Well, yes, but I'd be more impressed if they got their products right in the first place. Here's an idea: they charge a few cents more for the product and put it in decent packaging.
Kodak D-76 Issue
-
A
- Thread starter Hatchetman
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Toyo Field 45CF
- Started by Jessxi
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera with 4x5 Back
- Started by Barlow
-
Free 3 kits of kodak flexicolor developer, Free in Portland Oregon
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Horseman 6x12 roll film back
- Started by OlliJ
Forum statistics
Well, yes, but I'd be more impressed if they got their products right in the first place. Here's an idea: they charge a few cents more for the product and put it in decent packaging.
Years ago, I supported a computer lab that had a particular model of color laser printer. We had an issue with toner cartridges exploding unexpectedly, showering the insides of the printer with incredibly fine, brightly colored powder. Since we had very good on-site service, the technician would come out, clean out the printer, and replace the toner cartridges.
Eventually it turned out that the manufacturer the printer company had out-sourced their cartridge production to, had made a small (unauthorized) change to make the cartridge slightly easier to manufacture... unfortunately, it also meant that the seal in the cartridge could no longer handle the pressure, and as a result, the toner cartridges would explode.
Cost Tektronix an awful lot of money, some bad will, and ultimately, wasn't their fault at all.
Eventually it turned out that the manufacturer the printer company had out-sourced their cartridge production to, had made a small (unauthorized) change to make the cartridge slightly easier to manufacture... unfortunately, it also meant that the seal in the cartridge could no longer handle the pressure, and as a result, the toner cartridges would explode.
Cost Tektronix an awful lot of money, some bad will, and ultimately, wasn't their fault at all.
Problem is that distribution changes have multiple levels of markup in them. If the old style "two right-size bags glued together" packaging costs ten cents more per bag than the new "one size bag for everything", it'll wind up costing us an extra couple bucks -- which would push a lot of businss toward LegacyPro clones, or other products entirely.
Maybe in the USA, but in Europe...
Would the cumulative margins add up to that much? $2/$0.10 = 20x
Maybe that is how it works. Until customers are browned off, but maybe that takes a while and the manufacturers' decisions are focused on the short term.
I was a Kodak customer for a long time.
MattKing
Moderator
Unfortunately, the wonderful Kodak vertical manufacturing and self run distribution networks are long gone. And when you have to depend on contracting out many of the components of your product (e.g. product containers) and contracting with existing distribution networks who think of film or chemicals as an afterthought, your product is vulnerable whenever you run into something that forces a change (e.g. the receivership of Tetenal).
So... the thread title specifically mentions Kodak. For those of you who have vowed to never purchase anything Kodak again (who don't hate Kodak, but take every opportunity possible to crap on them), why are you in this thread?
I'm here because I'm a customer. They announced a problem, it affected me, they solved it. End of Story.
I'm here because I'm a customer. They announced a problem, it affected me, they solved it. End of Story.
I'm learning from the experiences of others. I mention my choices since they are on topic. I still use Kodak 35mm and sheet film.
I have looked through all the posts in this thread and have found two comments on Kodak that are critical of two things. One, the level of support provided by Kodak in Europe which may or may not be a problem. I cannot comment as I have never needed it
Two, a criticism by a long time Kodak user who still uses some Kodak products who was suggesting what Kodak might do about the current issue. This hardly seems to amount to either taking every opportunity to crap on Kodak
What is clear and Matt has given us reasons for it, is that Kodak is currently suffering from problems with its chemical suppliers and we may expect those problems to affect us. While a good replacement service for faulty goods has been set up by Kodak and is essential, it is not sufficient in the long run to retain or better still, grow its user population
Kodak may or may not be struggling to maintain standards in those products it outsources but unless it can do so I fear its chemical business may shrink further. I think we can all agree that this is not in its interests or ours as consumers of analogue products who benefit from several companies being in the market for our business. A few being cheer-leaders and only cheer-leaders for Kodak is not enough to sustain its business. Yes a few stalwarts may never forsake Kodak no matter what but I have serious doubts if that few can maintain Kodak as a business
pentaxuser - current long time user of several Kodak products
Two, a criticism by a long time Kodak user who still uses some Kodak products who was suggesting what Kodak might do about the current issue. This hardly seems to amount to either taking every opportunity to crap on Kodak
What is clear and Matt has given us reasons for it, is that Kodak is currently suffering from problems with its chemical suppliers and we may expect those problems to affect us. While a good replacement service for faulty goods has been set up by Kodak and is essential, it is not sufficient in the long run to retain or better still, grow its user population
Kodak may or may not be struggling to maintain standards in those products it outsources but unless it can do so I fear its chemical business may shrink further. I think we can all agree that this is not in its interests or ours as consumers of analogue products who benefit from several companies being in the market for our business. A few being cheer-leaders and only cheer-leaders for Kodak is not enough to sustain its business. Yes a few stalwarts may never forsake Kodak no matter what but I have serious doubts if that few can maintain Kodak as a business
pentaxuser - current long time user of several Kodak products
Because this is an open forum, isn't it?
Of course. I never said people couldn't be here, or even shouldn't be here.
But you, in other discussions, have been vociferous in attacking Kodak for supposed offenses going all the way back to the 1950's. The fact that this is an open forum, as you rightly say, led me to question why you would be participating in a thread of absolutely zero use to you.
That is history and history cannot be deleted.
Now I'm questioning Kodak support in Europe, which is true.
But you're not a customer. You won't be a customer. I strongly doubt you work for any consumer rights organization. So it begs the question, are you questioning, or merely trolling?
As for history, it's a matter of context-- xrays were known to fog film (in fact, that's how they're used), but the idea that it could cause cancer wasn't understood for decades. Kodak knew the fallout was contaminating their incredibly sensitive, and valuable, production line. You'd have to prove they knew the medical repercussions of fallout in order to blame them for keeping their mouths shut about top-secret government military testing. Then you'd have to deal with the fact that at the same time Kodak was halting production to avoid fallout contamination, tourists were lining up in Vegas to watch the atom bomb tests in the Nevada desert-- you know, the ones that were supposed to be top-secret.
It doesn't really matter. You have a burr in your bonnet about Kodak. I don't. I'm familiar enough with the internet to know that people enjoy trolling in threads about their favorite subjects to hate, and occasionally, I've been known to troll the trolls. It's a bad habit, and I'm trying to stop, but between you and the armchair experts who know more than Kodak, I occasionally get a bit more irritable than I really should. Pretty soon I'll be yelling at kids to get outta my yard and complaining about the high price of hammers (Actually, when it comes to hammers, I prefer to mock them for having a Proposition 65 sticker).
Troll or not, do you know the first amendment?
Well, that's just silly, but as it happens, yes, I do.
However-- at no time during this conversation has Congress attempted to pass laws establishing a religion, or the restricting the right to free speech, or the right to peaceably assemble, and as far as I know, you aren't attempting to petition the government. Also, it's not entirely applicable here, because:
- This is a private forum, and not regulated by Congress or other state / local government
- You don't appear to be an American citizen (although that's an assumption)
- Contrary to popular perception, the First Amendment does not allow you to say anything you want nor does it relieve you of responsibility for that expression.
- Finally, at no point have I attempted to prevent you from saying anything. Questioning your motives is not a restriction on your speech.
Please have a look at this: https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...tests-why-the-photographic-film-industry-knew
and this https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg44045/html/CHRG-105shrg44045.htm
Now that you have done your lesson with your finger pointing right at me, could you please tell us what do you think about the customer level Kodak has in Europe?
If you can, of course...
Because this is the topic I was talking about in this thread.
P.S: btw, do you work for Kodak Alaris or Kodak Eastman?
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
In New Zealand????
And within the confines of a private website???
With regard to the general topic of "crapping on Kodak"...
I don't really understand the pushback against the complaints about Kodak Alaris chemicals. It seems to me to have nothing to do with brand loyalty. I mean, didn't Kodak (the US corporation) sell off that part of its product line to a UK company called Kodak Alaris which now has nothing to do with the US corporation aside from being legally allowed to use the Kodak brand on those chemicals?
I don't believe for a second that complaining about failed chemicals produced by Kodak Alaris constitutes disloyalty to the US corporation that we have all appreciated for decades. I also don't care who Kodak Alaris has contracted to manufacture those failed chemicals. In the 4+ decades I worked at manufacturing companies, I never even heard someone suggest the notion that we weren't responsible to ensure the quality of products and work from our contract manufacturers. When there were failures, there was no one, and I mean no one, who didn't understand who was to blame. No company that wants to stay in business picks a contractor, turns them loose, and hopes for the best. It's a continual process of verifying their work and measuring what they produce against the design specifications and fixing problems before the final product makes it out the door.. The sole fault for the failures of the chemicals produced by Kodak Alaris lies with Kodak Alaris and as far as I'm concerned, those failures do not reflect in the least upon Kodak, the US corporation.
I have no problem with anyone who makes the personal choice to continue using chemicals produced by Kodak Alaris. But, it's also perfectly logical for others to come to the conclusion that it is is not worth the risk or that they don't want to have to test chemicals to find out if they're good before using them on important work. Finally, even if was Kodak, the US corporation, that was shipping bad products, I would not keep using them out of a sense of brand loyalty. I would switch to a manufacturer with better quality control. One where you don't see thread after thread about why their products have suddenly died, or what is all this floaty stuff in here, or if the shelf life has been reduced due to formula "improvements", etc. If Kodak Alaris has to reduce costs to the point where the product fails or is fundamentally different, then changing brands to one with a better success rate may very well be the smart move. Keep using them if you want, but they are not Kodak chemicals anymore. They are Kodak Alaris chemicals. Just because they can use the Kodak name doesn't mean they have (or will ever have) Kodak quality. Hell, the main reason manufacturers even bother with quality control is because they lose customers to the competition when they turn out crap. That's an essential characteristic of a healthy free market.
This wasn't really intended to be a response specific to pentaxuser. I just picked his post because he used the phrase, "crap on Kodak" and there's nothing in it about the 1st Amendment.
MattKing
Moderator
I understand what you are saying Dave, and don't disagree that Kodak Alaris has the responsibility to deal with these problems.
I think the reaction isn't to the complaints about problems, but rather about some people who seem to equate the problems with some sort of abandonment and treachery - more sin than struggle.
Kodak Alaris - which at least initially was made up substantially from ex-Kodak employees who were cast adrift by the collapse of Eastman Kodak and its many subsidiaries - has indeed struggled, but so has a large proportion of the photographic industry that produces analogue products.
Many, many of those businesses have not survived, and their products have disappeared, leaving us with much reduced choice. Even more challenging, many of the suppliers to those businesses are also gone, which further reduce our choices.
Kodak Alaris owns more than the rights to the name, they also own the information related to the products. Well some of that is or was in the public domain, other information - such as the production method for HC-110 - appears to still be closely held.
I think it is reasonable for those of us who remain loyal to the brand to want to help it continue. Not by forgiving fault, but rather by encouraging improvement. If Kodak materials disappear, there isn't any guarantees they will be replaced by competitors - at least not all of them.
I think the reaction isn't to the complaints about problems, but rather about some people who seem to equate the problems with some sort of abandonment and treachery - more sin than struggle.
Kodak Alaris - which at least initially was made up substantially from ex-Kodak employees who were cast adrift by the collapse of Eastman Kodak and its many subsidiaries - has indeed struggled, but so has a large proportion of the photographic industry that produces analogue products.
Many, many of those businesses have not survived, and their products have disappeared, leaving us with much reduced choice. Even more challenging, many of the suppliers to those businesses are also gone, which further reduce our choices.
Kodak Alaris owns more than the rights to the name, they also own the information related to the products. Well some of that is or was in the public domain, other information - such as the production method for HC-110 - appears to still be closely held.
I think it is reasonable for those of us who remain loyal to the brand to want to help it continue. Not by forgiving fault, but rather by encouraging improvement. If Kodak materials disappear, there isn't any guarantees they will be replaced by competitors - at least not all of them.
Dave I wasn't sure if you are agreeing with me, attacking me or doing neither. 
I agree with your sentiments whether the company is Kodak or Kodak Alaris. Primarily I was simply pointing out that grat as it happens because crap on Kodak was his phrase not mine that two criticisms, one of which was from someone who still uses some Kodak products and was suggesting possible improvement does not constitute crapping on Kodak
You are right to point out that the recent problems with chemicals is entirely the territory of KA and we wrongly tend to use the word Kodak when it is KA. You are also right that any company who contracts out work to produce its products is responsible for those products
The car industry is a good example of this where SQA(supplier quality assurance) remains the responsibility of the company whose name is placed on the products
It is unclear to me if KA has the resources to properly police its chemical suppliers but as things stand it would look as if KA is having difficulties in doing this. However if this is the case then unless the chemical producers can be relied upon to do the job of quality assurance by themselves then eventually consumers will decide KA's future in Kodak chemicals for it by forsaking those chemicals
pentaxuser
I agree with your sentiments whether the company is Kodak or Kodak Alaris. Primarily I was simply pointing out that grat as it happens because crap on Kodak was his phrase not mine that two criticisms, one of which was from someone who still uses some Kodak products and was suggesting possible improvement does not constitute crapping on KodakYou are right to point out that the recent problems with chemicals is entirely the territory of KA and we wrongly tend to use the word Kodak when it is KA. You are also right that any company who contracts out work to produce its products is responsible for those products
The car industry is a good example of this where SQA(supplier quality assurance) remains the responsibility of the company whose name is placed on the products
It is unclear to me if KA has the resources to properly police its chemical suppliers but as things stand it would look as if KA is having difficulties in doing this. However if this is the case then unless the chemical producers can be relied upon to do the job of quality assurance by themselves then eventually consumers will decide KA's future in Kodak chemicals for it by forsaking those chemicals
pentaxuser
This is the reply I got from Fotoimpex:
Thank you for bringing our attention to a potential problem. We, as a dealer, cannot declare a certain batch “faulty” and call it back without an official statement from the manufacturer. We have investigated your question, and the result is - we have only had two claims with Xtol (one with a badly sealed part “B”, another - with two part “A”s), and no claims with D76. We claimed both with Kodak and have received replacements for our customers. Relative to the volumes we sell, two cases are not a systematic issue. If you have purchased a badly packaged Kodak product or have knowledge about a specific batch being entirely bad - please let us know via email, and we will gladly check our stock.
Contrary of what Fotoimpex said, it seems Kodak had made an official statement. To me Fotoimpex should do a recall of those batches affected and not rely on volountary inquiry from customers.
They obviously don't use this forum because there are way more than "two cases".
Kodak D76, and Xtol, are fantastic developers. It would be a shame to be forced to switch to other developers just because of that problem.
More faulty D76s on a italian analog photo forum: https://www.analogica.it/d76-marrone-t22100.html. At least seven different cases.
Last edited:
Another one complaining, this time of Dektol and Kodak T-Max 400 35mm
https://kruegerphoto.com/blog/2020/07/02/whats-up-with-kodak-alaris-photo-products/
https://kruegerphoto.com/blog/2020/07/02/whats-up-with-kodak-alaris-photo-products/
Interesting link but what wasn't clear was whether the author tested KA's claim that it was a cosmetic change that did not effect Dektol's quality as a print developer which I would have thought to have been sensible
On the Fotoimpex reply it may be that from its sales it has only had two complaints and this can only take action if it judges that action is required on its two registered complaints. The tendency for most is to moan but do nothing by way of action except to cease buying the product which is the worst outcome for the maker
As has been stated there would appear to be enough evidence that things are going wrong with KA chemicals and its ability or lack of ability to get on top of this.
In the long run it seems to me that simple and speedy replacement of defective stuff has to be seen as solely a stop-gap measure and the clock is ticking in terms time available to save KA's chemical reputation
pentaxuser
On the Fotoimpex reply it may be that from its sales it has only had two complaints and this can only take action if it judges that action is required on its two registered complaints. The tendency for most is to moan but do nothing by way of action except to cease buying the product which is the worst outcome for the maker
As has been stated there would appear to be enough evidence that things are going wrong with KA chemicals and its ability or lack of ability to get on top of this.
In the long run it seems to me that simple and speedy replacement of defective stuff has to be seen as solely a stop-gap measure and the clock is ticking in terms time available to save KA's chemical reputation
pentaxuser
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 11
- Format
- Multi Format
I bought 3 bags of D76 in July at Fotoimpex (cat. 1058270, batch 1/23/20), dissolved one a couple of weeks ago and the powder was normal white, the solution is clear without color ... developed 3 films and everything is OK..
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |