Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

[Sal Santamaura]

...all mail sent to Antonio Perez is read by him or his staff. Often, he answers the mail himself...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...

Ron, when saying "Not sure whether that approach would work as well in the Perez era," I was referring to precipitating desired outcomes rather than simply receiving replies.

 

[Bob F.]

"Kodak Bashing" is just a straw-man argument put up to try and silence those who wish to express their dismay at the way Kodak has acted on occasion. Instead of sensibly arguing, as others have, that this is just the inevitable result of a shrinking market and some dumb PR moves, they would rather attack the messenger. They do not seem to realise that their approach is as transparent, pointless and un-productive as that of the few real "bashers" that do exist. Labelling an entire thread as "Kodak Bashing" when perhaps one or two posters have had a rant in that direction, whilst most posts are either supportive of Kodak or neutral is typical of such attempts. It does not impress anyone - quite the contrary: all it does is help to polarize attitudes.

As I recall, a Kodak PR person did indeed post on APUG to inform us that HIE would continue to be available after rumours flew when they discontinued EIR. A few months later HIE was officially discontinued. That did not exactly inspire confidence in Kodak's PR machine. PE's observed dancing heffalumps in action I suspect...

Others are correct however, Harman/Ilford is a fraction of the size of Kodak and Fuji and is privately owned. Both factors give them orders of magnitude more flexibility in this area. This I suspect is the real reason Kodak staff are not posting: nothing to do with any perceived "anti-Kodak" attitude. After all, improving people's perceptions of your brand is precisely what you pay PR people to do.

Anyway, I did my bit for Team Yellow by sending out my prints for the last Postcard Exchange on Supra Endura. Nice paper and I see no reason to stop using it. Best of luck to Kodak's film division - I do not use any other Kodak products (though I may give the colour chems a try) but without them it would be a sad day indeed for traditional photography and I think would signal the real beginning of the end.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron, when saying "Not sure whether that approach would work as well in the Perez era," I was referring to precipitating desired outcomes rather than simply receiving replies.

Oh, I understood that as well Sal. There is a newspaper report here in Rochester that quotes Perez. He has backed away from the anti analog to an extent due to recent sales figures of film products. So, it hangs in a balance and he might actually do something or let someone do something.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The irony of the OP saying he has replaced all Kodak chemistry....is that Kodak does not now make ANY of its Kodak branded chemistry, it just contracts with the company it sold its chemical business to. So, by switching the OP is not only dismissing Kodak, but also the independent company that makes the fine chemistry that is sold under the KODAK name as well as other names.

 

[Ian Grant]

What an FFFFF**g mess this thread is

Here we have Kodak, still a major ANALOG company great films etc

Champion, manufacturers of the superb May & Baker range of chemistry, oh & also Kodak's

We need these people so why are you all knocking them.

Ian

 

[PHOTOTONE]

What an FFFFF**g mess this thread is

Here we have Kodak, still a major ANALOG company great films etc

Champion, manufacturers of the superb May & Baker range of chemistry, oh & also Kodak's

We need these people so why are you all knocking them.

Ian

You sure won't find me knocking Kodak and Champion. In fact I'll bet that Champion is the company that (besides the aforementioned Kodak and May & Baker chemistry) also makes the Kentmere chemistry sold by Freestyle...and since Kentmere is owned by Ilford..could it be that Champion also makes some Ilford chemistry? They're all good brands.

 

[tac]

Just for the record, I love Kodak products; I've used TMAX 400 as my standard fast film since its intro, and Tri-X before that, both processed in D-76, and Kodak indicator stop. I also have used Ilford MG since about '84, and Ilford Rapid Fix -because the combo gave me a faster process. I use Delta 100 as my 'slow' film, after the demise of Kodak's Tech Pan. Lately, I've been looking at Fuji Acros- nice film, and it's cheaper in 120. Efke I didn't like, but Foma 100 seems all right.

I am delighted that Simon is here and available to APUGers; I sincerely wish KODAK and Fuji, Foma, Efke and Bergger had contact people here- so, Here's My Question: Has anyone actually written these folks and invited them to join our community?

 

[Matt5791]

You sure won't find me knocking Kodak and Champion. In fact I'll bet that Champion is the company that (besides the aforementioned Kodak and May & Baker chemistry) also makes the Kentmere chemistry sold by Freestyle...and since Kentmere is owned by Ilford..could it be that Champion also makes some Ilford chemistry? They're all good brands.

No necessarily so - Champion used to manufacture the Paterson range until they ceased production in the UK and moved to Spain.

I understand that Paterson felt somewhat "fed up" (to put it mildly) about this scenario.

However Paterson chemistry is now made by someone in Germany - don't know who.

 

[IloveTLRs]

Here's the beauty of APUG. Simon from Ilford posts here frequently. PM him regarding your problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he deals with it.

I suppose I could, but what would be the outcome? I was going to bring it back to the store where I bought it, but I didn't have the receipt (I don't keep them for film) and I don't think the store would have done anything anyway, so I forgot about it. It was only one roll anyway.

As for Kodak products, I use them regularly, too. For the past 2 months I've been using nothing BUT Kodak: Tri-X, Plus-X & D-76. Sometimes I wish there was a B&W product I didn't like so I could stop using it. As it is, my fridge is filled to the brim with Ilford, Fuji & Kodak

I'd like to see someone from Kodak post here, too. Pick up a chair, throw it into the crowd, knock some heads around Show everyone that Kodak is still around, that sort of thing. There are still plenty of people rooting for 'em.

 

[CBG]

I'd sure like to see Kodak and Fuji represented here. They are hugely important, and would be a benefit to us, and I think also could be good PR for their respective companies.

For the record, I'm continually amazed by the parade of product improvements I've seen over the last several decades. I am mainly speaking of Kodak, only since I've known Kodak products in the most detail and for the longest.

C

 

[Sean]

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

I think Fuji probably gets a pass because they appear to have a 'we manufacture film' attitude where Kodak has a new perception of 'we are transitioning to digital' attitude. This is part of an interview with Perez:

"K.M.: When you took the job at Kodak, was the company still in denial about the film business?

A.P.: The banner that was spread in my office read EXPAND THE BENEFITS OF FILM. That was the first thing that I took down.

I don't see that attitude at the other film/paper corps such as Fuji. From the press releases and interviews I've seen of Perez my gut tells me the man is on a mission. I figure his ultimate goal for Kodak is the complete transition to digital and anything less is failure. I think people pick up on this attitude and lash out. Personally I use a variety of Kodak products along with the others. I have no desire to bash Kodak and can only hope they continue manufacturing my beloved tri-x. There are many directions Kodak could go with PR in their traditional sector but if nothing is eventuating then it could be argued it's not a priority or concern? Also, no web forum is without a variety of bashing, I would say most here use and appreciate Kodak products and that is what the PR guys should focus on..

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I have read through the thread and I have a few comments :

ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology is a small to medium sized UK based company that sells its monochrome products Worldwide, we are a sponsor, reader and contributor to the site, why ? its very simple, we do not have huge marketing budgets, we do not have 'focus groups' or big PR budgets, we have a great way to communicate ( and inform ) over 25,000 of key end users of our products or products from our competitors.
We also get excellent feedback.

We took the decision to focus on APUG from a web point of view because of the very positive nature of the members, that the members were very knowledgeble and passionate ( which we are ) and seemed to us that this was a very positive way for us to help and be involved in promoting analog photography of all types.

I am sure many KODAK and FUJI people visit the site and would probably love to contibute and join the debate, I think thats where size comes in, I can post ( responsibly ) and accurately without reference to anyone else in ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology. I cannot see any one in FUJI or KODAK being able to do that very easily, that is not a criticism I think it is very probably the case. I check APUG every day, usually after working hours when I am in the UK, I post when appropriate, I think its safe to say its about 5 to 6 hours per week, that may be difficult for someone in the marketing department of a big company to do.

Many people have made mention of the fantastic products from KODAK and FUJI, we at ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology have nothing but admiration and respect for them both, I think we should rejoice that so many fine products are still available to analog photographers from these companies and many others such as FOMA, SLAVICH, BERGGER, and dozens of others who help to ensure the future of analog photography. I genuinely believe a positive approach is neccesary and I hope that they will join this community, a community that I believe will continue to grow and thrive, but I would ask you all not to judge them to harshly if they choose not to do so.

The photography business has been through huge changes in the last ten years and the change is not finished yet, I cannot concieve that these companies do not care about their customers, in truth, I know for a fact that they do.

Also, I believe that debate is great, straight talking is fine, honestly held opinions should be allowed to be heard, I have a pretty thick skin, some people do not, I have to say in getting on for three years no one has ever upset me on APUG, I would not stop reading and contributing even if somebody was, I just think one the reasons why APUG is so important, and that I enjoy and value it is that we as a community have a lot more in common than that which divides us.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Sirius Glass]

Simon,

Thank you for explaining to those APUGgers who do not work for large corporations why a small corporation can and will post on APUG and why large corportations can and do not.

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

Simon;

Thanks. You have made a good asessment of things. I actually know that Kodak execs visit APUG but do not post here at all.

To all APUGGERS who have not read this!

Here is a quote from the Rochester paper made recently by Antonio Perez.

'Kodak has no intention of getting out of the film photography business, at least for now, CEO Antonio M. Perez said.
Photographic film, paper and processing services accounted for almost half of Kodak's $13.3 billion in revenue in 2003. For the first nine months of 2007, Kodak's film products group accounted for $1.5 billion in revenue. But it also accounted for $589 million in gross profit for those nine months.
With the cost-cutting the company has done in film, Perez said, "we have now a business that is sustainable. That business is going to be a good business for us for the next (few) years." '

In this interview, done in late December, he echoes comments made earlier to staffers that include the fact that film sales are up as you can see reported here. It was $1.5B in 9 months and so has exceeded the $1B total reported for the previous year. That ain't bad IMHO, and seems to have gotten his attention.

PE

 

[Craig]

I use produces from the big 3, as appropriate. I think thant any of us would be silly to restrict ourselves to only one manufacturer of products, and in North America it would be very difficult to do if you shoot both B&W and colour.

Sometimes great things happen in mixing and matching, Delta 100 in Xtol gives beautiful results.

 

[Ian Grant]

Sometimes senior executives make unfortunate slips, "'Kodak has no intention of getting out of the film photography business, at least for now, CEO Antonio M. Perez said."

4 words can say a lot and "at least for now" must indicate that Perez has thought about leaving film behind. It's this ambivalence that worries film users. Like many others I use products from all the big three manufacturers and hope to continue doing so for many years, but statements like Perez's do make you think seriously about switching to companies who are fully committed to film.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have no intention of leaving APUG, at least for now. I can't say how long I'll be in good enough health to use a computer.

Ian, that statement of mine is just as meaninful and reasonable as the one made by Perez.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron, luckily Perez isn't Kodak, just an employee, albeit the most senior employee. I hope Kodak will still be making film long after he's left. Maybe sometimes we are pedantic about the use of English but unlike Perez you added a caveat

Those 4 words didn't need to be in Perez's statement, so why are they there, that's what's strange.

Ian

 

[copake_ham]

Ron, luckily Perez isn't Kodak, just an employee, albeit the most senior employee. I hope Kodak will still be making film long after he's left. Maybe sometimes we are pedantic about the use of English but unlike Perez you added a caveat

Those 4 words didn't need to be in Perez's statement, so why are they there, that's what's strange.

Ian

Ian,

I also noticed the "four little words" and they furrowed my brow too.

In partial defense of Perez, it may be just the first stage of a back-pedaling. He made a lot of noise to "The Street" that Kodak was going digital and that the film biz was "dying".

Consequently, a lot of analysts who follow and report on Kodak regularly press the company regarding the status of its "transition".

Perhaps Perez is now being more cautious about the pace or completeness of that transition without doing a total "flip flop"?

 

[Edwardv]

Not all manufacturers of film and chemicals will be for everyone. Some will match film to subjects, film to developers, paper surfaces, and toners to get the results they want. Others will use what is presently available in their area regardless of the manufacturers. Be happy we have a choice. I just can not image everyone of us mixing our own chemicals for the type of chemistry we would want use for our films or papers. Just a thought.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I believe, as George, that Perez is leaving himself 'wiggle room' on something that is vague and untenable, and that is the current viability of analog. I believe that if motion picture film production ceased due to the growth of digital motion picture, then Kodak would have little ability to stay in the analog film business. A huge portion of their coating time and emulsion making goes to MP production, and the rest is just a flea speck on the MP elephant.

At one time, Kodachrome outstripped all others, and today it is virtually dead. All things have a life cycle to them, and if digital MP continues to improve, and prices continue to drop for theaters, then there will be a crossover point.

It is this uncertainty that has to be built into Kodak's projections and utterances, and does not have to be put into statements from Ilford for example. I would guess that the Ilfochrome people might have to equivocate though for reasons similar to what Perez has said.

PE

 

[Edwardv]

I have moved away from Kodak and to Ilford also---the main reason is that Ilford is making a commitment to the B&W arts and as such I am going to use their products.

Ilford does not support 220 for their HP5 but Kodak supports 220 for their Tri-X 320 so I am going with Kodak on this one.

 

[redrockcoulee]

It has been explained about corporations needing to make a profit and differences between small and large companies but as consumers our only real power is with our pockets. Switching from company A to company B because of company B's stance is not necessarily anti-Company A as much as pro Company B. I have recently decided that for B&W I will when all things being equal buy Ilford/Kentmere rather than Kodak due to the open support for the medium that Ilford declares. IMHO Kodak sends out a mixed message at best. I do not boycott Kodak nor will I refuse to buy their products but as stated above I will give Ilford the nod.

There are companies that I passively support such as Ilford , actively support like a local tire shop that I recommend to anyone needing tires, companies like Esso/Exxon that I will only buy if no other choice and still others (Walmart) that I will not buy from no matter what. Kodak is not in any of those so if I choose Ilford it is not because I am anti-Kodak it is for rewarding Ilford. We as consumers have power and we have the right to decide where we spend our money.

Fuji also shows a commitment to film with their ChoiceFilm site in the UK. I have never shot Fuji B&W (mostly it was never available where I shopped). I suspect that in the near future we may have a more secure feeling about Kodak and it's commitment to film and I sure hope so but until THEY convince me they will often find themselves in second place.
But I personally will have little affect on the market as I have been given so much free outdated film (35mm 120 and 4X5) that I still will be shooting much of it into next year and it is all Kodak. Even two 150ft rolls of Technical Pan 35mm that I will never get to! And the last chemical was Kodak as there was little choice. And I did not read many of the posts as anti_Kodak as much as pro someone else and there is a big difference but at the same time I do appreciate the obviously pro-Kodak postings as they provided information that is new to me, information that may make me rethink my decision. Thanks

 

[23mjm]

OOOOOOOOH one film in one format (220) sounds like a full on commitment to the analog B&W arts---I stand corrected.

Boy this is turned in to a big pile of pooh---If a want to show a little loyalty to a brand that is showing a loyalty to my art--then good for me. If you think it is stupid--then good for you. An idea was thrown out no one was holding a gun to anyones head.

I am truely sorry but loyalty means something to me---stand by the ones that stand by you. Thats all I am saying and I believe thats all the OP was saying.

Yes Ed I know you were kidding

 

[23mjm]

Redrock

Very well said---really much better said than I could ever do. Thank you