Kodak Clarification

Just to clarify, Sony bought the lens and camera business from Konica Minolta and Samsung basically got the camera body and lens works from Pentax. These recent moves allows more D-SLRs on the market. Konica was basically dead in cameras soon after the Minolta merger; a shame when you consider the Hexar RF that was well made and poorly marketed. The big downer with Pentax is the loss of medium format, though it has yet to be seen what exactly Hoya will do with those. Some of this reminds me of Tamron buying out Bronica, and then not too many years later dumping Bronica; also what I think was poor marketing and distribution.

At the low end camera companies competed with their own products showing up on the used market. Places like EBAY, or giant used sellers like Dead Link Removed in Atlanta, offfered good condition slightly used film cameras too near low end new camera prices. This was and is a big change for all camera makers to compete against.

Oddly enough, one of the largest camera productions has been one-time-use cameras. AGFA had a huge portion of that market prior to the collapse of AGFAPhoto. I would imagine both Fuji and Kodak were a little happy to see AGFA drop out of that realm. While photography enthusiasts might scoff or turn their noses up at such disposable cameras, they are one of the highest volume still camera film products around. I still see lots of these things in the US, even at places like grocery stores and electronics stores, though especially at little tourist type locations.

So we are left with fewer brand new cameras. I remember just prior to college in 1994 looking at some local camera stores that had used gear. Few of these places are left, but through the internet I now have a much larger selection of gear than I could ever have found locally. This changed distribution models for new cameras.

Just bought a bunch of AGFA APX100 through B&H Photo. I like using this film, and was glad to find it available. However, I know that buying this does not help companies still making ISO 100 B/W films, like Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, and a few others. In the short term, until the AGFA film stocks sell off, these types of purchases will impact the film companies still making new products, much like my purchase of a used camera will impact potential sales of new gear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Every now and again we get a poster who is going through the angst of realizing he/she is evolving into a digi-shooter.

Reading his (her?) posts here, I think aldevo is at that point.

Don't get me wrong - there are times when I too look at all that film gear on the shelf and think that the comet has already crashed and I'm just a dinosaur waiting to die off.

And truth be told, I have a D-100 and D-70 in the mix; so there!

But I also know that I still prefer film and that's why I hang out here.

So, aldevo, if you've decided to move to digi - please go, and have fun. But please don't drag folks here down with a constant stream of negativistic posts.

It isn't necessary, adds nothing positive to anyone's life and no one needs another "downer".

Thanks.

Is it just me, or is there significant growth in the LF and ULF camera industry? Seems to be.

I don't think that still photography is at the "alt process" stage yet but I thoroughly believe that ALL analog photography is...and that owning a large format camera is a lot like owning a loom. Analog still photography used to be based on the use of tools and materials in the general consumer marketplace. It was a popular hobby at the very least (for many) and for others it was an artistic pursuit. Now, whether we fancy ourselves artists, craftspeople or hobbyists, we've more in common with people that weave cloth or throw pots than we do with people that pursue whatever the popular, contemporary hobbies may be.

This only concerns me with regard to the availability of coated emulsions (I have no fears about chemistry, we can always make our own). I rely on APUG to provide me with good information to help keep me supplied and to provide a communal, agitating voice in favor of suppliers continuing to serve our needs. I recognize those who are responsive and my alliegance leans evermore in their directions.

PHOTOTONE said:

Is it just me, or is there significant growth in the LF and ULF camera industry? Seems to be.

Click to expand...

Is there an echo in here?

Look at my posts elsewhere on this.

PE

Somewhat relavent, I ran across a listing of recent patents. Seems Kodak is doing quite a bit that involves commercial printing, though amongst the various listings I see new uses for film as an archive process for digital images, and a few other interesting developments:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6989221-description.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/assignees.php?id=17389&page=2

Obviously, just because a patent is issued does not mean a technology will be implemented. However, I think it is nice that at least some R&D was still being done (2005 by the looks of some of these). I know . . . there is rarely a direct connection between R&D and a marketable and profitable product . . . . . . Anyway, I was pleasently surprised.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

jstraw said:

.... I rely on APUG to provide me with good information to help keep me supplied and to provide a communal, agitating voice in favor of suppliers continuing to serve our needs. I recognize those who are responsive and my alliegance leans evermore in their directions.

Click to expand...

I understand and to some extent agree with your preference for "supportive assurance" from suppliers as is at times posted here.

But I am certain that relying on APUG (much as I am a devotee thereof) is not a definitive "test" of film supplier commitment.

I would hasten to note that the only film manufacturer with a direct presence here is Ilford. Speaking only of the "majors", Fujifilm's silence on this site is as deafening as Kodak's!

We would be filled with hubris to think that the only film makers we should patronize are those who have a direct presence here. While we may well think highly of ourselves, we do not nearly comprise the sum total of film users!

In fact, if we do, then we're all in deeper sh*t than we thought!

I'm just saying that Ilford...and J&C, PF, etc., earn points with me by meeting a community of photographers on common ground.

George: I've continued to hang out on RFF, though the time when I spend far less time there is fast approaching. Nothing wrong, it's just a time thing. And as far as APUG goes, the volume of posts is so high I find it hard to keep up.

FrankB: Well, that guerilla marketing thing is sort of interesting. It was internal only, then somehow a decision was made to release it to YouTube. I think it's one of the best things Kodak has done, PR-wise, in a long time. But I don't think it has much relevance to the status of Kodak's analogue products. My personal opinion, too.

jstraw said:

I'm just saying that Ilford...and J&C, PF, etc., earn points with me by meeting a community of photographers on common ground.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt about it - those guys are an invaluable resource. If the analog photographic products market is going to survive, even as a niche market, we need more people with their dedication.

PF has been getting all my chemistry orders since 2003 and I always attempt to buy from J&C - if they have my product in stock.

I'd rather just have a guy on the thread like Ron Mowrey, whom, while wildly speculative about some of the other companies, and overly optimistic about his own former employer, seems to paint a pretty honest picture of the business of Kodak, than a Kodak "yes-man" whose words only pacify and placate as opposed to letting us know what is really going on. They continue to make products that sell?! No sh it! If they don't, then I'd be really worried as a shareholder. I don't care what they say, only what they do. If they want that pompous ass to go around running their company, and sell off their immensely profitable X-ray division, so be it. They knew the jerk before they hired him, and they want to keep employing people and making money, no matter the route that may take. At least they know that still and cine film are still huge moneymakers. Don't forget all of the rolls of RA-4 paper they sell to professional labs across the country. I know color doesn't "count" here, but frankly B&W's been a dead duck (improvement-wise) since the year I was born. We've seen more than two decades of stagnation there now! Howabout T-Max II or III? Howabout Epsilon films from Ilford? Both companies have been at a complete standstill since the mid '80s. Papers were repackaged in different boxes, were there any real differences between Polycontrast II, III, and IV? I almost think Kodak came out with a "new" RC paper, just so the number of it's Polycontrast paper was as high as Ilford's. If people here really cared about the future of film, they'd push for new improved emulsions, high speed emulsion being where the important advances still need to be made. In comparison, how many times has color film been improved since the '80s? four, five? At least three that I know of. If digital starts becoming noticeably higher resolution than film, and the medium format market dies, we're all in deep shi t. If high speed digital motion picture cameras overtake film in that sector, we're likewise in deep sh it. We need to continue to demand relevant R&D, not 25 speed films and 5x7 sheet film and special runs of film. We need to buy a sustained volume of film, preferably large quantities of the same kind, if we want big companies to take us seriously. So stop bitching about Kodak already. They gave Ilford a huge break by exiting the paper market, and that indirectly made you all happy, right?

Karl;

Thanks for the comment. I would not rule out any new products in the Kodak B&W line. Stand by and keep tuned. (just in case) ........

PE

mhv said:

Wow, Kodak is subscribing to APUG! Who knew?

That's really good news, thanks a million for posting this, Art.

Click to expand...

I wonder if Perez is blessed with the U.S. equivalent of the genuine Geordie warmth of Simon Galley.

I don't suppose we'll know unless he hosts a tour of the Kodak factory

pentaxuser

No problem Ron. Anyone that is as passionate about silver halide as you are deserves praise, no matter whom they used to work for ;-)

I reallize I've been unusually vocal here these past few days. It's just that I am getting particularly fed up with people that specialize in B&W hobby photography here expecting the amount of emulsion they consume in evenings and weekends is significant, whilst abandoning film for commercial work. When commercial photography dies, C-41 and mainstream B&W dies. I am devoted to analog imaging. I've invested enough money to buy a D5 into lab equipment and chemistry and film, and medium format equipment, and pay the bills to keep the facility that houses it afloat. I take a loss for shooting film for newspapers, and make all kinds of free prints for people that have become expected with digital on my own dime, because I don't want this whole era to be defined as an abyss, like the days of early color were. Photographers who care about quality need to hold themselves to a higher standard, or the vine is going to wither and take that higher standard with it. Shooting film costs more money that digital commercially, but it doesn't cost *that much* more, if you do it properly, and the quality gain from shooting 6x7 over DSLR is still HUGE. Even a well-printed 35mm neg fillm has more punch. Kodak makes that possible. They've supported fledgeling areas like S8 film, and B&W motion picture stocks and Kodachrome despite those areas being UNprofitable; they've given people time to work with digital and migrate back. Still photographers need to be as consciencous about quality as moviemakers if they want film to be around for their personal use as well. How can we expect the world's largest silver halide material manufacturer to retool to cater for a niche market?

I was singularly impressed by Kodak's new line of Portra films, significant improvement under the enlarger. Every area that Kodak makes films in other than color negative is charity, for cost or at a loss to them, and it is time people here start getting it into their thick heads. Even when newspapers were all B&W film and colleges were all teaching with just film, that market was at best a small source of profit.

I don't understand how a community such as this can ignore something that has been fact for at least three decades now. It's one thing to shut out all of the digital zealots out there. I have to endure suggestions of "why don't you go digital" every time I try to submit a photo to a paper, and I've gotten to the point where every person that says that to me I want to punch in the mouth, and it's great not having to hear that here. But talk of B&W sheet film sales being profitable to Kodak and talk of them betraying film users enrage me even more than suggestions about what DSLR I should buy. I wish I could use B&W for weddings, for fraternities and dances, but the demand just isn't there when I make the option available. Commercially B&W is almost completely dead, due to all of the RA-4 B&W papers out there, and my customers certainly won't see the difference between a chromogenic print and a fiber if they can't see the difference between a DSLR and a 6x7 cm camera loaded with Portra 400.

If people here had any sense, they'd write thank-you letters to Kodak every year for continuing to make Kodachrome and B&W, and staple receipts of purchase for at least 1000 feet of 35mm of each every Christmas. I'm aiming to shoot the equivalent of at least 2000 of Portra 35 this year, and I do pro photography on the side while going to college full-time. Howabout the rest of you? How can you show Kodak that they aren't wasting their damned money not sticking to their CEO's "2008 Deadline". I'd feel pretty foolish if I had to be the one justifying the R&D that went into Portra-II to Perez.

Why should my thanks be meaningful to Kodak? After all...I'm just a thick-headed, evenings-and-weekends, got-no-sense hobbyist suckling at their charitible teet. I just take what I'm given and back away slowly, bowed at the waist.

We can't all be heroes like you.

jstraw said:

Why should my thanks be meaningful to Kodak? After all...I'm just a thick-headed, evenings-and-weekends, got-no-sense hobbyist suckling at their charitible teet. I just take what I'm given and back away slowly, bowed at the waist.

We can't all be heroes like you.

Click to expand...

Considering that those words came from someone about 20 years old, doing all of this work at his own expense, I would put a lot of stock in his words and actions.

Karl is taking the world of analog in hand and doing more than most people twice his age, and he deserves the kudos for it, not mockery.

I might add that he is doing it while trying to maintain a scolarship at a nationally known university. And no, he is not a relative.

But I hope he does get his dream job at EK, at least as a co-op this summer. Maybe being a photo engineer in analog photography will vanish by the time he graduates, but I sincerely hope it does not.

PE

FilmIs4Ever said:

I reallize I've been unusually vocal here these past few days. It's just that I am getting particularly fed up with people that specialize in B&W hobby photography here expecting the amount of emulsion they consume in evenings and weekends is significant, whilst abandoning film for commercial work.

Click to expand...

There are tonnes of divas, drama queens and prima donnas here Karl. Tonnes.

Regards, Art.

To: FilmIs4Ever

I won't do a copy of either of your posts because they are long.

But they are very well thought out and I am very much in agreement with you.

Thank you for adding a "real user" perspective here.

I'd like to see folks like Art and PE comment on what you have to say. Because you've said some very important things!

Regards,
George

Photo Engineer said:

Considering that those words came from someone about 20 years old, doing all of this work at his own expense, I would put a lot of stock in his words and actions.

Karl is taking the world of analog in hand and doing more than most people twice his age, and he deserves the kudos for it, not mockery.

I might add that he is doing it while trying to maintain a scolarship at a nationally known university. And no, he is not a relative.

But I hope he does get his dream job at EK, at least as a co-op this summer. Maybe being a photo engineer in analog photography will vanish by the time he graduates, but I sincerely hope it does not.

PE

Click to expand...

I'm mocking *him*? I found his whole tone incredibly insulting. I don't need schooling from him. I've worked for newspapers and I've worked commercially and I know a little bit about the value of both analog and digital and I have my own views as to whether customers owe gratitude to vendors or vice versa. I stand by my sarcastic response and Karl should be a little more respectful of a community of photographers that will likely be the last folks using analog when they're back to coating plates themselves. I don't think artists and hobbyists can keep film profitible but we're going to be the only ones to care whether it survives or not when it's down to the fuzzy end of the lollipop stick.

That said, I greatly admire him for what he is *doing*. I just don't need the high-handed tone.

Sorry I seem to have offended you, but your tone did seem mocking to me, but then I have met Karl personally and know the extreme effort he is putting into analog photography, most of it unknown to APUG members.

I think that we need more government, wedding and commercial photographers to support analog photography if it is to be taken seriously enough. All of us here, patting each other on the back over our photos is fine, but a major commercial studio telling Kodak to shove digital would get their attention real quick, I assure you.

When I worked at the Cape, in the early 60s, my photo budget for film and paper was about $50M. If I had been in this fray and had been able to attract Kodak's attention, you bet Perez would have called us on the phone.

AAMOF, we had a regular Kodak office in Orlando, and regular visits from Kodak, Dupont, Ansco and a host of others trying to sell us their photo products. Things are no different today. If a big account goes digital, then Kodak sees that, but if they switch back to analog, or use a combination, then that will get their attention.

After all, when analog motion picture started to fall off, courtesy of Lucas, Kodak moved towards digital MoPic, but when the pendulum swung abruptly back Kodak upped the ante with a new film and a host of new analog MoPic products. Sales are going up slightly there.

While at the Cape, there was a discussion about whether to use color negative or color reversal printing. I mentioned that there was a question of how large a print we could get from either. They took one of the frames from the Atlas launch I posted in both reversal and negative back to Rochester and a few weeks later I had a 20x40 print of each in crates and framed in the Tech Lab lobby for demo purposes.

Money talks.

All of us APUGGERS put together using what film we do could not add up to that $50M contract in the 60s which would be worth about $500M in todays dollars. Even so, a few $1M customers putting out the word to Kodak that they like analog would be a powerful weapon on our behalf.

PE

I agree with you.

All of us do what we can and yes...in most cases, that doesn't represent anything that would get Kodak's attention. I know that. I get that. Because losing my business is meaningless to Kodak, I try to direct my business to companies where retaining my business is not meaningless.

The decade I spent working at newspapers began before there was so much as a flatbed scanner in sight and ended after the darkrooms were literally removed. I know what happened and I think I understand the significance of this transformation on both the publishing and photographic industries. I'm not blind to it.

Karl isn't going to reclaim photojournalism for film. If he can somehow become one of those 1M customers of which you speak, more power to him.

Frankly, I don't see the point in belittling the people here for being modest customers.

I don't feel that either Karl or I were belittling people who are modest customers. I'm a modest customer now myself.

I think that inherent in our comments was the problem of influence, even of a group of modest customers, not a tone of anything but that.

After all, I was in an extreme position of power, wrt the photographic industry when I was at the Cape. So, I have now seen both ends of the spectrum as few people have and I can comment authoritatively from both ends of the spectrum of photo users.

With 18,000 members on APUG, using 1 roll of film / day, that is nearly 7 million rolls of film per year. Kodaks and Fujis current production of most films is far more than that, and the production of each is higher than Ilford mainly due to color and motion picture.

I remember a comment from a friend who was talking to the head of Nat Geog photography who was the biggest single user of Kodachrome in the entire world. This was 20 or more years ago. He asked my friend how long it took Kodak to produce all of that Kodacrhome and my friend did a small calculation and said "about 15 minutes".

Does that give you an idea of how much film was produced? How fast it is produced? And, more importantly two factors; how much it has fallen off (with about 10 machines idle at Kodak, all of Agfa gone and etc) and how small APUG is wrt Kodak and Ilford both?

With about 10 machines idle at Kodak (IDK how many at Fuji), Agfa gone, Forte gone, the remainder at Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and Kentmere among others can supply the entire world in analog products and still worry about over capacity.

So, the bottom line is that we are somewhat powerless (18,000 strong though we may be) in the face of the huge consumer market yet remaining. That is the huge tail wagging this dog. In spite of this, and what Perez said, Kodak is still doing R&D on analog products.

PE

I apologize for being over-sensitive. I appreciate your patient response.

I'd like to think that APUG and other communities of affinity that orbit the world of film-based photography aren't the totality of the consumer market but rather, a vocal and highly-motivated sampling of a larger whole. If I'm right about that, the collective voice while not big in the scope of things you describe, is probably the best hope most of us have for carrying any weight with the manufacturors that we depend upon.

jstraw said:

I apologize for being over-sensitive. I appreciate your patient response.

I'd like to think that APUG and other communities of affinity that orbit the world of film-based photography aren't the totality of the consumer market but rather, a vocal and highly-motivated sampling of a larger whole. If I'm right about that, the collective voice while not big in the scope of things you describe, is probably the best hope most of us have for carrying any weight with the manufacturors that we depend upon.

Click to expand...

Actually, on a similar thread here a week or so ago, someone opined that APUG might be seen at places like Kodak as representing the "radical fringe" of film users!

If there's any truth in that, it's no wonder Kodak won't respond here.

Remember, unlike Ilford, Kodak (and Fuji, for that matter) are public companies and comments made on fora such as this could have serious consequences both on share prices and from market regulatory agencies.

Something to keep in mind when folk laud privately-held Ilford here for being "vocal" and decry Kodak for being "unresponsive".

jstraw said:

snip snip Frankly, I don't see the point in belittling the people here for being modest customers.

Click to expand...

Perhaps jstraw, you might be feeling belittled as a modest customer of Kodaks' because as you publicly state :
"I last set foot in a darkroom in 1995 and last shot film in 2001." :-O

Filmis4Ever makes a good point. And further, if there's one way to hasten the loss of a superb range of materials that Kodak still manufacture for their modest customers, it would be to garnish a following to badmouth them to the largest online group of users. no?