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

Ok, my take is that this guy was probably a mid level or high level technician that was laid off and was very angry with EK. He had some info, but not deep enough to really be correct, and his premises about 'no new products' is simply wrong. There has been a revolution in couplers in the last 4 years alone.

In addition, several of the 'names' there were also laid off, but he accused them of being 'insiders'. Some of those professional engineers he named are frequent posters in a number of photo forums and are not violently against Kodak in any way. They have moved on to new jobs. After all, being a good competent engineer and being laid off is not a black mark, so good people can get new, good jobs and have no reaction to Kodak over it. People laid off at the bottom of the ratings will have a harder time and probably will express it.

As for the building issue, the reason I mention it is because it is wrong and yet has been printed in the local papers with correct data for several years now. And, it can be viewed by a simple drive by or by watching local news on TV. He wasn't paying attention through his haze of anger is the bottom line there.

New products do not include lower chloride emulsions, but rather higher chloride emulsions in color paper, and that has been so since Supra I many years ago when RA first came out. That is how it develops so rapidly. Several good friends of mine worked on it after I left the project, and one helped me with the Azo type emulsion I make, albeit with no proprietary information.

The R&D on 2 electron sensitization and Paul Gilman's 25,000 speed film are two examples of recent improvements. One is being gradually commerciallized across the board, while the other is not going into product development. The new couplers have, for the most part, gone into products giving huge improvements in dye stability. Endura paper was the first beneficiary of that, while Vision film for motion picture use was the first film to use 2 electron sensitization, but now all products are getting the benefit as upgrades come along.

Now, here is the key... Just like automobile models and refrigerator models use some parts in common, film does too. This does not mean that they are the same, nor does it mean fraud.

As for insider trading, when I worked on a specific project that used cobalt salts, we all were advised by the legal department that we would be fired if we were caught dabbling in cobalt futures on the stock market. I've said before, Kodak keeps its people to a high ethical standard.

I would have preferred Carl Kohrt as CEO over Dan Carp, but I would never spew the vitriol over Carp that I saw there. I've heard him talk and knew Carl personally, but I was not privy to the reasoning behind the decision. Part of the explanation was that Kodak wanted a more marketing oriented CEO than a technical oriented CEO.

PE

r-s said:

There needs to be a bit of the "cowboy spirit" if something is to be done in a market dominated by corporate-think wonks. Otherwise it's an endless parade of "proofs" that it can't be done.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with a single word you wrote there r-s. I'm all for it, every bit of it. And as you suggest, a receptive location/locale can be found. The one I live in right now would be a candidate.

I really wish some street-smart entrepreneur would get into this. From what I've earned in this thread and a few other, I'm beginning to believe that companies like Forte, Adox/Efke are running on a leftover physical plant and probably don't put enough resources into the machinery to keep it running a peak quality output. Non-technical people don't often understand that the technical stuff has to be kept in shape to producea consistent quality product. Bad product quality will ruin the business as easy as bad fiscal management does.

I for one happen to really appreciate "r-s's' enthusiasm. I find it really hard to believe that people today can't learn how to make what people 7ish decades made. I mean shouldn't the knowledge have been passed down, improved upon, so on and so forth??????? There must be people currently working at these plants obviously with the knowledge to do so who aren't old and right on the cusp of retiring?????? I mean how did those people get the jobs they are doing? Are there people born with the intrisic knowledge to produce photographic materials?????

Jordke;

Production of film from 70 years ago gets you what we have seen on the thread about EFKE defects. Granted it does not have to happen all of the time, but it decreases the trust in a product if it happens often enough and as said above it can surely ruin a company as well as mismanagement can.

You must turn out a quality product to gain the trust of the customers, and it includes lack of defects and invariance in speed and curve shape. I cannot get through to anyone it seems regarding the complexity of making photographic materials.

Kodak gave formulas to the Chinese and helped them build a modern plant. Recently, Kodak moved all production back to the US due to quality issues.

What more can I say?

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Ok, my take is that this guy was probably a mid level or high level technician that was laid off and was very angry with EK. He had some info, but not deep enough to really be correct, and his premises about 'no new products' is simply wrong. There has been a revolution in couplers in the last 4 years alone.

Click to expand...

[empasis added]

Um, his post was made four years ago!

We can fault him for plenty (fire him? heck, I'd have fired the guy who hired him!), but to "call BS" on the rest of his points ("He had some info, but not deep enough to really be correct") on the basis of his failure to mention things that happened during the course of the next four years is a bit much, don't you think?

The rest of the stuff has been rehashed to death, so no further comment on it.

I retired 10 years ago, and I knew the correct information that he got wrong, so no, I think he was way out in the weeds......

Afterthought.... Of course he may have been at so low a level or security clearance that he couldn't get it right if he tried.

PE

Second afterthought......

On a typical hiring session, I would be handed 100 or more resumes on a Friday and told to give my boss the 10 top people in the batch. On Monday, we would go over the 10 top ones and pick the 3 that overlapped and these would be interviewed.

Now, a weekend is not much time to review from 100 - 300 applications. It is a hard grueling job at home on a weekend, but I have done it more than once. And so no, I wouldn't be too hard on the person who hired him. It is a weeding out process that is difficult but does fail sometimes.

We had one top applicant be passed by everyone but me. He was deaf. A deaf person cannot function in the dark well, as audible clues are missing and everyone else on the team (3 people) missed this. In another case, a top person was eliminated in the last round by taking a cell phone call during his interview.

These resumes included records back to HS. Interesting reading. They weighed heavily in some cases where the student in HS and college showed signs of lack of self discipline or outright rebellion. Sometimes these types of comments were all we had to go on to differentiate between otherwise nearly identical people in terms of capabilities. You want creative thinkers but not outright rebellion and anger.

BTW, these are clues to those people out there looking for jobs.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Jordke;

Production of film from 70 years ago gets you what we have seen on the thread about EFKE defects. Granted it does not have to happen all of the time, but it decreases the trust in a product if it happens often enough and as said above it can surely ruin a company as well as mismanagement can.

You must turn out a quality product to gain the trust of the customers, and it includes lack of defects and invariance in speed and curve shape. I cannot get through to anyone it seems regarding the complexity of making photographic materials.

Kodak gave formulas to the Chinese and helped them build a modern plant. Recently, Kodak moved all production back to the US due to quality issues.

What more can I say?

PE

Click to expand...

Thanks for reinforcing that point Ron.

I have never had any connections at all with Kodak, save for buying their products over many years. The only person I have ever known that worked there is PE, and that relationship has been via this website. But I can say with certainty that one of the major reasons Kodak succeeded as it did for many years was because the corporate culture understood the importance of the technology in relation to the business. Kodak maintained a preeminent research and development organization. It was not only preeminent in the photographic industry, but was also considered to be of the highest caliber in the industrial world. The same could be said for Polaroid I think. But once the non-technical bean counters got control of the corporate culture, the slow death spiral starts. The bean counters always tend to marginalize the technology side of the business in its importance to the overall success. Thus, we have the conditions we see today, and thus we are having this discussion.

Kodak, Polaroid, Ilford, et al have left behind a sound technology base for the production of film. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. But to make that wheel run, and run smoothly, requires an intense and dedicated technical effort. You can't just go hire a bunch of locals, set them down at the machine, and tell them which buttons to push.

I fully agree that there is a body of talented and experienced individuals out there who would love to set up and run a small coating facility. But they are not going to do it for free; and I doubt that they are going to put up with some wise-ass bean counter trying to crack the whip on them. If someone with the financial means comes along to front a project of this sort, it will have to be someone who respects the technical side and understands its importance. Otherwise, it just ain't gonna work.

Photo Engineer said:

I retired 10 years ago, and I knew the correct information that he got wrong, so no, I think he was way out in the weeds......

Click to expand...

[What's the emoticon for "pulling out my hair and yelling 'argh'"?]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You dismiss him on the basis of his having gotten wrong things that happened within the past four years.

I then point out that his post was made four years ago.

You come back at me by pointing out that you retired ten years ago, and can recall things that have happened in the past.

My head hurts.

Other than that, I'll reiterate that the guy was foaming at the mouth. People who are that angry are expected to make numerous mistakes. They are expected to misstate facts -- even facts they know.

It comes with the "mad as hell" package.

If he got nothing wrong, that would be a cue suggesting that he wasn't really angry after all.

Angry people bang the table and send cups and dishes flying. They rant and rave and screw up names and dates and numbers. The angrier they are, the more they do it.

But, if they -- while in the process of flying off the handle -- also happen to mention a number of facts that they could not be expected to know, other than by virtue of being an "insider" (project goals, code names, internal program titles, proprietary names for arcane chemicals, and so forth), then no matter how many other details they fumble in their wrath, we know we've got the genuine article on our hands.

This is "Tradecraft 101" stuff.

And that is why I wanted to know if any of his stuff was "for real" -- and, you confirmed that it was. Thanks.

Therefore, I have concluded that the guy has bona fides, that he's a genuine insider, who had access to some (to an outsider like me) exotic tech.

I've got a feeling that you've probably got a hunch as to who it might be -- or, that you could find out within the space of time it takes to make two or three phone calls.

I wonder what ended up happening to him? I can't accept that he'd go spilling the goods -- a bunch of internal information that undoubtedly fell under whatever confidentiality agreements he executed -- and get away with it with no penalty other than to suddenly stop posting and disappear off the net.

Well, Kodak is not that vindictive given todays analog market. I can assure you, but then if you are giving out incorrect informaiton, they will act to stop it!

After all, consider what I'm posting and I'm still living and breathing, unless you are a Kodak agent.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Well, Kodak is not that vindictive given todays analog market. I can assure you, but then if you are giving out incorrect informaiton, they will act to stop it!

After all, consider what I'm posting and I'm still living and breathing, unless you are a Kodak agent.

PE

Click to expand...

Hey, I passed on it when the CIA tried to interest me, so why would I ...

oh, maybe I said too much.

(Still, the way things have been going in the world since I declined, I've had my second thoughts.)

Photo Engineer said:

Well, Kodak is not that vindictive given todays analog market. I can assure you, but then if you are giving out incorrect informaiton, they will act to stop it!

Click to expand...

Hey, another thought:

Does that mean that you could in fact disclose proprietary "stuff" without repercussions, as long as it wasn't incorrect info? So that if -- I mean, just for discussion's sake, of course -- someone were to get some grant money to put together a "Kodachrome forever" institute, you'd be able to work with "them" on stuff like emulsion formulas, coating issues, and processing management/control? (The last part only if Dwayne's were to stop their machines at some point. And the first part only if Kodak were to stop coating Kodachrome at some point.)

Hypothetically, of course.

r-s said:

Does that mean that you could in fact disclose proprietary "stuff" without repercussions, as long as it wasn't incorrect info?

Click to expand...

In the general sense, the answer is "no". If it were possible, there would be no meaning to proprietary.

Perhaps the best example of this is the suit between Kodak and Polaroid over instant film. Kodak's argument was based on the fact that they had actually produced the film for Polaroid in Polaroid's early years. Since Kodak had access to the technology, and had since developed it on their own, they claimed it was no longer proprietary.

Kodak lost that one but it took many years to settle the case. The testimony got extremely detailed, even went into the marketing and business strategies of each corporation. You can find the judge's written opinion on the net somewhere. As I recall, its over 200 pages long but it is quite fascinating.

There's limits to all of this of course. But it can get quite sticky when determine if something has become "public domain" or not. I think the stickiness is usually in proportion to how much money is at stake.

A couple of points here.

Technically, my NDA on most issues with Kodak expired about 5 years ago. However, I have a residual legal obligation and a moral obligation to protect proprietary information. I have a lot of that information in my head. What I'm saying is that Kodak probably would not 'come after me' if I accidentally slipped at one time or another, but I'm not going to deliberately do anything to compromise those secrets. Some of the stuff I discuss here is well known to engineers in the business but is not proprietary such as the methods to sensitize emulsions with sulfur, gold and dyes. The specific dyes are proprietary though. Most of the things are too complex and esoteric anyhow for discussion on this forum.

I can tell you that 2 electron sensitization uses osmium salts, but I cannot tell you what they are or how they are added. You see?

As for 4 years ago or more. I'm making the point that I retired 10 years ago and this guy was posting over 4 years ago about things about 4 years or more ago, and he was wrong. Even I can spot that. So, either the information he had was from a very low level, or he was being blinded by his anger. Some of the information was printed in the newspapers over 4 years ago and continues to be printed up to this date. At this point, most of my information comes from the newspaper or friends who have also retired. No one actively working will disclose proprietary information and I would not expect them to.

In fact, this person you mention knew that a product used a coupler, and since a new product used the same coupler back then, he assumed that they were identical. What he didn't know was that there were several other ingredients that contributed to the problem and more than one cyan coupler was used at the same time. He also didn't know that the change in products included changes in sensitizing dyes and emulsions. His relationship to the products seems to have been superficial. He may have heard two engineers mention that these two products had 114BR in them and he may have assumed that therefore they were identical. In fact, a whole host of Kodak products use similar chemcials.

BTW, two of the couplers used were 76AG and 114BR. We used to joke about that coincidence (Ag Br). The replacements were to be 76FU and 114CK. Umm, I'll leave you to figure that one out. It did get a lot of chuckles in meetings and finally and fortunately, those latter two couplers were abandoned for another pair. I forget the ones finally chosen. In any event, in some products there are 4 different couplers in the cyan layer. In addition, they are often added using different methods depending on the product.

One person on the list published in those URLs actually considered doing a statistical analysis of the probability of that latter coupler pair happening. IDK if he ever did it, but coupler numbers and letters at Kodak are assigned by chemcial structure and the numerical sequence they are made in. So, such an analysis could have been done.

Have fun with this overload of information.

PE

PE, I can't resist.

BTW, two of the couplers used were 76AG and 114BR. We used to joke about that coincidence (Ag Br).

There is just nothing like a joke shared by a couple/bunch of engineers .

Matt

Sorry for bringing this old topic up, but I have to say some things related to Efke.
Efke is small factory with 22 ( letters, twenty two ) employees.Their process of making film is from the 50s, and that's why they are so popular!Here in Croatia, and worldwide, as I heard.
So, I personally think, that this is not as someone says, rocket science.I understand everything about precise products, but PE, you cannot directly confront billion dollar company like Kodak in USA vs. small factory in some small country with profit of maybe couple of millions ( don't know real numbers ).
Efke is making films and papers, people are using it.What is that telling to you?
Also, I heard that Efke films have more silver in it, then Kodak ones for example.
My opinion is that everything is possible, it is just matter of will.Look knowledge from personal man in 19th century, and look knowledge and access to informations to personal man in 21th century.Who is in advantage?And if people made photographs 100 years ago, with that ( 19th century ) amount of knowledge what more to say...
I know that you are a photographic engineer with really big experience, and for you I'm just a kid from some country you maybe even don't know where it is, but I had to tell my opinion, NHF.
Best regards, Anton

Anton has several good points, but from my perpective setting up a new factory even a smallish factory here in U.S will need to overcome very large hurtels. The Efke site already exitis, has exitied for many years, a new U.S factory needs a rather large start up cost, custom build and engernerred equipment,

Paul Howell said:

Anton has several good points, but from my perpective setting up a new factory even a smallish factory here in U.S will need to overcome very large hurtels. The Efke site already exitis, has exitied for many years, a new U.S factory needs a rather large start up cost, custom build and engernerred equipment,

Click to expand...

I agree, but I look at things in this way.If some company decides to stop with their production, you can always buy machinery from them ( or buy whole company ), right?
Then, all you have to do is find a place, where you will put all that, and start with production.Simple as that.

Sorry hit the worn button and sent before I completed by post. In addition to start up costs EPA rules will drive up cost as will labor cost. Someone described Ford as a health care company that builds cars. Finding funding for such a start up company with a low profit margin will be a task.

I dont think that it is impossible, but a lot more complex than maintaining or expanding small exisiting company to keep up with demand as very large firs exit the market.

Antonov said:

I agree, but I look at things in this way.If some company decides to stop with their production, you can always buy machinery from them ( or buy whole company ), right?
Then, all you have to do is find a place, where you will put all that, and start with production.Simple as that.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if it as simple at that. From what I understand one of the reasons that Forte was closed is that the land is very valuable. No one seemed to step up to buy out the Agfa plant. Both plants are very large, not cost effective for a micro coating plant. Perhaps buying the coating units and moving them is a option, but I have would have some concerns that the older machinery will not meet current enviormental rules. Existing plants may be "Existing" in with older zoning or regulations, a new plant needs to meet current standards. In the U.S this means EPA and OHSA standards. Who is trained to run the production line? If the units are old are they cost effective in terms of labor cost, what about replacement parts and repairs?

Your banker would say "You want a million dollars to buy 30 year old equipment to start producing product for a shinking market"

A new plant would need to be a small state of the art facility with a highly automated production line, the ability to retool and move from paper to film RC to FB to meet market demands.

Antonov said:

I agree, but I look at things in this way.If some company decides to stop with their production, you can always buy machinery from them ( or buy whole company ), right?...
Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Well, one could do so...
But noone did.
Agfaphoto tried to find an investor to restart at least one of their coating plants. In vain. Noone wanted the machinery either. Those coating plants are going as scrap metal now.
Simple as that.

Paul Howell said:

I am not sure if it as simple at that. From what I understand one of the reasons that Forte was closed is that the land is very valuable. No one seemed to step up to buy out the Agfa plant. Both plants are very large, not cost effective for a micro coating plant. Perhaps buying the coating units and moving them is a option, but I have would have some concerns that the older machinery will not meet current enviormental rules. Existing plants may be "Existing" in with older zoning or regulations, a new plant needs to meet current standards. In the U.S this means EPA and OHSA standards. Who is trained to run the production line? If the units are old are they cost effective in terms of labor cost, what about replacement parts and repairs?

Your banker would say "You want a million dollars to buy 30 year old equipment to start producing product for a shinking market"

A new plant would need to be a small state of the art facility with a highly automated production line, the ability to retool and move from paper to film RC to FB to meet market demands.

Click to expand...

I don't know what are conditions in USA, but you probably have to look also were is land cheap.You will probably not buy land near Los Angeles, you will probably buy somewhere in rural parts of Iowa.I don't know, but that's seems more logical.
Furthermore, all of you are looking only USA.Don't forget that there are literally over 200 countries in the world, and you must be aware, that lot of them are not rich, and land is cheap, and workers also.Take for example China, very cheap labor, and therefore, their are making literally everything.

AgX said:

Well, one could do so...
But noone did.
Agfaphoto tried to find an investor to restart at least one of their coating plants. In vain. Noone wanted the machinery either. Those coating plants are going as scrap metal now.
Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Agfa didn't find investor, because no one wanted to bother with that.Probably they decided that, looking only at the time line, is more cost effective to sell everything, then to invest and wait for couple of years for money back.Yeah, really good economics.Let's sell everything and fire all employees.What capable managers...I know how is in Croatia, same thing, and nowadays we see awful results of that.
Some of you are all watching through cruel capitalistic eyes.Try to look other side.Everything is possible if you are a good manager, not cruel capitalist who's only interest is money.
Read little about Nobel prize winner, and you will see that impossible is possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Yunus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank

And sorry for offtopic!

Antonov said:

I don't know what are conditions in USA, but you probably have to look also were is land cheap.You will probably not buy land near Los Angeles, you will probably buy somewhere in rural parts of Iowa.I don't know, but that's seems more logical.
Furthermore, all of you are looking only USA.Don't forget that there are literally over 200 countries in the world, and you must be aware, that lot of them are not rich, and land is cheap, and workers also.Take for example China, very cheap labor, and therefore, their are making literally everything.

Click to expand...

China is skipping the old analog market, closing plants, going digital. I would rather think about keeping Ilford, Forma or Efka afloat and possibly expanding to fill market needs makes more sense than building from the ground up. At this point there does not seem to be any shortage of product, distubtion may be a probelm, but product is avialble. Unless there is a shortage and a new demand what is the need?

Paul Howell said:

China is skipping the old analog market, closing plants, going digital. I would rather think about keeping Ilford, Forma or Efka afloat and possibly expanding to fill market needs makes more sense than building from the ground up. At this point there does not seem to be any shortage of product, distubtion may be a probelm, but product is avialble.
Unless there is a shortage and a new demand what is the need?

Click to expand...

I think we misunderstood.
I was talking about that, final decision, if all plants would gone.Not current condition.
With current condition, I think it's OK market, if it stays like this, great!Although, I really wouldn't mind if another film company shows up on market ( in fact I'm looking forward ).