Kodak Tmax 8x10, 400 and 100, discontinued.

[aldevo]

Kodak's CEO has been telling us this for years now. Unfortunately, many here simply refuse to listen to him.

Colin is correct. It really does no good to bash Kodak. But it also does no good to praise them, either. Their long-term decision to get out of the photography market is absolute and unwavering. They - or he - see their future elsewhere. At this stage perhaps the best we can do regarding Kodak is to just give them an honestly sincere "Thanks for the memories..." At least until we reconvene this topic again in a few months for the next scheduled round.

So did anyone else notice that Kodak Plus-X film has now been relegated to also-ran status on Kodak's Professional Black & White Films webpage?

It's now listed way down at the bottom under the heading "Other Black and White Films" along with T-MAX P3200, and now merits only two lonely sentences of product information description. It's also conspicuously missing from the "Traditional" black & white films section of Kodak's online store - as is P3200 from the "T-Max" section.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe it's Kodak's way of trying to sell more of it?

Ken

The PXP and P3200 are still featured in the left-hand navigation frame with the same prominence as the other films.

If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?

 

[aldevo]

I just confirmed that with Pete at Kodak Professional Products (Ext. 19). Kodak has also just discontinued TMX in 5x7, where 320TXP will be the only film available as a stock item.

It doesn't seem like the 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 were to blame, since 5x7 TMX continued to be packaged in 50-sheet boxes, to no apparent avail.

I think the 10-sheet boxes were indicative of a lack of faith on Kodak's part that there would continue to be a market for the film in 8x10.

I think they had the product volume under a microscope. If a box with 20% of the product volume isn't turning over 5 times as quickly - demand is on the decline.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?

Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

"When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

"PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."​

That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think the 10-sheet boxes were indicative of a lack of faith on Kodak's part that there would continue to be a market for the film in 8x10.

I think they had the product volume under a microscope. If a box with 20% of the product volume isn't turning over 5 times as quickly - demand is on the decline.

This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

Ken

 

[aldevo]

Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

"When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

"PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."​

That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

Ken

Kodak simply doesn't have the cash to broadcast that message in the face of a very well-monied digital onslaught. Nobody is aggressively marketing film in mass traditional or online media now.

Kodak downsized their film production infrastructure tremendously 7 or 8 years ago - but their estimate of what would be the eventual, equilibirum size of the film market has proven to be too optimistic.

Demand has continued to decline and now there is the double-whammy of an upward spiral in material costs.

 

[aldevo]

This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

Ken

Ken,

Kodak isn't looking for excuses to discontinue products. They are simply a cash-poor company that cannot afford to be behind market demand trends and suffer any sort of losses from continuing operations.

Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again. But this simply isn't going to happen and they lack the resources to market film in the face of extremely-well-monied digital imaging comapnies. Not even FujiPhoto (of which FujiFilm is but one division of a much better capitalized company than EK) has the resources, and they are certainly showing no inclination to use what they have.

I'm optimistic that a couple very small companies may keep analog B&W photo materials available for another few years or even another decade or two - but there is no "second coming of film" in the offing.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again.

PM sent, as this has already drifted too far off center line...

Ken

 

[AgX]

I do care but don't care much for your arrogance.
You don't really believe that the quality from the new Adox pan 400 will be comparable to Kodak's first rate Q&A do you?
Not bashing Adox and Mirko, i will most likely try to keep my now precious stock of TMY going as long as i can shooting Adox Pan 400 in the future.

That Adox film is going to be made by most competent high rank people who did so before at Agfa.
So much about arrogance.

 

[c6h6o3]

Well, at least I'll be able to develop by inspection again.

 

[lxdude]

The PXP and P3200 are still featured in the left-hand navigation frame with the same prominence as the other films.

Yeah, but why not on the right side with a graphic like the others? They even have room for two more boxes there.

If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?

Well, they feature Tri-X, a widely known, legendary even, film- so your question makes no sense. People who know about Kodak films don't need to go to their website to find out about them- it's those who don't know about the films.

Grouping them under "Other Films" just makes them seem archaic or in some other way unsuitable to average users, and it also makes it look like Kodak doesn't really care about them. What's the point of not promoting them the same as the others? What's gained? It might make sense if the list of other films was of highly specialized films, or if it contained 10 or 20 emulsions, instead of 2.

 

[removed account4]

the film is still available as a special order, it is just
removed from the line up of regularly produced films.

it isn't all bad ...

 

[Moopheus]

Sorry, but I see no surprise whatsoever in this announcement. No foot-shooting here at all. Just Kodak continuing to move toward its brave new world.

Go Kodak Packaging! (See here for an explanation in the section titled "A new company.")

Ken

Keep in mind that an interview like that isn't for us, it's for investors, for Wall Street, the fund managers that hold Kodak stock. Those guys think film is a dead end, and if they see Kodak as making too much investment in film and not in stuff that will lead to future growth Kodak's stock price will go down. That is what is uppermost in Perez's mind.

 

[jgjbowen]

I guess Wall Street got wind of the HUGE spike in film sales yesterday. EK stock is up nearly 10% this morning......

 

[bdial]

John, let us know the next time you're ordering film so we can buy some stock.

 

[jgjbowen]

Will do Barry, will do. But I doubt I'll need to buy any film for quite awhile.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Keep in mind that an interview like that isn't for us...

Granted.

But at the same time it does serve to make Kodak's future plans a matter of public record for both investors and non-investors alike to see, including some non-investors who are also consumers of Kodak film products.

We need only to listen carefully to what Kodak is telling us to know where they are going. They are a publicly held company, so I do not believe they are lying to us. Nobody wants to go to jail.

Ken

 

[lns]

Keep in mind that an interview like that isn't for us, it's for investors, for Wall Street, the fund managers that hold Kodak stock. Those guys think film is a dead end, and if they see Kodak as making too much investment in film and not in stuff that will lead to future growth Kodak's stock price will go down. That is what is uppermost in Perez's mind.

Let's not kid ourselves. Kodak thinks film is a dead end, too. For a company of that size, it probably is.

We seem to be enduring the death by a thousand cuts of the film business of both Fuji and Kodak. It's a terrible process to watch. But think of how many films and papers have vanished over the years, and we still have film photography.

-Laura

 

[aldevo]

Granted.

But at the same time it does serve to make Kodak's future plans a matter of public record for both investors and non-investors alike to see, including some non-investors who are also consumers of Kodak film products.

We need only to listen carefully to what Kodak is telling us to know where they are going. They are a publicly held company, so I do not believe they are lying to us. Nobody wants to go to jail.

Ken

We know that Kodak has been moving progressively to a digital focus for some time. This was a transformation that was begun under the previous CEO (Karp) in 2003.

Nobody wants to go to jail, true, but over-analyzing CEO sound bites is sometimes futile. CEOs do not go to jail for changing their minds, do they? A good thing as re-organizations happen all the time.

I'm not optimistic that EK will be in the film business for very much longer. But there is a possibility that the film division could be spun off or sold. There are some obstacles to doing so (toxic torts come to mind) - but one never knows.

Regardless, I will continue to use whichever of their products appeal to me while they are still available. I do not think I need to apologize for this as there certainly seem to be plenty of folks who are not of similar mind and will give their business to others.

 

[aldevo]

Keep in mind that an interview like that isn't for us, it's for investors, for Wall Street, the fund managers that hold Kodak stock. Those guys think film is a dead end, and if they see Kodak as making too much investment in film and not in stuff that will lead to future growth Kodak's stock price will go down. That is what is uppermost in Perez's mind.

True, and for good reason. Kodak will probably need to borrow money to continue their transformation and if the stock price goes down and debt-to-equity rises - their borrowing costs will increase. That could be deadly for them.

I agree with your analysiis - Kodak can't really broadcast increased investment in film because it's not a growth business and its profitability is declining as raw materials increase in price. The increase in raw material prices could, I'm afraid, force the hands of a lot of the remaining manufacturers - not just Kodak.

 

[aldevo]

Let's not kid ourselves. Kodak thinks film is a dead end, too. For a company of that size, it probably is.

We seem to be enduring the death by a thousand cuts of the film business of both Fuji and Kodak. It's a terrible process to watch. But think of how many films and papers have vanished over the years, and we still have film photography.

-Laura

Fuji and Kodak might be too large - but it's a valid question as to whether Ilford, Adox, Foma et. al. are too small.

I'm speaking here of raw material costs and availability. The manufacture of analog photographic materials requires the use of silver and rare earth metals. We have entered a period where not only there is increasing demand for these materials for industrial use (e.g. electric car batteries, etc.) but there is now increasing investor demand for these as well to hedge against currency declines. Add to this the fact that most of the rare earth metals are sourced from China - who have become sort of picky about who they are willing to export these to (witness the embargo of rare earth metals to Japan earlier this year) - and it isn't a stable picture.

Of course these pressures could dissipate - but I would expect that the smaller manufacturers could encounter difficulty in continuing to operate if they persist for much longer.

We will have to see, but I perceive that the long-term outlook has darkened a bit here. We've adjusted to declining demand for analog photo products (so have the remaining manufacturers) but the material cost/availability issues are something else entirely. I do not see any adjustment possible here (except for charging more for the finished product) - the issues simply have to go away.

 

[aldevo]

Yeah, but why not on the right side with a graphic like the others? They even have room for two more boxes there.



Well, they feature Tri-X, a widely known, legendary even, film- so your question makes no sense. People who know about Kodak films don't need to go to their website to find out about them- it's those who don't know about the films.

Grouping them under "Other Films" just makes them seem archaic or in some other way unsuitable to average users, and it also makes it look like Kodak doesn't really care about them. What's the point of not promoting them the same as the others? What's gained? It might make sense if the list of other films was of highly specialized films, or if it contained 10 or 20 emulsions, instead of 2.

The "average" user, I'm afraid, isn't using film at all.

Goodness, but I don't know why Kodak is under such a microscope. No, their website design is rather poor - but we are splitting hairs. The relegation of Plus-X and P3200 films to "Other Films" is not new - I paid a visit to web.arhive.org and it goes back to at least 2007.

Kodak isn't alone in terms of having a less-than-optima web site.

It isn't the work of a moment to find the B&W films on FujiFilm USA's site and they are still listing Neopan 1600 in 135 and Neopan 400 in 120 - both of which we now know have been discontinued. And yet they do not receive any criticism at all.

 

[Curt]

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekcons...AL_Film/Black__White_Film/categoryID.40677500

On the Kodak website in the store they list some 35mm, 120, and 4X5 film. Just a partial page of film. On the main menu digital is on the top and film is way down the list as if it was nasty and had to be avoided as a first choice. I just can't come to terms with a company that brought generations up on it's products only to turn on them in arrogance. I'd give them an "F" for public relations.

 

[aldevo]

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekcons...AL_Film/Black__White_Film/categoryID.40677500

On the Kodak website in the store they list some 35mm, 120, and 4X5 film. Just a partial page of film. On the main menu digital is on the top and film is way down the list as if it was nasty and had to be avoided as a first choice. I just can't come to terms with a company that brought generations up on it's products only to turn on them in arrogance. I'd give them an "F" for public relations.

Your point about pubic relations rings true - but let's not forget that the market turned from them first. As it did for Agfa, Konica, Ferrania...

Kodak didn't turn on their products in arrogance - they did so in desperation.

Can you even buy film on Fuji's web site?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

We know that Kodak has been moving progressively to a digital focus for some time. This was a transformation that was begun under the previous CEO (Karp) in 2003.

Yes, and this is really my main point in these discussions. Every time I read, "If we just keep buying Kodak film, Kodak will continue to make it," I cringe inside. As you note, they began moving away from film at least by 2003, if not earlier. Every move made by them since has only moved them further away. And closer to a film-less product line. So sadly, no, they will not continue making film, no matter how much we buy. According to their own repeated business guidance statements, film is no longer part of their long-term future plans.

(In fact, if this latest set of Wall Street Kodak rumors finally turns out to be true, it might not even be part of their short-term future plans. Time will tell...)

Nobody wants to go to jail, true, but over-analyzing CEO sound bites is sometimes futile. CEOs do not go to jail for changing their minds, do they?

Agreed. But then simply taking public statements at their face value is not really over-analyzing by my definition. And this wasn't a sound bite. It was a lengthy interview containing in-depth answers to most questions.

As far as going to jail for a change of mind? If said change was rendered with malice aforethought, you betcha. It's called fraud.

On a side note, I do want to say thanks for your lengthy, thoughtful response to my PM. You raise some issues I had not previously considered. On a few others we seem to be thinking in parallel. And for the rest I am quite satisfied that we can simply agree to disagree, and wait to see what happens. Good exchange.

Ken

 

[2F/2F]

I'm glad they're keeping the Tri-X for now.....

I don't shoot 8x10...but I would have liked to have used the T-Max 100 in my 5x7. Oh well! Is Neopan made in 5x7 or 8x10?

Sometimes we tend to forget it, being in our analog bubbles here, but film has been critically wounded and is lying there dying. The body is still warm...but most definitely dying. It's just a matter of time, folks. We users will just keep dying off, while our kids know nothing of film. It is not going to get better unless the commercial photography world jumps back on board en masse. Artists have always had a very hard time keeping any material around that does not have widespread commercial applications.

As for that last thing standing question...I would say that Kodak will let Tri-X and Plus-X go before T-Max. It is their state of the art film, and I think that most film shooters prefer it to the traditional films, though I do not (in general). I'd also guess that 35mm would be the last remaining format, just due to its popularity. By that point, I will need to sell a kidney on the black market to afford Ilford products in the U.S.A., and Fuji will have given up on us entirely. I guess I will have to move to Japan or England.