"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

[Ektagraphic]

I wish I could fully join you 2F/2F...But I can help with 2/10 of that

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Love your web site! Nice work.

Thanks, Don. I appreciate your compliment more than you realize. 365 is an awfully big number. Damn that Rob Skeoch for roping me into this.

Now if everyone here could just look at this poor petition through the eyes of that little fellow shown in the opening January 1 photo, this sad thread might actually end...

Ken

 

[lxdude]

I find the "ain't gonna do no good" type comments mostly unhelpful, and some of them condescending to the point of being annoying. Sure you have the right to engage in discourse on any thread, but taking potshots from the sidelines accomplishes nothing. I mean, what harm does the petition do? Apparently, anyone who signs the petition is some poor benighted soul being unrealistic thinking that a petition will make a difference.
The petition in itself might not make a difference, but as part of a larger voice it could.
As I and others said earlier, we can't vote with our wallets if we can't purchase what doesn't exist. It is not a "Bring back TXP" petition. It's asking Kodak to bring out their best selling B+W film in a format for which they would have the whole market.

TXP represented less than 5% of Tri-X sales, indicating that even in 120 size, most people preferred TX. Still, until now Kodak found it worthwhile to make TXP in 220 also. Does it not stand to reason that Kodak might find it worthwhile to make the much more popular TX in 220?

The Kodak people are not stupid. I'm sure they have anticipated this request and are open to fulfilling it if they hear it enough times.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I did not make my comments, at least, to
be "unhelpful" or to take "potshots from the
sidelines." I made them to suggest that, if
people really want to save this film (if that
is even possible), they need to do more than
sign a petition -- a LOT more.

That's really the bottom line. I hear people
like Cheryl Jacobs who are distressed that
their favorite film is going away. I found
myself in the same place when Agfa folded
and I am sure every film shooter has watched
his or her favorite products bite the dust as
manufacturers found that they could no longer
offer them profitably to their customers. This
is not a recent phenomenon -- names like
Portriga and Super XX and Ansco have long
since been retired from the field. It is the
nature of the market.

So, I get it. I sympathize. It's because I get
it, that I am suggesting another way: Find a
way to make the film a viable product going
forward. Sign all the petitions you want but
don't kid yourself that they will matter. What
MIGHT matter is to create the economic conditions
to permit Kodak to continue to make the film.

I offered three different ways to do that in my
last post off the top of my head, and I am sure
that there are many other ways to the same
end if people care enough to try to save the
film. Unfortunately, it all comes down in the
end to money -- the options all involve risk
and investment of money. Do you want the
film enough to put your money on the table?
Obviously, the answer to that question, until
now, has been a resounding "no," else Kodak
would still be making it.

Show them the money. Don't expect signatures
to move a public corporation that must justify
its decisions to its board and shareholders. And
don't confuse an effort at helpful advice with
hostility. We all are looking for ways to be
helpful. Why the anger?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sanders,

The petition is apparently not asking for a reinstatement by Kodak of 220 320TXP, but rather a substitution of never previously manufactered 220 400TX. Or more succinctly, offering their best-selling Tri-X emulsion (>95% of sales?) in 220 instead of their worst-selling Tri-X emulsion (<5% of sales?). *

Just speculating now, but given that Kodak is apparently already OEMing a version of 400TX to Freestyle as a flavor of Arista presumably to help keep their large-scale capacity infrastructure running, this might not be such a bad idea, if it could be made to pencil out.

Ken

* Although in truth I'm not certain if that 95/5 split was for 400TX/320TXP, or all Tri-X sales/220-320TXP.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Just speculating now, but given that Kodak is apparently already OEMing a version of 400TX to Freestyle as a flavor of Arista presumably to help keep their large-scale capacity infrastructure running, this might not be such a bad idea, if it could be made to pencil out.

Which was why I suggested it.

 

[2F/2F]

Sanders,

The petition is apparently not asking for a reinstatement by Kodak of 220 320TXP, but rather a substitution of never previously manufactered 220 400TX. Or more succinctly, offering their best-selling Tri-X emulsion (>95% of sales?) in 220 instead of their worst-selling Tri-X emulsion (<5% of sales?). *

Just speculating now, but given that Kodak is apparently already OEMing a version of 400TX to Freestyle as a flavor of Arista presumably to help keep their large-scale capacity infrastructure running, this might not be such a bad idea, if it could be made to pencil out.

Ken

* Although in truth I'm not certain if that 95/5 split was for 400TX/320TXP, or all Tri-X sales/220-320TXP.

I believe the statement was that Tri-X 320 in medium format accounted for 5% of all Tri-X sold, meaning that Tri-X 400 accounted for 95% of all Tri-X sold.

This sounded hard to believe to me, as the 400 is much more scarce in medium format, IME. 320 has always been in stock, and in large numbers. Usually, I have to special order the 400 or drive to Freestyle to get it.

 

[bob100684]

I believe the statement was that Tri-X 320 in medium format accounted for 5% of all Tri-X sold, meaning that Tri-X 400 accounted for 95% of all Tri-X sold.

This sounded hard to believe to me, as the 400 is much more scarce in medium format, IME. 320 has always been in stock, and in large numbers. Usually, I have to special order the 400 or drive to Freestyle to get it.

It could go either way with that one.....you could have trouble finding it because it flew off the shelf as soon as it is in stock.

 

[2F/2F]

It could go either way with that one.....you could have trouble finding it because it flew off the shelf as soon as it is in stock.

Nope. Samy's, L.A.'s local big photo store (closest thing we have to B&H, though it doesn't even come close in size), simply does not stock it, in favor of the 320, at any time I have asked. That should change now, however.

 

[Chazzy]

With the utmost respect for the posters on this thread, particularly this last bit, it might just be better to drop the useless banter. It sounds like most readers agree this is pretty straightforward: sign it if you used TXP 220 and want it back on the market, don't sign it if you didn't and don't (for whatever reason) and move on to more useful threads if you think this is a waste of time. Since the OP first posted this I must have read over 50 other threads that were immeasurably more illuminating, and yet this one pops up more on today's threads than any other. Just my two cents. I hope it helps.

Just for the record, the petition is not about bringing back TXP in 220. It's about offering TX in 220, which ought to be a more viable proposition.

 

[lxdude]

Once again: it's not a petition to retain TXP in 120 or 220.

If people want to sign a petition to save TXP, fine, but this isn't it.

It's a petition requesting a 220 version of TX 400, which would serve the demand for 220 in B+W, which will otherwise go unsupported. It's a starting point; a collective request from people who don't have an opportunity to speak to Kodak reps directly. Personal communication to Kodak from each individual would be a good way to follow it up, though I'm sure there are those who will say that won't make a difference, either.
Kodak might be considering bringing out a TX220, for all we know. We know they do listen: look at Ektar in 120 size, and I doubt they would be bringing it out in sheet sizes if they weren't getting requests.

Rolleiflexible, your advice is good for those wishing to retain TXP. It's not your comments I'm criticizing. But you're addressing something other than this petition.

Numerous color films are available in 220. It's not such a stretch to think that one 220 B+W film might be sustainable. One was until recently, even though it represented only a portion of sales of a film that was itself a small seller. So I think some of the comments were excessively pessimistic regarding the possibility of another much better selling film being made in 220 size.
Comments which were condescending in tone or characterizing the petitioners as lacking common sense and as dreamers, or implying the whole thing is foolish are the potshots from the sidelines to which I was referring.


Suzanne said she used TXP 220 because TX 400 was not available in 220. I'm sure she's not the only one. I doubt that every TXP220 user would switch to TX220, but I expect a lot of them would. Only Kodak knows how much TX220 it would have to sell to make it worthwhile. But I don't think our only option is to pony up the cash to pay for a production run.

 

[bob100684]

Just for the record, the petition is not about bringing back TXP in 220. It's about offering TX in 220, which ought to be a more viable proposition.

I'm surprised they aren't. Do they really sell that little 220 film in general that a black and white variety wouldn't be profitable?

 

[Chazzy]

I'm surprised they aren't. Do they really sell that little 220 film in general that a black and white variety wouldn't be profitable?

A heck of a lot of people use 220 for portraiture, because medium format is more convenient than large format. A lot of them are doing color portraiture, but black and white portraiture is becoming more popular. TX has always been a more popular choice than TXP and is the film everyone means when they refer to Tri-X. I think it's safe to assume that they would sell more TX in 220 than they were selling of TXP in 220, but of course Kodak won't know how much TX they would sell in 220 until they give it a try.

 

[clayne]

Alright, exactly *how* can we show Kodak the money to propose 400TX-220? Who do we contact and how do we get the ball rolling on this?

 

[jgjbowen]

I was just wondering.... which will come first.....will the petition get 1,000 signatures or will this thread get 1,000 posts????

Alas, yesterday B&H e-mailed me that TXP was available in 220, purchased 40 rolls and this morning it is no longer listed on their site. RIP

 

[jgjbowen]

I've signed the petition, but as a newcomer to MF (just purchased a camera within the last two weeks) I was wondering just how long has TXP been the ONLY BW film available in 220? With the ONLY film, Kodak has to know exactly what the demand for BW 220 film is. How do you convince Kodak that there will be a CONSIDERABLY higher demand for TX in 220 then there was for TXP in 220?

On the other hand, since Kodak makes TX in 120 and produces 220 color films, it MAY not be all that difficult for them to produce TX in 220. Perhaps a special run of TX 220 every year or two. PE may know if this is even feasable.

Oh well, I'll have to keep my eyes open for TXP in 220 and a 120 back for my camera.

 

[jamusu]

Everyone.

The purpose of the petition is not to bring TXP 320 back. It has been discontinued because to be honest, it was not that popular of a film. The purpose of the petition is to ask Kodak to consider making the more popular TX (120) in 220 format. I am not so naive as to believe that signatures will convince Kodak to produce this film in 220 format. The petition is a starting point; the vehicle used to learn how many medium format photographers use TX 120 and would love to use it in 220 format as well. It is a means of learning how much of an interest there is for it.

I have read many post's stating that we need money first which will show how serious we are, but it makes no sense at all to offer Kodak a proposal without knowing if we have enough photographers who are willing to purchase the film if manufactured. My thinking is if we reach the needed 1000 signatures or more, it will show Kodak that there is a need, however small it may be for this film. It is then that we may have a chance of actually convincing Kodak to take a serious look at our request because 1000 signatures or more equals profit if enough of those who sign guarantee to purchase the film, which will be the next phase of the "Initiative", but the signatures must come first.

This will not be a quick process as many of you are aware of, nor will it be easy. Petitions take time to become effective, especially ones concerning analogue photography methods. As long as their are groups such as our much beloved APUG, that gives us a resounding voice that may have otherwise gone unheard, there is still hope that we can succeed with petitions to save our analogue products because last I checked, APUG stood for "Analog Photography Users Group" and not "Analog Photography Useless Group".


Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[MikeSeb]

Calling for a petition "moratorium" because you're weary of reading about them is preventing free speech.

Respectfully, not sure how "calling for" equates to "preventing". I've incarcerated no one; I've clapped my hand over no one's mouth; I've shouted down no speaker in the public square; I've stolen and destroyed no copies of the petition to prevent their delivery. I have presented my viewpoint vigorously, inviting others to do the same---which they have.

Disagreeing with a viewpoint is not the same as preventing its expression---except in the sense that, one hopes, a more-logically-consistent viewpoint would prevail over the others, and sway people's opinions.

 

[MikeSeb]

Jamusu, my point, again, is that if you want something to happen, move beyond empty symbolism and take concrete action.

There are people here with direct or indirect ties to Kodak. Use them to find out who to talk to about the feasibility of making 220 400TX. Scott DiSabato, via Scott Sheppard, maybe? Ron Mowry, perhaps?

And assuming it's in any way feasible to make the stuff, which do you think Kodak would find more convincing? A preorder for the first run, cash in hand? Or the empty promise of an online petition drive, in which only Kodak is expected to put skin in the game by making a new product on spec in a declining market?

This is what I mean by concrete action vs. empty symbolism. A petition is feel-good chest-thumping; a plan take sustained effort and demonstrates commitment.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As John Bowen asked, I have given some thought to his question. After all, I am not insensitive to your wants and needs, nor am I against the petition, I just feel that more participation is needed. Therefore, my thoughts. They explain things more clearly than my previous post.

One master roll of film will make about 15,000 rolls of 220 film or about 1/2 the 35,000 that it will make of 35mm. This film will have to be sold within the expiration date of the film or within about 3 years. To give you a 2 year lifetime in your hands, the film would have to be sold in one year. This gives you 2 years of life minus shipping and shelf time at dealers.

So, assume $10 / roll or greater, and we come up with a return to Kodak of about $150,000. Is this enough to cover labor and materials as well as other costs? IDK, but it comes pretty close to breaking even for them. My information on this is dreadfully out of date though.

Now, lets approach this from another angle. Kodak can make any product in any format including 4x5 or 8x10 Kodachrome if the return warrants it. But, here is the catch. It takes a pilot run of every emulsion and layer before committing to the production run of something "new". So, to do what you want with any product, there is an additional development time and cost that gets tacked on in front of the needs for the final return on investment.

So, I suspect that you can get what you want if you come up with 15,000 firm orders minimum up front if it is an existing product, and probably double that for a "new" product.

Now, this is OTOMH and vapor, but I'll bet it is closer than anyone else not in the business could estimate.

PE

 

[SilverGlow]

Petitions do nothing to bring the film back. It is masturbation, and a waste of time.

By the time a film is cut from production, it is usually gone forever, and too late. The window to save it has passed, never to reopen.

We're talking dollars and cents here. Kodak cut that film because it's not profitable. And finding the Kodak rep to chat with does NOTHING...again, NOTHING. Kodak makes decisions on sales not empty petitions.

What can bring back a product is solid firm orders, and the sense that firm orders will continue into the future. A petition will not do that because Kodak nor any company likes to make those types of gambles.

Kodak is not in it for love of film...they're in it for $$, as they should be. They have stockholders to appease, as well as the board.

I would suggest we use the film that we still can buy and in production, and maybe the lesson here is that if you really love a film then use it. A lot!! Buy it and often....vote with your wallet, which is the final and most important "petition".

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The petition is apparently not asking for a reinstatement by Kodak of 220 320TXP, but rather a substitution of never previously manufactered 220 400TX. Or more succinctly, offering their best-selling Tri-X emulsion (>95% of sales?) in 220 instead of their worst-selling Tri-X emulsion (<5% of sales?).

I understand the distinction. My guess is that the sales
numbers reflect the low demand for 220 film, not the low
demand for TXP. Why? Because, if you are a B+W shooter
of 220-format film, TXP is (was) your only film. The
differences between 400TX and TXP are not so great as to
make the emulsion the deciding factor in whether the shoot
TXP 220 -- it's the format that's driving (or, more likely,
inhibiting) sales of the film.

And there are a lot of reasons for that. Most cameras
will not accept 220 film. Most processing setups expect
120 film. A 220 roll is eight feet long -- cumbersome to
handle, hard to hang to dry. The culture of MF photography
revolves around a four-foot strip of film: Twelve squares.
It does not seem likely that 400TX in 220 format would
generate any more sales than TXP in 220 did.

There are so many film formats that made sense that have
been orphaned over the years, with much much larger bases
of users -- 620 and 127 being the most obvious examples.
But browse the list of now-obsolete formats and weep:

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

By contrast, the user base for 220 must be much smaller,
because there are so many fewer cameras that rely on the
availability of 220 film.

The market doesn't really understand the difference between
TXP and 400TX -- the shared name confuses the difference,
and the difference in any event is academic if you're looking
to shoot 220 film in B+W. Asking Kodak to change the emulsion
is a nice idea, but it's not likely to generate more sales of 220.

 

[donbga]

Petitions do nothing to bring the film back. It is masturbation, and a waste of time.

By the time a film is cut from production, it is usually gone forever, and too late. The window to save it has passed, never to reopen.

We're talking dollars and cents here. Kodak cut that film because it's not profitable. And finding the Kodak rep to chat with does NOTHING...again, NOTHING. Kodak makes decisions on sales not empty petitions.

What can bring back a product is solid firm orders, and the sense that firm orders will continue into the future. A petition will not do that because Kodak nor any company likes to make those types of gambles.

Kodak is not in it for love of film...they're in it for $$, as they should be. They have stockholders to appease, as well as the board.

I would suggest we use the film that we still can buy and in production, and maybe the lesson here is that if you really love a film then use it. A lot!! Buy it and often....vote with your wallet, which is the final and most important "petition".

+1

 

[F80p]

As a side thought......
Hmmm.....Looking at how people...spread over a large geographical area....want their favorite film to be available to them in a store near home, i think it will increasingly become difficult for film manufacturing companies to satisfy everybody. I think the best method...as discussed earlier in this thread... is to order a particular type of film buy offering whatever money it costs to the company. Or Just scrap off this system of buying film at your local dealer and instead deal with a single dealer like freestyle or any other online shop. So that....that one online shop can give large film orders to kodak or fuji at once. This problem of unavailable materials is probably because of sparsely spread demand. Am i right people?.......because a local store owner will not order fresh stock if he is going to sell only few roll of a film type per year....thats the logic i was thinking.

 

[Existing Light]

Petitions do nothing to bring the film back. It is masturbation, and a waste of time.

Perhaps we should stop masturbating and start shooting more film

I would suggest we use the film that we still can buy and in production, and maybe the lesson here is that if you really love a film then use it. A lot!! Buy it and often....vote with your wallet, which is the final and most important "petition".

I'm waiting on my next paycheck to be deposited so I can stock up on more film (Unfortunately for Tri-x fans, I'm an HP5+ guy)