Kodak Price Increase and Hiring Spree 2023: What Do You Want Kodak to Focus on Moving Forward?

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,253
Format
8x10 Format
1kgC - I suspect Fuji settled on CAii RC as their cut sheet product as middle-of-the-road in terms of what they thought, correctly or not, would be most appropriate for small-volume traditional users - affordable at retail pricing, not too contrasty, but not too little contrast either. It's a decent sort of Ford/Chevy paper, and now available in three different sheens. Last year I bought a fresh 30-inch wide roll of Fujiflex, and that is, er, more of their Ferrari RA4 medium !!!, but the true polyester-based high gloss and bolder contrast isn't appropriate for every subject, but when it is, wow! Expensive. So now I need to find something tamed down a little for other kinds of images, but hopefully with a little better hue gamut than their cut sheet line. I fine tune the contrast, up or down, with supplemental unsharp masking if needed, so that gives me a real degree of flexibility most darkroom printers don't have unless they do the same. It's fun stuff, and superb quality prints can indeed be obtained in an all-optical traditional workroom workflow.

But it's an absolute shame that so many fine color enlargers literally went to dumps back when the big labs were switching mainly over to digital printing, due to lack of people interested in taking them, even for free.
 
Last edited:

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
I gave up on catching up somewhere on page 5 so my wishes:

E400
E100VS
RA4 paper in standard cut sheet sizes
Plus-X

I’m about that order of preference.

Oh, pre-2007 Tri-X but that’s probably even less likely than Pan-X. I’d really not have much use for Pan-X anyway but I know some (clearly) would.
 

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
Price sheet film more in line with competitors. Kodak has priced themselves out of my using their B&W sheet film when I get just as good results with Ilford for much less money.

Color sheet film is just insane and I’m not interested at today’s prices. 120 in a roll film back if I want movements does just fine.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,660
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format

What cassettes do you use?
I just got a light leak From an old GOLD 400 cassette.
I see people report the plastic once shed and scratch films.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,616
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
What cassettes do you use?
I just got a light leak From an old GOLD 400 cassette.
I see people report the plastic once shed and scratch films.

Plastic reusable cassettes. I've got three different kinds....a couple I acquired in the mid 80s when a school teacher used to sell hand rolled film to students cheaper than the shop bought film. I accidentally kept a couple of cassettes, one still has "Tri-X" in his handwriting on it. I should consider returning it even after all these years!

Then my first bulk loader came with a lot of well made plastic cassettes likely from a similar era (80s or early 90s)

And finally I received a gift of some modern plastic cassettes in 2018. They're not as good as the older ones but with careful use they don't leak light or scratch the film.

They work for me. I know some users strongly prefer to reuse metal Kodak or Ilford cassettes
 

BHuij

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
907
Location
Utah
Format
Multi Format
There's nothing really new I need to see out of Kodak. I will continue to happily buy Ektachrome 100 in all formats, HC-110 every 6 years when I run out, and the occasional roll of Gold 200 for my half frame or ProImage/Ektar 100 for a walk in the woods. Almost everything else I shoot comes from Ilford. I just hope Kodak manages to get themselves positioned to serve a larger market and keep prices more static over the long term.
 

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
I wish Kodak would sell more stocks in bulk rolls, most especially color negative (C41).

Kodak can't make enough color negative film to satisfy the demand for preloaded cassettes. It is unlikely that they are going to begin offering color negative film in bulk rolld, as it is a lower profit margin product. Of course, things may change, so never say never.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,669
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Kodak actually can make more film than they do. They just can't get it into as many 35mm cassettes as they can sell.
That isn't the reason that there isn't more bulk film. The reason is that the bulk film production line is incredibly slow and manual and inefficient and expensive to operate - it was actually designed to service the school photography market about 70 years or so ago. In comparison, the existing 35mm cassette manufacturing lines are incredibly fast, automated, efficient and inexpensive (on a per roll basis) to operate. It is just that they didn't leave enough of them around, when they did their major downsizing.
 

Radost

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
1,660
Location
USA from Ukraine
Format
Multi Format
I wish Kodak would sell more stocks in bulk rolls, most especially color negative (C41).

Second .
100’ cine rolls widely available again will be cool
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
8,018
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
The reason is that the bulk film production line is incredibly slow and manual and inefficient and expensive to operate

If there was sufficient demand, they would make that work.
There's not sufficient demand.
 

Anon Ymous

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,667
Location
Greece
Format
35mm
I wish Kodak would sell more stocks in bulk rolls, most especially color negative (C41).

Oh, I'd fancy some ColorPlus 200 in 100' bulk rolls, it has a very nice old time look. Not interested in Portras. Of course, it's never going to happen. Might not even be much cheaper anyway...
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,669
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
If there was sufficient demand, they would make that work.
There's not sufficient demand.

And if my information is correct, the definition of "sufficient demand" would be a number in the same range as what was being produced when school photographers using 35mm film in cameras that took 100 foot magazines were common.
As I understand it, the bulk film we are used to seeing from Kodak was just a fortunate offshoot of that very, very large market.
Other producers, with far smaller volumes (back then) could afford to create production systems attuned to much smaller volumes than those that Kodak was set up for. Those other producers had higher per unit costs - back then.
 

George Mann

Member
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
2,888
Location
Denver
Format
35mm
We need to put pressure on Kodak to provide 100 foot bulk rolls of color film. I would buy it if the price wasn't exorbitant.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,710
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

Weren't there also 200 shot rolls in 35mm? I seem to remember photographers who would service vacation spas and hotels who would circulate at dinner, the tennis courts, and pools, etc. shooting all the guests like they do today on cruise ships with digital cameras.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,669
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

250 shot rolls, I think.
But those rolls may have been manually re-spooled from larger ones by the users.
 

Mike Lopez

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
656
Format
Multi Format
250 shot rolls, I think.
But those rolls may have been manually re-spooled from larger ones by the users.

Several of the major camera manufacturers made 250-exposure backs (which appear to be plentiful on eBay, etc.). The entire back would need to be swapped onto the body, as you'd never get 250 frames into a cartridge that could fit into the conventional film chamber.
 

soysos

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
71
Format
Multi Format
I’d like to see them bring back EIR and Kodachrome, but that’s probably a pipe dream. Kodak gold in 4x5 and bull 35mm shouldn’t be too much to ask though.
 

soysos

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
71
Format
Multi Format
We need to put pressure on Kodak to provide 100 foot bulk rolls of color film. I would buy it if the price wasn't exorbitant.

Vision 3 is very reasonable, but they only sell it in 400’ and 1000’ rolls. There are some retailers repackaging 100’ rolls, but they’re a little more expensive. $320 for 400’ or $160 for repackaged 100’, really the most economical way to shoot color. As long as you don’t mind that remjet.
 

Hubigpielover

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
405
Location
Thibodaux, La
Format
Multi Format

I want Ektachrome p1600 back.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,710
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

Isn't Vision 3 mainly for movies? Why would you use it for stills especially because of the remjet problem?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,669
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Isn't Vision 3 mainly for movies? Why would you use it for stills especially because of the remjet problem?

They use it for still photos because they can actually get it, and they can get it slightly cheaper.
The current Cinestill stuff comes from master rolls that Cinestill has contracted for from Eastman Kodak which omit the remjet.
The film is designed for a different process - ECN-2 - is lower in contrast than the C-41 still film that we are used to and, as such was originally intended for contact printing on to projection stock, rather than printing on to RA-r colour photographic paper.
When developed in C-41, colour and contrast will be different than the film was designed for, and there will be colour crossovers that don't show up when developed in ECN-2.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…