Corporations and Big Boobs A commentary.

removed-user-1 · Feb 9, 2010

goldie said:
I think dr5 makes a good point that the name of the product was confusing. Kodak should have named it something other than Tri-X Pro so it was clear that it was a different emulsion.

In the mid-1990's I went into the Wolf Camera in Charlotte (the large "pro" store which is now out of business) and asked for Tri-X TXP 320 in 120 size. The sales clerk informed me that there was no such film, even though there was a brick of it sitting in the fridge right behind him. I once had the same exact experience in another store buying Tech Pan. I don't think this was entirely the fault of Kodak, the salespeople should know their stock; however, there is no doubt that most of Kodak's black-and-white products have been marketed badly.

Kevin Kehler · Feb 9, 2010

rthomas said:
I don't think this was entirely the fault of Kodak, the salespeople should know their stock; QUOTE]

This is part of the issue in any camera store. Most camera companies (including the one I work at) make very little money in the actual products they sell but more in the services they sell. Thus, photofinishing is often the most profitable aspect of a store. A Nikon D3X might have a $1k mark-up (often much less due to competition) but you might only sell several a year. Since most customers are more likely to take Consumers Reports' suggestions for a new camera than a salesperson's suggestion, why spend the money training anyone? As well, there is a glut of people wanting to work for low-wages at camera stores due to any discounts and because many young-people see it as a method of getting into the photography business (incorrect assumption IMO but I see it a lot). Why pay a minimum-wage person who is likely gone in several months to learn anything that the consumer is not going to trust over a random internet posting?

I don't like it but that's the way it runs.

Paul Kierstead · Feb 9, 2010

I also just recently found TXP in 120 and fell in love with it, buying a box of 4x5 and a few pro-packs of 120. Now they go and cancel it. I've been developing in XTOL, which I like very much for other reasons.

What other emulsion in a similar speed, available in 120 and 4x5, and works with similar "look" in XTOL, should I be looking at?

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 9, 2010

Christopher Walrath said:
Back in 2003, IIRC, the Great Yellow Father announced that they would remove themselves from the FILM business in seven years. Looks like they're right about on schedule to me.

Exactly. And here I was starting to think that I was the only one who actually listened to what Kodak was saying.

Everyone seems to think that the reason the film product line at Kodak continues to shrink is because Kodak doesn't know what they are doing, either in management or marketing, or both.

To the contrary, after listening to what they have told us, I believe that Kodak knows exactly what they are doing.

Ken

Darkroom317 · Feb 9, 2010

SuzanneR said:
I can't help but feel that many people (not necessarily photographers) would simply be under the impression that film is no longer manufactured, period.

This has already happened in my area. I get asked far too often when carrying around my Rollei, "can you still find film for that camera?".

I was at the Mid-America photography symposium last May. I was the only one shooting film. One of the classes was taught by a former National Geographic photographer. He didn't know that Kodachrome was still available at that time. The lack of knowledge and advertising is truly sad.

viridari · Feb 9, 2010

Christopher Walrath said:
Back in 2003, IIRC, the Great Yellow Father announced that they would remove themselves from the FILM business in seven years. Looks like they're right about on schedule to me.

If anyone has the original press release or quote bookmarked somewhere, I'd very much like to see that.

apconan · Feb 9, 2010

viridari said:
When you cannot find good footing to attack your opponent on the weakness of their argument, go then for the easy target of their spelling and grammatical errors.

I don't think I saw that in Sun-Tzu.

Too bad I did find weakness in his argument.

fotch · Feb 9, 2010

It would be nice to see what expertise and experience running a large company the posters have when they give advice or criticize these companies. Its not that all posters dont have something to offer, just that some of the posters dont realize they may not know what they are talking about.
It does seem like some just want to bash Kodak and its especially disappointing to see fellow American rooting for their demise. Like watching an a former champion (boxing) getting the crap beat out of him cause he kept competing. Another example: drivers slowing down when driving by a series accident.
Buy from them or dont, why wish such bad on anyone?
Anyones mother ever told you, If you cant say something nice, dont say anything?

tkamiya · Feb 9, 2010

Actually, there is a thread that talks about nearly the same thing and Photo Engineer has commented extensively. Quite informative....

JMC1969 · Feb 9, 2010

I would like a clarification please. The page I saw is a bit conflicting. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmAnnouncements.jhtml It lists that TXP 120/220 "Pro-packs" being discontinued, yet it also doesn't list the film as available. Were Pro-Packs the only way to buy it? And, now they're gone?

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2010

This is incredibly bad news to me. Tri-X 320 (220 format) is the ONLY film I use, and almost the only film I've used for the past eight years.

I not only dislike the alternative film, it will significantly raise my costs and my developing time. And when photographing toddlers, can you imagine having to reload after EVERY fifteen frames?

Oy vey.

- CJ

MikeSeb · Feb 9, 2010

fotch said:
... some of the posters dont realize they may not know what they are talking about.

That's the typical situation when someone doesn't know what s/he's talking about. Otherwise, one hopes that the chatter might cease. Amazing how many people seem to think it's an easy matter to downsize a multibillion-dollar global company.

I love how the not-long-ago-bankrupt Ilford is held up as some paragon of brilliant corporate management and customer "commitment". I hope Ilford stays in business and I've used and liked their products in the past, and would use them again if Kodak falters. But at some point, the total world market for film may be so small that even the "committed" Ilford might not be able to survive.

fotch said:
It does seem like some just want to bash Kodak and its especially disappointing to see fellow American rooting for their demise.

Quite. It's one with the mindset that says, "let's punish Kodak for not offering the products we like by boycotting Kodak's products"; or whining about a company's lack of "commitment", as that fuzzy term means anything in the real world apart from their offering products they can sell at a profit, to the benefit of their shareholders. If you want to feel "special", buy a dog.

The only thing a consumer can or should do is CONSUME. That sends the clearest aggregate signal to a company about what they should make and sell. All the rest---internet whining, petitions---is just wasted effort.

Chazzy · Feb 9, 2010

Cheryl Jacobs said:
This is incredibly bad news to me. Tri-X 320 (220 format) is the ONLY film I use, and almost the only film I've used for the past eight years.

I not only dislike the alternative film, it will significantly raise my costs and my developing time. And when photographing toddlers, can you imagine having to reload after EVERY fifteen frames?

Oy vey.

- CJ

I share your frustration. I hope that you have room in your freezer to lay in a big stash of the stuff, while it can still be bought.

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2010

Chazzy said:
I share your frustration. I hope that you have room in your freezer to lay in a big stash of the stuff, while it can still be bought.

I need the film more than I need the food. I'll empty the freezer.

Chazzy · Feb 9, 2010

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I need the film more than I need the food. I'll empty the freezer.

Good luck on being able to find all the film you want to stash.

white.elephant · Feb 9, 2010

Anyone actually have the data?

While I've never used TXP, I can certainly feel the pain of those who, like Cheryl, count on the product. If Ilford suddenly announced they were doing away with FP4, I'd be screaming. But I have a question maybe someone can answer.

Occasionally you hear rumors that the film market has stabilized, or maybe even recovered a little. Kodak themselves has stated, it seems, that sales of Tri-X 400 are 'healthy.'

Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Does anyone anywhere have any real evidence to support either of these ideas at all? Or are we just all fooling ourselves and totally delusional?

I'm sure that TXP was discontinued because it no longer was profitable enough and didn't move quickly enough to prevent spoilage. But how close are we exactly to that fate with other products? Does anyone really know?

I don't quite know what I'd actually do with the data if it is available, but I would really like to separate fact from hope.

rhmimac · Feb 9, 2010

Buy lots of it ... It's the only remedy in the kapitalist world to keep things running.

Amen.

rhmimac

Steve Smith · Feb 9, 2010

white.elephant said:
Occasionally you hear rumors that the film market has stabilized, or maybe even recovered a little. Kodak themselves has stated, it seems, that sales of Tri-X 400 are 'healthy.'

Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Does anyone anywhere have any real evidence to support either of these ideas at all? Or are we just all fooling ourselves and totally delusional?

Unlike Kodak and Fujifilm, Ilford does not rely on the movie business so perhaps their sales figures more accurately represent the trend in film sales.

Steve.

SuzanneR · Feb 9, 2010

Cheryl Jacobs said:
This is incredibly bad news to me. Tri-X 320 (220 format) is the ONLY film I use, and almost the only film I've used for the past eight years.

I not only dislike the alternative film, it will significantly raise my costs and my developing time. And when photographing toddlers, can you imagine having to reload after EVERY fifteen frames?

Oy vey.

- CJ

Cheryl... I hear ya, and I've used it plenty for similar reasons. There were times, however, when I found it's limitations in certain light frustrating, so I would shoot the regular tri-x, and my best solution to this problem with running out of frames is having more backs for the camera. Not a perfect solution, I know, but I find changing backs easier than reloading film. I have 4 120 backs for my RZ, and I load them up ahead of time, and 4 rolls of 120 for a portrait gig seems to work well for me at 10 frames a roll in 6x7 format.

I can process them all together, two tanks, four reels (unless the light was really changeable), and I don't have the headaches with highlights (especially when they wear white ugh...) as I found with TXP when printing.

Hope you find a good way to deal with it. It sucks.

dr5chrome · Feb 9, 2010

Suz ..I would agree! I think the problem here was marketing the 2 TriX films mostly. Kodak & Ilford do need each other.

I luv you tu Bruce...!

..damn! could have sworn I did a spell check!!

dw

SuzanneR said:
Competition is good... if Kodak were to discontinue ALL film products, I think, would be bad for Ilford. I can't help but feel that many people (not necessarily photographers) would simply be under the impression that film is no longer manufactured, period. And, I think, if there's only one company left standing, then any bump in the road they might hit, would be bad news for the few photographers who stuck it out.

If Kodak needs to discontinue a poor selling film (despite my efforts, as I've routinely used 220 format TXP over the past few years.) to save the rest of it, then that's something I'll adjust to. I like the regular Tri-x, and I'm going to try TMY and Fp4 next. I want to know, and understand more than one film, from more than one manufacturer.

GeorgeDexter · Feb 9, 2010

white.elephant said:
Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
QUOTE]

What does Hollywood use B&W film for?

Ektagraphic · Feb 9, 2010

dr5chrome said:
Today there are allot less knowledgeable people about film because of the digital market, let alone the many who simply don't know that there are 2 TriX films. As a lab I cant tell you how many times I have to explain this fact.

I didn't know about this great film until fairly recently actually. I can see right where you are coming from.

T42 · Feb 9, 2010

GeorgeDexter said:
...What does Hollywood use B&W film for?

Wasn't Schindler's List shot on Kodak B&W film, at least in part? Isn't there an enthusiasts group which is focused on exploring Kodak's cine film for use in 35mm film cameras? Project Double-X or some such?

A few years ago Kodak changed their logo. IIRC, I read that it was to detach themselves from the common perception that they were just the big film company, or some such thing.

T42 · Feb 9, 2010

Here's a bit about Project Double-X:

Dead Link Removed

Here are some words about Kodak's trademark switcheroo:

http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002512.html

Ektagraphic · Feb 9, 2010

Darkroom317 said:
This has already happened in my area. I get asked far too often when carrying around my Rollei, "can you still find film for that camera?"

This happens to me almost once everytime I am out in a populated area to shoot. It is amazing how quickly the digital revolution went.

Corporations and Big Boobs  A commentary.

removed-user-1

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Corporations and Big Boobs A commentary.