• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

It's official, Kodak is selling its film business.

MAKING KODAK FILM. Is this what is about to be lost?

I just ordered a book called Making Kodak Film from an APUG ad. This book promises to tell the inside story of the complex process that Kodak has evolved. It should lay to rest any vague ideas that I or others have had about making their own film. It's a super space age, multi generational accomplishment. Not cheap at $38 delivered, but my usual strategy of waiting for a bargain remainder sale is unlikely to pay off, it's too specialized. A special printing, sold by author, limited to stock on hand.

www.makingkodakfilm.com

copy from the site:

"The technology required to make photographic film has been a secret held by a few companies. This book explains, for the first time, at this level of detail, how Eastman Kodak Company makes film. Photographic film is one of the most technically sophisticated chemical products that is used in everyday life. Over 200 complex chemical components are coated on to film base in up to 18 unique, precision layers which in total are half the thickness of a human hair.

This insider’s view explains in simple terms how the operation works. It is a picture book with over 25 diagrams and over 130 photographs of Kodak’s production materials and equipment. Sixty percent of the printed surface area is illustrations. The book is unique; nearly all the illustrations were made specifically for this book."

Let's hope this book is not a sad memorial to what has been lost. I want a copy in any case, especially in the worst case.

Todd Foster. Pioneertown, CA.
 
Mikendawn, Diapositivo;

Kodak makes a top of the line POD printer in Heidelberg Germany which can indeed print one copy or many fully bound documents. It can print a wide range of sizes and in full color. Kodak has plans to make the ink, the consumable, a high profit item somewhat similar to the color printers and processing chemicals we are familiar with in analog photography.

In fact, recent purchases of this product seem to outdo those of similar Xerox and Canon products. Now, how do I know this? My book was done on this unit and it is POD. I can get one copy or hundreds. It can be bound in at least 3 different manners. I have 2 of them right here now and a box of books.

My comments are not outside of the "box" given in the mission statement posted above, but those words translate into a commercial line of printers and inks that Kodak (Perez) hopes will generate a lot of cash.

Oh, BTW, each printer is supported by a Kodak service policy which is glued to the body of the printer for easy and quick reference. Another source of revenue for EK.

At present, they lack good color engineers, and so the inks have quite a bit of metamerism under different illuminants. I just hope that they get that fixed up. The printers are very quick, silent and low in faults.

PE
 
mikendawn said:
Today, however, Kodak has seemingly flipped the coin and decided to completely forget about their grassroots and move to the beat of the Investors and Board of Directors, instead of listening to the masses (customers) demands.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the masses no longer ask for film.

mikendawn said:
As stated before, they are planning on keeping their CRAP PRINTERS and CHEAP INK as a means of profit for their company.
Click to expand...

Yes, it sounds like they are keeping their line of consumer printers. I don't know if they are crap or cheap, but most consumer electronics are, so it wouldn't seem out of the ordinary. But just so you know, Kodak has also made large commercial printers for years, competing with Xerox, Canon, HP, Siemens, OCE, and so forth. They are nothing at all like consumer printers, and it's not a new business they are just getting into.
 
All I'm asking for is that Kodak produces at least 100 rolls of Tri-X a year, for my personal usage. And to fire that martinez dude.
 
PhotoEngineer,

See, I never said that their printers weren't quick... But review after review (we're talking Consumer Printers now) is very disheartening. I have used a Kodak Printer, and it was terrible. Everything was magenta biased. I had tried adjusting the colour profile to try to correct it, and never worked. After 10 prints and trying to get it corrected, I said to hell with it, and printed with the Canon instead. Why would I want to waste any more time with a printer that can't even get the most simplest of tasks done that it is designed to do. And that's PRINT. Sure. it was just a couple of 4x6 photos, nothing fancy, but it is designed to print and failed at doing that.

Canon, and Epson, have never let me down, except in cost of ink. And when there's EBAY there is much less expensive ink. Sure, the Ink costs for the Kodak are very inexpensive, but when you are wasted expensive photo paper, I'd sooner spend a bit more and have a better printer.

Naturally, of course, I only do B&W in a send-away service, or in my darkroom up to 11x14..

Haven't had anything of the caliber of a large scale publisher printer used, and if Kodak has some great large scale printers, great! All the power to them, but consumer based printers are something they are constantly advertising on the Radio and on the TV here.. If they are crappy printers that do mediocre prints, then fix that problem first!

One way or another, hopefully Kodak will emerge a smaller and more profitable company after, but I doubt it.
They have been bleeding money for years, and that will be a near impossible habit to break. So if they sell off their film department and that survives, while the rest of the company flounders. No loss..
That would just mean that they never learned...
Those that don't learn from their mistakes from history, are doomed to repeat them..
 

they aren't crap or cheap, and from all reports they work very well.
and the ones in the wings, are supposed to give the pro-line stuff others produce
a run for their money ..

copy shops have the large printing machines that bind into books
they are pretty impressive, you're right skipA not consumer and not a new market for kodak at all ...
 

Please please, read what you posted here and what I posted in my previous post.

I am not talking about the tiny home printers!!! Kodak is not concentrating on them. Their big hope is in automobile sized printers with huge capacity (and huge price). These printers are the hope of Kodak management (although some think that hope misguided). And some are so expensive that they are not bought, only leased.

Yes, Kodak makes a small printer. IMHO it is not very good! They may even advertize it, but not here in Rochester. However, there has been talk of EK getting out of this end of the market due to the high competition.

At the high end, their competition is much less and includes Xerox which has troubles of its own. Xerox has similar printers to the Kodak model and there are just 2 or 3 manufacturers of these. They are all competing to create POD centers (small print shops) all over the world.

In this field, Kodak is surprisingly able to pull ahead by a small margin.

That is my point. That EK is not relying on the home printer to save them!

PE
 
To echo PE, Kodak stopped serious work and investing in home and small office printers a while ago. I believe that they are keeping those markets open as a cover for underselling the other companies' ink cartridges.
 
Arkasha said:
Er, that's not quite true, fortunately.
The market is smaller than it was, but it does exist, and you can buy more than just tubes for guitar amps.
Click to expand...

What I was saying is that the MANUFACTURE of tubes is mainly confined to the ones used in Guitar amps and other sudio equipment (Ignoring Magnetrons) No one is currently making 50L6GTs for example. Unlike Film - Fortunatly_ tubes don't have an expiry date so some dealers have gatherd up tubes that date back as far as WWII to make them available to those who use them.
 

Thread from a few years ago:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 
If someone buys Kodak film business can they make Kodak brand film? Or the name doesn't come with the business?
 
I think if you wade through the various threads (not an easy task), the trademark is being considered part of the package.
 

Virtually every tube with measurable demand is being made now. There are all kinds of stereo manufacturers producing equipment that uses vacuum tubes. Western Electric even reopened their plant to start up 300B producing again, but I think that has once again closed down. Those tubes last an eternity so once you buy these power tubes, you often dont need to again for 10 years or more.

Current tube production is in eastern Europe and China. Hopefully these two regions can save film as well.
 
If you consider that Kodak outsourced it's Chemical division years ago, the chems are all "Kodak" branded, so if they "nix" their film division I'm sure it'll still be labelled as Kodak film.
 
mikendawn said:
If you consider that Kodak outsourced it's Chemical division years ago, the chems are all "Kodak" branded, so if they "nix" their film division I'm sure it'll still be labelled as Kodak film.
Click to expand...

they sell polaroid batteries at my local neighborhood JUNK STORE.
 
jnanian said:
they sell polaroid batteries at my local neighborhood JUNK STORE.
Click to expand...

In the UK we have £1 stores (everything costs £1). The bargain batteries (pack of 12 for £1) are branded Kodak. They last about five minutes.


Steve.
 
I've bought these Kodak batteries from the UK pound store (actually 11 in the pack I got, "10 plus one extra free"!). They're the old-fashioned zinc chloride type (says that on the packet, also "Made in China, extra heavy duty for low power products"). So, basically, just cheap-and-cheerful!

But is this really the sort of product Kodak should be putting out or licencing under what was once a top quality US brand names?? IDK?

The same store has been selling Kodak Color Plus (24 exp) and Agfa Vista 200(36 exp) (the latter clearly made by Fuji) for £1....a good buy, particularly the Agfa! !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Smith said:
How does that work?!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Dunno!! :confused:

(Seriously, the old zinc chlorides are OK for things like clocks and remotes which take very little power, maybe small pocket torches. Hopeless for anything with a motor or high-drain like flash or digital cameras. So users who don't realise this or read the packet could blame Kodak for selling rubbish!
Particularly when good alkaline batteries can be bought for 4 or 6 for £1 (the Kodak alkalines at that price are quite OK, but not perhaps up to the brand leaders in my humble experience).
 
jnanian said:
they sell polaroid batteries at my local neighborhood JUNK STORE.
Click to expand...

And the Kodak chemicals are as good as they ever were. This means absolutely nothing. It just means that the transferred name isn't a guarantee of the same quality, true enough, but neither is it a guarantee of lesser quality.
 
Roger Cole said:
And the Kodak chemicals are as good as they ever were. This means absolutely nothing. It just means that the transferred name isn't a guarantee of the same quality, true enough, but neither is it a guarantee of lesser quality.
Click to expand...

It means bad marketing because it violates rule number 1: you don't devalue a brand using it for low-quality products, if you use that brand also for average-quality, or high-quality photos.

In the case of Kodak it is even worse as the brand Kodas has a strong photographic connotation, people would buy Kodak batteries to power their cameras or their flashes. If the batteries are unfit for photographic apparati, branding them Kodak is a (big) mistake. Don't forget that is supposed to be "the imaging company" not "the battery company".

If Kodak produces both high-end ink-jet inks fit for photographic prints and lower-end ink-jet inks unfit for "imaging", it should brand the latter in a different way. Whatever is branded "Kodak" is branded "the imaging company".
 
I hear you, I'm just saying that the implication I got from the post was because the batteries weren't good, spun off but still sold as Kodak film would not be the quality we are used to either, and I don't think one can conclude that at all. In fact it's almost certain it would be made on the same machines by the same people.
 
Kodak... Sticking it to the little guy since 2004!

Bend over, we have batteries for you.. And when we're all done, we'll spray our cheap ink in your hair....
There's some good news... Ilford hasn't tried to expand their horizons to include making cheap laser printers with even cheaper toner for B&W prints.
 
Where did Bell and Howell go? From a decent company to a cheap gadget provider. Polaroid ended up making cheap DVD players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register