Kodak XTOL trade concern announcment

[Donald Qualls]

Wow, not bad! Are you wet printing colour negs?

Not quite yet -- still fighting with trying to combine the color head off a D5 with the frame of a D2 so as to have one enlarger with two or three different light options and more space in the darkroom (vs. having to remount all my lenses to the D5 turret and then have leftovers). Got the chemistry and a box of Crystal Archive, and a candidate for a color safelight (to be tested, first thing). Was to have started over Thanksgiving (5 weeks ago), but stuff didn't fit where it should have.

 

[Dave Krueger]

... There are a very large number of people who work worldwide bringing Kodak branded materials to end users. There is just as much a reason to remain brand loyal to them as to any other brand that has a worldwide presence.
Do you avoid Ilford branded chemicals because they are owned by a holding company and don't manufacture anything themselves?

I don't think who owns it is triggering the current crisis of brand loyalty. I think the fact that they are turning out numerous defective products under a brand name once associated with stellar quality is causing people to question whether loyalty to the Kodak brand is a smart idea going forward. And I think the fact that Ilford seems to have established a reputation for being dedicated to quality may have something to do with people remaining loyal to them.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If Eco Pro can self-replenish, why wouldn't the manufacturer brag about it? This would open the commercial lab market for them! There must be a reason for them not claiming this capability, we just do not know what that is.

Probably the cost of testing/documentation -- along with the very small size of the B&W commercial lab market these days. Hard to justify a cost of entry when the potential market is tiny.

 

[Wallendo]

How many end-users of Kodak chemistry keep up with all the business transactions? I grew up in the 60's and 70's shooting only Kodak film. At home, my father projected slides (and 8mm movies) with Kodak equipment. Like many of my generation, I have a sentimental attachment to the brand. Unfortunately, I seem to be getting "Kodak Failure Fatigue": The 120 issues which seemed to take way too long to resolve (and affected a few Ektar rolls I shot). Now ongoing issues with chemistry. It is just hard for me to buy into the "brand", especially when products are not made by EK.

I still buy EK-manufactured film and have bulk rolls of TX400 and TMax 100 loaded in my bulk loaders. On the other hand, I have recently purchased Eco-Pro XTOL clone while XTOL was backordered. I have enough HC-110 to last several years, and since the new HC-110 is so similar to Legacy Pro L-110, I may switch back. Stop is stop and fixer is fixer, so brand names don't matter to me. Maybe by the time I need to replace chemistry. I will have recovered from my Kodak Failure Fatigue.

I understand that the 120 backing paper issues were problems which developed after product was shipped, and slipped past EK's quality control, but KA's chemistry quality control seems almost non-existent (I suspect quality-control was outsourced also), I have also considered that the lack of problems with other distributors may be related to lower expectations or lower sales volume, but I don't see long threads on Photrio about Photographer's Formulary or Legacy Pro chemistry.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think who owns it is triggering the current crisis of brand loyalty. I think the fact that they are turning out numerous defective products under a brand name once associated with stellar quality is causing people to question whether loyalty to the Kodak brand is a smart idea going forward. And I think the fact that Ilford seems to have established a reputation for being dedicated to quality may have something to do with people remaining loyal to them.

I don't disagree about the question.
If there hadn't been a significant outside event - the bankruptcy of Tetenal - that initiated all the current problems, I would not be as supportive of their current incarnation. Kodak Alaris' attempt to diversify their sources of manufacture are, I would suggest, evidence of their dedication to quality.
When you take into account their colour photo chemicals, I expect they remain the largest single photo chemical brand in the world, with the widest distribution of product.
I would never suggest blind loyalty to any brand. But the breadth and depth of the Kodak branded photo chemical product offerings, as well as their wide distribution in areas that are not in the USA, are good reasons to choose to continue using them.

 

[mshchem]

Therein lies part of the problem. Sino and formally KA are middle men. If I understand the relationship its EK that outsources photochemical production and KA/Sino who distributes it. Of course this isn't to say that going forward Sino won't be chatting with EK regularly, but really what can they do to ensure product quality? Iford, Adox, Freestyle, etc are all directly responsible or their products.

There's a bit of a difference in this time. Kodak Alaris has sold the entire photo chemical and color negative paper division to the largest distributor of these products. All color chemistry is manufactured in China, I believe that the manufacturing of ALL Kodak labeled chemistry will come from the more than capable hand of Sino Promise

This is the END of the involvement of Eastman Kodak in the development or ownership of these things. Eastman Kodak hasn't been involved for years. Now Kodak Alaris won't have any role, the Hong Kong based company has bought this division in whole. The production will move to existing Sino Promise plants in China.

 

[MattKing]

I understand that the 120 backing paper issues were problems which developed after product was shipped, and slipped past EK's quality control, but KA's chemistry quality control seems almost non-existent (I suspect quality-control was outsourced also), I have also considered that the lack of problems with other distributors may be related to lower expectations or lower sales volume, but I don't see long threads on Photrio about Photographer's Formulary or Legacy Pro chemistry.

As far as I can tell, all the problems - backing paper and photo chemicals - did not become observable until the products had long been out of the hands of the manufacturers and distributors. And most of them relate to product that either was a rushed replacement, or at least the packaging was a rushed replacement, due to having to deal with the Tetenal bankruptcy.
Quality control checks at the manufacturing phase don't help you if the problems don't arise until the product has been shipped and/or handled and/or stored for a long time. Only longer term, real world use trials reveal those sorts of problems.
Things like the HC-110 crystals, which only appeared due to some product being exposed to freezing temperature during shipment or warehousing.
These photo chemical problems all arose because of being forced to quickly make changes to product due to extraneous factors.
If they had had the opportunity to do user trials with them, they would most likely have been revealed before general distribution occurred.
I happen to know that one of the longest delays in the introduction of the new Ektachrome in 120 was the extensive testing they did to make sure that the interaction between the new emulsion and the current backing papers wouldn't result in wrapper offset problems.
When was the last time that Photographer's Formulary or Legacy Pro were forced to make sudden changes in their products?

 

[AgX]

I don't disagree about the question.
If there hadn't been a significant outside event - the bankruptcy of Tetenal - that initiated all the current problems,...

Interestingly there came up the thesis here a Apug, that it was Kodak Alaris who drove Tetenal into its crisis.

 

[MattKing]

Interestingly there came up the thesis here a Apug, that it was Kodak Alaris who drove Tetenal into its crisis.

Potentially by Kodak Alaris insisting on being paid for its product.
Tetenal was a big distributor of Kodak branded colour paper and photo chemistry. And at the end, Tetenal wasn't paying its bills.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will continue to use XTOL and Kodak films.

 

[wyofilm]

Eastman Kodak has no role in the production or marketing of photo chemistry.

Is that true with motion picture chemistry?

If I understand you correctly, Sino Promise is now the group that pics up the phone, chats to chem. manufactures, and says, "Please make X-tol for us, under these conditions?"
KA will still call up EK and say, "Please make up some Portra 400." Sino likewise calls up someone (who?) to make RA-4 paper. All of this includes a "Kodak" label, including the now to be new Sino products?

Do you avoid Ilford branded chemicals because they are owned by a holding company and don't manufacture anything themselves?

I don't really see this as being a comparable question. Yes, Ilford is subsidiary, but Ilford remains an intact photographic production and supply company who makes film and paper, outsources custom made chemistry, and is active in marketing and branding of all of these products. All the players are down the hall from one another, eat at the same lunch room, and might even visit one another for dinner.

Faux-dak by comparison is a mess. EA makes film (wonderful film) for an independent company that uses the Kodak label. But also for hollywood with the (true) Kodak label. Want Kodak paper or photo-chemicals? Sure go visit yet another independent company who (I think) will use the Kodak label. What is shared by both KA and Sino Promise? Each has traditional photography as secondary interests. What does it even mean to use Kodak products? I know what it means to use Ilford products.

I watched the SilvergrainClassic video cast last night that featured among others JOBO ceo and Andy Church of Kodal Alaris. At one point the discussion came around big spike in at home RA-4 printing and Mr. Church was left gaping like a guppy. It was obvious that he was unaware of this trend. Whereas, ALL of the other participants knew this was a thing. For completeness though, Mr. Church was wonderful in the rest of the pod-cast. He should be the face of KA photo more.

 

[removed account4]

seems it is almost 1910 all over again. it is only a matter of time that once again one's local apothecary will be carrying ampules of photochemistry to chemical photography enthusiasts. mass market from distant corners of the globe and supply chain kinks are wrenches in the machines. photographic fun was so much easier when camera fiends mixed their own developing agents.

 

[AgX]

I propose a round table talk with George Eastman, Momme Andresen and Lieven Gevaert and the Lumiere Brothers...

 

[eddie]

The fact is, it's in the company's best interest to sort out the issue. I've no doubt they will.

 

[MattKing]

Is that true with motion picture chemistry?

I don't believe that they do. They don't have a large chemical manufacturing capacity.

Sino likewise calls up someone (who?) to make RA-4 paper.

Carestream in Colorado. Sino Promise may still have a partial interest in Carestream's plant, because Kodak Alaris originally did.

Yes, Ilford is subsidiary, but Ilford remains an intact photographic production and supply company who makes film and paper, outsources custom made chemistry, and is active in marketing and branding of all of these products.

Ilford is merely a brand owned by Harman, because Ilford itself went bankrupt.
And most of the Ilford branded products are sold by a distribution company associated with and owned by Roberts Cameras, because most of Harman's Ilford branded products are sold in the US, and all Ilford branded products sold in the US are distributed by the distribution branch of Roberts Cameras. If you buy some ID-11, Harman had little to do with its being made available to you - they are very interested middle men/women. Just like with Sino Promise and Kodak photo chemicals
In one case - Kodak - the public facing entity is/has been the distributor of the chemicals.
In the other case, "Ilford" - the public facing entity is sort of the manufacturer of the film (which is actually Harman), even though the film manufacturer doesn't make any of the chemicals.
In either case, it is just like the rest of the world - most product doesn't have the name of the manufacturer on it.

 

[radiant]

Just a side note - and probably user error - but one of my Xtol stock had white particles in it. I assume I probably rushed when mixing part A.

 

[wyofilm]

Ilford is merely a brand owned by Harman, because Ilford itself went bankrupt.

Real or not I can see the difference between Ilford and the Kodaks. All I really care about are the two main staples of photography: film and paper. Someone else will always manage to fill the gaps of the other elements. However, I do believe that Kodak (Sino) will make B&W photo-chems less attractive to many Photrio types because of production stumbles, poor product, less innovation, poor to non-existant marketing, etc. Why do I say this? Because Kodak (Alaris/Sino) b&w chems have been struggling for a couple of years. Other companies faced exactly the same issues, yet didn't have the same problems. In short, the other companies are doing a better job. I think a big reason for this is the morass of participants in the Kodaks world and the fact that photo-chem is an after thought for these companies.

 

[wyofilm]

I don't believe that they do. They don't have a large chemical manufacturing capacity.

I thought EK has a specialties chemistry division. Of course that doesn't mean that they wouldn't outsource. From the EK's website it looks like they sell (through regional agents) chemistry for the film industry (ECN-2 and b&w reversal chem).

 

[Dave Krueger]

Contract manufacturing is a manufacturing industry feature, not a bug. But, quality control is the responsibility of the brand owner because they have the most to lose if a third party destroys the brand.

Shipping batch after batch of deflective products is not an outside event just because you, as the brand owner, delegated your responsibility for quality control to a third party.

I like reliable chemicals. That's the reason I used Kodak for so long, but it's also the reason I will I now switch to other brands. I don't like surprises in the form of quality control failures. And, yes, the recent defects in Kodak chemicals is, unequivocally, by definition, a quality control failure.

Analog photography as we know it (with film paper and chemicals available off the shelf) is a dying industry. The machinery and professional expertise is disappearing. Manufacturers are jacking up prices at the same time as they reduce costs for materials, labor, and quality control. I hope Sino Promise breathes new life into the Kodak brand for these products. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think Chinese quality standards are on the rise as western quality standards are on the decline. History is repeating itself. What people now say about cheap Chinese products is also what was once said about cheap Japanese cars (and cameras).

 

[Anon Ymous]

What I find strange, is that with 1200+ employees at Alaris, we don't have a single one here commenting on these issues, even if anonymously. I lurk on several communities (automotive, computer) and they're all full of industry insiders, current or retired, sharing insights. I can tell you **exactly** how anything is made, from Gmail to a Dell laptop or your BMW. The only two exceptions are Apple and Kodak. Apple forces employees to sign draconian NDAs, and with Kodak... Don't they have a single person with a product passion comparable to @MattKing or @Team ADOX ?

PE had said in the past that there were Kodak guys lurking in this forum, but didn't participate, or reveal their identity. For a long time, this forum had been very hostile against Kodak, so this didn't really help.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak has always stood behind its products. Kodak has great quality control. Sometimes problems slip through quality control. Kodak will replace any bad products as quickly as they can. Every industrial company has these problems. Get over yourselves.

 

[john_s]

..... Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think Chinese quality standards are on the rise as western quality standards are on the decline. History is repeating itself. What people now say about cheap Chinese products is also what was once said about cheap Japanese cars (and cameras).

Good point. I've been thinking the same, based on my experience with Chinese products. My first Chinese tool was a shifting spanner in about 1962: I was a teenage weakling and it broke in my hands. My recent Chinese products have been mixed, but the good ones are state of the art. (I would exclude LED lighting products).

We used to have a term "Jap Junk" and my next car will definitely be Japanese (or maybe Korean.)

Sorry to wander off-topic.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just a side note - and probably user error - but one of my Xtol stock had white particles in it. I assume I probably rushed when mixing part A.

That is what I always got when I used this develop regularly. I never worried about it. They just seemed to vanish after a while in their storage bottles. The new batch I mixed up last weekend did not have those white specs floating around, and that bothered me... until I started developing. All 8, 8x10 negatives I ran through looked great.

 

[john_s]

Kodak has always stood behind its products. Kodak has great quality control. Sometimes problems slip through quality control. Kodak will replace any bad products as quickly as they can. Every industrial company has these problems. Get over yourselves.

Replacing product is not enough. "Kodak" can't replace opportunity. I am over "Kodak" chemicals, not yet film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

PE had said in the past that there were Kodak guys lurking in this forum, but didn't participate, or reveal their identity. For a long time, this forum had been very hostile against Kodak, so this didn't really help.

The antiKodak people need to shutup and s

Replacing product is not enough. "Kodak" can't replace opportunity. I am over "Kodak" chemicals, not yet film.

That is OK. You can be replaced too. Bye bye.