Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

I still like Kodak chemistry. I use it when I can. The price is usually good. The availability is usually good. I love Tri-X and it's my favorite. I haven't bought any in the last two years as i've been poor and have been buying forte/foma.

Fuji is awesome but it's tough getting a lot of their 'boutique' items. I understand they don't make everything available for export.

I like all of the available options. And I won't punish the few who still work for Kodak by vowing to never purchase their goods again. I only wish they hadn't of laid all those good people off. Think of all those jobs.

Simple fact.

Both Kodak and Fuji are public shareholder corporations and are regulated and restricted by various market control agencies (both governmental and self-regulatory) as to what they can publically say regarding corporate plans, strategies, product intros or discontinuances etc.

Ilford is a private corporation and not subject to such regulations and restrictions.

One can speak and outreach much more "freely" than the other two.

But then again, we've all been down this road before. Some folk here just hate Kodak the way some folk hate their ex-spouse.

Nothing will ever change that fact which is why I just think the Anti-Kodak (or any Anti-manufacturer) threads should be put in a separate area of the site.

copake_ham said:

Simple fact.

Both Kodak and Fuji are public shareholder corporations and are regulated and restricted by various market control agencies (both governmental and self-regulatory) as to what they can publically say regarding corporate plans, strategies, product intros or discontinuances etc.

Ilford is a private corporation and not subject to such regulations and restrictions.

One can speak and outreach much more "freely" than the other two.

But then again, we've all been down this road before. Some folk here just hate Kodak the way some folk hate their ex-spouse.

Nothing will ever change that fact which is why I just think the Anti-Kodak (or any Anti-manufacturer) threads should be put in a separate area of the site.

Click to expand...

Of course Kodak must display due dilegence in its actions in regard to it's shareholders, however the idea that coroprate regulatory statutes muzzle them is sheer hogwash. We used to be regularly visited by our regional Kodak rep, who would inform us of developments, problems, new products, product discontinuations, supply, and other news, good and bad. (Far greater emphasis on the good, of course, mostly becuase we rarely had problems.) If the rep couldn't disclose something, he simply said as much.

JBrunner said:

Of course Kodak must display due dilegence in its actions in regard to it's shareholders, however the idea that coroprate regulatory statutes muzzle them is sheer hogwash. We used to be regularly visited by our regional Kodak rep, who would inform us of developments, problems, new products, product discontinuations, supply, and other news, good and bad. (Far greater emphasis on the good, of course, mostly becuase we rarely had problems.) If the rep couldn't disclose something, he simply said as much.

Click to expand...

Were those visits here on APUG? On any web fora?

Were the comments reproduceable such that they could be communicated to others not privy to the original commentary?

Or was it "on the job" verbal "heads up" info?

Photo Engineer said:

And, of course, posts such as the OP only reinforce Kodak's opinion of APUG and keep them from full participation instead of just lurking.

PE

Click to expand...

I have always used Kodak products--I use Ilford paper now but my chemistry and film is all Kodak and will be as long as they are in the film and chemistry business.

But aren't there enough proponents of Kodak for Kodak to be a full participant here on APUG? This is something that I have never understood?

I think we should all feel free to mix-and-match our film, paper, chemistry and/or chemicals to whatever suits our tastes and budgets best. A lot of the stuff I use, Kodak doesn't make, so I of course don't buy it from them (I don't know that Kodak EVER made platinum paper or a pyro developer). In black-and-white film, I shoot TMY, FP4+, the occasional sheet or two of HP5+, and Fomapan 200. For my regular studio shooting, the Fomapan is a great go-to film because it is very inexpensive but still high quality. When I'm shooting nighttime, long exposures and facing reciprocity, TMY is THE film for the job because of its outstanding reciprocity characteristics. I do use FP4+ for this purpose also, because Kodak doesn't make TMY available in 5x12, and it is hard enough to get it in 5x7. Anything bigger than 8x10 takes a special order, so that rules it out for more frequent use. I'm still working my way through a 5-gallon cube of Kodak Rapid Fixer, and will probably replace it with another of the same when it comes time to buy more.

Just use what works for you, and don't get your panties in a bunch over who makes it.

copake_ham said:

Were those visits here on APUG? On any web fora?

Were the comments reproduceable such that they could be communicated to others not privy to the original commentary?

Or was it "on the job" verbal "heads up" info?

Click to expand...

If Kodak wanted to have a presence here they could. The have plenty of PR people. End of story.

JBrunner said:

If Kodak wanted to have a presence here they could. The have plenty of PR people. End of story.

Click to expand...

And why would these "PR people" do such a thing?

So they could be "used" by folk here who want to "trash" Kodak?

There's no "Welcome" mat out on this site for Kodak - that's blatantly obvious.

You can't 'dis and trash talk folk and then complain when they don't want to visit you!

The OP and this thread is why any PR person at Kodak interested in personal job preservation would stay as far away from this site as possible.

I've mentioned before that the late John Pytlak from Kodak's motion picture division used to be a very regular presence on the cine forums. I haven't been keeping up with those forums lately, so I don't know if someone has taken up that role since he passed away, but he put up with the same sort of flak that Kodak sometimes gets here and always answered inquiries in a courteous and informative manner, just as Simon does for Ilford Harman and as David Carper used to do for Ilford USA. I don't know how much of it is a company policy issue so much as interest and availability on the part of the marketing folks in the Professional Film division to participate in internet forums.

You know whats funny about all this-----I don't remember anyone saying they "HATE" Kodak, I remember the OP stating that he was moving to Ilford because of Ilfords commitment to B&W----which I see his point and do kinda agree with----is it irrational??? No, it's loyalty to a brand that is trying to be loyal to that persons art. The reason I have moved many of my processes and film to Ilford. But I still have a bunch of Dektol and just might buy it again, if the LCS has it when I need paper developer.

And I do wish Kodak would make some noise on here!!! Would love to know what's up with them.

copake_ham said:

And why would these "PR people" do such a thing?

So they could be "used" by folk here who want to "trash" Kodak?

There's no "Welcome" mat out on this site for Kodak - that's blatantly obvious.

You can't 'dis and trash talk folk and then complain when they don't want to visit you!

The OP and this thread is why any PR person at Kodak interested in personal job preservation would stay as far away from this site as possible.

Click to expand...

Yes George, you are, of course, right.

Kodak= U.S. big business and bashing U.S. big business is one of the favorite past times of the arts community. Japanese and Euro companies are ok though, so go figure. In keeping with this, Kodak has and always will be a target. I remember about a year ago they gave away free samples of their new Portra films and numerous Apugers actually slammed them because they didn't get enough of a particular format. Amusing to say the least. I hate losing products as much as the next but I also understand the times we live in. With energy costs soaring and traditional photographic companies struggling to stay profitable in a declining market, cuts will be made. Ensuring the availability of zero or minimal profit items for the sake of customer satisfaction is no longer guranteed. One thing is for certain though: Kodak receives a disproportional amount of flak from the public at large and that is unfortunate. Agfa died completely, Fuji offers almost nothing regarding B+W photography in the U.S., Nikon killed off nearly its entire film SLR lineup and is probably just waiting for the current stash of F-6's to run out, other photo companies seemingly have a bi-annual defective coating run. None of this seems to draw the same wrath. Why? It all goes back to the first sentence I typed IMO. I honestly think we'd all be better served not by PR reps visiting APUG, but rather by supporting any and all companies putting out quality products. Kodak is one of them and its one we can't afford to lose.

copake_ham said:

One poster above talked about "votes" for your favorite - and which company "loses". This isn't some kind of high school Student Council type of popularity contest!

Click to expand...

George, if this is a reference to my earlier post, it looks as though I didn't make myself clear. In the past my preferences were Agfa paper (gone), Jessops (gone), Tetenal (apparently gone) and I think Paterson may have had "own brand" papers as well. Throughout all this time, I've also used Ilford and to a lesser extent Kentmere, whereas the only Kodak paper I recall using was Panalure (gone). The same is true of chemistry as far as disappearances are concerned, but I've used D76 in the recent past and only this week I've bought XTOL along with Ilford Multigrade dev, so no anti Kodak feeling there.

On the film front, I started using Ilford because that was what they used at the nightschool class I went to. I tried others as time went by, and my fridge currently contains some Tech Pan (gone), HIE (gone) and Tri-X, plus several dozen rolls of outdated Ektachrome that I picked up for cheap.

Ilford RC Multigrade paper would generally be classed as "vanilla" in the wider scheme of things, but it is perhaps the vanilla products which subsidise the more exotic flavours. My suggestion, therefore, was that it may be an idea to consciously decide to support the manufacturer of your choice through buying their vanilla rather than someone else's (possibly cheaper?) version.

I'm not suggesting who this should be, and I'm certainly not suggesting a poll, but I can see the logic of why Jeffrey has chosen his course of action. I guess I might just have done it and not bothered posting here, but hey, that's why the internet was invented!

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again here - it's a vicious cycle about the no-kodak-reps/anti-kodak bashing thing. The Kodak reps don't chat here openly because it appears to be a hostile environment. People vent hostility because they feel ignored by Kodak. Kodak will have to take some heat, some of it unwarranted, if they do start to have an open presence here. BUT, if they are willing to sit through the initial coal-raking, I think it will make a huge difference and people here will again look on Kodak the way they used to, and sing their hosannas the way they do for Ilford.

Again I must ask the question-----who has bashed Kodak? Maybe I missed the post/s, but no one has said I HATE Kodak. So how are you having a discussion about something that was not posted-----sounds like your making things up to have a discussion. You guys could even be chasing Kodak off the board---if they were just grazing the post and say all the posts about people bashing and hating on Kodak then they would think it was a hostile place, but it they read the whole thread then they would see that no one said I hate Kodak--just a bunch of people saying that someone said I hate Kodak. So who are the real rumor mongers!!!!!

The OP said that Kodak quit making papers so now I won't use any of Kodak's products! Nyaa Nyaa kinda thing, isn't it? I took it as a joke because the poster then went on to say he was going to use one particular Kodak film. In any event, I can wear two hats here. I'm probably the only one here who can.

At a cursory read, it seems anti Kodak! OTOH, as an APUG member it was a joke. On a third level it could be considered a troll if you look at the results in the rest of the thread. On another level, why not say that you hate Fuji because they don't sell any B&W chemistry in the US? Or, why doesn't Fuji sell their Azo type paper in the US? There is a litany of things that might have been said to encompass the totality of the situation, but zeroing in on Kodak is what I notice here.

PE

So. What Ilford product is a direct replacement for XTOL? My point is that they both produce excellent products. Ilford has also recently discontinued some products. That's the nature of things

I'm registered here only because Simon Galley began posting. Prior to that I simply lurked. If Simon had selected another forum instead where I wasn't already participating, I'd have registered there. Note that, although Simon's posts are not frequent, he appears to read the threads on a regular basis and is informed about what's going on. And he's one of the firm's co-owners who has the ear of his partners on a daily basis.

Kodak is still a much larger enterprise than Harman. If a Kodak person were authorized to participate actively here, it would not likely be someone on the Board of Directors, or even at the top of divisional management. Anything they gleaned about this band of enthusiasts' preferences would need to float upward through the corporate chain of command before reaching a final decision maker. That's always a tortuous route. In the old days, when I had an idea for or request of Kodak that was beyond the authority of those staffing its toll-free phones to deal with, I simply wrote the CEO -- snail mail -- directly. It was amazingly effective, garnering direct replies and some desired outcomes. Not sure whether that approach would work as well in the Perez era.

This is 2008. In the US at least, perhaps other countries as well, everything's a high school Student Council popularity contest. Even the run for POTUS. Certainly film marketing.

PE go reread the OP It was more about using a company that in his view is making a commitment to B&W and not hating Kodak

Photoe--I like DDX yes it is expensive but I have had great results and it lasts longer is a half full bottle---I rarely use a full 5 litres of XTOL--Plus DDX is a liquid and hey what can I say I am lazy don't have to mix powders.

PS I have nothing against XTOL and I don't hate Kodak

Kodak people read APUG regularly and almost all mail sent to Antonio Perez is read by him or his staff. Often, he answers the mail himself. This I got directly from him. He said that obviously he cannot answer the loads of mail he gets, but he tries to select some to answer personally and have the others answered by his staff.

The Kodak lurkers here try to get the information filtered upwards, but my take is not favorable with respect to APUG members opinion on Kodak. That last is my own opinion. I would add that actions taken by Kodak that are criticized here are given a total pass when done by other companies such as Fuji. I have stated that opinion previously as well. A Fuji absence here has also gone unremarked.

PE

Daniel Lawton said:

Kodak receives a disproportional amount of flak from the public at large and that is unfortunate.

Click to expand...

Kodak gets slammed for two reasons.

1) It's bigger then the rest. You'll be hard pressed to meet somebody that hasn't heard of Kodak. Ilford and even Fuji don't get that level of notice.

2) People LIKED Kodak products. They aren't pissed becaused the product they hated was killed. They're upset because their true love has dumped them.

Personally I always liked Agfa more so don't get upset with Kodak. Who cares? Other then Portra and the RA-4 papers. I didn't even remember Kodak made B&W products but for those that had used the products for their whole lives it mattered.

I don't buy the bit about Kodak reps being too thin skinned to post here. Look at some of the grief that commerical posters get over at the largeformat.info forum. Including personal attacts. Does anybody really think personal attacks of Kodak reps would be allowed here? :rolleyes:

You'd think Kodak would post here because it's a cheap way to provide customer support. My guess is the lawyers won't let them. It's nothing to do with thin skinned reps. Who I'm sure heard far worse in the school yard.

One more thing. Kodak needs to start worrying when people don't get upset when they kill a product. That's far worse.

23mjm said:

PE go reread the OP It was more about using a company that in his view is making a commitment to B&W and not hating Kodak

Click to expand...

Ummm, I didn't say "hate" in my post.

But you can express a tone in the words you use. Just as I interpret the OP, you interpret what I said in that last post. Yes, I did refer to posts here being 'unfriendly' and 'not favorable'. That is the extent I used, but having read most of these posts over the last 2 years, I percieve a different tone than you do. See my post directly above this one.

PE

This thread should ONLY be read by those who can appreciate a little sarcasm....

When I read the OP my initial thought was... here we go again with another anti Kodak thread. And then I thought "wow, if the OP is going to stop purchasing Kodak products, I should probably react to this fact and short about 3 million Kodak shares....I could get RICH off this information. Then I had to laugh, because the joke may be on the OP. You see Kodak is a public company and posts its earnings every quarter for all to see. Ilford is a privately held company and for all any of us know COULD be filing for bankruptcy as I write this. My point is, we don't really know if Ilford is profitable or not

Let's face it, Kodak stopped producing B&W paper because we, as a community, weren't purchasing the stuff. I happen to LOVE KODAK, but I hadn't purchased any Kodak B&W paper in over 20 years....well I did purchase a box of Polymax. I liked and used Ilford, Agfa and Oriental papers. Timing in life being everything, I ordered my first box of Azo from Michael Smith exactly 12 hours before Kodak announced its demise. Kodak DID however, give us 6 months notice....damn them. It probably gets pretty hard for Kodak to support us if we don't support them. I wonder just how much Kodak B&W paper the OP purchased during the 1st 6 months of 2005?

Now, I do wish Azo was still being produced by Kodak. It would save me from having to learn to coat my own (can't wait for PE's DVD and book). But during the last 1/2 of 2005, I managed to acquire quite the stash of Grade 2 Azo. I also learned how to tailor my TMY Pyrocat HD negatives so they print quite well on the Canadian Azo. As a business man, I understand Kodak's decisons. I may not like them, but I understand them. Am I willing to abandon Kodak and jump in bed with another supplier? Absolutely NOT! Kodak products stilll do everything I need them to do and with quality that is second to none.

Just my 2 cents....with LOTS of sarcasm

For the record- I love Kodak. I love everything and everybody that produces anolog products, for whatever reason. It is frustrating when any product is lost. I was never a big HEI user, but it still pains that I can't decide to become a steady user, if I found my way to it. It pains that those who loved and used the film must find another way, when the current stocks and stashes run out. I'm still looking for the "anti-Kodak" thing in any quantity. I see many more posts saying APUG member bash Kodak, than bonafide bashing. Much ado about nothing.

If you like it, use it. That seems to be the prevailing message from most APUGers, if you engage the noise filter.