Corporations and Big Boobs – A commentary.

[Darkroom317]

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

I truly think that the lack of marketing has something to do with it.

 

[aluk]

What does Hollywood use B&W film for?

The opening scene of Casino Royale was shot with Kodak b/w film (the double-x referenced above).

 

[DLawson]

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.

By all indications that I can see, Kodak sees itself as a major-market imaging company.

For about a century, film was both a major market and the dominant form of imaging. Now it is neither. How close the film market is to Kodak's low-water mark for not bothering, I have no clue. But it seem certain that it gets closer every quarter.

I'm sad about it all, but not terribly surprised -- well, a bit surprised in the sense that I always took Kodak's presence in the film market for granted.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I have posted on the other thread re the demise of some KODAK products : I do realise film choice is a very emotional thing with people...

Suzanne R I think puts it very well, my take is similar Losing a film, any film, is actually bad news for photography and all of us who love analog photography , and anybody involved in sales knows that when one product goes, a good proportion of those sales go forever and do not move to other suppliers.

Also, I have used KODAK products, and also known and respected KODAK as a competitor for over 25 years, they always made great products, have made some of the greatest step changes and technological advances photography has ever seen... and I am sure will continue to do so for many decades to come.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

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.

Suzanne,

It's not as big a deal on simple portrait sessions. However, this weekend I'll be in Arkansas doing an all-day shoot for an ad campaign. I typically go through at least 12 - 15 rolls of 220, which I can develop three at a time. Can you imagine how much more painful it's going to be to develop 24 - 30 rolls? And how much more expensive?

Ugh. It makes my head hurt.

- CJ

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne,

It's not as big a deal on simple portrait sessions. However, this weekend I'll be in Arkansas doing an all-day shoot for an ad campaign. I typically go through at least 12 - 15 rolls of 220, which I can develop three at a time. Can you imagine how much more painful it's going to be to develop 24 - 30 rolls? And how much more expensive?

Ugh. It makes my head hurt.

- CJ

You have my profound sympathy and empathy on this. Life is too short for 120 film, isn't it?

 

[Ektagraphic]

Suzanne,

It's not as big a deal on simple portrait sessions. However, this weekend I'll be in Arkansas doing an all-day shoot for an ad campaign. I typically go through at least 12 - 15 rolls of 220, which I can develop three at a time. Can you imagine how much more painful it's going to be to develop 24 - 30 rolls? And how much more expensive?

Ugh. It makes my head hurt.

- CJ

I feel sorry for you but thank you for still doing some commercial work/paid portrait work on film!

 

[mikebarger]

Cheryl

Have you experimented with the two 120's on a 220 reel, or two 120's back to back on a 120 reel?

I don't shoot 220 in B&W and my 120 usage doesn't ever amount to more than four reels at one time, so I've not tried either, but I've noticed several people here use these methods.

Just a thought,

Mike

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I typically go through at least 12 - 15 rolls of 220, which I can develop three at a time. Can you imagine how much more painful it's going to be to develop 24 - 30 rolls? And how much more expensive?

Time to start processing in Jobo tanks.
With a big tank you can do it in two batches.
Fast and cheap.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Sanders, I don't have that kind of money to invest in Jobo tanks right now. Not in this economy. Maybe in a few years.

Mike, I haven't, simply because I'm a bit freaked out by the number of things that could go wrong. I may have to try.

Ekta, it's what I do. I'm a film person, and I'm grateful to have clients who appreciate that.

For my purposes this weekend, I've decided to go 35mm. It's the best compromise, although I HATE that I have to compromise on the way I want to work. It's a first for me. It's still better than the permanent digital option. Ugh. Yuck.

- CJ

 

[dr5chrome]

as was stated below, simply buy 1/2" 1hr photo tape and tape 2 ends of 120s together [cut the tape to med.format width ahead of time]. line the rolls up on a straight-edge in the dark and tape both sides. as long as you tape straight, the spliced rolls should go on the 220 reel. best that you use HEWES reels for this. I have done this and it works well.

this still doesn't solve TXP.

dw

Suzanne,

It's not as big a deal on simple portrait sessions. However, this weekend I'll be in Arkansas doing an all-day shoot for an ad campaign. I typically go through at least 12 - 15 rolls of 220, which I can develop three at a time. Can you imagine how much more painful it's going to be to develop 24 - 30 rolls? And how much more expensive?

Ugh. It makes my head hurt.

- CJ

 

[white.elephant]

For my purposes this weekend, I've decided to go 35mm. It's the best compromise, although I HATE that I have to compromise on the way I want to work.

- CJ

What film are you going to use?

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

What film are you going to use?

For this weekend, I've decided to resort to 35mm and Tri-X 400. It will be sufficient for this project. After that, I don't know. I'll figure something out. I absolutely hate Tmax with a passion, so it won't be that. I am not terribly fond of Tri-X 400, but it may be the lesser evil. I do plan to do more tests with HP5; it's never been my favorite, but maybe I can find a way to like it more. The biggest pain factor is that whatever I go to will have to be 120. I resent that.

I just can't believe that there is no other 220 B&W option. Unbelievable.

 

[dr5chrome]

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."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.
--internet whining, petitions---is just wasted effort.

hmmmm...

I find this argument/post very flawed, especially in a forum such as this. Is it not what many do here? [forgive me for the ones that don’t vent].

This would be the 1st time I have voiced such an opinion and I feel I have the right to do so.. For the record, While I am no huge conglomerate, I have made many sacrifices to stay in business, including drastic downsizing and relocation. I keep it going because I think dr5 [& film processing] is important to photography. We make enough to pay the bills. This is the reality of photography today. Ask Sean if he makes a boat load of money keeping APUG going.

I never said 'lets punish Kodak and not use them'. I said they were not being smart by eliminating a staple film and the reasons from a lab perspective as to why TXP was not selling. STILL, @ 5% of their total films sales TXP sales is nothing to shake a stick at!

There is a question here of 'profit' and 'losing money'. Is Kodak 'losing money' on TXP? I doubt it. Is Kodak committed to photography or the dollar?

I would argue with anyone that I had the right to make this original post. Not because I hate KODAK. I need KODAK. I need ILFORD. I need EFKE & ROLLEI/MACO. I would hope that these companies need dr5. .. as I believe dr5 processes most of these companies B&W films better than any other development. Believe this or not, some do, and all it does is sell more film!

The dr5 website advertises ALL the B&W films, FREE. We promote ALL the films use. The only company we have EVER gotten 'thanks' from is ROLLEI/MACO for promoting their films. Never once have we gotten thanks from Kodak or Ilford for promoting their films or producing the exceptional image quality dr5 produces.

So for once, do I have the right to vent what we feel is a very foolish move by Kodak? ...yes

dr5

 

[apconan]

why are you advertising your own service
why are you complaining about not receiving thanks from kodak? you speak like you deserve thanks. you don't, they didn't ask you to 'promote their films'

and you obviously don't know anything about business if you are comparing your own downsizing to that of a corporation. any ant can lift something several times it's weight and carry it long distances. a human can't. the same can be said for a corporation. because of it's size, it is relatively less flexible than a small business

 

[brian d]

they didn't ask you to 'promote their films'

Maybe they should have...

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

why are you advertising your own service
why are you complaining about not receiving thanks from kodak? you speak like you deserve thanks. you don't, they didn't ask you to 'promote their films'

and you obviously don't know anything about business if you are comparing your own downsizing to that of a corporation. any ant can lift something several times it's weight and carry it long distances. a human can't. the same can be said for a corporation. because of it's size, it is relatively less flexible than a small business

With all (or any) due respect, I fail to see what your issue is with David. He has a legitimate point and is in a somewhat unique and qualified position to comment on Kodak's activities. It directly affects his business, as it does mine. I do not see that you are contributing anything valuable to the conversation.

If you have nothing of any more substance to add, perhaps it's time to leave this thread alone.

Thanks in advance.

- CJ

 

[mikebarger]

Cheryl

I don't know...

First, I don't have a dog in this fight...never ever used TXP...only use 220 color for family snaps.

I went back and looked at your posts and see a small business person concerned about the impact this decision is having on your business. Honest concern as to how it is going to affect your livelihood. I don't see any claims about you being the best at your profession.

I can also see David is concerned and upset about the decision, the impact on his livelihood, but I also see the plugging of a business mixed in the post.

I don't give a hoot if it's there or not (heck I don't even know what a DR5 is), but looks to me like there is a commercial there.

With no disrespect.

Mike

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Mike Mike,

David is also a small business who is affected by this. And any small business owner will tell you that it is a grave mistake, particularly in this economy, to not mention your business at every opportunity. It's marketing 101.

Regardless of whether or not anyone feels there's a "commercial" in there, he still has a legitimate point from a rather unique perspective.

And I am the best at what I do. Ha. (Just kidding.)

 

[2F/2F]

In light of the recent announcement that Kodak was giving the AX to TXP roll film, I just could no longer keep my mouth shut.

TXP is one of the best B&W films on the market. I don't think that there is much of an argument to this fact in this arena. This has to be the stupidest move I have ever seen a company make! To Delete the best product out of their line is truly short sided & dim-witted.

Surly These grown men and women know how to do their jobs. In this circumstance, this is not just a numbers game. 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.
The facts are that Kodak themselves caused the failure and low sales of TXP by not effectively marketing the 2 separate films.

It is my opinion that Kodak should do a better job in marketing TXP before even considering eliminating this staple film, but given a choice between 'TX' & 'TXP', Kodak should pick the better of these 2 films and make TXP the "TriX" film across the board.

I think it is time for Kodak to sell their film division as ILFORD did. We will be less likely to see Corporation-boobs discontinue anymore films. There is no reason Kodak can not make limited runs of this emulsion instead of totally wiping off the map.

dr5

Ditto. By now, we should know to expect the bi-annual moron reports...but this one really threw me. TXP was definitely their most special film, IMO, with TX right behind.

How is it that sheet sales of the emulsion are stable, but not medium format? If anything, I have always had a hard time finding TX in 120, not TXP. The only walk-in store in which I have ever seen TX in 120 is Freestyle. Everywhere else, when you say "120 Tri-X", it is assumed you mean TXP, and the TX is not even stocked.

 

[dr5chrome]

Mike. All of my posts are commercials, when it comes right down to it. Though I fail to see how you and conan see that this is an AD. I was simply making a sound reply to a post. This is what I bring to the photographic table, like it or not. This would be the case for dozens of other posters on this forum, I wont name them.

dw

Cheryl

I don't know...

First, I don't have a dog in this fight...never ever used TXP...only use 220 color for family snaps.

I went back and looked at your posts and see a small business person concerned about the impact this decision is having on your business. Honest concern as to how it is going to affect your livelihood. I don't see any claims about you being the best at your profession.

I can also see David is concerned and upset about the decision, the impact on his livelihood, but I also see the plugging of a business mixed in the post.

I don't give a hoot if it's there or not (heck I don't even know what a DR5 is), but looks to me like there is a commercial there.

With not disrespect.

Mike

Mike

 

[mikebarger]

I could have spell checked that a little better.

Hope I didn't come across as saying you shouldn't promote your business. I just think Cheryl's style is a little more discrete, not as bold. Did I say I'm a blue's and jazz guy, not hard rock?

Mike

 

[jeroldharter]

I don't use that film. I recently read a business/political article about how failing countries and corporations go to great lengths to hide debt and have no real plans to pay it back. Sound familiar? Of course, the US was high on the list and that was the main focus. But on the short list of companies that made the cut, I noticed Kodak. If they are a bunch of morons then they will inevitably screw up. But I suspect that they are simply desperate.

Over the past 10 years, their share price has gone from $60 per share to $6 per share. How many of us could afford that? Kodak's debt to equity ratio is 66. Yikes. I would be throwing a lot overboard if my life were in that condition. For FY 2009 they had sales of 7.6 billion dollars. So they must be rich. Only they lost 233 million dollars. That is a quarter billion dollar loss in one year. In the end, Kodak can't run themselves like our government (or at least for not as long). They must be responsible or extinct. I use a lot of Kodak products and wish that it made sense for Kodak to sell off its analog business. I don't know who would buy it or what it would cost. Maybe all of these keen business people on APUG could chip in.

 

[2F/2F]

It would be nice if Ilford would buy their film division and offer both lines.

 

[tim elder]

The biggest pain factor is that whatever I go to will have to be 120. I resent that.

I just can't believe that there is no other 220 B&W option. Unbelievable.

As much as it's frustrating to be forced to change, there are certainly ways to use 120 film in professional situations and I am sure that you will be able to adapt. It certainly sucks that you have the double-whammy of losing your favorite film and the only 220 b&w film available. Good luck and let us know how it shakes out.

Tim