Kodak Exits

keithwms · Oct 29, 2007

There is an interesting article in C&EN which details how Fuji is facing the situation.

The standout sentence from this article, relevant to this thread: Fuji has remained profitable over the last two years, but over the same period, Kodak lost $2bil. So it's no surprise that Kodak is sending up all manner of trial balloons recently- they are in a very precarious position. I hope they find what they need to stay afloat.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 29, 2007

That link would have been helpful if it wasn't to a site requiring a subscription... Thanks for relaying the relevant part of it, though.

I wish people would leave Kodak alone. They're just trying to make good business like everyone else. Do I agree with every move they make? No. But the photo community would be much worse off without them around. Come on, folks. They make some really good products.

If you want them to listen to your needs, perhaps providing a slightly more welcoming discussion forum for them would help?

- Thomas

keithwms said:
There is an interesting article in C&EN which details how Fuji is facing the situation.

The standout sentence from this article, relevant to this thread: Fuji has remained profitable over the last two years, but over the same period, Kodak lost $2bil. So it's no surprise that Kodak is sending up all manner of trial balloons recently- they are in a very precarious position. I hope they find what they need to stay afloat.

Don Wallace · Oct 30, 2007

So far, I think that this thread has expressed a wide range of responses to Kodak, from strong criticism and anger, to praise, support, and hope. If I were a Kodak rep, I might consider taking a chance here, even though the forum is filled with arm-chair managers. But I really don't blame them for just lurking.

Just for the record, I shoot 120, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I use Ilford for b&w and Kodak (rev and neg) for colour. I use all Kodak darkroom chemistry. Just to encourage Kodak a little, I am going add Tri-X to my list. I used to shoot it all the time but switched to only HP5 (can't remember why).

I hope that Kodak survives and I hope that it continues to make film and darkroom products. Hell, I am such an optimist, I hope that they will get back into making fine art paper.

John Kasaian · Oct 30, 2007

Don Wallace said:
So far, I think that this thread has expressed a wide range of responses to Kodak, from strong criticism and anger, to praise, support, and hope. If I were a Kodak rep, I might consider taking a chance here, even though the forum is filled with arm-chair managers. But I really don't blame them for just lurking.

Just for the record, I shoot 120, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I use Ilford for b&w and Kodak (rev and neg) for colour. I use all Kodak darkroom chemistry. Just to encourage Kodak a little, I am going add Tri-X to my list. I used to shoot it all the time but switched to only HP5 (can't remember why).

I hope that Kodak survives and I hope that it continues to make film and darkroom products. Hell, I am such an optimist, I hope that they will get back into making fine art paper.

Don,
If you were a Kodak film rep, you'd have been "downsized" long ago!
OTOH I think it is very encouraging that the Great Yellow Father in Rochester is introducing an improved TMY in sheets.
There's hope for 'em yet!

Richard Mendales · Oct 31, 2007

I'm surprised none of the posts on this thread has discussed one of my favorite Kodak products--Kodachrome. There was nothing quite equal to K25, and even K64 has its virtues; slides that I shot 30 years ago still look as if I shot them last week. Yet Kodak seems to be phasing it out entirely, since they won't even process it any more. I wish Kodak could see their way to a revival.

Photo Engineer · Oct 31, 2007

Richard;

I wish everyone on APUG would recognize how much the market shrank in the late 80s when E6 and Velvia were introduced! In 1990, Kodachrome sold so poorly that it was one of the last years that Kodak advertized it, and even then it shared the bill with Ektachrome!

I like it, you like it, but the entire worlds production for a year or more can be manufactured in a few minutes, the sales are so poor.

And before anyone comments, the sales dropped before the processing plants closed. They closed due to the sales drop! Don't put the cart before the horse.

PE

copake_ham · Oct 31, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Richard;

I wish everyone on APUG would recognize how much the market shrank in the late 80s when E6 and Velvia were introduced! In 1990, Kodachrome sold so poorly that it was one of the last years that Kodak advertized it, and even then it shared the bill with Ektachrome!

I like it, you like it, but the entire worlds production for a year or more can be manufactured in a few minutes, the sales are so poor.

And before anyone comments, the sales dropped before the processing plants closed. They closed due to the sales drop! Don't put the cart before the horse.

PE

Thanks PE,

I took a long hiatus and didn't do much of any shooting from the mid -'90's until a few years ago. The reason why I got back in is a bit personal so I'll not go into it.

Anyway, from the late '70's until when I first hung up my Nikkormat FT-2 I almost exclusively shot K-chrome. I loved it then - and, yes, I'd love it now.

But truth be told, when I was still using it "back then" I was not aware of how obsolete it already was. So, when I got back to shooting a few years ago I came to realize that K-chrome was all but dead. It is a complex chrome to make that also requires an environmentally "not nice" form of processing.

Simply put, it is an "oddball" film.

So. similar to how the film "industry" moved to a common standard for processing film negs (C-41), so it has moved to a common standard for 'chromes (E-6). And we should be glad that the "industry" has done so. With film moving from the mainstream to a niche product, it is important that certain processes be standardized.

Simply put, there is no place anymore for a film type that needs "unique" processing.

But don't get me wrong, I miss K-chrome (at least a little) - but have come to love Velvia 50.

As to why Kodak chooses not to compete with Velvia? Well, it is a rather small marketplace nowadays, isn't it?

Photo Engineer · Oct 31, 2007

Well, you have to remember that Fuji made a Kodachrome type film and bailed out in the early 90s. This was a significant event.

Reversal films capture far less market share than negative films. And, Kodak has the lions share of the negative market.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 1, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Richard;

I wish everyone on APUG would recognize how much the market shrank in the late 80s when E6 and Velvia were introduced!

PE

Uh, PE, I was using and processing E6 in the 1970's. Kodak did introduce many new E6 films in the 1980's, but the process was already established.

Photo Engineer · Nov 1, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
Uh, PE, I was using and processing E6 in the 1970's. Kodak did introduce many new E6 films in the 1980's, but the process was already established.

I was too terse in this.

Fuji exited the Kodachrome market and transferred their trademark Fujichrome to the new Velvia E6 line. At that time, with no competition whatsoever, Kodak abandoned the Kodachrome patents, specifically the new process with CD-6 as yellow developer.

Kodak tried to introduce a new product line of t-grain Kodachrome which included a 400 speed version. Interest was zero, and so the introduction was cancelled. All of what I describe took place in the late 80s.

The trend towards Fuji was almost reversed when Fuji produced a huge batch of defective film, and it would not go through E6 without modification. This was recalled and Fuji reformulated the film. This was finished in about 1991 or so.

PE

tim_walls · Nov 2, 2007

copake_ham said:
As to why Kodak chooses not to compete with Velvia? Well, it is a rather small marketplace nowadays, isn't it?

E100VS?

(I actually far prefer E100VS to Velvia, but that's just a personal opinion - I don't seem to have got the Velvia bug for some reason. E100VS is just gorgeous stuff though.)

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Fuji exited the Kodachrome market and transferred their trademark Fujichrome to the new Velvia E6 line. At that time, with no competition whatsoever, Kodak abandoned the Kodachrome patents, specifically the new process with CD-6 as yellow developer.
PE

Ron, the Fujichrome trade name was used for Fuji's E4 films, and the Velvia name was not used for Fuji's first E6 films.

I've never come across a Fuji colour reversal film that was not processed in E3/E4 or E6 chemistry. The only reference I've ever seen to a Kodachrome type process was the early Ilford Slide film in the 1960's.

Ian

dmr · Nov 2, 2007

clay said:
All the article says is that Kodak is in the process of moving from film to digital. Doesn't imply anything other than a change in emphasis.

You've all probably seen that chart, used by marketroid types to explain product lines to the non-marketroids (like me) in terms of Stars, Dogs, Cash Cows and Problem Children.

{d-word} is obviously now a Star of Kodak's lines. Like it or not, it is. High growth, high visibility, high potential for generating $$$$$.

Film was a Star, now a Cash Cow. Zip for growth potential, but still brings in the bux. Film is a Cash Cow -- FOR NOW!

However, if and when film becomes a Problem Child or a Dog, it will quickly be sent to the orphanage or the dog pound, or just dumped out on the road in the middle of nowhere!

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

Ian Grant said:
Ron, the Fujichrome trade name was used for Fuji's E4 films, and the Velvia name was not used for Fuji's first E6 films.

I've never come across a Fuji colour reversal film that was not processed in E3/E4 or E6 chemistry. The only reference I've ever seen to a Kodachrome type process was the early Ilford Slide film in the 1960's.

Ian

In 1959 and 1960, I purchased Fujichrome and Sakura Color film in Japan and other far east countries. They were Kodachrome work alikes in that generation. I was a guest at the Sakura Color processing plant to see it, and also at To E studios to see the set for the latest Godzilla epic on the roof of the building. They used Fujichrome and Technicolor for MoPic and Sakura unmasked color neg for stills. I have lots of shots on all of these except for the motion picture. I was charged with buying it for the AF for 'special projects'.

In fact, we used only Kodak color (E2 and E3) at that time, because we had no way to process the Japanese reversal film.

When Kodak transitioned to E6, there was still a Kodachrome like film in the far east made by both companies, but it was rapidly waning. It effectively vanished, but there was a short hiatus until Fuji was able to make an E6 compatible film.

I remember it to be Velvia, but of course I may be wrong. In the event, the film would not go through the E6 process properly and there were headline articles on it in major US magazines.

At the same time they introduced it, they placed ads "From the people who brought you Pearl Harbor", and this was so poorly recieved by the US audience there was a huge outcry. The ad was condemned by major news stories and Fuji withdrew the ads. It was replaced by the ad showing two eyes with the statement "These eyes can see color no one else can see and they designed the new Fujichrome films" (that is a paraphrase of the actual title to the picture.

From that time forward, Fuji reversal films rapidly improved.

Now, the market varies from Japan to the US to England and Europe, so this story of mine may be somewhat cross threaded due to your perspective and mine, as I was travelling over 1/2 of the globe during part of that period as noted above.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

*note, rather than edit, I want to add that the above Fujichrome used for motion picture was their extant motion picture film similar to Tecnicolor IIRC. I never got into any of the motion picture work due to the fact that we used all B&W in our USAF mopic applications. (To E means Light and Sound IIRC).

PE

DrPablo · Nov 2, 2007

Why haven't smaller companies like Ilford made any color products?

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

Color coating is rather difficult on equipment designed for B&W, but B&W can be coated on equipment designed for color.

Most normal B&W equipment used for color will produce 1/3 the amount of product for a given unit of time (just a rough analogy of the problems) and the company would just about have to double or triple their R&D and chemical synthesis or supply divisions.

PE

dbltap · Nov 2, 2007

Not much mention has been made of another player in the proprietary transparency game, but what about Agfa. I seem to remember they had a slide film out in the 70's rated at asa 64, that at the time, was occasionally rated as better than K-64. I think I may have a few of these slides around somewhere. Will have to look them up to see how they have aged.
Jim

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

I have used the Agfa unmasked negative films up until the 60s, but did not use the masked negative or any of their reversal films untl the 80s. Those films from the 60s and the 80s both appear to be holding up well. My Kodak and Fuji films are holding up well except for E1 and E2 films.

Samples of my work on E1 Ektachrome and restoration of these were used in Ctein's new book on digital restoration. It is one of the examples of correct use of digital.

PE

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2007

DrPablo said:
Why haven't smaller companies like Ilford made any color products?

Ilford did make Colour slide film in the 60's, in fact Ilford were working on colour materials before WWII but once the war started the UK Government made them stop all research as it was felt to be of no military importance.

After the war research started again and they launched a reversal film, and offered a printing service.

Of course Ilford later teamed up with Geigy to produce Cibachrome/Ilfochrome

Ian

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

Ian has summarized it perfectly, and as a result the Ilford plant in England has not fully developed a high speed color coating machine equal to that used by Kodak, Fuji and Agfa. This does not mean they cannot, merely that they did not. To do so now would require a rather large expenditure in the face of the current shrinking market.

The plant in Switzerland, no longer a part of Ilford, did have reasonable coating equipment for color, but the last I heard it was relatively slow. The last formulation for Ilfochrome that I had used sulfonate dyes which interacted with the slide and curtain coating techniques and effectively prevented their use.

This would limit Ilfochrome to either about 3 passes through 1 machine to coat all layers or the use of multiple coating stations on one machine either of which processes is a slow, labor intensive operation.

Expensive dyes + slow coating + low volume of sales = high cost material.

PE

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2007

As Ron will confirm a huge problem with early colour films was a total lack of processing compatibility. A look in an old BJP Almanac from the 1950's will give you alternative formulae for a whole plethora of different types of film.

It was the E3/E4 process that first saw films from other manufacturers processed on the same dunk-dip lines. My own first home processed slides were a Ferrania kit film & chemicals, not at all easy.

Then E3 or E4 chemistry would process E4 films and Fuji R100 etc, Gaf, and others could be processed alongside Kodak Ektachromes, there was a big difference in quality, the Fuji E4 films gave better colour rendition, closer to Kodachrome.

Then only Agfa remained with their unique processing, and all the other compaies switched to E6, Agfa finally having to succumb.

Going through 50's slides 4 months ago it was noticeable how significantly Kodachrome's had faded, however not nearly as badly as commercial Ferrannia slides my parents bought in Italy in 1954.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

I just looked up the early articles on Fuji vs Kodachrome and some of my early slides.

Pictures in Popular Photography show Fuji boxes labeled Fujichrome in small letters on the bottom, and VELVIA in large letters across the box above the smaller Fujichrome logo.

They rated Velvia 100 as being almost equivalent to Kodachrome 64. This was about the time of the recall. The article and recall were both in about 1990.

The earlier Kodachrome like materials were Sakura Color and Fuji Color. My apologies for the error on the Fuji product name. Thanks Ian for prompting me to go back and look it up to fix my flagging memory.

Also, E2 packages and booklets I have were dated 1955, while E3 packages were dated 1967. I was using E1 before '55 and E1, E2 and E3 were pretty bad for stability it seems to me. I have no packets or instructions clearly dated for E4 or E6 although I have some of the early chemistry here from all companies along with packages of Sakura and Agfa chemistry.

Fuji apparently had no chemistry for home processing, but Sakura did have both a film and paper. Oriental and Kikuchi (for a time the same company) had a full line of processing chemistry and film and paper. I have had samples of these since the 50s and have used them.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 2, 2007

Ian;

My search did turn up one intersting fact. I have no examples nor indication of any E3 and E4 compatible Fuji, Sakura or Agfa films through 1962. This is one reason why we avoided them in the AF. We were unable to process their films in kits due to their being only Kodachrome types in the far east area.

So, at that time, I could get Sakura and Agfa films for private use, but only Kodak films for military use. I could get color paper and negative films for military use as they could be processed from kits.

At Kodak, for test purposes, we had no E3 or E4 films, but only E6 films from the various manufacturers. I still have some of those slides here with notations on them as to order # and process sheets from the KRL studio.

The exception, as noted is Sakura unmasked negative film and Agfa unmasked negative film along with the Agfa paper.

PE

Ian Grant · Nov 2, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Ian;

At Kodak, for test purposes, we had no E3 or E4 films, but only E6 films from the various manufacturers. I still have some of those slides here with notations on them as to order # and process sheets from the KRL studio.

PE

Of course another reason may well be that work on E6 at Kodak was so far advanced and the huge increase in quality over E4 made testing older E4 products from competitors totally redundant.

The huge leap forward in nearly all manufacturers films with the switch to C41 & later E6 brought far greater consistency to the market, only Sakura seemed to lag significantly behind.

Ian

Kodak Exits

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency