Kodak Tmax 8x10, 400 and 100, discontinued.

[AgX]

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.

Part of their film coating has already been sold a few years ago.

 

[dr5chrome]

..i've been saying for years that KODAK should sell off it's film division. It will save the films as they are known. It worked for the Ilford films. The big corporate machine no longer works for traditional imaging products and services.

Isnt KODAK who just recently put out an article boasting an upswing in film use?
Film use and sales are up this year, and not by a little. There's something wrong with this picture...

dw

 

[hpulley]

Kodak didn't turn to digital out of necessity though, they helped invent it! Their hope was that a Kodak sensor would be in every camera in the world and that they'd make bucketloads of money over it. Kodak sensors are in some cameras but I wonder how much of a percentage? They guessed wrong, that selling a sensor instead of X rolls of film would generate more profit. That Kodak digital printing would outsell Kodak photo paper and chemicals. I'm sure their accountants had a look and they convinced themselves that if they didn't do it, someone else would and that they could be more profitable with digital. Oops? I don't know, this is how businesses go.

Companies that just made typewriters and cash registers now make other stuff and they've done pretty well. No one is crying for their manual typewriters though using one is nostalgic once in a while. Same goes for old cash registers, anyone who has closed out for the night prefers the current solutions. But there is no artistic value in a cash register, and perhaps just a little in an old typewriter one could argue.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

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.

But if what you claim is true then less demand for silver (due to lower volumes being consumed in the photograhic industry) will result in lower silver nitrate prices.

It is not a question of silver nitrate and goldchloride. Market prices of these metals go up due to reasons beyond the photographic industry (just as you indicated) and yes there will be a certain price effect no mater who is in the film business if they raise. But they have also fallen in the past 8 years. No one can predict the future.

It is more a question of the long and complex synthesis of stabilizers and sensitizers for some very small scale products but even with our current level of production (which is very small compared to Kodak´s) we are way beyond the point of well diluting these costs in an economic way.
Film base is also used for LCD screens and other media so there´s no problem as well.
The only problem at present is fibre base paper. Maybe some day someone apart form the paper industry has to start coating baryta on paper. But this has been done up to the 70ies by almost any photo factory and fibre paper is already neither used by Kodak nor by Fuji for over 5 years now.

At present we buy all our raw materials independantly from Kodak and as far as I know our sources do not sell to Kodak or Fuji (which is not difficult to believe because Kodak and Fuji can make almost anything by themselves).

I don´t want to put this thought about raw materials and market decline completely off the table but I am pretty convinced that there will be ways to work it out. Technology advances and many materials can be made today at a fraction of the cost they were made 15-20 years ago. Especially in high grade chemistry, synthesis and around solvents.

Let´s not worry to much.

Mirko

 

[lxdude]

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

Obviously, I was referring to an "average" film user. "Typical" would have been a better word.

 

[BetterSense]

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.

I would have also predicted that if Kodak was to trim their product line, that TMAX would be the last thing to go. It's their flagship film. And yet here they are discontinuing it in 8x10 and continuing TXP.

 

[Figital Revolution]

It is all a numbers game. Kodak has cut their production to only films that sell in enough qty to make business sense. These films are not gone only now on special order so the world is not ending today... when motion picture film ends, which is not happening anytime soon due to cost, then Kodak will end still film production as they run on the same line now which saves money and increases the survival time for still media.

Cheers-
Stephen

 

[AgX]

Kodak didn't turn to digital out of necessity though, they helped invent it! Their hope was that a Kodak sensor would be in every camera in the world and that they'd make bucketloads of money over it. Kodak sensors are in some cameras but I wonder how much of a percentage? They guessed wrong, that selling a sensor instead of X rolls of film would generate more profit.

That comes true basically for all major manufacturers.
They pushed on or least jumped on the digital car, the same time cutting off the markets for their expendables and are a now seeking for substitute profits, which partly are to come by pushing new machinery into the market within short periods. But changing a chemical industry into a machine making industry is not easy and sets their management in front of a dilemma.

 

[AgX]

It is not a question of silver nitrate and goldchloride. Market prices of these metals go up due to reasons beyond the photographic industry (just as you indicated) and yes there will be a certain price effect no mater who is in the film business if they raise. But they have also fallen in the past 8 years. No one can predict the future.

.....

I don´t want to put this thought about raw materials and market decline completely off the table but I am pretty convinced that there will be ways to work it out. Technology advances and many materials can be made today at a fraction of the cost they were made 15-20 years ago. Especially in high grade chemistry, synthesis and around solvents.

Let´s not worry to much.

When Gevaert and Agfa merged they were, and remained, on equal terms concerning their shares in the new entity. However as shareholder themselves they were quite different, as Gevaert had much less capital than Bayer, who were the owner of Agfa back then.

The silver crisis of 1979, which purely originated on the sole speculation of 2 (!) guys, was driving Gevaert via their silver bills to the verge of bankruptcy. So they had to try to leave the ship as shareholder. That was the end of Gevaert as photo-company as they left that field completely. Actually Agfa-Gevaert itself was very much at stake.


So much about the influence of speculation on the photochemical industry.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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

Based on Kodak's recent behavior, I'm betting that there's a 320TXP 7-mil polyester base master roll stored in Rochester. As demand warrants, it's cut and finished. When that roll is used up (or spoils from age), there will be a Tri-X sheet film discontinuation too.

...I would have liked to have used the T-Max 100 in my 5x7. Oh well! Is Neopan made in 5x7 or 8x10?...

I was just about to process and print some test 5x7 TMX recently purchased/exposed and then, if satisfied, fill my freezer with it. Even though there still seems to be a fair amount in the retail chain, I've decided not to rely on Kodak. Ilford and Adox deserve the support instead.

Acros is available in 8x10 and half plate (not 5x7). Be sitting down when you check the prices in US dollars via Japan Exposures.

...Let´s not worry to much...

That's my new approach. Looking forward to ADOX PAN 400 some time next year!

 

[Barry S]

Based on Kodak's recent behavior, I'm betting that there's a 320TXP 7-mil polyester base master roll stored in Rochester. As demand warrants, it's cut and finished. When that roll is used up (or spoils from age), there will be a Tri-X sheet film discontinuation too.

Aren't all sheet film sizes cut from the same master roll? TMX, TMY, and TXP are all on the same 7mil ESTAR base. It sounds more like they don't want the trouble of distributing 8x10 film. The issue is that the packaged and expiry-dated 8x10 film sits on dealer shelves or in the warehouse and too much goes out of date before it gets sold.

I think the solution is for Kodak to stop expiry dating its b&w sheet film. Kodak should produce master rolls for its 7 mil ESTAR base b&w films and sell cut stock until the master roll is finished. That would solve the problem of film going out of date and Kodak (or dealers) taking a loss. My experience tells me that b&w films last *well* beyond their expiry dates. I know this would be hard for Kodak's quality assurance people, but it makes more sense than their poor special order system.

Ilford no longer dates it's photographic paper and I haven't heard any complaints on the forum. I'd be more than willing to deal with the tiny bit of extra base fog of older film (maybe!) as opposed to a special order system that drives availability down and prices up. Look at the Impossible Project--the quality of their product would never pass traditional Polaroid standards, yet there's an understanding among their consumers that it beats not having the film at all.

 

[dhosten]

I wonder if all of this doom and gloom from Kodak will affect the prices of 8x10 cameras in the used market?

 

[AgX]

Kodak is not the hub of the (LF) world.

 

[Mahler_one]

But if what you claim is true then less demand for silver (due to lower volumes being consumed in the photograhic industry) will result in lower silver nitrate prices.

It is not a question of silver nitrate and goldchloride. Market prices of these metals go up due to reasons beyond the photographic industry (just as you indicated) and yes there will be a certain price effect no mater who is in the film business if they raise. But they have also fallen in the past 8 years. No one can predict the future.

It is more a question of the long and complex synthesis of stabilizers and sensitizers for some very small scale products but even with our current level of production (which is very small compared to Kodak´s) we are way beyond the point of well diluting these costs in an economic way.
Film base is also used for LCD screens and other media so there´s no problem as well.
The only problem at present is fibre base paper. Maybe some day someone apart form the paper industry has to start coating baryta on paper. But this has been done up to the 70ies by almost any photo factory and fibre paper is already neither used by Kodak nor by Fuji for over 5 years now.

At present we buy all our raw materials independantly from Kodak and as far as I know our sources do not sell to Kodak or Fuji (which is not difficult to believe because Kodak and Fuji can make almost anything by themselves).

I don´t want to put this thought about raw materials and market decline completely off the table but I am pretty convinced that there will be ways to work it out. Technology advances and many materials can be made today at a fraction of the cost they were made 15-20 years ago. Especially in high grade chemistry, synthesis and around solvents.

Let´s not worry to much.

Mirko

Thanks for the interesting post Mirko. Many of us will be trying your new 8x10 film. Please let us know when the film is available for purchase.

 

[c6h6o3]

Let´s not worry to much.

Mirko

There are lots of reason why I use TMY. It is certainly my favorite film in any format in which it's made. However, I've made prints which were just as good as my ones from TMax on Efke,Foma,Tri-X and HP5+.

Let's buy what's available and carry on.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

On the Canham site I only see 5x7. So let me get this straight, there won't be any 8x10 PERIOD?

 

[jeroldharter]

I understand that many here will be incredulous. However, I went to the web site of a company that sells 8x10 Kodak film, and was greeted with the news that Kodak 8x10 TMax 400 and 100 film had been discontinued immediately. I called Kodak, and the gentleman with whom I spoke called individuals in Kodak Corporate who confirmed that indeed, in 8x10 sizes, both Kodak Tmax 400 and 100 will no longer be manufactured. Such films will be available in 4x5 sheets. Thus, the only 8x10 Kodak black and white film that will be offered on a regular basis will be TriX and ONLY if the demand for such film continues. One can only hope that Ilford will continue to make their excellent 8x10 HP5, FP4, and Delta 100.

I wonder what John Sexton would do? He reports using TMY in 4x5. What film would he switch to? I ordered my first pack of Ilford HP-5 8x10 today to do some testing.

I still have about 80 sheets of TMY 8x10. Maybe it will go the way of Jobo expert drums and I can sell it to fund my retirement.

 

[jeroldharter]

On the Canham site I only see 5x7. So let me get this straight, there won't be any 8x10 PERIOD?

I emailed Canham last night to see if he would do any group purchases of TMY 8x10 but have not heard back. I would have thought Kodak would make an announcement and allow one last big purchase. Certainly they could have made some money on that?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I might mention here that in talking to a friend, he informed me that Kodak orders for 8x10 film in the last year were so sparse that they were hand packed rather than machine packed. So for all the noise here, there appear to have been few orders. So few that the automatic packing equipment for the large sizes was shut down.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

Yes. Practically nobody shoots the stuff. That is the problem. We should quit blaming Kodak and start blaming commercial photography clients. (Not that it will do any good to place blame. It would just be better if the blame was correctly placed.)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Based on Kodak's recent behavior, I'm betting that there's a 320TXP 7-mil polyester base master roll stored in Rochester. As demand warrants, it's cut and finished. When that roll is used up (or spoils from age), there will be a Tri-X sheet film discontinuation too.

Echos my thoughts exactly, and would explain a lot. But I did not want to say so publicly here for fear of being burned at the stake.

The Kodachrome model, minus the hype?

Ken

 

[tkamiya]

I don't think many of us realize the amount of sale required to be "commercially viable" for a large corporation like Kodak.... Not only does this amount needs to be met, it has to be sustained....

 

[jgjbowen]

I might mention here that in talking to a friend, he informed me that Kodak orders for 8x10 film in the last year were so sparse that they were hand packed rather than machine packed. So for all the noise here, there appear to have been few orders. So few that the automatic packing equipment for the large sizes was shut down.

PE

That's the real story here. If we don't buy it, they won't make it. Personally, I haven't purchased 8x10 TMY since 2007. I still shoot it exclusively in 8x10, but retailers started being "out of stock" just prior to TMY-2 being introduced. I purchased a couple thousand sheets of TMY back then and have been making my way through it. This week I made my 1st purchase of TMY-2. Had Kodak given us some notice that it was going to disappear, I likely would have purchased even more. IMO it's simply the best B&W film available. When I consider the cost of a camera, holders, lenses etc. the cost of film is still the cheap stuff, even at $5/sheet.

 

[doughowk]

There were some interesting comments at TOP by Mike Johnston and others on the market re-alignment in film manufacturers: among the 4-5 companies currently in the market, there will most likely be one or more leaving the market. If true, who would you want to be the last standing - a Company that has made a public commitment to B&W film, or one who has made it known that they wish to leave the market? If the former, then why buy anything from the latter since even increased purchases of their product will not change their attitude towards film? I have enough T-Max 400 to last me for awhile, and I hope Adox delivers a great product with pan 400 so I can ignore the yellow box company. What a shame that the Company built by George Eastman has come to this. Oh well, time to move on.

 

[htimsdj]

If they continue to make the stuff in 4x5, we know they have the capability to make the 8x10 in special runs. That means that those of us shooting 4x5 need to continue to buy it as well. I just purchased a box of TMX and TMY in 4x5 yesterday, and I'll probably buy a few more when they are available locally. I'm new to this format, so I'm making a lot of mistakes!