Kodak price increase

[MattKing]

I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
We might share a titular head of state, and a shared history from times gone by, but Canada has much closer ties to the US.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The Audi brand isn't percived the same as Ford. If we want to use automotive analogies, would you pay twice as much for a Chev Silverado as a Ford 150, when similarly equipped (or vice versa)? Objectively if we relate it back to film, there isn't much difference in terms of technology between HP5 and Tri-X or Delta and TMax.

We often stick to what we know. I've bought Kodak all my life as if they're a first cousin. Ilford? Meh! Loyalty counts. It's like people who stick with Nikon or Canon.

Or Photrio.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer Kodak to Ilford for black & white film, but use the film that meets my needs and desire over cost. I greatly prefer Kodak color film to Ilford's which I do not buy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
We might share a titular head of state, and a shared history from times gone by, but Canada has much closer ties to the US.

Rochester, NY is very close to Canada.

 

[GregY]

I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.
We might share a titular head of state, and a shared history from times gone by, but Canada has much closer ties to the US.

Now that's funny Matt. But I'd say geographically closer, but not that close....
Canadians don't really have an equivalent of the predilection for.... "buying American"

 

[Craig]

Canadians don't really have an equivalent of the predilection for.... "buying American"

I was thinking the same thing. None of the Canadian photographers I know have ever chosen a film based on country of manufacture. They will choose based on price, availability, or characteristics of the film, but not where it's made. Choice based on country of orign seems to be very much an American only thing.

 

[MattKing]

Rochester, NY is very close to Canada.

And Toronto is at roughly the same latitude as Northern California.
Some of Canadian Kodak's 106 years of history: https://library.torontomu.ca/asc/2015/01/kodak-in-toronto-1899-2005-a-century-of-traces/

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now that's funny Matt. But I'd say geographically closer, but not that close....
Canadians don't really have an equivalent of the predilection for.... "buying American"

That is because they are too busy being in Canadian Tire on the weekends for some undiscovered reason. Maybe it is a social thing to do. Go figure.

 

[MattKing]

I was thinking the same thing. None of the Canadian photographers I know have ever chosen a film based on country of manufacture. They will choose based on price, availability, or characteristics of the film, but not where it's made. Choice based on country of orign seems to be very much an American only thing.

There were a lot who had long and close ties with Canadian Kodak and its dealers and lab customers, and used Kodak products for those reasons.

 

[GregY]

That is because they are too busy being in Canadian Tire on the weekends for some undiscovered reason. Maybe it is a social thing to do. Go figure.

beats Walmart.

 

[MattKing]

.That is because they are too busy being in Canadian Tire on the weekends for some undiscovered reason. Maybe it is a social thing to do. Go figure.

beats Walmart.

Not to mention my favorite (name): Piggly Wiggly

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And Toronto is at roughly the same latitude as Northern California.
Some of Canadian Kodak's 106 years of history: https://library.torontomu.ca/asc/2015/01/kodak-in-toronto-1899-2005-a-century-of-traces/

I see Kodak was on King Street. Any relationship?

 

[MattKing]

I see Kodak was on King Street. Any relationship?

There were a lot of King Streets at one time in Canada!
Hope you are enjoying your President's day .
We really don't have the connection with the monarchy that you think.
Watching some of your TV, I think the connection with the monarchy (as compared to the political structure that is "The Crown") is stronger in the US.
But discussion about that is off topic for Photrio.
As for the Camera Heights site, my Dad was born and grew up just blocks away from it. His father drove for CN trucks and delivered materials to it - including loads of silver ingots!
My grandparents lived in that house for decades and decades. After returning from World War II, my Dad tried a couple of other jobs but ended up working at Kodak Canada in the order department in about 1947. He moved up in the marketing division, and was transferred to the newly opening North Vancouver BC Kodachrome/Ektachrome lab to serve as the Customer service manager until his retirement in 1983.
I come naturally to my interest in Kodak

 

[MattKing]

This is an aerial photo of the Camera Heights site inn 1996 - basically at its maximum.
It comes courtesy of a source who chooses to remain anonymous :

 

[GregY]

Another star to Kodak. They built the Forte factory in Hungary in 1922...

 

[pentaxuser]

I would venture that more people in Canada would be influenced to buy a particular film - say Ilford - if they cross promoted with a hockey team than if they identified their brand as being from a foreign country - England.

Sounds as if it is time to tell "The folks in Mobberley", Matt

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

Gotcha! For me the value is that i prefer to work from Tri-x or TMY negatives... At least we have a choice. I LOVE FP4+..... but HP5 has always left me indifferent.

I think it is because I scan my film. Then it is very easy to make adjustments to get the look I want. So for better or for worse, a lot of the time it doesn't really matter what B&W film I use.
Once I get back to real printing in a darkroom, then I think the differences/nuances in film used will become much more apparent. I am looking forward to that (hopefully soon) day!

 

[Roger Cole]

I decided to move entirely to Ilford products last year, after their most recent price increase. I saw the writing on the wall and realized Kodak's films would soon exceed my budget. In March - if the price forecast is accurate, there will be no more Kodak film in my future. $10 a roll of 120 film is the most I will pay.
I can still buy FP4 for under $8 a roll, so you can see why I've opted to buy Ilford, not Kodak. No, FP4 ain't the same as T-Max, but I'm totally happy with FP4, so...

I will buy Kodak C41 film, and maybe some E100D because I just like Ektrachome more than Provia (and never got along with Velvia at all.) But I already wrote off Kodak B&W as just not worth the price premium when I like Ilford films so much anyway.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think it is because I scan my film. Then it is very easy to make adjustments to get the look I want. So for better or for worse, a lot of the time it doesn't really matter what B&W film I use.
Once I get back to real printing in a darkroom, then I think the differences/nuances in film used will become much more apparent. I am looking forward to that (hopefully soon) day!

I only print in the darkroom and I like HP5+ just fine. I'd wager that I can produce results with it or Tri-X in 120 (maybe not in 35mm) that I'd find completely indistinguishable.

There seems to be a lot of complaining that HP5+ is "flat." I can't help but wonder if some of those folks are just slavishly adhering to published development times? Too flat? Develop 20% or so longer next time and then adjust again from there. HP5+ is good film that response predictably and normally to development changes. If your negatives are flat just develop longer. This is very basic film photography but with so many coming over from digital (or possibly sending their B&W film to someone else to develop??) it no longer seems to be common knowledge.

 

[cmacd123]

This is an aerial photo of the Camera Heights site inn 1996 - basically at its maximum.

I understand that one one of those Buildings still exists, and it was moved to a new location., to accomidate a transit plan. Most Kodak film sold in canada when that site was in operation came in packages marked Canadian Kodak, and the edge print was often KODAK SA'FETY Film.

I do recall one place used to sell "Parallel imports" or "Grey Market" Kodak film produced by Kodak Limited London, so at that time we had a choice of British Film. (edge print KODAK SAF'ETY FILM)

As Matt says, the Monarchy is slightly off topic, But lets just say that the existance of the Monarch is Absoutly embeded in almost all aspects of the Canadian Government structure. Although the Actual Monarch is irrelivant, and has no actual Influence. Although in due time the mint will issue coins with "Charles III DG REX" on them rather than the existing "Elizabeth II DG Regina" ones.

 

[Moose22]

I only print in the darkroom and I like HP5+ just fine. I'd wager that I can produce results with it or Tri-X in 120 (maybe not in 35mm) that I'd find completely indistinguishable.

There seems to be a lot of complaining that HP5+ is "flat." I can't help but wonder if some of those folks are just slavishly adhering to published development times?

There's a film and darkroom class at a local school. A friend is taking it, the instructor "strongly recommends' HP5+ as it works well and he knows it well. We bulk rolled a bunch last week to get him going.

I think I felt like it was "flat" when I first used it, too, especially as my first roll was scanned by the lab and I'm guessing they don't mess with it much. Definitely less contrasty than the kodak. I dev and scan myself now, so it's not just the lab. I ended up with an extra minute over the published xtol times. Someone here told me to try it, so I know I'm not alone. And I like the negatives with the extra time in the developer. Even if my process is hybrid, I am a lot closer to my idea of "good" straight from the scan.

I just assumed that's what most people did. And/or the analog crowd compensated at the printing stage. Isn't that why analog printing gurus often preach that you should learn a film really well and stick to it? So you know what to expect and can make the best of it?

 

[MattKing]

I understand that one one of those Buildings still exists, and it was moved to a new location., to accomidate a transit plan.

The old employee services building was the one remaining building - the one where the fully stocked colour and black and white darkrooms were, that employees could use for minimal or no charge.
IIRC my Dad's stories, there were also a lot of other employee amenities there - e.g. a bowling alley ???
I'm not sure the building was moved. I think it was actually reconstructed as the new transit station.
Up until about 2000? that was the site where most Kodak production occurred respecting microfilm, but that was all brought back to Rochester when everything was consolidated to Building 38.

Most Kodak film sold in canada when that site was in operation came in packages marked Canadian Kodak

And in later years, Kodak Canada.

 

[MattKing]

I think I felt like it was "flat" when I first used it, too, especially as my first roll was scanned by the lab and I'm guessing they don't mess with it much. Definitely less contrasty than the kodak. I dev and scan myself now, so it's not just the lab. I ended up with an extra minute over the published xtol times. Someone here told me to try it, so I know I'm not alone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ilford and Kodak targets for contrast in their suggested development times differ in that way - the Kodak target is slightly higher.

 

[Craig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ilford and Kodak targets for contrast in their suggested development times differ in that way - the Kodak target is slightly higher.

Although the developing times don't differ by much. The HP5 tech sheet suggests 8 min in Xtol and the Kodak sheet for Xtol says 8½ min. The difference in final contrast shouldn't be that much for 30 seconds difference.

 

[albireo]

I think it is because I scan my film. Then it is very easy to make adjustments to get the look I want. So for better or for worse, a lot of the time it doesn't really matter what B&W film I use.

The above though is not because you scan, but because of how you choose to post-process/finalise your results, surely.

If anything, scanning is potentially able to give you the most faithful rendition of an inverted negative possible, because you can choose to scan fully linear and add no arbitrary non linearisations (unlike what you'd do with enlarger + paper, where you have a host of lens- and paper- related non-linearities to add to the mix).

I scan my film, apply exact the same workflow to all film I scan, and therefore (relative to my process) I can see the differences between film stocks immediately.