"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

[jamusu]

I think it is best that this thread is closed. I will make my request to the moderators.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think it is best that this thread is closed. I will make my request to the moderators.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

FWIW, I thought it a worthwhile discussion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

FWIW, I thought it a worthwhile discussion.

As did I...

Ken

 

[MattKing]

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.

Sanders:

I think there are probably more 220 capable cameras available then you think.

As an example, all of the Mamiya 220 and 330 series TLRs are 220 capable. In addition, the Mamiya 645 AF cameras are all 220 capable.

If I read you correctly, I think you are saying that one of the measures of how little popularity there is for 220 is the fact that so little TXP 320 was being sold, even though it had the benefit of being the only emulsion available in that size. That logic might cut both ways. It may be that there would have been much more 220 sold if it had been available in a more popular emulsion.

Also, I've seen conflicting posts here about the question of whether TX 400 would have to have a special coating run if it were to be available in 220. Can anyone say whether Plus-X required separate coating runs for 220 when it was available in both 120 and 220?

If a separate coating is not required, obviously the cost to Kodak of adding 220 Tri-X 400 to their product line would be less than if one is required.

The petition has one benefit, as I see it. I would assume that when Kodak decided to cancel TXP, they would have considered the question of whether there was money to be made in supplying another film in 220 format. If they came to the conclusion that there was insufficient interest in such a product, they would have decided against it. The petition may cause them to revisit that part of the question.

One minor caveat - If I had prepared the petition, I might have left the choice of films more open-ended. It may be that Kodak would be more receptive to supplying TMY-2 or T-Max in 220 instead of TriX 400.

Matt

 

[jgjbowen]

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

Ron,

Thanks once again for sharing your considerable knowledge with us.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek...NOW CALL YOUR KODAK BUDDIES AND DEMAND THEY SUPPLY A B&W FILM IN 220 FORMAT That ought to take care of it...

 

[Oren Grad]

Another issue is that you can't project the profitability of the proposed product in isolation. To what extent would offering TX in 220 cannibalize sales of TX or other existing Kodak B&W emulsions in 120? If a 220 product does not generate very substantial new sales, but rather serves primarily to spread an already declining sales base more expensively across additional SKUs and production runs, then it's a losing proposition for Kodak's B&W film business overall.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think there are probably more 220 capable cameras available then you think. As an example, all of the Mamiya 220 and 330 series TLRs are 220 capable. In addition, the Mamiya 645 AF cameras are all 220 capable.

Matt, I think your examples prove my point. The
cameras you mention also shoot 120 film. (Is there
any camera that will be made obsolete by the end
of the 220 format?) And if you total up all of the
220-capable cameras out there (most of which are
probably being used for 120 film anyway), they
cannot amount to more than a few percent of the
many millions of 120 MF cameras in existence.

There were millions -- millions! -- of 127-format
Brownies and other cameras (Baby Rolleiflexes!)
and they didn't generate enough demand to make
it worthwhile for Kodak to continue to manufacture
127 film. Kodak orphaned millions of its own
Brownie cameras by this decision -- as, again, it
did with the end of 620 film, a format unique to
Kodak cameras. Do you think that the market for
B+W 220 film even comes close to what demand
had been for these now-obsolete films?

 

[MattKing]

Sanders:

It all of course turns on $.

If adding another length of Tri-X in medium format will make more money than it will cost, it will be worthwhile for Kodak to consider it.

I don't know that the 127 and 620 formats provide a great parallel, because the discontinuance of those sizes was probably primarily a decision about colour film sales. In the case of 220, colour film sales continue.

Matt

 

[fotch]

Perhaps the petition should ask that all signers commit to purchasing in advance, 15 rolls minimum, if Kodak will consider this. If they do, the signers are to immediately send prepayment to someone who can set up a trust fund unless Kodak or one of its retailers can accept and tract the orders. Production only starts if all the prepayments have been paid for by a certain date.

Certainly, the professionals relying on this film would order a lot more. so maybe enough for 2 master runs.

This is also known as putting your money where your mouth is. I mean no disrespect, just honesty.

JMHO

 

[clayne]

Matt, I think your examples prove my point. The
cameras you mention also shoot 120 film. (Is there
any camera that will be made obsolete by the end
of the 220 format?) And if you total up all of the
220-capable cameras out there (most of which are
probably being used for 120 film anyway), they
cannot amount to more than a few percent of the
many millions of 120 MF cameras in existence.

Sanders, they had 320TXP-120 format. If it were a format issue then they probably would have just dropped it in 220 only.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, they had 320TXP-120 format. If it were a format issue then they probably would have just dropped it in 220 only.

It's more complex than that, but I am willing to bet
that the format plays a role in the decision. I would
guess -- only a guess -- that Kodak decided that it
was diluting its own product line by offering four fast
B+W emulsions (TMY, TXP, 400TX and 400CN) and
decided to offer two instead. TXP likely existed as
long as it did because it was rolled in 220 as well as
120 formats. Even offered in both formats (120 and
220), it amounted to only 5 percent of 400TX sales.

There must be logistical issues that play into this,
that we are not seeing -- the sourcing of the paper
backs for 220 film, the operation of the machinery
for spooling 220 film, the lines on which the different
emulsions are coated, and so on. A disruption in one
of these factors might have pushed the decision to
stop production. Since 220 sales are not nearly so
robust as 120 sales, and since TXP is a tiny fraction
of Kodak's market, and since other Kodak films already
occupy the product segment, the company must have
decided that further investment in the product would
not generate sufficient returns to justify the expense.

Clearly, Kodak did not run into issues with the TXP
emulsion -- it continues to offer TXP in sheet film. So
it must be a decision driven by format, cost and volume.

 

[2F/2F]

What I have never understood is why 220 is such a little known and little used format. It is superior to 120 in every way, IMHO, for anyone shooting more than just a little bit.

 

[clayne]

Let us remember that 220 is still used in color films, so I'm pretty damn sure they can source whatever they need from the same sources they use for their color lines. Also, stupid question here, but what is so distinctly complicated about the 220 paper? If anything i'd think it'd be less of an issue than 120, seeing that there is less of it (the paper that is).

IMO, 220 *is* better and more efficient than 120. It's quite easy to shoot 24 frames in a single day. We do it all the time with 135 film (I carry my MF cameras around and use them the same general way I'd use a 35mm camera).

 

[lxdude]

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".

One more time...it's not a petition to bring back a film. It's asking EK to carry an existing B+W film in 220 size. A petition is not a waste of time, even if by itself it would not achieve the goal. It's a starting point. Kodak of course expects to see petitions every time they discontinue something significant. It would take a lot of signatures for a petition to be enough. But it does no harm either, and its absence would send a message, too.

You never know unless you try. Some years back, here in California, there was petition to recall the Governor. Most people gave it no chance of going anywhere, and it did seem to be languishing. It was mocked roundly by pundits and its supporters were looked upon by many as well meaning but maybe a little foolish to think it would make a difference. But it kept accumulating signatures and support. A recall election resulted and the populace tossed out the sitting Governor.
This is not to start a political discussion, only to serve as an example of how a petition was successful, after it was given no chance by the vast majority of those "in the know".


As to your statement that finding the Kodak rep to chat with does nothing- how do you know? Ektar is an excellent example of how communication brought additional sizes of a product to market. Kodak would not have done it if they didn't think demand for it in those sizes existed. Fuji brought back Velvia 50, even though they had to do more than restart the line. How do companies perceive demand if demand is not voiced?

You are right about voting with our wallets. But we can't buy what isn't made. According to Kodak, TX outsold TXP by more than 95 to 5. Of that 5, some amount was 220. Until recently, Kodak thought it worthwhile to make that small a quantity of 220 B+W. I don't think it's a stretch to think Kodak might make a 220 version of TX if they hear from enough people.

 

[2F/2F]

We're better off stockpiling TXP in 120 and 220 than counting on this to happen with TX...but if TX 220 was available, I would buy it, so I shall sign the thing.

All this jibber jabber, and only $1,200 "pledged" toward a last custom run of TXP medium format...

I am more concerned about the total loss of it in medium format than about the loss of 220. I knew that was coming, but I in no way, shape, or form thought that it would be discontinued in 120. I thought TX would go away in 120, but not TXP.

 

[2F/2F]

In the case of 220, colour film sales continue.

Not for long would be my guess.

 

[Blacknoise]

I signed.

I don't use Kodak films (Ilford4life!), nor do I use 220, but its sad to see any film get pulled.

 

[lxdude]

Sanders:

I think there are probably more 220 capable cameras available then you think.

As an example, all of the Mamiya 220 and 330 series TLRs are 220 capable. In addition, the Mamiya 645 AF cameras are all 220 capable.

and the older Mamiya 645's, and the RB and RZ, the Bronicas, the Pentax 67 and 645, the Hasselblads, The Rollei SLR's... most MF cameras made since 220 came out can use it.

If I read you correctly, I think you are saying that one of the measures of how little popularity there is for 220 is the fact that so little TXP 320 was being sold, even though it had the benefit of being the only emulsion available in that size. That logic might cut both ways. It may be that there would have been much more 220 sold if it had been available in a more popular emulsion.

I agree.

One minor caveat - If I had prepared the petition, I might have left the choice of films more open-ended. It may be that Kodak would be more receptive to supplying TMY-2 or T-Max in 220 instead of TriX 400.

I think that's a good point.

 

[fotch]

and the older Mamiya 645's, and the RB and RZ, the Bronicas, the Pentax 67 and 645, the Hasselblads, The Rollei SLR's... most MF cameras made since 220 came out can use it.

I agree.

I think that's a good point.

"older Mamiya 645's", don't they need a 220 insert? Or do the inserts take both 120 and 220?

 

[2F/2F]

"older Mamiya 645's", don't they need a 220 insert? Or do the inserts take both 120 and 220?

They need a 220 insert to shoot 220 just as much as they need a 120 insert to shoot 120. You can shoot 120 in the 220 insert, and it comes out fine. Haven't tried it the other way around.

 

[fotch]

They need a 220 insert to shoot 220 just as much as they need a 120 insert to shoot 120. You can shoot 120 in the 220 insert, and it comes out fine. Haven't tried it the other way around.

OK, that is what I thought. I have one with the 120 insert. I could shoot 220 with my C330 but have had no reason to do so yet.

 

[lxdude]

And if you total up all of the
220-capable cameras out there (most of which are
probably being used for 120 film anyway), they
cannot amount to more than a few percent of the
many millions of 120 MF cameras in existence.

I do not agree with that. A few percent? Most MF cameras made since 220 was introduced can use 220. Most 120-only cameras have not been made for a long time, and see little use compared to newer ones.

There were millions -- millions! -- of 127-format
Brownies and other cameras (Baby Rolleiflexes!)
and they didn't generate enough demand to make
it worthwhile for Kodak to continue to manufacture
127 film. Kodak orphaned millions of its own
Brownie cameras by this decision -- as, again, it
did with the end of 620 film, a format unique to
Kodak cameras. Do you think that the market for
B+W 220 film even comes close to what demand
had been for these now-obsolete films?

The formats you mention were amateur and casual user formats, and those people moved on to smaller formats and different camera designs. New cameras in those formats were no longer available. Amateurs went 35mm. Kodak created 110 and 126 to sell Instamatics to casual users, and later disc film and cameras. A lot of that market went to 35mm when AE, AF, and simple loading became available.
I've long had numerous old cameras, but I almost never used them. It's not how many were made, it's how many were still being used. The target market for those cameras had ceased using them. Yet Kodak made film to fit them long after they were obsolete.
When 620 was discontinued, most Brownies had sat many years in closets, attics or basements, or had been thrown out. Were more people using it then than are now using 220? Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

[lxdude]

"older Mamiya 645's", don't they need a 220 insert? Or do the inserts take both 120 and 220?

So do the Pentax 645's and the Bronicas. And the inserts are dirt cheap these days.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I signed. I don't use Kodak films (Ilford4life!), nor do I use 220, but its sad to see any film get pulled.

Which is why such petitions are rarely persuasive.
Most signers have no stake in the outcome.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I do not agree with that. A few percent? Most MF cameras made since 220 was introduced can use 220. Most 120-only cameras have not been made for a long time, and see little use compared to newer ones.

If you were right, 220 film sales would reflect it.
They do not. Kodak is ending its 220 B+W line.
Ilford will not invest to create a 220 product.
What does that tell you?

I don't know if I'm a typical user, but I shoot
Rolleiflexes and MF folders for the most part.
And a few Brownies for fun. I have over a dozen
MF cameras in my stable, mostly Rolleiflexes.
Not one of them will accept 220 film.