Home > General Discussion (Mixed Workflow Forums) > Industry News > Kodak Comeback, Quick Read

Kodak Comeback, Quick Read

  1. Greetings,


    From another photo forum, quite interesting! Posted today....


    I just attended (last night) a SMPTE meeting of the Hollywood Chapter. The subject was "The Technology and History of Film, presented by Beverly Pasterczyk of Eastman Kodak Co." Ms. Pasterczyk is a chemist with film R & D at Kodak, and she mentioned that Kodak Research is currently engaged in the continuing design and implementation of new emulsions, such as the new version of the Vision III product.

    Regarding consumer films, she said that they are considering restructuring a new approach aimed at producing these at a reasonable cost in much smaller volumes than in the past. She said that new technology will permit them to continue to produce these in "boutique quantities" using single coating machines rather than the huge multiple coaters of the past. She said that basically, as long as they had sufficient orders for a minimum of a single master roll "54 inches (almost 1-1/2 meters) wide by whatever length - no minimum stated", they would consider examining production in terms of the economics involved. Future production would primarily be on an "on demand" basis.

    This would include the infrastructure for processing, probably at a single lab, either in Rochester NY, or sub-contracted.

    "On demand" could conceivably include any film that Kodak has ever manufactured. Someone in the audience asked the inevitable question: "Including Kodachrome?" Her answer: "Yes, including Kodachrome". She added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.

    To the question "How could this be made possible?" her answer was intriguing. "Volume is the answer. Consumer groups of large numbers of individuals could petition for the return of a specific film. This would include not only large companies, but also individuals banded together such as camera clubs, especially those with a large enough base such that they could collectively join on a national or even international basis".

    Lots to think about.
     
  2. Any chance of sharing the URL for this???

    Parts of this seem possible but some of it is a bit speculative.
     
  3. Wow.

    I hope regular common films (Tri-X, TMY-2, Portra 400 and Ektar 100 cover it for me, barring a return of E100G and VS) would be made regularly without users having to scare up the demand - more likely for TXT, TMY-2 and Potra I think.)

    This could be bad if even the common films have to be ordered a year in advance, or it COULD be wonderful news with the common stuff still common and long lamented emulsions available again, at least periodically.

    Kodachrome would also, of course, have to address the processing. Wonder if Dwayne's would be ready to fire back up if the materials were available?

    Hell, if they can do what this sounds like, we might even see 120 or, conceivably even 4x5 Kodachrome again!
     
  4. Heck, Roger, I'd vote for 8X10 Kodachrome. But could I ever spend fifty bucks a sheet for film and
    processing?
     
  5. One word. Panatomic-X.

    Large sheets in addition to rolls.
     
  6. If they could do it without making undesirable changes in the product, that would be great, if it meant the film could always be made. One thing I have to give Kodak credit for, through all the cuts and all the other problems, they've never sacrificed the quality of the film products they continue to sell. Some companies, when faced with similar issues, might cut quality control or otherwise cheapen a product to keep it on sale, but Kodak hasn't done that.
     
  7. I thought the problem with Kodachrome was the complex, 14 step processing. That it had to be controlled carefully and with enough volume to make it worth keeping the line running.
     
  8. If the coating division of Kodak gets free of the Eastman Kodak shackles and rids it's obligations to past employes it may well rise from the ashes. Sounds like things may be possible

    Is there a reason why Kodak couldn't begin making B&W papers again ? It maybe they need to work with partners in the future perhaps having niche films made by Fuji or Ilford, not such a wild idea.

    Ian
     
  9. There were smaller volume machines made so it is vaguely possible.

    Ian
     
  10. $$$ Wonder if film prices will spike, especially if its sold with processing included. Be careful what you wish for...

    How far away is April 1?
     
  11. You're all high.
     
  12. We're tryin'. Pass the bong...
     
  13. The K-labs. Not sure how well they worked, but they were made.
     
  14. Depends on the film and how much it spikes. I just paid over $10 a roll for ten rolls of E100G. I'd gladly pay $20 a roll for Kodachrome 64 with processing included. I'd not pay more than, say, $25 though, not while E6 films and processing are still readily available (and processing IS readily available - you may have to send it out; I'm fine with that and do it all the time anyway.)

    $50 Drew? Ouch, yeah, not many would pay that. But isn't 8x10 Ektar already something like $10-$13 or so? $20 a sheet for 8x10 Kodachrome processing included doesn't look that bad compared to those numbers.

    Still, I'll be happy to get it back in 35mm.

    While we're all getting high on the prospect of a return of Kodachrome, get them to run some type R paper for all those chromes too. Happy days again...

    (And then I woke up - but it still could be a good thing ultimately, just maybe not THIS good.)
     
  15. I love this speculation! Let's hope it pans out this way!
     
  16. I am hallucinating... I was in the darkroom... maybe I forgot to turn on the ventilation system?
     
  17. While I'm not going to hold my breath, it might be fun to pause just a bit before exhaling...

    :tongue:

    Ken
     
  18. If the only way for this to happen is by shafting past employees by reneging on agreements made years ago, then I will never buy anything made by them.

    Why is it considered anything less than a crime to cancel pensions and such? Forget the lawyers, it's the MBAs we need to kill first.
     
  19. Actually, what is described in the OP is exactly how modern manufacturing is done. The process and equipment is sized to the market. The general idea is to make exactly as much of the product as will be consumed, when and as it is consumed. In theory, if the process and production methods are designed correctly, it IS possible to make a profitable product in any size market. The company I work for is a niche electronics producer and this is how we work everyday. The part that seems to make it profitable or not is the amount of inventory that has to be managed (less is better) and how you account for it or so I am told - I'm not an accountant.

    The batch nature of film production changes the scenario somewhat, but if they could stock small master rolls of their emulsions with long enough shelf life to allow the roll to be fully consumed, then each week (for the sake of argument) they would spool up enough rolls to fulfill that weeks sales, or, better yet, preferably on demand and by order.

    Walking through our fairly small plant I did a mental exercise as to whether film (color and b/w) film could be made in that facility and I decided it could, but you'd have to do it by the sort of model described in the OP.

    They might have some very good people advising them. What is described is not that far fetched. If they could make the emulsion for Panatomic-X and Kodachrome using the equipment they describe, the rest of it just might be an exercise for the accountants.
     
  20. Kodachrome coming back, my god. How awesome would that be, I would have no qualms paying big money to shoot it in 4x5 or 6x7.

    I would seriously consider parting with all of my digital equipment if I could shoot Kodachrome large format or 120/220
     
  21. HIE is going for stupid prices on eBay.
     
  22. .... we haven't had this spirit here since .. 1969 ...
     
  23. :sideways:

    Bring back Kodachrome in sheet sizes and it really would be time for pink champagne on ice!!!:smile:
     
  24. $500 for a box of 10 8x10 sheets of Kodachrome, processing (GOOD processing!) included, to use in my restored-like-new, glistening black Calumet C1?

    I might bite.

    :eek:

    But only if there were 4x5 sheets available for me to practice on first 'til I was ready to swallow really, really hard...

    Ken
     
  25. Would be a good thing to drink before doing self-portraits using the mirrors on the ceiling. :whistling:
     
  26. It just makes sense. This has got to be similar to what companies like ADOX are already doing. It's a production volume issue - Kodak either couldn't or wouldn't spool down fast enough...and nearly lost it all by trying to "hang on" to a non-existent market. They have made some great products, and I will support them whenever I can with my purchases. The more competitive they get, the better the future of film will be.
    Heck, if they would just advertise Film's GOOD properties a little, I'm sure you'd see at least hundreds of thousands in the U.S. dust off their film cameras and join the new "too cool to shoot a digicam - so I shoot film" trend. It's all in perception and right now the majority of most sample populations, say my patients (for example) think that digital is "better" than film. It's newer, so it must be, right? New patients are shocked - and I mean blown away when they see the 20x30 B&W print I have my wife's 35mm ADOX CMS20 neg in the office reception area. You can literally keep walking right up and put your nose in it, and the detail increases, it doesn't turn to mush when you stick your nose in it....
    You can tell the old timers who "know" photography when they walk up to it and ask her if she shoots LF or Hasselblad. They are in disbelief when they find out it was CMS20 in a Minolta XD-11. :D

    Now, if Kodak could get that and other quality information about film out in a way the general population would understand . . . a LOT of people would shoot film again just because it's "cooler" or insert whatever feeling they get here, from the Ads and articles they read on the subject. Nearly every article in every photography magazine, journal, book, online sources, etc claims that digital blows film out of the water. And let's face it, it's good at some things, most of us have used it. But, Kodak needs to do an advertizing blitz about the SOUL of photography and blah, blah about film being awesome...and voila - you will have a run on film, guaranteed. Marketers don't call us all "sheeple" for nothing. They need to get some GOOD PR machines working for them. Believe me, they exist hardcore in this country, I don't know why Kodak is not using them.

    I really hope Kodak starts going this way with their production, and we will see film from them for years to come!
     
  27. Fifty bucks a sheet??? Maybe you would, but how many other people are on cra...er, would?

    Right now 8x10 is between $8.49 a sheet (Provia 100) and $13.95 (E100G and all gone, but the price is still listed) at B&H. E-Six lab here in Atlanta charges $6 a sheet for 8x10. That makes it between $14.49 and $18.95 per sheet. If I shot 8x10, and I agree the availability of Kodachrome and good processing might be another spur to do so, I could see maybe $10 more at $25, but not $50.

    And those figures don't tell the whole story, because I have a Jobo as a lot of other photographers serious enough to shoot LF color probably have that or better, so I could do my own E6 much cheaper. I don't, because I don't shoot it in sheets and it isn't worth the small savings to me in 35mm and 120, but I certainly could.

    Sheet film Kodachrome is a pipe dream. I agree, a fun one, but a pipe dream none the less. If we can keep current emulsions and get E6 ones back, maybe some of the most missed black and white (HIE, maybe Plus-X) we'll have plenty of reason to celebrate.
     

  28. Hell, do an annual Kodachrome ULF run for a new giant Kodak brownie called the "Master's Chambers". You walk in, load a 4x5 foot sheet and then puff-tuff.

    Don't forget to paint the door handle something other than black though.....else you'll check out any time you want, but you'll never leave....
     
  29. Why not?

    What if someone offered you a chance to visit the Titanic in person? Or spend a weekend on the ISS? Or even walk on the moon? Or anything else that maybe you'd have given anything to do in the past, but were born too late to have ever had the chance to try or do?

    And then - miraculously - you suddenly and unexpectedly got the chance?

    Would you do it? Or would you let a piddly $50 - $25 = $25 stop you dead in your tracks? Freeze you up so hard that you'd stand pat while the chance of a lifetime passed you by? Just stand there quietly and do nothing but watch from the sidelines?

    If the age of the Earth were represented by the length of a football field, the average human lifespan would be equal to 1/67th the width of the average human hair. If Kodak were to reintroduce Kodachrome on special order status for 8x10 sheets I'd jump on it so fast I'd probably knock you over. And the comparison shopping price of a sheet of 8x10 Provia 100 could not hold less relevance to me.

    Once they close the lid and shovel in the dirt it gets awfully cold and quiet. And stays that way for an awfully long time, my friend...

    Ken
     
  30. Nice.... This kind of embodies the entire idea around The Kodachrome Project...no regrets, no regrets...

    I'll take 20 sheets, 2 will be total F-ups and the other 18 absolute masterpieces. I even know exactly what I would shoot, I would need a production budget of around a hundred grand...
     
  31. Oh I might do it, I might shoot that 8x10 Kodachrome, hell it might even spur me to buy an 8x10 camera. But it would likely be one box and DONE. Then the camera would be used for black and white.

    Kodak couldn't continue making it like that.
     
  32. If this turns out to be true in the near future, it would be the best news I've heard from Kodak so far! As long as the prices stay affordable and if they start promoting and adverticing the coolness of film, it could become a huge hit and very profitable for Kodak and benefit the whole analogue market.
    I've always said that now that Kodachrome is dead, it's the perfect time for a resurrection of Kodachrome in 120 and sheet film! (35mm comeback would be to follow of course).
     
  33. To see Kodachrome come back would be very cool, but I'm probably more excited in Vision III making it into a still film like they've done with some other movie stocks.
     
  34. and why wouldn't they now that they canned digital...
     
  35. Wow that is a great point Alexis! I am hoping this person from Kodak who said this was correct about all this.
     
  36. Well, she may be as far as she knows, in the sense that "this is what we are working on in the lab." Since she works in LA, presumably her priority is the needs of the movie industry. So who knows how that will translate into actual product availability. On the other hand, time is of the essence for Kodak. EK is BK, so they have to show something that suggests long-term viability of their core businesses.
     
  37. Anyone noted the trajectory of demand for film? It doesn't appear to be up, does it?

    Still waiting for the OP to post a reference for the speech/address that started all this hyperventilation.
     
  38. ...and now all we need is an announcement that someone (Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Contax, etc.....) will start remanufacturing film cameras. Perhaps we will return to the days when One Hour photo shops traded on the high streets, perhaps enlargers could be produced again!!....., then film manufacture could be a viable proposition?
    Sorry, just thinking out aloud.....

    John
     

  39. Hey now, I thought you were in? Ostrich and all?! If it works out it does, if it doesnt well this employee should probably learn to not theorize possible bus strategy in a open forum....reguardless it is fun to dream....reguardless if it is reality or not
     
  40. According to what the business experts keep telling us about the demande for film trajectory, it must have reached negative figures years ago that's why we see all those clients returning loads of film rolls to Kodak everyday, lining up in front of their local photo store asking money for their film rolls. You know film demand is always getting down and always will. ;-)
     
  41. +1

    I'd love to see Kodak stick around. However two posts in this thread really crushed whatever enthusiasm I might have had:

    1) The notion that Kodak could do nice things if it freed itself from obligations to former employees

    2) Someone made a comparison with "Adox".

    I couldn't support Kodak products if they fkd employees over. As for Kodak learning anything from "Adox", I wouldn't go anywhere near Kodak products any longer if Kodak did anything at all the way those companies do. "Kodak" would end up being nothing more than a resurrected brand name pasted on junk in an effort to capitalize on the legacy of the brand.
     
  42. So far, a Google search reveals this link to Rankia, posted today.

    As for 8x10 Kodachrome for $50 per sheet, yeah, I would go for a 10-sheet box. But not like a maniac. But it would be nice to get E100G again. (I just wonder if we will see Fuji in 8x10 again.)
     
  43. Michael, please, explain what is junk?

    So far, Kodak looks like a bunch of drunk, overdosed teenagers whose spent their dads money and are currently in the big screwup situation, their employees and customers are paying for all mistakes.
     
  44. They certainly did screw up the company, but the quality of the products and the technology in their films has always been top notch. I would not want to see that compromised in the context of a low volume niche company.
     
  45. Michael, all photographic materials currently on the market are good enough.
    If Your skills are top notch, it doesnt mater if its Kodak, Adox, Ilford, Shanghai, Lucky, Svema, Tasma, ORWO, Rollei, EFKE etc.
     
  46. Ah, cool, so you saw that cruise missile of 200 rolls of Acros 100 in 120 from Adorama at $2.69 a roll go flying by? The trajectory is my fridge sir, sorry I did not file a flight plan...

    Yeah, I am as optimistic as anyone, but this hyperventilation party makes 4:20 at CU Boulder look like a blown out candle....I think some on here have spiked the bong water with vodka, lol!
     
  47. I strongly disagree with that. In my experience, there is Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. And then there's everything else.

    I'll leave it at that so as not to totally divert the thread.
     
  48. In other news, the Concorde is coming back. "Never mind the destination, look how gorgeous those seats are!"
    Kodachrome, shmodachrome. Isn't it more important to keep what little we have left accessible and cheap(ish)? This is no time for nostalgia.

    If 'on demand' is a possibility, what about custom made emulsions? That, I would be interested in.
     
  49. i think it is very strange that it took them 8-10 years to figure out that with a declined customer and sales base
    they need to reduce output ...
    i wish them the best of luck in this new phase of their revival.
     
  50. I am cautiously optimistic...
     
  51. I don't disagree that those three names represent reliability and quality at the present time. But let's not forget the work done by skilled amateurs and professionals over 150+ years with materials which, by present day standards, would be considered primitive and poor quality.

    Any films and papers from the first half of the 20th Century would probably fall within your definition of "everything else", but I wish my own skills were good enough to match the old-time great photographers....even with my access to the finest modern materials. :smile:
     
  52. Well, if there's any hint of reality in the statements made, I'd like to see two things discussed:
    1. Cost. I don't know about the rest of you, but often times when products are in their curve of demise, producers will raise prices, because those who really want it badly enough will pay a very high premium anyway.
    2. Supply integrity. I don't want Kodak films to be like some of the items Freestyle carry, where they all of a sudden run out of stock and can't get any more for a month or two. It has to be readily available.

    I'm also cautiously optimistic. It's either this, or 'give up film' for Kodak. I would love to see Kodak Ektalure paper brought back, or how about Kodabromide? Yeah. We have enough films, but paper is what I'm really worried about.
     
  53. I LOVE optimism on this topic, even if cautious. I think maybe Kodak is like a lot of our economy: un-shackled from blind, greedy, stupid managers, good products may have a chance of improving out lives.
     
  54. Micheal don't discount Tasma film. They offer a range of Motion Picture B&W Films (Nk1, Nk2 and NK3) that are equal or better than Kodak's MP B&W stocks unfortunately their availability is a bit of problem. I agree with you that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji offer the best products for classic photographic use in terms of Q.C.

    Dominik
     
  55. It's all a matter of demand, isn't it? If there's enough demand for a product (say Tri-X or Portra) to keep the lines running and distribution channels filled, that will happen. If it's more on-demand fulfillment, supply may be spotty. Prices likely higher per unit. Are they going to use projections and make, say, a six-month supply at one go? A year? That's basically what they were doing with Kodachrome. How much inventory do they want to hold? As little as possible, I'd guess.

    One question that comes to mind: if Kodak can do it, can Fuji do it too? They aren't as bad off financially as Kodak, because they've managed better with the digital transition. But they are cutting products. I like Acros and would like to know they can keep making it.
     
  56. Fine but I'd still really like to see a transcript of her talk and/or credible press coverage. Otherwise, all we know is that she spoke at SMPTE on 3/20. Frankly, if Kodak used this occasion to announce something wonderful, it's not shown up anywhere else aside from the OP's 2nd hand reference, right?
     
  57. Agree, wd be nice if they post a video of the meeting. Didnt some spokesperson accidently reveal a new cellphone model the other day in Japan recently, think the person uploaded a pic of this phone to Flikr accidently and let the cat out'a the bag....me hopes it was a slip at that meeting that might be true...
     
  58. Absolutely it's about demand, and you're right about inventory too - mismanaged inventory ties up cash like crazy and I imagine shorter runs 'on demand' is a way to alleviate the need for large inventory of raw material, in process, and finished goods.
    I work in an environment where we're always hounded about forecasting properly, and keeping inventory levels down. It's tough for purchasing, marketing managers, and supply chain people to really gel and have as little as possible in inventory, while at the same time having excellent on-time delivery to customers.
     
  59. Oh, maybe Tech Pan and original Kodachrome 25. Wonder how many rolls of 35mm or 120 would justify the production run. Problem with each of course is the companion developer systems and chemicals that Kodak would need to produce. Maybe economical if only 1 processing center and shooters were willing to wait until Kodak had enough film to turn on the machines to process the film.
     
  60. Nope. Which is why the whole point of this thread has to do with the possibility of Kodak restructuring their film manufacturing model down to the boutique level to match that trajectory. We were all aware of the drop in demand issue 5 years ago. Again, that's old, old news and that horse became pulp long ago. The question now is what happens next?

    Gotta keep up with the topic, CGW...

    Ken
     
  61. Wowww, I've done that, Man...
     
  62. My biggest concern would be if Ms. Pasterczyk's words relate more to the people in the film division trying to save their employment and that entity's future than the expectations and plans of Eastman Kodak's management and bankruptcy trustees.

    And as for the obligations to employees, it may be possible for there to be reasonable compromises for those, particularly considering the fact that the pensions for already retired employees appear to be excluded from the bankruptcy and relatively well funded.
     
  63. Which is why the whole point of this thread has to do with the possibility of Kodak restructuring their film manufacturing model down to the boutique level to match that trajectory.

    No interest at all in possibilities(e.g., K-64 back from the dead). I'm struck by high implausibility of such "restructuring" that would have Kodak verging on artisanal manufacture of film materials relative to their current organization. Can't imagine investors throwing $ at a product whose market is withering away.

    Funny how the collapse of film demand appears not to be "old news" around here given the passionate denials of the past few months. The "topic" remains pure blue sky, Ken.

    Still waiting for some good news from Rochester.
     
  64. Yes, this is also old news to us...

    Ken
     
  65. Besides the hypothesis of reviving Kodachrome, which probably is the last material to be resuscitated, the general idea looks very promising.

    In this internet age, big shops might collect orders paid upfront, and send the order to Kodak as soon as they reach a certain quantity.

    Kodak would only have to make the film and deliver it. No big expenses in marketing, branding, and very importantly no inventory risk, they would know the entire production is sold when they start the coating machine.

    I imagine a future in which the rolls will have a generic box and cartridge equal for all films of the same format, with a stamp on it simply stating Dreamachrome 2 Batch 76/15 exp. 12/17. A bit like medicines on demand.

    Firms like Amazon would have no great difficulties in collecting orders and money, sending manufacturing orders to Kodak, receiving great quantities from them, and sending to each individual purchaser. That's what they do already.

    Costs would IMO probably decrease in comparison to today, due to intermediate rings in the distributing chains being quite simplified, bulk orders at consumer level (20 rolls or so minimum order), no inventory risks for Kodak and possibly very simplified packaging.

    We have to adopt to a world where we order minimum 20 rolls of film each time. No big problem for most film users nowadays.

    Fabrizio
     
  66. I'm still convinced that they would do well to advertise more broadly, aiming squarely at the hipsters and art student types.

    If Kodak are reading, the TV advert would be a sentimental montage charting their history. I can see a happy middle class family, in 60s attire, frolicking on the beach with their Instamatic in one clip.
    The final shot would be present day, a student taking photos on his Hipstamatic app, pushed aside by his cooler flatmate with a Hasselblad mid way through opening a beautifully purple box of Portra, ready to load.
    The slogan would be 'Kodak, nostalgic for tomorrow'.
     
  67. So is the house-brand fabulism in threads like this.
     
  68. I agree with this broad concept, but would target another group with a lot of cash: I can't count the number of upper middle class 40 somethings that I've talked to about my Spotmatic. They get all dreamy-eyed and tell me about their first "true love."
     
  69. Not even sure if it's worth it at this point, but perhaps let me to try explain my post with the discussion of the ADOX film in it.
    I have almost always bought Kodak whenever they had what I wanted, ever since my Dad gave me an X-700 for my first camera. Like you, I also feel - and hopefully always will - that Kodak film/chem products are the finest quality in the world.
    My post was not to say they should do everything like ADOX. Far from it. My statement was that ADOX is already manufacturing film in this manner, and if they can do it - Kodak certainly has (perhaps had) the R&D knowledge and muscle to figure out how to do this as well. Now, whether they want to - that is a different question altogether. Some of us are very excited that at least someone in the company "gets it".

    Lastly, a bit of an aside, but it is truth - what film has Kodak to compare to CMS20 that I may purchase instead? It is non-existent. I have done the tests myself. TMax100 does not hold a candle, if what you want is enlargement capability from a small piece of film.
     
  70. Jed - Kodak did (and possibly still does) offer microfilm stock which in at least a few instances was
    rebranded for generally shooting using special developers. For many years, of course, Tech Pan was
    their label for extreme resolution film. I have never particularly cared for the tonality of any of these
    films in general photography, and much prefer 25-speed films like Efke 25 and Pan-F-plus for enlarging, with Rollei 25 being a newcomer to the same category, kinda between the other two in
    tonal range.
     
  71. PE stated many weeks ago that Kodak has some R&D coating machine which they might dust off and use for production of small batches. Given that Kodak films main product line, movie print film, is on its way out, this move is the most reasonable one. The talk referenced in the thread origin essentially confirms that Kodak indeed plans on going that way and that this is seen as a viable business model.

    No big surprises here, but very good news anyway. One number I would really like to hear is "minimum order quantity" for a batch run. If one batch can be had for four digit dollar amounts, a lot of odd ball materials will be available soon. If it is closer to six digits, most likely only the current product lines will remain.
     
  72. From another photo forum, quite interesting! Posted today....


    Remain curious why the OP couldn't supply a link to this "other photo forum" where this all appeared.
     
  73. Just a couple quick thoughts:

    (1) it is (and always has been) blazingly obvious that EK's film division can turn a profit... if they are taken out from under the other mountain of debt. Ideally, that's what chp. 11 does- allow subparts of a business to rise out from under the cloud of the parts that failed. I will resist the temptation to point out that certain people among us consider(ed) this impossible. But....

    (2) That this or that film might come back or be continued in smaller volume doesn't say anything at all about the prices of those products. You adapt the manufacturing volume to optimize profit- obviously you don't make small volumes on a high-volume line. That doesn't bode well at all for anyone associated with the high volume facility nor the American market per se. Offhand I'd guess this all means that the recipes and some of the talent will be shipped elsewhere e.g. to Fuji, and that's it.

    (3) I do ask myself what the Kodak brand is really worth, when all Kodak users remember all too well what they've done to their people and their products over the last few years. EK has curried outright hatred in recent years and is right on the ragged edge of having absolutely no user base- they've been doing everything possible to alienate their core clients for years now. To be blunt, I think it'd be a miracle to see certain products come back, but the greater miracle would be for an appreciable number of people to care if they did. Most of us who were investing in Kodak film products took careful note around the time that HIE went away... and there's a lot of water under the bridge since then...

    I do hope, of course, that there are good jobs and good products for people right there at the main EK facility. Let us see. In spite of (2) and (3), I sincerely wish them well.
     
  74. Sounds like a task for The Celebrity Apprentice !

    "Your task this week is to create a viral campaign headlining the use and enjoyment of Kodak Film. Because they are a fabulous company with a long history in American Culture".

    "This task will be huge, HUGE, and you better make it good because, as always, someone from the losing team is going to be fired".


     
  75. YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    Now I can make room for food in the freezer!
     
  76. Kodachrome blue sky is just for fun at this stage (something some don't seem to understand - bet they never, ever, buy even a single lottery ticket either) but I'd personally be quite happy with the continuation of current product lines. If we could ease E100G and VS into that category too then all the better.
     
  77. I agree with point 1 but have to be realistic - if they completely go away then those employees and former employees are likely to get NOTHING. SOMETHING, even if less than promised, is still better than NOTHING. But I'm certainly aware of this factor.

    On #2 - bah, or mostly bah. I've never used their film but Adox makes damned fine paper. Ok, MCC 110 is Afga MCC on a different base (I prefer the new whiter base anyway) but that's not important. It's a very good paper and I've used several packs in three different sizes now with not a single QC issue on a single sheet.

    Maybe they need to shore up QC, maybe their film sucks, but the reference is to emulating the model of making small runs, not making similar products.
     
  78. I'll go for the Area 51/Roswell theory here...they discontinued E-6, let Fuji have it, and will bring back Kodachrome! HA HA.

     
  79. Uh, well - they might get a separate revenue line from the processing, if they didn't just farm it out to Dwayne's!
     
  80. Why would one consider CMS20 to be some pinnacle of excellence that no other film can approach? It's a special purpose film. I could argue curves, latitude and a bunch of other mumbo-jumbo for other emulsions that are not CMS20. I'm pointing it out because I think it's a dumb and simple comparison to try and compare Tmax100 against CMS20. Different beasts, different usages.
     
  81. Can't we all just get a Bong?



    Hey, is this stuff [Read: single emulsion coat Kodachrome] legal?
     
  82. What on earth is single emulsion coat Kodachrome?

    Sounds about as viable as a tin of striped paint.


    Steve.
     
  83. Hell, we're on a roll! We've already got purchase commitments for $1,500 in 8x10 Kodachrome, and requests for several other discontinued products.

    No demands yet for Super-XX though. C'mon, I know you guys are out there...

    :cool:

    Ken
     
  84. I agree. We are on the same page.

    I put it on par with screen doors in submarines.

    also Steve
     
  85. Kodachrome made in China :D
     
  86. My gast is still flabbering that nobody mentioned Panatomic-X yet.
     
  87. Dang! I was just about to ...
     
  88. I've got most of an ancient 100-foot bulk roll in the fridge. Expiration date is right around the Cuban Missile Crisis, I believe. I did once roll a 6-frame short cartridge, just for fun. Dug up a matching dev time recommendation from the same period for D-76. Guess what? It came out very nice. A little edge fogging, but nothing in the business portion of the frame.

    This stuff will probably still be usable in a hundred years...

    Ken
     
  89. As much as I'd like to see some of the wishes posted here come true (especially Pan-X), I've often wondered (if, indeed, Kodak is committed to film) why they don't have a presence here, on APUG. Talk about the target market... If a Kodak rep was as accessible as Mr. Galley is for Ilford, we wouldn't need to speculate. Seems like a no-brainer, to me. One of the reasons I'm using more Ilford products than in the past is Simon's presence here. His participation speaks volumes about Ilford's commitment, and the increasing loyalty I have for Ilford products.
     
  90. Ken,

    Don't you mean on a sheet?:tongue:
     
  91. Even if they just brought back Kodachrome processing... There's plenty of Kodachrome in freezers around the world which is still quite shootable, and I myself have a few rolls I forgot to shoot, sitting in the freezer all forlorn like.
     
  92. It was mentioned on the very first page, post #5:

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

    I'm not sure what's so great about it. I shot a roll or two in the early 80s but it was always so slow it wasn't that practical for me. Is it better than, say, Pan F+? Better than TMX to make its being 1-2/3s stops slower worth the sacrifice?
     
  93. I think a 'duh' film for me to bring back would be TXP 320. Its still being made as a sheet film so the formula is current (not like the Panatomic-X which has Cadmium).
    Put 1000 rolls up in 220 and I'm certain it would sell out.
     
  94. Heck, put ANY decent black and white film up in 220 at a competitive price (slightly under 2x the price of the same film in 120) and it will sell.
     
  95. I've herd that argument before but I've also heard that Kodak didn't use Cadmium in ANYTHING after the early 1970's.:munch:
     
  96. I think a 'duh' film for me to bring back would be TXP 320. Its still being made as a sheet film so the formula is current (not like the Panatomic-X which has Cadmium).
    Put 1000 rolls up in 220 and I'm certain it would sell out.
     
  97. Well, obviously more people think like you than me, and as a result Kodak no longer makes Tech Pan. Not trying to start much ado about nothing here, because TMax is good for what it is. 5x the ISO for about 2.5x the grain is a good tradeoff for most. I did not say CMS20 was unapproachable, what I said was that Kodak no longer makes anything that can compete.
    Why would I get the notion to compare TMax 100 to CMS20? Pretty simple. It's the highest resolution/ finest grain B&W film Kodak sells. I like Kodak and always have. I would use their product over anyone else's if it worked for my application.
    Unfortunately, if you look at even a 16x20 print side by side of the two emulsions, the difference is obvious. At 20x30, it is striking.

    I'm not saying any of this to dis Kodak and extol the virtues of ADOX. I happen to like Kodak, and my heart is with all their good folks who gave us so many awesome materials...only to be screwed in the end by the incompetence of the company's top brass. Those bleeps lined their pockets with millions while gutting the company, and it is today a shell of what it could have been in 2012. Hence this thread...
     
  98. The difference might be substantial in a 20x30 print but probably only from 35mm. If you want to print 20x30 you don't need a sharper, finer grained and painfully slow film (which will also do nothing for your lens that will be sorely tested) - you need a bigger negative.

    I think that's why Tech Pan is gone - TMX in 35mm is good enough that the limiting factors become other than film - to get the most from it you must lock your mirror up (if using an SLR- could also use a rangefinder of course) and shoot off a tripod AND have a superb lens, and you still have the tonality and spectral response to deal with. And if you are going to shoot off a sturdy tripod anyway you might as well use a camera big enough for the job, especially now that they are affordable.