Hard times for Kodak continue

cmacd123 · Nov 2, 2009

In favor of Kodak, I sent out a roll of colour film to a local minilab, and got back terrible results. I looked for some answers and found that Kodak not only described the exact same effect, but had an explanation and work arrounds for the mini-lab operators and is phasing in a new version of their C-41 chemistry to avoid the problem. turns out that minlabs doing small valumes have more evaporation than carry-out and so the soup gets too strong. The new chemicals sidestep part of the problem, and they now tell the labs to top up with water rather than replenisher at the start of the day.

I am sure that there was a lot of expensive r&D time and many rolls of test film run though to get that fix in place.

cmacd123 · Nov 2, 2009

Third point. as some alluded to, Kodak sells zillions of dollars worth of film. most of it by length is probably Eastman 2383.
(http://bit.ly/4fjKBg )
My guess is that 2383 is produced in greater quantities than any other single Kodak film. On another part of their site that claim that millions of pounds of film are destroyed by them annually, of which most would be 2383 and the Fuji equivalent.

DKT · Nov 4, 2009

Perry Way said:
In the B&W world, aside from films (TMax, PlusX, TriX), does Kodak make anything supportive of the alt processes?

An example of a new product that would support the growth area (as I perceive it) would be: A transparency positive you can treat like paper. Take your negative, enlarge it in enlarger onto transparency stock, develop like normal photographic paper, it comes out a positive of the image projected on it (which is a negative), thereby resulting in a negative which can be used for contact printing. Man, if they had a product like that, wow!

they did--SO132 Pro Dupe Film. had it for about 50 years or so, it was discontinued for lack of sales back in the late 1990s. shortly before Pro Copy and Commercial Film were discontinued. I don't think there's a large enough market to support these films. The alt-market would have to be as large as say the commercial photo labs in the period before digital imaging. Even in the 1990s, there weren't that many using SO132. It wasn't used archivally since the 1980s.

Now Pro Copy? that was a different story.

removed account4 · Nov 4, 2009

DKT said:
they did--SO132 Pro Dupe Film. had it for about 50 years or so, it was discontinued for lack of sales back in the late 1990s. shortly before Pro Copy and Commercial Film were discontinued. I don't think there's a large enough market to support these films. The alt-market would have to be as large as say the commercial photo labs in the period before digital imaging. Even in the 1990s, there weren't that many using SO132. It wasn't used archivally since the 1980s.

Now Pro Copy? that was a different story.

you can still get so132 or its clone from photowarehouse.
i got it from there the last time i needed it.

Perry Way · Nov 4, 2009

jnanian said:
i think you can still get so132 or its clone from photowarehouse.
i got it from there the last time i needed it.

Where is photowarehouse? Do you have a URL? I found a site in New Zealand and Australia but when I did a search for "so132" nothing came up.

removed account4 · Nov 4, 2009

hi perry,

it is photowarehouse.biz
it looks like they still sell it ....
they used to sell a 4x5 size
they have larger sizes now ...
it is a single step (professional) duplicating film ..
you contact print ( or enlarge ) a negative, and
you get a negative on the film, not a positive.

http://photowarehouse.biz/ulcotodufi.html

have fun!
john

Perry Way · Nov 4, 2009

jnanian said:
hi perry,

it is photowarehouse.biz
it looks like they still sell it ....
they used to sell a 4x5 size
they have larger sizes now ...
it is a single step (professional) duplicating film ..
you contact print ( or enlarge ) a negative, and
you get a negative on the film, not a positive.

http://photowarehouse.biz/ulcotodufi.html

have fun!
john

HOT DAMN! I'm so excited... (and I just can't hide it.. I'm about to lose control and I think I like it!)

removed account4 · Nov 5, 2009

it is VERY slow ...
SLOW like AZO SLOW
(floodlight, not enlarger)

AgX · Nov 5, 2009

Perry Way said:
An example of a new product that would support the growth area (as I perceive it) would be: A transparency positive you can treat like paper.

Aside from the film from Photowarehouse there is also a direct positive film from Agfa.
However, in sheets that would be a special-order item.

As an alternative there is a negative copy film from Bergger offerd in large sheet and a wide roll.

Brandon D. · Nov 5, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I love Kodak. But I can't afford their products. Sorry. Four dollars per roll of 120 at the cheap place in California just doesn't jive with my wallet right now. I am almost ashamed to admit that I use Arista.EDU Ultra films, but what can a guy do?
My Kodak usage has been reduced to selenium toner, sepia II toner, Xtol, and Photoflo. I wish I could do more and hand them some pocket change once in a while. I do buy Kodak TMY-2 and Portra 400NC whenever I make client portraits, but that's it for film.

They do a bang up job, and their products are silly good. Tough market for many, I'm sure.

In general, I think that echos what many consumers are going through right now. I planned on shooting a lot of film this year, but it has been better for my wallet to cut back for now. Unfortunately, many people who could normally afford to "shoot more expensively" in a better economy just can't do it right now. It's not like I want any of these companies to topple over. But, like everyone else, I have my own priorities to focus on.

mikebarger · Nov 5, 2009

For four or five years I've tried to keep about 220 rolls of Tri-X 120 (400) and 400 sheets of HP5 (200) in the freezer (sure wish Kodak made Tri-X (400) in sheets). Good quarters I replace what I shoot, back quarters I just work off the on hand inventory. I keep enough color 35mm (Kodak) in the freezer to keep the wife in supply, generally not more than 30 rolls at any given time.

I keep four 5 gallon boxes of Kodak Fixer on the shelf and chemicals to make Ansco 130.

Paper is where I'm a little short. Ran out of Polycontrast IV (really liked it), out of Agfa (liked it even better), and running out of Ilford, which is OK as I don't care for it too much.

I got 100 sheets of the new Agfa from FS, but holding off buying to much more until they get it in more economical 100 or 250 sheet boxes.

Guess I have my own little darkroom store just outside the darkroom.

Mike

DKT · Nov 5, 2009

jnanian said:
you can still get so132 or its clone from photowarehouse.
i got it from there the last time i needed it.

hey john-my point was that the post about new products for kodak-well, they had those sorts of products and many more for years & years, and then the market forces made them pretty much become obsolete, like it or not.

I knew Agfa made a similar film, but I'm not familiar with the photowarehouse stuff. SO 132 was on a thick estar base with that SO notch code Kodak uses for specialty films. It was sold in 4x5 and 8x10, 25 sheet boxes. About 40-50 bucks for the 4x5 and close to 100 for the 8x10. You could process it in tanks or trays--I used to do it in a deeptank with DK50. For longterm use, they recommended skipping hypo clear and using the long wash, with a selenium or brown toner step mixed in as well. It was strange film--worked better with modern negatives than older ones. This & the longevity issues with the previous version, were why the archives weren't using it. They did use Pro Copy and Commercial Film--both in copywork and for two step duplication. Those films were missed, not so much SO132.

most places have shifted totally to digital, even still with their darkrooms. even microfilm. these dupe films, line art films and such--the market ain't there.

this was it:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f11/f11.pdf

Robert Hall · Nov 5, 2009

Jeff Kubach said:
I'm buying some Kodak stuff, right now I don't have a lot of money for photography. Hell, my pickup truck has 300,000 miles on it and I gonna to have to keep it a while longer.

Jeff

I believe for your truck to be a "real" photographers truck, it needs at least 150k miles on it. No?

ajuk · Nov 6, 2009

Isn't most of Kodak's film sales down to movie film or is it $1b in photo film?

Dave Pritchard · Nov 15, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
As for Kodak's digital problems, I was remided, while thinking of management problems, that Kodak continually seemed to ignore Moore's law or the book by Kurzweil about the coming "Singularity".

Maybe they should read more and manage less?

PE

Both are good reads.

+1 Kurzweil.

cmacd123 · Nov 16, 2009

The more I think about it, the more that it seems like Kodaks management should have read the founders philosophy.

After EASTMAN could not get a batch of film to work, while the British plant was not having troubles, he went with samples of materials to the UK, and discovered the problem was in his gelatine. He then declaired the principle of "always control an alternate" which the current management did not honor if they have all film production on one machine in one building. Given eastman's experience he probably would have kept harrow and Australia as being the most disperse locations and divided the work between them. They would have in turn downsized likely by keeping their bigest and smallest machines. You NEED a big machine ot make a batch of eastman colour print, particulary as the labs who buy it want each order out of one batch.

Photo Engineer · Nov 16, 2009

Charles;

Kodak makes product in Rochester, Colorado, Chalon France and Harrow England.

So what is your point? Any of these plants can make any product. The fact that they are currently dedicate to one product is done in terms of efficiency.

PE

cmacd123 · Nov 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Charles;

Kodak makes product in Rochester, Colorado, Chalon France and Harrow England.

So what is your point? Any of these plants can make any product. The fact that they are currently dedicate to one product is done in terms of efficiency.

PE

I had been under the impression form one of your previous posts that "Building 38" was now the only film coating lane worldwide. with perhaps some colour paper coming from Colorado.

My point is that some of the smaller plants might have been better for making the current small batches of films that are of interest on APUG.

In the book "project zebra" they talk about the coating managers not wanting to disrupt a major run of popular film to make a small batch for what was at the time "the black and white film flow"

Photo Engineer · Nov 16, 2009

Charles;

You have misread my posts then. Film is made at Rochester and Chalon, but types differ. Paper is made at Harrow and Colorado but widths differ. All plants can make all products, but it is best to segregate paper from film for technical reasons.

PE

seadrive · Nov 16, 2009

The American and European markets are pretty saturated, I think. The future of all these companies is in China and India. Digital will almost certainly be the way they will go, but if even 10% of the rising middle class of these countries decide to shoot film... they would completely reinvigorate sales of analog film products. This is where the photo companies efforts must go, if they want to stay in business.

Photo Engineer · Nov 16, 2009

As I have posted before, these countries have leapfrogged Analog and gone straight to digital and that is what has caused a lot of problems.

PE

clayne · Nov 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Charles;

You have misread my posts then. Film is made at Rochester and Chalon, but types differ. Paper is made at Harrow and Colorado but widths differ. All plants can make all products, but it is best to segregate paper from film for technical reasons.

PE

PE, out of curiosity, what are some of the technical reasons they segregate paper and film production?

Photo Engineer · Nov 16, 2009

IDK really but it is not esoteric. Any plant can make any product if the volume justifies it.

PE

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Nov 16, 2009

Paper is messier than film to coat from what I've read. If you coat paper you've got to clean up the line before you coat film, so it makes more sense to devote a line to paper and a line to film, just for logistics. Only a guess though, as of course you have to clean the line between each run anyway.

Photo Engineer · Nov 17, 2009

Fleath has posted some of the issues above, but there are more related to emulsion types, coating conditions, coating speeds, drying conditions and etc that are routinely different for the film and paper lines. Readjusting those are a pain, but once established they can be re-used. The problem is the changeover which wastes time.

Even if sales justify it, the wasted time may eliminate a lot of your profit.

PE

Hard times for Kodak continue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency