Just replaced all Kodak Chemistry with Ilford

[Sirius Glass]

Well, Ilford posts here, so I can't boycott them.

Kodak just said something positive about film, so I can't boycott them.

That means I have to boycott Fuji because they have not kissed my a$$ in the last 15 minutes!

Ok, now I got the OP's spirit!

Steve

 

[copake_ham]

Maybe APUG is too big.

At the same time that there are folk in this thread questioning Kodak's commitment to film - particularly B&W film there is this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

where people are falling over themselves to exchange info on how to be sure to get the latest version of a Kodak B&W film.

Go figure!

 

[Ian Grant]

George, Kodak's a very large company, what ever Perez says he's just another employee.

The guys who make film at Kodak are on our side and need us. We also need them they are still a major player in the film field.

Ian

 

[JBrunner]

Maybe APUG is too big.

At the same time that there are folk in this thread questioning Kodak's commitment to film - particularly B&W film there is this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

where people are falling over themselves to exchange info on how to be sure to get the latest version of a Kodak B&W film.

Go figure!

Sort of deflates the anti Kodak thing....

 

[eddym]

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.

Seems to me that with a profit margin like that, Perez does not have to explain anything to anybody. I wish I could do that well!!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Eddy;

In the 90s, that sales figure was closer to $20B. And it was all film. And therein lies the problem.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

It's worth saying that in the 70's,80's and 90's Kodak had a total monopoly of the US market, and it was only in the 90's that Fuji began to eat heavily into Kodak's share of the US market. They had already taken a lions share of the European market.

What ever we say the marketing people at Kodak were reading the wrong signs and they still haven't learnt.

Ian

 

[Chazzy]

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.

That's very persuasive to me, too. 220 is my favorite form of film, simply because I hate to load film backs. I just wish that Kodak made more than one black and white emulsion available in 220--I would be really interested in trying the "new" T-Max 400, if it were available in 220.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It's worth saying that in the 70's,80's and 90's Kodak had a total monopoly of the US market, and it was only in the 90's that Fuji began to eat heavily into Kodak's share of the US market. They had already taken a lions share of the European market.

What ever we say the marketing people at Kodak were reading the wrong signs and they still haven't learnt.

Ian

Ian;

I can't speak for Europe, but I've travelled across the US several times in recent years giving workshops and find that in most places Kodak film is dominant, not Fuji. In fact, the oddest thing I found were Kodak disposable cameras, with a generic overprint on a cardboard wrapper saying it was recycled in China. The film was quite good Agfa. This was about 4 years ago in the wilds of Montana.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

Eddy;

In the 90s, that sales figure was closer to $20B. And it was all film. And therein lies the problem.

PE

Ron,

Actually, while still steep, I don't think the decline is as great as it seems,

That $20B figure from the 90's included chemicals - which have been spun off and so no longer show up as Kodak revenues.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron,

Actually, while still steep, I don't think the decline is as great as it seems,

That $20B figure from the 90's included chemicals - which have been spun off and so no longer show up as Kodak revenues.

That figure from the 90s was after Tennesee Eastman was spun off, as well as Texas Eastman. Even so, they contributed little to that huge number.

In 1965, total sales of Ektacolor paper of all types was over $500,000 / year and growing. By the 90s, that figure was immense. It was being coated in 6 plants with multiple coating machines at full speed, 24/7/365. Today it is about 8/5/300 in 2 - 3 plants with most machines mothballed.

The recent sale of Health Sciences would have contributed about $2B to that figure at best.

They also went from a high of about 120,000 employees to about 30,000 WW.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

That figure from the 90s was after Tennesee Eastman was spun off, as well as Texas Eastman. Even so, they contributed little to that huge number.

In 1965, total sales of Ektacolor paper of all types was over $500,000 / year and growing. By the 90s, that figure was immense. It was being coated in 6 plants with multiple coating machines at full speed, 24/7/365. Today it is about 8/5/300 in 2 - 3 plants with most machines mothballed.

The recent sale of Health Sciences would have contributed about $2B to that figure at best.

They also went from a high of about 120,000 employees to about 30,000 WW.

PE

Ron,

Understood that it can never go back to being the way it once was. And we can "parse" and pro forma the revenue base in various ways.

The real question comes down to how much value remains in the film biz? And, at what point, presumably while value remains, does Kodak spin the business off?

Sad thing is - one national media buy during "the holidays" and they'd sell a lot more film. But, strategically, the film biz is now just a cash cow to be milked until she's dry without spending too much on feed and water!

The scary thing for Kodak is that the "transition" is NOT working. Winding down one business line while building up an alternative is viable so long as the new one does indeed "take off".

It's not happening for them. Kodak digi printers were a dud this past holiday season - and that was where they were placing big bets.

But we digress.

 

[eddym]

Eddy;

In the 90s, that sales figure was closer to $20B. And it was all film. And therein lies the problem.

PE

Oh, I understand that! But still, a roughly 30% profit margin is not bad in any business! As long as the fixed costs have been reduced, as I understood that they had because of all the layoffs and plant closings, then the film division sounds like a profitable enterprise to me... even if it is a smaller one than it once was.

May it prosper...

 

[mmcclellan]

I would never give up on Kodak "out of principle," because the products they have are simply great. Tri-X is without peer IMHO, HC-110 is in a class by itself, I can swear by Selenium Toner, Selectol is great stuff, and so on. I test and use whatever works and whatever is best for me. That is why I also use plenty of EFKE film and paper and will use and test others as necessary.

Businesses have to do what businesses have to do to stay in business and I will not begrudge them the painful decisions that have to be made from time to time. It saddens me when a film or paper I like goes out of production, but when it happens you have to stock up, adjust, change, and move on. But photographers everywhere owe Kodak a great deal for a century plus of outstanding contributions to photography and our art (anyone been to George Eastman House lately?) and I would not boycott them or otherwise diss them for something that really cannot be avoided at this stage, given the state of the market and the requirements of large-scale, modern production. FWIW

 

[removed account4]

'Kodak has no intention of getting out of the film photography business, at least for now"

hate to say this,
but after the south american plants were consolidated,
i called big yellow and they transfered me to 4 different people
then a PR person from the west coast called me back and said
"kodak has no intention of getting out of the photography business, not now or in the distant future"
when i asked him about paper production, he said kodak has no intention of getting out of the photography paper business either ... ,
not now or in the distant future...
within a few weeks it was announced that no more paper (b&w) would be made ...
oh well ...

i really don't see what all the hubub is about ...
if someone decides to change what materials he or she uses
that is good for them ...
we all have had to do this in one way or another over the last few years.
i am glad kodak, ilford and the others are still making film and paper and chemicals ...
while i am sure evenatually i would be able to make wet plates or calotypes, or coat my own PE-special-emulsion
i am happy i can still rely on a few different things right now ...
and if the folks from kodak want to add their 2¢ in here, that is fine,
but knowing they are lurking and passing on what we say ( good or bad ) to
whomever wants to know is fine too ....

its too bad that all the major and minor players aren't active here but that's life

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak still is in the paper business. They make a lot of color paper every day!

PE

 

[removed account4]

Kodak still is in the paper business. They make a lot of color paper every day!

PE

i forgot about that!

thanks PE!

john

 

[Ole]

...
i called big yellow and they transfered me to 4 different people
then a PR person from the west coast called me back and said
"kodak has no intention of getting out of the photography business, not now or in the distant future"
when i asked him about paper production, he said kodak has no intention of getting out of the photography paper business either ... ,
not now or in the distant future...
within a few weeks it was announced that no more paper (b&w) would be made ...
oh well ...
...

John,

PLEASE don't even think of asking anyone at Kodak about Ektachrome!

 

[removed account4]

John,

PLEASE don't even think of asking anyone at Kodak about Ektachrome!

mum's the word ole ...

john

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Because I'M THE CUSTOMER, that's why!

Just for the record, I could give a hoot in a handbasket whether anyone at Kodak, Fuji or Ilford 'likes' me, or cares what my opinion is. What I DO care about is whether they value me as a customer, and whether they treat me accordingly with the respect a past, present and potential future customer deserves.

My relationship with these suppliers of photo materials is therefore predicated strictly on customer relations, which implies that they possess an active concern for my needs and are willing to supply these needs. Of course, since 'they' don't know me personally, nor I 'them', then they only know me indirectly as an anonymous member of a group of customers known as the 'photo enthusiast'.

As I rank these major manufacturers on their past, present and potential future performance in customer relations specifically toward the photo enthusiast customer base, there is one company in particular that stands out heads and shoulders above the rest; and that companies products are not packaged in green or yellow.

Now, as for someone's suggestion that we should continue to support Kodak, because to do otherwise is illogical, I challenge you to sell your Honda or Toyota vehicle and purchase the most unreliable piece of Detroit sh*t-box, because to do otherwise would also be illogical. Go ahead. You first.

~Joe

 

[JBrunner]

Now, as for someone's suggestion that we should continue to support Kodak, because to do otherwise is illogical, I challenge you to sell your Honda or Toyota vehicle and purchase the most unreliable piece of Detroit sh*t-box, because to do otherwise would also be illogical. Go ahead. You first.

~Joe

Your premise predicates a substandard product (and the example is arguable). Nonetheless, the green and yellow companies products you refer to are of impeccable quality.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I challenge you to sell your Honda or Toyota vehicle and purchase the most unreliable piece of Detroit sh*t-box, because to do otherwise would also be illogical. Go ahead. You first.

~Joe

I have had multiple Detroit cars, Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet, including my current 1999 Cadillac which I purchased new. Owned plenty of domestic cars in the last 50 years. I have never experienced any failures, and have always had very good to excellent service life. I have owned over 30 cars in my lifetime and still own 14. I have never had an engine failure, ever.

 

[mikebarger]

I'll take a Kansas City built one anytime. Wonder what vehicles are actually still made in "Detroit"?

Mike

 

[Lee Shively]

"American" cars are now built all over. Honda and Toyota build cars in the US. My Dodge truck was assembled in Mexico from parts from all over the world.

I've owned a Honda Civic. Mine was apparently made on a Monday. It left me stranded several times in the time I owned it. I sold it after two years for $100 less than I paid for it. It had great resale value but I still think Honda should have paid me to put up with it. I've owned two Toyota trucks. Excellent vehicles but they cost too much and the service was ridiculously expensive. I've owned a Ford that was a POS and a VW that was also a POS. I've had a Chevy that was pretty good. I kept my first Dodge truck for over 10 years and had no major problems with it so I bought another three years ago. My wife went from a Honda to a Toyota to a Chevy. She likes the Chevy better than either of the others and it has been more reliable than either of them.

Bottom line is don't stereotype American vehicles as being unreliable. Some of us have had different experiences.

As for darkroom chemicals--I like both Ilford and Kodak and I'll continue to use both as long as they're available.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This should be in the joke thread.....

Kodak is working on a new camera to be called the Kamiichaka.

It isn't made in Japan, they just wanted a quality sounding name.



PE