Could traditional photography products go the way of the micro-brewery?

Uncle Bill · Jan 3, 2007

I have been following this thread with interest, I would classify Fotomipex and JandC as "Microbrewers".

Kodak's big problems are management and their vision for the company. As pointed out, all the Executive suite come from outside the Photo Imaging industry and honestly, in their heads, it all comes down, how many units did we move, be it rolls of Tri-x, sensors, Digi point and shoot crap etc. That is the reason why the company is sick.

One thing I noticed while looking for work in the public relations field, the Kodak website has no page for media releases or community relations. The conference calls made to the money managers raise hackles here, because Wall St gets the message that film does not matter. Meanwhile, film and photofinishing is still carrying the business as pointed out in the numbers quoted in this thread.

Now compare that to a Fujifilm site in your country/region of residence and Simon's active participation on this site on behalf of Ilford is brilliant community relations practice.

What I am getting at is Kodak could care less about the long time customer, at least that is how the optics look.

At this stage of the game if somebody had any brains, Big Yellow wants to get burned in digital world, licsence off the Film business to someone who cares about the product and can do a better job of it.

Kodak's true survival would be something more along the lines of Ilford/Harmon technology. If anything I would cut the digital camera side of the equation and focus on the graphic design, medical and film/photofinishing side of the business and that can include inks and printers for digital output. To use the old cliche, stick to what you do best

Bill

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2007

Bill;

People see what they want to see. This following statement of yours is simply not correct!

Kodak has had about 3 members of senior management that were from outside of the company!

"As pointed out, all the Executive suite come from outside the Photo Imaging industry"

These were, Fisher, Perez, and the current director of research.

I am surprised at the willingness to perpetuate myths here. For better or worse, Kodak has promoted from within.

PE

jd callow · Jan 3, 2007

Assuming success for Kodak is to become as profitable as it once was, then Kodak needs to change from what it once was. If Kodak fails it will be management's doing. Management will have failed to navigate the ever changing topography of the imaging marketplace.

If success for Kodak is to continue to champion film then it is all but certain that Kodak will be an ever shrinking company.

For my purposes Kodak makes the best film and chemistry and some of the best papers.

I can't say whether it is possible to have micro brewed emulsions. It sure seems that you should be able to on paper. A medium sized player in the 1930's would be the equivalent to a Micro brewer today. Today's Technologies, and the slave wages paid in many countries (and their attendant laissez-faire governments) should go a long way toward making micro brewed photo products a viable business opportunity.

There is also the off chance that companies like J & C will pursue this with success – fingers ccrossed.

Sadly, the start-up costs seem to be so high that I don't see much happening without it being done the Wal-Mart way.

zenrhino · Jan 4, 2007

Donald Miller said:
I will make a bold statement at this juncture...Make a jump to coating your own film and paper at this time and I can guarantee that you will see the demise of all film and paper. In fact I will take any and all bets on that.

I'd like to agree and further extrapolate on Don's point.

The main syllogism of this thread appears to be:

"All commercial film is (or is in grave danger of) coming to a halt."
"Making and coating film is so fraught with error and QA problems that it is unfeasable to do in a boutique setting."
"Making and coating our own film and paper is the only chance we have to survive the impending market crash."

My three points:

1) Regarding a panicked march away from commercial film/paper to hand-made products, I must agree with Don. If PE's statements about QA are correct (and we have zero reason to believe otherwise -- he is the authority) then we must do what seems counter-intuitive: Buy and USE more of the products that we need. Only by providing a profitable revenue stream will companies with top-end QA keep producing the products we need. If Kodak, Ilford and Fuji raise the price 5-fold to meet costs (we can hope they wouldn't just gouge us), we simply must keep paying it.

The corollary of this is that we must examine whether continued support of comparitively low-quality products (Foma, Efke, Arista.edu, etc.) is harming the film market. By putting our money into low-cost and low quality products, we deny those moneies to the very companies who have the motivation and/or ability to give us the highest standards of quality in film. I'll put my money where my mouth is on this one and pledge to buy nothing but high-quality films from now on. Photography isn't my hobby, it isn't my pastime, it isn't my diversion. Photography -- analog, shot on film and printed on fiber photography -- it's my art and I will pay what it costs for quality materials to keep that medium alive.

2) To expand, however -- We must also learn the art and science of emulsions. We must retake our medium, not as conquerers but as custodians. By people like PE and his students working to create plate/film/paper products, we spread that knowledge back out as the volkskultur of photography. That knowledge may be esoteric, but it will be there as a hedge against a market collapse in film and also a way to replace extinct products like Azo. How will we know we've succeeded in this? I think when this is required in BFA programs, that's a pretty good sign.

3) Lastly, we simply must expand the "gene pool" of photographic science. Recruiting Holga shooters is a great idea, but we also need to be recruiting people to think about chemical engineering, industrial engineering, etc. If there are less than 200 people in the world who know this science, and we can assume some of them are near or past retirement, it seems a great deal of money could be made for a bright, ambitious person who wants to go into the field.

Thanks for reading, and thanks to guys like PE and Gainer for their dedication to the medium.

Uncle Bill · Jan 4, 2007

PE,

The main problem is about myths surrounding Kodak is the company does not have a coherant message to its different stakeholders (shareholders, staff, Rochester NY, and most importantly the customer). As a result, people are wondering what Big Yellows intentions are.

That could be due to corporate culture refering to Roger Hick's post on talking to a senior Kodak person, from where I am sitting, secracy is deeply engrained. I am basing these comments as someone outside the industry.

You have a good idea what's going on inside Big Yellow, we don't by virtue not being current or former employees of said organization.

Bill

gr82bart · Jan 4, 2007

I think this thread is meandering a bit, but that's OK. I like the microbrewery concept.

Let's examine why folks who started micro-breweries did so. Did they analyze the market and get into it because they felt the Coors and Buds of the world were going down in financial flames? No. Did their disagree so much with the management of those firms to start their own as means of protest? No. Etc...

They started micro-breweries because the like beer. Period.

Forget Kodak or Fuji or Agfa or Ilford or whatever and their respective past and present management. None of that should have any bearing on anyone starting up a micro-photography materials company. Seriously.

If someone likes it and wants it badly enough, they'll do it. Otherwise they're like all the rest of us arm chair internet know it alls on everything.

Regards, Art.

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2007

Zenrhino;

You have said it very well! Thanks.

Bill;

Kodak's biggest problem is marketing and the way they treat small customers. They never seem to 'get it'. But, this all came from within, not from without. Fisher tried to change some of that, but IMHO Carp 'reset the clock'.

I just wish them well. It is discouraging though to drive by Kodak Park and see all of the empty holes where buildings used to be. Kind of like a mouth with missing teeth.

PE

Jim Chinn · Jan 4, 2007

I think the only way you will see small micro or boutique manufacturers is when Ilford and Kodak quit making materials. The best way to make that a reality is to not buy products from Ilford and Kodak.

The problem is, when Kodak and Ilford are gone, there goes consistency and quality. I read threads about other film not being cut correctly, wrong emulsions in wrong boxes, notches on sheet film on the wrong corner, fogging in the box etc.

If I have to pay more, I would rather pay for quality and consitency from Kodak or Ilford. Just the fact that I feel I have to waste a sheet from every box testing probably makes the rest of the sheets the same cost as the Ilford. I do buy film and paper from other companies besides Kodak and Ilford. But the bulk of my money goes to Ilford to help insure a steady supply of high quality materials well into the future.

copake_ham · Jan 4, 2007

I guess I should have prefaced my original comments by noting that I am a consumer of film - not paper products etc. so my perspective is based on what I see happening to film usage.

Kodak is an accurate barometer of the business because they have been the flagship producer for so long. Regardless of whether one likes Perez or the direction he is taking the company - it is evident that K sees its future as a digital one and has been milking the cash cow film division for a number of years now.

As I noted, a telling example of that is that I saw no advertisements for film products this past holiday season (probably the biggest shooting time of the year). This is consonant with a "cash cow" approach. K had accepted the inevitable decline and eventual demise of film in its long-term business model and so will not even invest advertising dollars to encourage (or just maintain) sales growth.

But, come to think of it, how many ads did you see this past holiday time for Fujifilm products?

The other sad reality is that the Kodak product, together with F and I remains the standard of quality. With all do respect to Forte and other smaller manufacturers - I do not think many here would argue that their product quality meets, much less surpasses that of K, F or I. So the loss of K or F or I would mean a further decline in the availability of quality film products.

What would be a hopeful sign, frankly, is if K would spin-off its traditional products business much as was the case with Ilford. Perhaps with a stand-alone film products orientation, the management of that organization would work hard to promote their products and seek to preserve film-based technologies.

But I fear that K's plan is to run-down the traditional line so far that no one will be able to operate a viable successor from the ruins.

In closing, let me apologize if I was a cause of this thread going astray.

Paul Howell · Jan 4, 2007

I think that just as Kodak spun off it chemistry line at some point it will spin off it's film and paper line. Given that there are well over 6 billion folks in the world there will be a small market for silver based film and paper for the next decade at least. Rumor has it some shops are seeing increased in film and paper sales, some customers are returning to traditional film and paper.

Some of surplus coating units that Kodak or others have may wind in the hands of a micro photo film and paper start up. Who knows.

sjperry · Jan 5, 2007

Predicting the future of film in the face of rapid digital growth is tough. But in a somewhat analagous situation, I recall that Super 8 went the way of the dinosaur as far as the consumer market was concerned. That was mid 80's or about 20 years ago. But there remains today a small market for Super 8 film. Small professional outfits use it, and Kodak does still manufacture it (who knows for how long). Other companies such as Pro8 cut down larger film stock like 70mm and package it in the cassettes as Super 8 film.

Now the situation isn't quite analagous, because large manufacturers like Kodak and Fuji still make the larger cine film stock. I guess my point is that where there is demand, the free market will fill it. Oddly enough, while digital products are now the majority of Kodak's income, its not profitable. Their film is. - it is keeping them afloat. My thoughts are keep buying and using film! Our best hope is that there are enough of us die hard film enthusiasts that film demand will drop to a point and level out. If that level is sufficient to still interest one or more of the big manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak, etc. - great. If not then maybe a somewhat smaller company (Adox, others?) will continue. A really small garage type operation would probably have consistency problems and the cost might be many times higher than present costs.

I also agree with the concept mentioned by others of promoting film and film cameras as "real" photography for serious photogs. Just a summary of my wandering thoughts.

Justin Cormack · Jan 5, 2007

Copake_ham
Actually the big Fuji posters over here in the Christmas season were the "Even when I am not shooting film I use Fuji memory cards" ones, which give that subtle reminder that you are shooting film too.

gr82bart · Jan 5, 2007

Jim Chinn said:
I think the only way you will see small micro or boutique manufacturers is when Ilford and Kodak quit making materials. The best way to make that a reality is to not buy products from Ilford and Kodak.

Not at all. Microbreweries didn't start up because Coors or Bud went under. Quite the contrary.

The problem is, when Kodak and Ilford are gone, there goes consistency and quality. I read threads about other film not being cut correctly, wrong emulsions in wrong boxes, notches on sheet film on the wrong corner, fogging in the box etc.

Maybe, probably at the bbegining. Maybe not. I thionk everyone would agree that a beer from a microbrewery is of far superior quality than a Coors or Bud.

Another analogy would be the food from a restaurant is in general of better quality than from a chain, like McDonalds.

If I have to pay more, I would rather pay for quality and consitency from Kodak or Ilford. Just the fact that I feel I have to waste a sheet from every box testing probably makes the rest of the sheets the same cost as the Ilford. I do buy film and paper from other companies besides Kodak and Ilford. But the bulk of my money goes to Ilford to help insure a steady supply of high quality materials well into the future.

Quality in organizations ebb and flow. I wouldn't assume anything. I personally consider Ilford a larger boutique firm.

Regards, Art.

Henning Serger · Jan 5, 2007

Hallo,

I want to refer to the original question of this thread, if it is possible to produce low volumes of films or papers with high quality.

Yes, it is possible: Look at FilmoTec (Wolfen, Germany). They produce the Rollei Pan 25, Rollei Ortho 25 and the Rollei R³ for Maco.
Rollei Pan 25 and Ortho 25 are niche products with a low production volume, but with a very high quality due to modern production technology, excellent staff and quality control (R³ is produced on higher volumes, because it is also used as a traffic surveillance film).

And according to the information I recently got here in Germany about the cooperation of the former agfa engineers with fotoimpex, I am optimistic that we will see high quality products from them in the future.

And look at Ilfords SFX project: one-day production, low production volume and I think Ilford will give us the quality we want. I've never had a bad Ilford product.

Best regards,
Henning

Simon R Galley · Jan 11, 2007

Dear All,

A very interesting thread...I will do a more detailed reply when I have some available time: One clear offer though, so many people are interested in photo coating and technology I am more than willing to arrange a full and in depth tour of our factory here in the UK, emulsion making, coating and finishing say a 6 hour tour with our experts to show and tell. We did this for APUGGERS last year and they really enjoyed it : I would need a minimum of 30 people : As an FYI American, Delta, Continental & US airways all fly to Manchester airport ( 30 minutes away ) off peak fares can be as low as $ 400 , one hours drive away is the English Lake District, a very, very photogenic landscape....late May or Early June would be a good time...its up to you !

Better still we can debate the future of film over lunch !

Kind Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Dave Miller · Jan 11, 2007

As one of those fortunate enough to enjoy the last tour, I cannot recommend this offer highly enough.

Simon R Galley said:
Dear All,

A very interesting thread...I will do a more detailed reply when I have some available time: One clear offer though, so many people are interested in photo coating and technology I am more than willing to arrange a full and in depth tour of our factory here in the UK, emulsion making, coating and finishing say a 6 hour tour with our experts to show and tell. We did this for APUGGERS last year and they really enjoyed it : I would need a minimum of 30 people : As an FYI American, Delta, Continental & US airways all fly to Manchester airport ( 30 minutes away ) off peak fares can be as low as $ 400 , one hours drive away is the English Lake District, a very, very photogenic landscape....late May or Early June would be a good time...its up to you !

Better still we can debate the future of film over lunch !

Kind Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

SchwinnParamount · Jan 11, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Here is a rough outline of the flow and equipment used in making a film.

1. A desktop PC or MAC with software to assist in design of an emulsion. This models the process and tells the designer what things are inside and outside the tolernaces of good practice. The operator has full control and override. The resultant emulsion formula is put out as a code disk and a printout for the lab tech on what to mix and how to setup the equipment.

2. A desktop PC with a process control board with Digital to Analog and Analog to Digital converters connected to pumps and relays to control solution flow and temperature as well as mixer speed. The control code disk runs this process and the technician charges the equipment with the proper chemicals and presses a "RUN" button on the computer.

...

Someone earlier suggested that having to go back to 1930's film technology would be acceptable in the face of a total loss of mass-produced film. It was also suggested that having 50's technology film wouldn't be such a bad thing... indeed it would not! AA made most of his best images on an older technology.

Also, there were no PC's in the 50's and a very limited supply of 'main-frames'... which I can guarantee you, were not being used to control coating machines. What's my point? you really don't need dang computers to make stuff work. I hope nobody at my company (Microsoft) reads this!

Alex Hawley · Jan 11, 2007

SchwinnParamount said:
Someone earlier suggested that having to go back to 1930's film technology would be acceptable in the face of a total loss of mass-produced film. It was also suggested that having 50's technology film wouldn't be such a bad thing... indeed it would not! AA made most of his best images on an older technology.

Also, there were no PC's in the 50's and a very limited supply of 'main-frames'... which I can guarantee you, were not being used to control coating machines. What's my point? you really don't need dang computers to make stuff work. I hope nobody at my company (Microsoft) reads this!

Well, yes and no on the technology era. My point was that the film may have the level of quality control that one of a previous era did due to several factors. But controlling the process with analog controls was not one of them. Take it from an "old hand", digital process controllers are far more simpler, more precise, and easier to setup/maintain than the old analog systems were. In fact, if it were not for digital process control, the mini-coating line may not qualify as being "mini". It would certainly be a PITA and get FUBAR fairly often.

Photo Engineer · Jan 11, 2007

SchwinnParamount said:
Someone earlier suggested that having to go back to 1930's film technology would be acceptable in the face of a total loss of mass-produced film. It was also suggested that having 50's technology film wouldn't be such a bad thing... indeed it would not! AA made most of his best images on an older technology.

Also, there were no PC's in the 50's and a very limited supply of 'main-frames'... which I can guarantee you, were not being used to control coating machines. What's my point? you really don't need dang computers to make stuff work. I hope nobody at my company (Microsoft) reads this!

As I have stated elsewhere, I am trying to reproduce the 40s look and types of film and paper, using modern methods that can be used in a small home darkroom.

So, from my point of view, I agree with you.

I was asked what it would take to make a modern film, I believe, and that is what I did. I certainly don't think the average person would do that, but OTOH, to make a good modern film, either Agfa or Ilford or Kodak type with that type of quality and characteristics, you need process control.

So, if someone had the goal of bringing back modern Agfa products, they would need a fair amount of that automated equipment.

In fact, many of the quality complaints I have seen posted here reflect the lack of that very type of equipment on the part of many second and third tier companies.

PE

bjorke · Jan 11, 2007

I intend to make my own cameras too

'fab@home' is just the beginning.....

PHOTOTONE · Jan 12, 2007

bjorke said:
I intend to make my own cameras too

'fab@home' is just the beginning.....

Yeah, well, making your own cameras (of certain types) is not all that complicated if you have woodworking skills...what would be a difficult task is designing and grinding your own lenses. How about a nice new Dagor?

aldevo · Jan 18, 2007

jstraw said:
American beer sucked *until* there were micro-breweries.

American beer ROCKED until there were supermarkets (and, therefore, a need to make the stuff so that it lasted 6 months in a can).

copake_ham · Jan 18, 2007

aldevo said:
American beer ROCKED until there were supermarkets (and, therefore, a need to make the stuff so that it lasted 6 months in a can).

I could be mistaken - but I believe that canned beer was developed for the American GIs during WWII and only came into the consumer market after the war?

Hey OT's, wasn't Shlitz the first to offer canned beer in the US consumer market? :confused:

aldevo · Jan 18, 2007

O/T but...

Yes, that's true. And the supermarket was, basically, a post-WW II phenomenon.

The second maker was, I believe Anchor Steam out of San Francisco. In fact, I can recall at least one USA comic strip that always showed beer cans with an anchor on it.

Ironically, the introduction of its canned beer BANKRUPTED Anchor....

Even more ironically, the first major microbrew in the USA, as far as I can recall, WAS Anchor when it was resurrected by Fritz Maytag around 1981.

Photo Engineer · Jan 18, 2007

You know, with 18,000 members, I have learned after reading this thread that after all is said and done, more is said than done!

PE

Could traditional photography products go the way of the micro-brewery?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency