing to do with EK when you get down to it.

PE

You're right, the original question posed by you really has nothing to do with Kodak, and Kodak did not single out AZO for discontinuance, rather they discontinued all their b/w papers, didn't they?

The REAL QUESTION is: Why is NOBODY producing a FINE ART contact paper for large-format negatives? Is it because the bulk of the LF and ULF photographers are doing "alternate printing" on home-coated papers such as Platinum/Palladium, Kallitype, Cyanotype, etc? Or...is it that modern enlarging papers can produce excellent results from contact printing..or at least good enough for most LF photographers to be satisfied? Or..considering that "some" LF photographers scan and print digitally..has the market become diffuse enough..even with the upswing in LF popularity, that no ONE single product focused exclusively on print production from LF negatives is a viable commercial product? After all, now there are a variety of ways to arrive at a good looking print from a LF negative.

If I understand correctly, an AZO like paper is not (in the realm of emulsion engineering) rocket science. It is a relatively simple product to make. Certainly when compared to VC papers and color paper manufacturing.

 

[John Kasaian]

All of this is interesting but off-topic when you consider my OP and the purpose of the thread.

The questions have not even been approached for the most part.

Premise: There are markets for Azo paper and Kodachrome.

Answer: If yes, then why are people who can make these products not selling them?

Answer: If no, then we can't complain if Kodak does not sell them, right?

The question has nothing to do with EK when you get down to it.

PE

I'll bite.

Is there a market? For AZO yes, for Kodachrome No.
Michael and Paula would I think still be selling AZO if it was available. And I'd still be buying it.
If Kodachrome had a niche in the commercial market to justify it's production then the answer would possibly be yes, but IIRC it dosen't (outside of some postcards.) The individual consumer has pretty much abandoned slide shows of their vacations (I know, it's sad ) and Fuji has become the Kodak of color transparencies. If Kodachrome did make a comeback it would have to compete with a brand that has become the industry standard, and would need the support the labs who can process the stuff to boot, though I'd still shoot Kodachrome but I don't have a slide projector anymore!

Why isn't anyone else making AZO?

Because film is a niche product and contact printing is only really attractive to those of us who shoot 5x7 and larger---a minority fraction of the lf community really---and even many of these blokes are printing digitally. 5x7 and 8x10 enlargers don't grow on trees and, other than conversions like for Beseler 4x5s, take up a lot of space. If Shen, Chomanoix and Canham keep selling 5x7 and WP cameras like hot cakes, there maybe a substantial market for contact paper which I'd suspect a smaller, hungrier company like Foma might tap into. Maybe, in time, even Ilford (Kodak would by then have long lost any market advantage afforded brand loyalty---you guys seem to be pros at that! )

"If no, we can't complain if Kodak does not sell them, right?"

Sure we can complain. It wouldn't do any good but we can complain:rolleyes:

Thats my guess anyway ...its worth exactly what ya' paid for it!

 

[Photo Engineer]

You're right, the original question posed by you really has nothing to do with Kodak, and Kodak did not single out AZO for discontinuance, rather they discontinued all their b/w papers, didn't they?

The REAL QUESTION is: Why is NOBODY producing a FINE ART contact paper for large-format negatives? Is it because the bulk of the LF and ULF photographers are doing "alternate printing" on home-coated papers such as Platinum/Palladium, Kallitype, Cyanotype, etc? Or...is it that modern enlarging papers can produce excellent results from contact printing..or at least good enough for most LF photographers to be satisfied? Or..considering that "some" LF photographers scan and print digitally..has the market become diffuse enough..even with the upswing in LF popularity, that no ONE single product focused exclusively on print production from LF negatives is a viable commercial product? After all, now there are a variety of ways to arrive at a good looking print from a LF negative.

If I understand correctly, an AZO like paper is not (in the realm of emulsion engineering) rocket science. It is a relatively simple product to make. Certainly when compared to VC papers and color paper manufacturing.

I think that you have made a very accurate statement of the conditions out there. The fine art photographers are turning to alternate printing methods. I cannot say I disagree having seen these processes work.

OTOH, your statement about Azo is correct as well. Azo is very very simple to make! That said, IDK what M&P are having problems with, but I think that the company doing the work for them is probably making the process overly complex.

The emulsion takes less than 1 hour to make properly and has exactly 5 - 7 ingredients depending on contrast grade desired. There are problems with scaling, but these can be solved rather easily and I have done it on the scale from 120 - 600 grams. I know how to scale it further from this series and can therefore project how to make a production scale of about 100 Kg.

I would have to assume that the market really is not there except the tiny fraction of those who are only Azocentric (my own made up word). For this reason, no company would want to make it. They would contract to do it, and you would pay them well for this work, but then you would have to hope that you could bring Azo back to life and profitability.

PE

 

[MattKing]

As for Kodachrome, even when it was available it was a small and declining user group. I can't imagine one of the remaining color film producers seeing any worthwhile amount of production in it, even in smaller batches.

Kodachrome used to have a huge user group, especially if you include the movie film.

In fact, I think the largest problem with Kodachrome is that it is best suited for higher volume processing runs. Without the high volume, it becomes uneconomic, and quality control is problematic.

As PE has posted before, some processes don't scale down well.

Matt

 

[Jim Chinn]

There must be some kind of problem on the production end of M&Ps Lodima Fine Art paper as Ron points out. It has been 2 years in research and testing. IIRC they had problems with the contrast of the first batch and thought perhaps aging the paper would help solve that problem.

 

[ilya1963]

I wish M+P would list people that are supporting (with money) them in their endeavor to bring Lodima paper to market , I would be probably in the top 10 if not 5 people ....

Sorry that I may have side tracked this thread , I am trying to stay above ground with THE ever changing and disappearing market , feels like quick sand ...


PE-

Premise: There are markets for Azo paper and Kodachrome.
______
HOW DO WE PROVE THAT THERE ARE MARKETS?

WITH SALES NUMBERS.

MICHAEL AND PAULA WERE THE LAST ACTIVE DEALER FOR THIS STUFF, THEY WOULD BE THE ONLY ONCE TO KNOW DEMAND AND SALES NUMBERS TO ANSWER THIS

THERE ARE NO SALES NUMBER FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS , SO THERE ARE NO INDICATOR

BUT

IF WE LOOK AT WHAT THIS PAPER SELLS FOR ON THE ''BLACK MARKET''

THERE IS MARKET FOR IT AND IT'S RED HOT

 

[Tim Boehm]

PE wrote: “We are told there is a profit opportunity. Why isn't anyone taking advantage of it?”

I’m a computer scientist / software engineer and for years was a legal consultant to large oil and companies. I like to survey unrelated industries and use their successes and failures as models for whatever enterprise I’m involved with (currently software).

I consulted for a very large oil and gas company, in the top 3, you’ve heard of them. They would not even consider drilling a geological prospect unless it had a minimum possible economic return of $20 billion. That’s what they need to survive and perpetuate their corporate culture. Kodak is in that predicament.

That oil and gas company had hundreds of producing properties, but only about 30 properties became “core properties. The “core properties” produced 80% of the company’s $700 billion annual income. People would lower their eyes in reverence when a core property’s name was mentioned. The people who developed a property into a core became legends in the industry. The “core properties” enabled the corporate culture; they were the basis for the company’s existence.

However, dozens of smaller oil and gas companies have become wealthy from the geological prospects that the large companies passed up. That’s the opportunity now knocking for would-be entrepreneurs in the film and paper world. The problem is, to varying degrees, capital, knowledge, equipment/facilities and marketing.

I wrote to Harman about 6 months ago asking for an Azo-like paper. Their 1 line response was there’s no market for it. Clearly, they don’t even think it would be profitable.

I think if you want those kind of products made, you will need to find “champions” for your cause within Harman, Fuji etc. The “champions” need to be convinced of the product’s core potential, after all, their career may be at risk.

Can a few hundred enthusiasts be that convincing? Maybe so, but be prepared to pay for it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tim;

Very very good statement. In this case, the well is running nearly dry for Kodachrome and did for Azo to the extent that they were 'pumping in more money than they got for the revenue it produced even though the well was not dry yet'. And, BTW, Kodachrome is nearly at that point too.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Tim;

Very very good statement. In this case, the well is running nearly dry for Kodachrome and did for Azo to the extent that they were 'pumping in more money than they got for the revenue it produced even though the well was not dry yet'. And, BTW, Kodachrome is nearly at that point too.

PE

Yes, but....Kodak discontinued ALL of it's b/w papers, and yet, there are still a variety of b/w paper makers that seem to derive profit from it. So, it would seem that Kodak couldn't make a profit on a volume that other makers seem to feel is adequate for continued production. (of b/w paper in general).

And, of Azo, specifically, since most, if not all surviving b/w paper plants have in hand similar formulas to AZO, yet choose to not make it, is puzzling. One run a year, or every two years surely could be justified? AZO keeps quite well, I am told.

 

[Craig]

Premise: There are markets for Azo paper and Kodachrome.

Answer: If yes, then why are people who can make these products not selling them?
PE

Given the difficultiy that M&P faced raising money to launch Lodima, I think that realistically the market isn't there, and certainly not profitable for companies like Ilford or Fuji. They all have limited R&D resources, and I'm sure they are devoting those resources to projects that will yield the greatest returns.

Considering the tiny size of the Azo market, relative to papers like Multigrade, the returns probably don't justify the amout of time and effort that would have to be spent on a product like that.

 

[Captain_joe6]

Now, I haven't read the last 15 pages in their entirety, but bear with me:

It would seem to me that with all the people weighing in on a subject like this in the manner that we all are, we could raise nough money to follow in the footsteps of Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee and start ourselves a group venture to produce limited runs of these kinds of products.

I think that doing the opposite of this is exactly where Kodak faild. People have talked about the infrasturctute-scale issue before, it seems to fairly common knowledge. Kodak was set up to create massive amounts of product to feed a very large market. Now the market has shrunk considerably, but the infrastructure remains the same and there is no viable way to run it at half-capacity.

So lets consider doing what Fotoimpex is doing: getting together as many people with as much knowledge as we can, and incorporating ourselves intoa company based on providing the very highest quality products, but in a manner that is viable on a fairly small scale. It's almost always possible to scale up, but it has been proven sevaral times over that scaling down is exceedingly difficult.

If Michael and Paula suceed in their Lodima venture, which I very much hope they will, it would be a fantastic proof of concept.

So why not? Why not seek out some capital and build ourselves a film/paper company? After all, the genius of Kodak was that they produced a consumable product that could not be replenished, but had to be replaced by more Kodak product. Digital sure killed that avenue.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And you see the crux of the matter is that we don't know everything. Why does Fuji make an Azo like paper but choose not to sell it in the US? Why did Agfa cancel Lupex? Why why why......

More questions than answers, but it is quite clear that the market is tiny and profits are tiny. Startup costs are high, so there is an 'energy' barrier.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

There was this one guy, who has posted here, who worked with Efke to make a what? 5 mile long run of film for dye-transfer work? And the product is all sold out, and the remaining roll of subbed base stock is being sold by Photographers Formulary for home coating experiments? It can be done. I am sure that film was harder to make than an Azo like paper. So..coating by subscription could be viable. The "issues" of the future Lodima paper may be just issues in the synergy between M&P and the coating facility they chose to use.

What if a person went to an entity like Agfa/Gevaert, Foma, Ekfe, Harman/Kentmere and said, we want you to quote us on one coating run of a silver chloride contact paper grade 2 from YOUR OWN FORMULA that you HAVE ON FILE, that you USED TO MAKE, in double weight, since we know how hard it is to make single-weight paper. Kentmere does make Centennial Printing-out paper, for one vendor by contract already. That should have even less sales than a Silver-chloride contact paper.

I never understood why M&P made the statement that Lodima couldn't be manufactured in the summer due to the weather. Come-on, don't all emulsion coating plants have to have climate control?

 

[Photo Engineer]

That individual was Jim Browning. And the difference between Jim and M&P is that he developed the formula and the coating method at home with his own money and equipment before he went to EFKE. So, he had a working formula in-hand.

In the case of M&P, presumably they went to a company and said, develop us a formula from scratch. IDK. I did my part by making an emulsion and coating for them and telling them how hard it would be to start from scratch. I know some of the other factors they will run into in the near future if they ever get it running. It is a rocky road ahead.

PE

 

[ilya1963]

M+P ARE THE ONLY ONES OUT THERE THAT HAS SAID THERE WILL BE PAPER .

SO ARE WE QUESTIONING THEIR INTEGRITY AFTER TWO YEARS ?

I THINK WE ARE GROWING IMPATIENT

IT TOOK GREG DAVIS, I THINK, A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET AMIDOL OUT OF CHINA
_____________________________________
PE,

DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T ?

IS LODIMA NOT COMING TO FRUITION?

ALL I HEARD FROM THEM- ... WAITE , BE PATIENT IT'S COMING
----------------------------------

I DON'T WANT ILFORD OR FUJI MAKE IT , I DON'T WANT KODAK MAKE IT

I DON'T WANT IT FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON:

"They would not even consider drilling a geological prospect unless it had a minimum possible economic return of $20 billion. That’s what they need to survive and perpetuate their corporate culture. Kodak is in that predicament."


I WILL DO ALL I CAN TO SUPPORT M+P IN THIS UNTIL I BUST


WHERE WOULD THIS BE IF ILFORD SAID THEY ARE MAKING AZO LIKE PAPER ?

CHEERS AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL...

I AM GOING TO DO PHOTOGRPAHY ........................................

ILYA

 

[Sirius Glass]

M+P ARE THE ONLY ONES OUT THERE THAT HAS SAID THERE WILL BE PAPER ... ORD SAID THEY ARE MAKING AZO LI

Stop shouting at us and turn off the f*cking CAPS!

 

[Tim Boehm]

Assuming Harman could make a suitable paper, maybe the Harman rep would let us know what it would take for them to make a yearly or bi-annual run. Once we know that figure, and if we have enough interested people, we could pool our money. Many years ago, 8 friends and I did that to buy $30K worth of 12x20 TriX. Of course Kodak already made the film, they just specially cut it for us. Harman's paper might cost us $3-5K each, but if that amounted to a long term supply, I'd go for it.

I suppose something similar in concept to a farmers co-operative could be formed.

I searched the net for emulsion coating machines, saw a few, but I really don't know what to look for. Do these coating plants make their own equipment or is there a 3rd party company that sells it?

Personally, I've decided to learn how to make albumen prints. They're beautiful and glossy, but they're not convienent.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ilya;

I know nothing more than what is published on the net about M&P. I did talk to them about it about 2 years ago and that is it except a recent exchange of messages that did not directly involve Lodima. I am familiar with the problems to be faced when trying to make such a product from talking to Jim Browning and from my own experiences at Kodak.

Tim;

Others have posted references to coating machines here. Several companies make them in all sizes. Kodak designs and makes their own. They are phenomenally expensive, hard to maintain and need a trained staff to develop formulas for them and to keep them running properly. A crew of 3 is needed at a minimum to keep a macine is running, but it depends on speed and size. On a big machine or a fast machine, cost goes up. This does not include the emulsion makers and the others testing the product.

Coating anything is not convenient.

PE