Hard times for Kodak continue

Dinesh · Oct 30, 2009

It's ironic that there are some "members" that are slamming Kodak for not supporting APUG, and other "members" that want to support Kodak in order to keep them in the film business.

What about supporting APUG by becoming "subscribers"?

Money talks, and you know the rest!

RalphLambrecht · Oct 30, 2009

Dinesh said:
It's ironic that there are some "members" that are slamming Kodak for not supporting APUG, and other "members" that want to support Kodak in order to keep them in the film business.

What about supporting APUG by becoming "subscribers"?

Money talks, and you know the rest!

Good idea. Actually, very good idea!

railwayman3 · Oct 30, 2009

jnanian said:
it was the CEO ( mr perez ) a few years ago in a big speech who declared it ...

oh well, i guess we just better keep shooting, and keep supporting those who support us in any way we can ..

Thanks....as I said, I stand corrected, was not aware of this. And certainly, given a choice, we should support those who support us. I think this follows automatically to a large extent... I'm largely with Ilford for B&W, not for any great altrusitic reason but just because they offer the choice of materials which I like and use.
Unfortunately, they don't make color and it gets worrying that there only now two actual manufacturers of color materials in the world (plus, maybe Lucky as a smaller maker if the worse came the worse...and I'm not even sure they do reversal film?).

BetterSense · Oct 30, 2009

I said that my idea of cheap is $40. I can buy a lot of film for $400, or I can pay some bills.

I'm with you. I know a girl that wants to 'get into photography' but is balking over which $400+ dslr to buy. I told her, why wait, you can get a 35mm SLR for free or <$50.

Even current film prices are not expensive IMO. $4 for a roll of TMY, and people complain about this? I'm as poor as the next guy, probably poorer, but I consider myself lucky to be able to buy the best films the world has known for <$5 per roll. I wonder if current film prices are even historically high, considering inflation and consumer price index and all that. How much did a roll of Kodak film cost in say, 1960/1980/1990? Anyone remember? I wasn't even alive but I want to compare to today's prices.

railwayman3 · Oct 30, 2009

jnanian said:
it was the CEO ( mr perez ) a few years ago in a big speech who declared it ...

oh well, i guess we just better keep shooting, and keep supporting those who support us in any way we can ..

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, as I said, I'll stand corrected. And, of course, we should support those who support us. This perhaps follows automatically to some extent....I support Ilford for most of my B&W, not for any great altruistic reason, but because they continue to offer the range of products which I use and enjoy. I can no longer buy Kodak paper, so that's one way no-one can support them.

And I can, to some extent, accept their reasoning, economic and otherwise for discontinuing Kodachrome. But as I'm now finding that Astia is suiting my preferences and working methods as a possible subsititute, I don't think I'll be sticking with Ektachrome just for the Kodak name. I heard the opinions that Fuji got all Kodak's original E6 research for nothing, and this may well have been the case, but they do seem to have developed some quality films of their own which suit a lot of workers.

railwayman3 · Oct 30, 2009

BetterSense said:
Even current film prices are not expensive IMO. $4 for a roll of TMY, and people complain about this? I'm as poor as the next guy, probably poorer, but I consider myself lucky to be able to buy the best films the world has known for <$5 per roll. I wonder if current film prices are even historically high, considering inflation and consumer price index and all that. How much did a roll of Kodak film cost in say, 1960/1980/1990? Anyone remember? I wasn't even alive but I want to compare to today's prices.

I only have info for the UK, but in the mid-1960's a 36 exp prepaid Kodachrome always cost around "thirty shillings" for a long time (that's about £1.50 or about $2.50). Projecting on the consumer price index, that would be about £21.50 or about $35 now. The present UK price for the last Kodachrome stocks is about £10-£12, which is about the same as a prepaid Fujichrome, or an unpaid E6 plus separate processing.

So I guess we've not done too badly.

dwross · Oct 30, 2009

Posted without unnecessary comment:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=38/13915/10468&pq-locale=en_US

d

railwayman3 · Oct 30, 2009

Also posted without unnecessary comment:-

www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=141

www.fujifilm.com/products/film_camera/

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2009

You have all forgotten the Kodak web page extoling film as the only "permanent" picture storage medium. Doesn't that say it all too? Have you forgotten the web page with Bill Schwab reviewing the new film about a year ago? Does that count in telling us something?

I've talked to a lot of Kodak people over the span of this year, and there is a lot going on as they try to stabilze the company in the face of a market that is crumbling and an economy that is in shambles.

We all have to roll with the punches on this.

PE

clayne · Oct 30, 2009

railwayman3 said:
Also posted without unnecessary comment:-

www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=141

www.fujifilm.com/products/film_camera/

I'll assume this is represented as in contrast to Kodak's site.

As known and discussed before, it's quite lame how Fujifilm doesn't even recognize their own black and white films on said referenced page.

shutterspeed1000 · Oct 30, 2009

You are 100% correct in pointing this out....... now "subscriber" Maybe supporting APUG is the best move at this point.

Dinesh said:
It's ironic that there are some "members" that are slamming Kodak for not supporting APUG, and other "members" that want to support Kodak in order to keep them in the film business.

What about supporting APUG by becoming "subscribers"?

Money talks, and you know the rest!

railwayman3 · Oct 30, 2009

clayne said:
I'll assume this is represented as in contrast to Kodak's site.

As known and discussed before, it's quite lame how Fujifilm doesn't even recognize their own black and white films on said referenced page.

Fair comment, but a minor criticism...but the way Kodak's sites are laid out, it's difficult to easily anything on any films. The pages on the Ilford and Fuji sites were found in seconds and the links are all very clear. The Fuji one is the global site (not sure if B&W is available everywhere?) but there are clear links to contact them for more info and customer service.

PE - I greatly respect your opinions and knowledge, and have no doubt that Kodak are doing everything to stablize the situation. In other posts I've defended the need for them or any other commercial company to discontinue unprofitable items, and I don't want to knock them. But, whether or not justified, something is giving them this poor image with so many consumers and outsiders. If I knew what just what it was, I'd ask for a job.

Photo Engineer · Oct 30, 2009

Rail;

I agree with you. IDK what the problem is either, but no one can speak on APUG in a manner similar to Simon Galley at Ilford, and Kodak cannot express a generic opinion without great outcry from the public. This has gone on for years. Get the "great yellow giant" was a phrase used in the 50s through 70s, when Kodak was sued every time they came out with a new product.

Named a monopoly (in the face of GAF, Ilford and 3M to name some other photo companies) Kodak was forbidden to offer products with processing included, or to rebrand products. They paid millions in reparations to GAF and Pavelle to come out with a Blix process for paper. So, I guess they are gun shy. IDK. There is a problem though and you have a valid point.

PE

brianmquinn · Oct 30, 2009

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml

Ektagraphic · Oct 30, 2009

If you go to Kodak.com/go/film and Kodak.com/go/professional (which is what is in the last post) both bring you right to film....

argentic · Oct 31, 2009

Kodak has abandoned me as an analog BW photographer several years ago. So I have abandoned Kodak for Ilford at about the same time. I haven't regretted that ever since.

Q.G. · Oct 31, 2009

brianmquinn said:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml

Indeed.

I never had any difficulty finding anything i wanted on Kodak's site.

As for Kodak abandoning anyone: they still make the best B&W and colour negative films available.
What else could you ask for?

gr82bart · Oct 31, 2009

argentic said:
Kodak has abandoned me as an analog BW photographer several years ago. So I have abandoned Kodak for Ilford at about the same time. I haven't regretted that ever since.

Whatever. What was the purpose of posting that?

Regards, Art.

Ian Grant · Oct 31, 2009

gr82bart said:
Whatever. What was the purpose of posting that?

Regards, Art.

Because unfortunately it's true in some markets. Except for consumer colour films Kodak products particularly B&W and chemistry can be quite hard to find in some countries. There may be a multitude of reasons but here in Turkey and while in South America (Chile & Peru two years ago) I've found it far easier to find Ilford materials, and also Foma & Fuji (B&W).

Ian

dwross · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by argentic
Kodak has abandoned me as an analog BW photographer several years ago. So I have abandoned Kodak for Ilford at about the same time. I haven't regretted that ever since.

gr82bart said:
Whatever. What was the purpose of posting that?

Regards, Art.

Actually, it seems a quite reasonable thing to say. Argentic just left out the big backstory in the interest of brevity.

If, as is oh-so-often pointed out on APUG, analog materials are an endangered species, it makes all the sense in the world to support the company who has made and kept promises to stick with film and paper production. Kodak has dropped paper, is down to less than a handful of b&w films, and barely gives credit that 'consumer' photographers might be interested in anything but digital. They are signaling their long-term business plan loud and clear. When I buy Ilford products, I'm not doing it to "punish" Kodak. I actually don't give Kodak much thought anymore. I buy Ilford products because they're great and I trust they'll be around for awhile, especially with our support.

For what it's worth,
d

Phil Kneen · Oct 31, 2009

I was in the Manchester(UK) branch of Calumet a few weeks ago buying film for an upcoming project(20 boxes of 5 160NC & 5 boxes of 5 400NC) and the people in there said that their film sales were way up,Liverpool branch said the same thing. The guy in the Manchester shop said that he had seen a huge increase in all types(pos,neg,b/w) of 120 roll film and thinks this is partly due to the increased popularity of cameras such as the Holga and Lubitel,mainly with younger people.
I have noticed that lots of young people are using film,it's not even as they are 'going back to film' because they've never used it,it's a bit of a novelty for them I think. Lot's of students contact me with questions about film and film cameras.

When CD's came out the sale of vinyl records plummeted,but then over a few years started to go up and up. It's the same with film - sales will never be what they were 10 years ago,but people will always want it. ALWAYS...

Ian Grant · Oct 31, 2009

dwross said:
Originally Posted by argentic
Kodak has abandoned me as an analog BW photographer several years ago. So I have abandoned Kodak for Ilford at about the same time. I haven't regretted that ever since.

Actually, it seems a quite reasonable thing to say. Argentic just left out the big backstory in the interest of brevity.

If, as is oh-so-often pointed out on APUG, analog materials are an endangered species, it makes all the sense in the world to support the company who has made and kept promises to stick with film and paper production. Kodak has dropped paper, is down to less than a handful of b&w films, and barely gives credit that 'consumer' photographers might be interested in anything but digital. They are signaling their long-term business plan loud and clear. When I buy Ilford products, I'm not doing it to "punish" Kodak. I actually don't give Kodak much thought anymore. I buy Ilford products because they're great and I trust they'll be around for awhile, especially with our support.

For what it's worth,
d

Very well put.

Ian

Tim Gray · Oct 31, 2009

dwross said:
Originally Posted by argentic
Kodak has dropped paper, is down to less than a handful of b&w films, and barely gives credit that 'consumer' photographers might be interested in anything but digital.

Don't they make about the same number of B&W films as Ilford and Fuji?

I count 5 from Kodak, 6 from Ilford, and 3 from Fuji. To give Ilford credit, I think they do have 2 other films (Pan 100 and 400?) that aren't available here, plus some number of other films they coat/sell, like Kentmere.

Kodak is the only manufacturer who has brought out anything new in the last couple of years. TMAX 400-2, Ektar, as well as revamping the Portra line a couple times. They also brought out Ektar in 120. Fuji did bring out Velvia 50 again, and as did Ilford with SFX.

I don't see the lack of commitment. As PE has pointed out, they have certain policies with respect to communications, which are unfortunate, but the products they've been discontinuing they were most assuredly losing money on.

Q.G. · Oct 31, 2009

Phil Kneen said:
I was in the Manchester(UK) branch of Calumet a few weeks ago buying film for an upcoming project(20 boxes of 5 160NC & 5 boxes of 5 400NC) and the people in there said that their film sales were way up,Liverpool branch said the same thing. The guy in the Manchester shop said that he had seen a huge increase in all types(pos,neg,b/w) of 120 roll film and thinks this is partly due to the increased popularity of cameras such as the Holga and Lubitel,mainly with younger people.

But don't discount the effect that less shops selling film has on the sales volume of those shops that still do. People still wanting to buy film have to converge on the decreasing number of shops that still do sell some.
Increased sales numbers of those shops could be entirely due to that, possibly hiding an overall decline in sales.

Personally, i don't think that there is an overall increase, but, on the contrary, film consumption indeed is still on the way down.

I'll do my best to slow the rate of decline.

removed account4 · Oct 31, 2009

Tim Gray said:
Don't they make about the same number of B&W films as Ilford and Fuji?

I count 5 from Kodak, 6 from Ilford, and 3 from Fuji. To give Ilford credit, I think they do have 2 other films (Pan 100 and 400?) that aren't available here, plus some number of other films they coat/sell, like Kentmere.

Kodak is the only manufacturer who has brought out anything new in the last couple of years. TMAX 400-2, Ektar, as well as revamping the Portra line a couple times. They also brought out Ektar in 120. Fuji did bring out Velvia 50 again, and as did Ilford with SFX.

I don't see the lack of commitment. As PE has pointed out, they have certain policies with respect to communications, which are unfortunate, but the products they've been discontinuing they were most assuredly losing money on.

exactly tim ..
why would a company that is going through hard times
keep selling things that they lose money on ?

you have to prune the deadwood from a tree to keep it healthy,
it is unfortunate that every once in a while the deadwood they cut still has
a lonely leaf growing on it.

Hard times for Kodak continue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency