Ektachrome E200, Elitechrome ED200 will be gone

[hpulley]

Yea, I know. I feel like the last man standing. Someone has to continue the legacy of film.

Legacy Astrophotography

E200 is an amazing film in so many ways. I've learned its character and have exploited it as much as possible.

Yes, it's sad, they're all taking the IR filters off their DSLRs and then wondering why their lenses produce haloes in IR... when E200 produced beautiful results.

I didn't buy enough lately, my fault obviously...

 

[lilserenity]

That is a shame, I use a fair bit of Elite Chrome 200. It's a good film, good colours but a surprisingly well balanced level of contrast. I shall stock up a bit and just hope that EBX and EB-3 don't go either Ektar is just wonderful stuff, but it's not EB-3/EBX, and we don't have Kodachrome now either. I was a KR gal, now an EB-3/Ektar girl... But I want slides sometimes not negatives!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'd wager that Kodak would love nothing more for film to return to it's former glory.

This statement is the exact opposite of what Mr. Antonio Perez, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kodak, has been repeatedly telling Kodak's investors, journalists, customers, and anyone else who will listen, for over five years now.

In his own words, Mr. Perez states he was recruited and tasked by Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a completely new digital technology company, not to return Kodak's film business to its former glory.

It is a source of unending astonishment to me that people here continue to ignore Mr. Perez's direct statements regarding where he - at the request and direction of Kodak's Board - is taking Kodak. And what the current and future implications for Kodak's analog products will be as he approaches that final destination.

Kodak's systematic and continuing reduction of their analog photography lines of business is way, way past the point of simplistic application to individual products of the law of supply and demand. Kodak has much bigger fish to fry at this point in their corporate reinvention. At best, supply and demand helps only to decide which traditional product is next on the chopping block.

While there have been a (very) few instances of new Kodak film products or product reformulations, the overall trend has been one of continuous product line consolidation. This trend is in keeping with Mr. Perez's larger mandate. This trend will continue. New products will be realized only insofar as they serve the ultimate goal.

And yet, in spite of Mr. Perez's best efforts (for years now!) to tell us exactly what is going on at Kodak (a public company, so he is legally obligated to speak truthfully), we still see posts here lamenting,

"Gee, I can't for the life of me figure out what Kodak is thinking. But I know that if everyone just keeps using enough Kodak film, Kodak will keep making it forever."

Or worse,

"This is all our fault. We didn't buy enough..."

At this late date in the process and given Kodak's repeatedly stated goal of a complete digital makeover (if we would only listen to them), the term "enough" is for all practical purposes undefined and meaningless.

<sigh...>

Ken

 

[accozzaglia]

It seems that E200 120 has not been anywhere in stock for a while. It's peculiar because my memory of trying out two rolls in 2008–09 doesn't seem that long ago.

I guess E200 in 120 vanished when E100GX in all formats did — or thereabouts. If anyone points at and accuses me of not buying it, my defence is "I was using Kodachrome all this time, sorry."

 

[holmburgers]

Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.

The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.

Despite what happens in the business, the writing is on the wall. That's why the best thing we can do as lovers of analog is do our most to learn how to make things from scratch. The emulsion makers have shown that b&w is doable for the hobbyist, and if that's true than color isn't out of the realm of possibility. Silver-dye bleach systems (like Ilfo/Cibachrome) are fairly straightforward in the chemistry they require, and the materials are obtainable. Slide films could be created off this basis, as well as paper.

We must retain our freedom to purchase chemicals, which is something that anyone who laments the passing of film should also take on as a cause. Film is only the product of certain materials and chemicals, and there are many people in the world; big businesses and our government alike, who aim to make it very difficult to get these things. Due either to basic misunderstandings, environmental concerns, or threats of terrorism and the like.

There can be no experimentation without a broad range of things to experiment with; I fear that the work done over the last 150+ years in photography might not be achievable if we were forced to invent anew today. Regulations, restrictions, fear... it's just a different world now and things could be lost, potentially forever.

But in the meantime...

 

[ntenny]

This is/was a fairly rare film in the UK. I don't think I've ever actually seen it for sale. With this film being cut and with the recent cut of all the Sensia films, I think Provia 400X is the only fast slide film left.

Is the Rollei CR200 film still being coated (by someone), or is it just old Agfa stock being sold under the Rollei label? I found I liked it better at 160 than 200, and in the end I decided it was too grainy for my taste, but it is a relatively fast E-6 film with a very different character from Provia 400X.

(Actually, I should look at it in 120, where the grain wouldn't be such an issue...)

-NT

 

[JSebrof]

I think it might be an Agfa aerial film.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Maybe it is a Japan only thing..Lets hope not in USA too!

 

[2F/2F]

Another ones bites the dust. We haven't got long, folks! We'd best enjoy the hell out of it while it lasts.

 

[brianmquinn]

I just placed a LARGE order that should last me for a couple of years. I figure it will be fine in the freezer and I can process it myself if need be. Even if this post is not true and Kodak has not stopped making it my large order may be part of the reason they coat a new batch. Everyone else here who actually uses this film should do the same. If you have never used it, try a high speed Fuji slide film. No reason to try out something you may not be able to get next year.

 

[holmburgers]

How large is LARGE?

 

[brianmquinn]

A LARGE is a 32 oz cup.
How many rolls do you think will fit in one?

 

[holmburgers]

8?

But we all now that today's large is bigger than yesteryear's large; now it's more like an Extra Large. I go to Burger Thing, McInnards or Fardee's and I order a medium and I swear to dog if I don't need to supersize my cupholder!!

*cricket sounds* *cricket sounds*

 

[aldevo]

This statement is the exact opposite of what Mr. Antonio Perez, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kodak, has been repeatedly telling Kodak's investors, journalists, customers, and anyone else who will listen, for over five years now.

In his own words, Mr. Perez states he was recruited and tasked by Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a completely new digital technology company, not to return Kodak's film business to its former glory.

It is a source of unending astonishment to me that people here continue to ignore Mr. Perez's direct statements regarding where he - at the request and direction of Kodak's Board - is taking Kodak. And what the current and future implications for Kodak's analog products will be as he approaches that final destination.

Kodak's systematic and continuing reduction of their analog photography lines of business is way, way past the point of simplistic application to individual products of the law of supply and demand. Kodak has much bigger fish to fry at this point in their corporate reinvention. At best, supply and demand helps only to decide which traditional product is next on the chopping block.

While there have been a (very) few instances of new Kodak film products or product reformulations, the overall trend has been one of continuous product line consolidation. This trend is in keeping with Mr. Perez's larger mandate. This trend will continue. New products will be realized only insofar as they serve the ultimate goal.

And yet, in spite of Mr. Perez's best efforts (for years now!) to tell us exactly what is going on at Kodak (a public company, so he is legally obligated to speak truthfully), we still see posts here lamenting,

"Gee, I can't for the life of me figure out what Kodak is thinking. But I know that if everyone just keeps using enough Kodak film, Kodak will keep making it forever."

Or worse,

"This is all our fault. We didn't buy enough..."

At this late date in the process and given Kodak's repeatedly stated goal of a complete digital makeover (if we would only listen to them), the term "enough" is for all practical purposes undefined and meaningless.

<sigh...>

Ken

Ken,

You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.

Up until the advent of digital photography, Kodak realized much better profit margins on the sale of film than any digital photo equipment manufacturer realizes today.

So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.

Worry less about what Mr. Perez's PR blather and worry more about the ever-escalating price of silver and the latest announcement by China to curb rare earth exports. Those are our real problems...

 

[aldevo]

And I'm not surprised at all to hear that.

I suspect the new Kodak's aim is to end up with one B&W film, one color negative film, and one (maybe) transparency film. And that's it. At least for now.

No need for all of the previous beautiful palettes and flavors of a full line of Kodak film products. Just a single, basic "raw" capture medium for each type. Just like a digital sensor, really. Then everyone will be expected to take that raw negative or (maybe) positive capture medium and scan it and fix it up later in post-production using Photoshop.

Eventually they will do away with even this, recommending instead that users simply invoke the software emulation features built into their Easyshare cameras to simulate the various extinct film types.

Far fetched?

Well, they're already recommending precisely that to all of the ex-Kodachrome users (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Ken

Except you are missing the obvious...

There won't be an EasyShare line of cameras in a few years.

Kodak has already subcontracted away the design & manufacture of these cameras to an outfit in China full well knowing what everybody has long figured out - that Smart Phones are decimating the poin & shoot camera market at a rapid clip.

If Kodak dumps film entirely it will simply be do to the fact that it is no longer profitable to manufacture at large volumes.

Cinematic film sales were essential to Kodak staying in this for keeps - and the rise of 3-D has pretty much ended that hope.

 

[aldevo]

Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.

The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.

Despite what happens in the business, the writing is on the wall. That's why the best thing we can do as lovers of analog is do our most to learn how to make things from scratch. The emulsion makers have shown that b&w is doable for the hobbyist, and if that's true than color isn't out of the realm of possibility. Silver-dye bleach systems (like Ilfo/Cibachrome) are fairly straightforward in the chemistry they require, and the materials are obtainable. Slide films could be created off this basis, as well as paper.

We must retain our freedom to purchase chemicals, which is something that anyone who laments the passing of film should also take on as a cause. Film is only the product of certain materials and chemicals, and there are many people in the world; big businesses and our government alike, who aim to make it very difficult to get these things. Due either to basic misunderstandings, environmental concerns, or threats of terrorism and the like.

There can be no experimentation without a broad range of things to experiment with; I fear that the work done over the last 150+ years in photography might not be achievable if we were forced to invent anew today. Regulations, restrictions, fear... it's just a different world now and things could be lost, potentially forever.

But in the meantime...

And that party would be stricken with:

a) MASSIVE potential environmental tort liability
b) A massively oversized production infrastructure

Kodak took aggressive steps to downize its film production capacity in 2003-4 but the market has simply continued its decline.

I'd love to see a buyout happen, but I don't think it can for the above.

 

[Tim Gray]

Ken,

You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.

...

So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.

Thanks for getting my original point

 

[nickrapak]

8?

But we all now that today's large is bigger than yesteryear's large; now it's more like an Extra Large.

Not necessarily. Have you tried to buy shrimp lately? "Large" shrimp are now 31-40 per pound. They were sold as small as little as 5 years ago.


Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.

Up until the advent of digital photography, Kodak realized much better profit margins on the sale of film than any digital photo equipment manufacturer realizes today.

So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.

Worry less about what Mr. Perez's PR blather...

[...snipped reference to rare earth metals supply...]

So, umm, let's summerize then...

I've "completely mis-understood" that Mr. Perez's public comments regarding his mandate from Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a digital technology company are truthful. They are, in fact, nothing more than "PR blather." Even though as leader of a publicly-held corporation, should he be caught willfully lying to that public, he could be criminally charged with fraud.

And the crucial point I'm missing by not correctly seeing beyond Mr. Perez's so-called "blather" is his - and by extension Kodak's Board of Director's - real wish to simply "wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it."

Hmm...

Well, over the years my luck with the application of "magic wands" to the resolution of my own problems has been decidedly poor. Perfectly poor, to be honest. Perhaps your, and Mr. Perez's, past luck using them has been better? I suppose, as they say, YMMV...

Ken

 

[lxdude]

Here ya go!

:wizard:

4 sale cheap.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Here ya go!

:wizard:

4 sale cheap.

Ha!

So you're the one who forgot to wave it over Kodachrome...

I knew it was you.

:eek:

Ken

 

[aldevo]

So, umm, let's summerize then...

I've "completely mis-understood" that Mr. Perez's public comments regarding his mandate from Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a digital technology company are truthful. They are, in fact, nothing more than "PR blather." Even though as leader of a publicly-held corporation, should he be caught willfully lying to that public, he could be criminally charged with fraud.

And the crucial point I'm missing by not correctly seeing beyond Mr. Perez's so-called "blather" is his - and by extension Kodak's Board of Director's - real wish to simply "wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it."

Hmm...

Well, over the years my luck with the application of "magic wands" to the resolution of my own problems has been decidedly poor. Perfectly poor, to be honest. Perhaps your, and Mr. Perez's, past luck using them has been better? I suppose, as they say, YMMV...

Ken

Ken,

CEOs serve at the discretion of the board of directors. They are often not voting members of the board. There is no law that "de facto" associates the actions of a corporate officer (such as the CEO) with the board members.

You do not have an accurate understanding regarding a CEOs obligations for disclosure. They have an obligation not to deceive about the performance of a company or anything that may materially affect the value of the company's equity (e.g. they cannot start a rumor that the company is about to be acquired) but they are under no obligation to offer a full & fair disclosure of corporate strategy.

None.

That is not to say that leadership at EK is committed to film. I do not believe that they are, but that is simply because it is no longer possible to manufacture it profitably at a large scale. It has little to do with so-called "digital transformation" which, in my opinion, amounts to nothing more than the hope that they can trouble an HP or Lexmark sufficiently to prompt a buyout.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Did anyone else notice that Kodak USA now lists E200 as discontinued?

Announcement: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/e200/e200Index.jhtml?pq-path=13373

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah I noticed that today.

 

[Moopheus]

Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.

The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.

Which would be who, exactly? It couldn't be someone _very_ small; the Film & Entertainment group still generates a fair bit of revenue, Kodak won't let it go too cheap. If someone came along who had enough money and could deal with the legacy issues, I'd bet Kodak would seriously consider it. But the number of potential buyers with both the needed resources and the willingness to invest in film is probably quite close to zero. And if they did, they would be immediately faced with the same problem--the need to cut products to what can be sustained.