Kodak's statement regarding its B/W film

[Steve Anchell]

Thank you, Roteague. I will sit back, listen, and learn.

 

[Steve Anchell]

One more thing, though. Good for you, Aggie!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I'm such a small fish in a vast ocean of consumers...to think any descision I make will effect Kodak is laughable!

I have little extra money to spend, so I like it to have a positive impact when I do spend some. Like when grocery shopping, I'll buy Canadian canned salmon even though there's cheaper foreign cans on the shelf, or I'll buy local produce instead of the cheaper stuff from down south. It's the same with Kodak for me; when they made their obvious commitment to digital and discontinued B&W papers, that was it for me. After using TRI-X and HC-110 for 20 years (had to laugh at the Ansel story Steve!) I didn't want my hard earned money helping fund Kodak's digital dreams.

I'm going to support Ilford who has stated they intend to be the last man standing when it comes to B&W silver products.

Murray

 

[esanford]

(now that Velvia 50 is gone).

I missed have been on another planet... when did Velvia 50 go???

 

[roteague]

I missed have been on another planet... when did Velvia 50 go???

The last run was December 2005. It was replaced by Velvia 100. When Fuji announced it was discontinuing the 50 it stated that it could no longer get some of the necessary raw materials. The new 100 isn't as good as the 50 in some ways, but is better in others - some of the colors aren't as vivid, but the film is sharper and has better reciprocity characteristics.

What is on the shelves is all there is.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is very difficult for me, but FWIW, here are some thoughts off the top of my head.

1. I disagree with Mr. Perez's comments myself and think they were ill advised.

2. I don't slavishly use EK products. I use what I like and what is appropriate to my needs for the job at hand.

3. I've been in some form of photography with formal training since 1957 with budgets up to $50,000,000/year. I used what was appropriate for the job inlcuding again, EK, Ansco, Dupont and Haloid (at that time). So, I know the various products (or knew). During my work at EK in R&D, I regularly tested all comparable products from other companies. This included a whole host of tests.

4. I have discussed the Anchell books with EK people from high to low in all areas of work and with all types of interest in photography. I have a copy of Anchell and Troop and consider it a fine book. I have talked to Steve on the phone and also talk to Bill troop. I have great respect for both of them. None of the EK people I have talked to have read or own copies of Anchell. A few have copies of Anchell and Troop. There are other good books out there including those by Adams and Ctein. I respect them all. I prefer Haist though.

5. Dickerson and Zawadski have published an article on variable contrast papers that is worth reading. Even though they don't name any manufacturers, this article is very revealing. I think that you will find that EK Polycontrast IV and Ilford MGIV are very comparable papers.

6. Kodak told NO ONE about the impending departure from the B&W photo area. Especially a person outside of the company. It was common knowledge that they were exiting the manufacture of their own paper support, but the fact that paper sales were so bad was a tightly kept secret. They do execute non-disclosure agreements with people, but this agreement usually includes the statement that they cannot disclose the very fact that the agreement existed. If this was disclosed without an agreement, someone at EK will be in serious trouble on Monday if a Kodak manager reads Steve's post.

7. Kodak did not gut the B&W area to develop digital imaging. B&W imaging staffing and budget were decreased in response to overall declines in sales. This did not start back in the early 80s. You can't have it both ways. EK either got into digital way back then or were slow to get started. C'mon, which was it???? This is an absolute rumor. AAMOF, Kodak entry into digital was later and slower than it probably should have been, but they ramped up faster due to size and determination (whether we like it or not). There was a Kodak presence in digital as far back as the 70s. An electronics based color print material was developed that early and was worked on first in the Exploratory Color Photography Laboratory and then was moved to the Physics Division. B&W photo was done in another division. Serious decreases did not take place in B&W until the big layoff in 1988. Kodak had a small presence in digital for many years but not in any way did it degrade other divisions.

8. Last but not least. Having been behind the 'silver curtain', I can speak reasonably well about things that went on, but even my perspectives are distorted and 'off' due to my level and whether I was in or out of a given project, division and etc. But I can surely say that no one can speak authoritatively unless they have BTDT. They cannot speak authoritatively after a one day visit or a phone call to a friend. I lived in the buildings and plant for 5 days / week, eight hours / day for 32 years and cannot speak for everyone or on everything! I knew Dick Henn, the originator of HC110, but I don't comment on it as my knowledge is not good enough. I do use HC110B for a lot of film and find it quite good. That is as far as I can go. I also use D76. I find it good too. I use T-Max, TriX and HP4, HP5 and Delta. I find them all good for my chosen jobs but vary them and mix and match.

Photography is a hobby for me, not a business, even in spite of my workshops. It ceased being my 'job' in 1997 when I retired. At that time, I had the same opinion of products as I do now. Here it is. Regarding color products IMHO Kodak Negative films are better than Fuji, but Fuji reversal films are better than Kodak. The call is close and depends a lot on personal preference. Regarding B&W, the call is very close between Ilford and Kodak. I've never used Fuji B&W products. Efke is very good but soft as are some of the others in the second and third tier manufacturers.

Regarding paper, I would only use Ilford or Kentmere. But again, this is due to limited experience more than some quality issue.

Steve Anchell is as entitled to his opinion as anyone here, and he is entitled to the amount of credibility you wish to give him based on his previous works. Same goes for me. If it comes down to 'inside' knowlege or photographic chemistry though, I'll be happy to match my 30+ years to his any time. I remind all that I talk just about daily with 'insiders' with virtually no restrictions on chemistry or plans, and still don't get everything. I am not entitled to it. Can Steve claim more? If so, how?

My opinions FWIW.

PE

 

[Mick Fagan]

They do execute non-disclosure agreements with people, but this agreement usually includes the statement that they cannot disclose the very fact that the agreement existed.

I agree with this, as I signed an agreement identical to this statement in the late seventies.

Other than that, I cannot legally tell you anymore about any agreement!

Very good reply PE.

Mick.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mick!!!!!!!

You violated your agreement.

I have to tell Gary VanGraffieland, chief counsel for EK. Oh, wait, he retired too. I guess I can let this go.

You are off the hook.

LoL.

PE

 

[eumenius]

Steve,

I feel that you're the guy whom I can believe in the question, so may I add my two cents? Here in Moscow, in USSR times all quality photo materials from Western companies were EXTREMELY rare and distributed to various special organisations like TASS, and KODAK was the king. I remember the time when we had to shoot some Ektachrome in sheet format, and we got three sheets for three shots, filling out the form that we're responsible materially if we expose them wrong. So, since then all Russian professionals relied on Kodak... but today, you know what? Almost everyone here knows for sure that FUJI color materials are better (no advertisement, just people's own voice), and color people buys much more FUJI today. The only limiting thing is that FUJI products are selling so fast, and the distributors are not rapid enough to bring more The usual picture is when the store has its shelves overloaded with a full assortment of yellow, and only two or three boxes of green stuff Taking into account the usual inertia and sometimes unwillingness of the pros to change their materials, I must say that EK made a really good work to shift even our photographers mainly to FUJI.

Regards from Moscow, Zhenya

 

[Daniel Lawton]

This is what I was afraid of and why I don't like getting involved with web forums. I will not get bogged down in a senseless debate as to whether you feel Kodak is makes a quality product. I will not debate whether Kodak set the standard for quality control (which they did).

The point I am attempting to make is Kodak is not your friend. Support Kodak, and you help to kill Ilford and Fuji - it's too late for Agfa. Then cry that silver is disappearing.

Steve, if you didn't want to get into a debate about whether Kodak makes a quality product then why did you label their products as being generally inferior? Were we to accept your words at face value? If you are upset over some of their business decisions than fine, I am too. You are obviously in the public eye due to your stature as a photographer and printer, and to make broad sweeping negative comments in order to slight a particular company is in no ones best interest.

None of these companies are our friend. Kodak is facing the same problems every other film photography company is. The good old days are gone and we will continue to see a drop in the variety of traditional products from here on out. Nikon just eradicated almost all of its film SLR's in the blink of an eye yet I don't see these posts telling us how Nikon is turning its back on the film world. (They are) Fuji is putting on a brave face and developing new slide films even though E-6 sales have fallen off the cliff. Fuji also dropped its line of excellent MF cameras including Hassleblad's X-pan. When Fuji changes its name to Fujifoto instead of Fujifilm will they get the same treatment. Yes Ilford seems pretty good at the moment but don't forget about a year ago when people were stocking their cellars with DD-X and Warmtone paper preparing for the end. I think we need more than a few months before we can say Ilford will definitely be the suppliers of film for our grandchildren.

All I mean to say is that the world of film photography is in a huge state of flux and negative things are going to happen. These are not the result of evil companies trying to destroy us but rather because no one is buying the product. I'm young so I know by the time I reach retirement age the analog photography world will not even be recognizable by today's standards. Company's don't make what no one wants and believe me, Kodak wants people to want film but right now it aint happening.

 

[Andy K]

I took what Steve said as being his opinion.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

As did I. I just feel some of what he says is shot from the hip in frustration. My impression is of someone who just got wronged and is going all out to extract revenge.

 

[Andy K]

I don't get that impression either. Steve has expressed his opinion, nothing more nothing less.

To be honest I think some, not all, photographers in the US have difficulty being objective when it comes to Kodak, because Kodak is their home company. I would probably be the same if Ilford were behaving as Kodak currently are.

 

[eumenius]

Steve's opinion is just a well-founded one, in my eyes - he doesn't want to denigrate one company in favour of others, he just says what he personally thinks and feels about Kodak products and their attitude towards customers. I say again, if Kodak has lost much of its popularity even in Russia (where it always has been a king or tsar, if you like)... that's not because of their public statements, the only reason for this was a decline in their quality, and unability to satisfy the customers. I don't feel anything positive about Kodak films, too - Ilford gives me much much more, and so do some other companies. That's my own practical opinion. Russian film market steadily goes in Fuji/Ilford direction, also with a large involvement of Forte, Foma and Slavich.

This moron of Kodak CEO is definitely trying to cut the tree branch he's sitting on. It's not a rare case when the upper management of some biiiig companies does its best to destroy the company ideologically and financially, just to happily divide whatever's left and go to happy wealthy retirement, no?

 

[eddym]

Open Letter to APUG Members

Kodak is not your friend.


Whether you want to believe it or not, T-Max film is an inferior product. A good photographer, such as Sexton, can make it work in certain lighting situations, but the entire reason for the development and marketing of T-Max film was because it cost less to make (to Eastman pennies count) and could be sold for more than Tri-X, a better film all around.

When TMax first came out, I tried it and hated it, so I resolved to stick with my old standards, Tri-X and Plus-X. However, for a while right after the introduction of the TMax films, there was a shortage of the old films. I had to listen to sales clerks telling me that TMax was "the same thing as Tri-X" or it was the "replacement" for it, or it was "new and better than Tri-X." My replies to the contrary did nothing to restock their shelves. I felt abandoned by Kodak, and so I tried Ilford film, and found that indeed, HP5+ was just as good as Tri-X, if not better. And it has been my standard ever since, along with Delta 100.

And so I will not miss Kodak a bit. My money goes to Ilford, and I sincerely hope they thrive.

 

[FrankB]

Having said that, EVERY DOLLAR YOU SPEND WITH KODAK, EVERY ROLL OF TRI-X YOU BUY, EVERY ROLL OF EKTACHROME, IS ONE LESS DOLLAR FOR ILFORD, EFKE, FUJI, FOMA, FORTE, all of whom are struggling to survive in a shrinking market.

This is also my view.

I would rather help finance (in my own miniscule way!) companies who have stated a commitment to traditional photography than those who have not.

Just my personal opinion.

 

[haris]

Steve's opinion is just a well-founded one, in my eyes - he doesn't want to denigrate one company in favour of others, he just says what he personally thinks and feels about Kodak products and their attitude towards customers. I say again, if Kodak has lost much of its popularity even in Russia (where it always has been a king or tsar, if you like)... that's not because of their public statements, the only reason for this was a decline in their quality, and unability to satisfy the customers. I don't feel anything positive about Kodak films, too - Ilford gives me much much more, and so do some other companies. That's my own practical opinion. Russian film market steadily goes in Fuji/Ilford direction, also with a large involvement of Forte, Foma and Slavich.

Same here. As former socialistic country, I belive we had simillar experiences as you in Russia (USSR). Kodak was THE company untill about 10 years ago. Then strange things started to happen. For example, I have friends who are owners or workers in photo labs. They noticed that Kodak is not allways Kodak (and I am not talking about grey products I am talking about original Kodak, or made by Kodak licence). Kodak produced in USA was much beter than same Kodak product made in France or Hungary. I am speaking now about Kodak Gold in particular, but other products had simillar results. That was biggest reason for people to turn to Fuji for colour work. People here have feeling that they are treated as secondgrade people in Kodak eyes, and that Kodak intentionally sells in this market weak products. B/w photographers were here divided between Kodak and Efke. I belive I am only photographer in this country who use Ilford. Here is not more than 20 photographers who work b/w. Everyone else (former colour film shooters) turned to digital. Majority of us b/w photographers are students (that means no budget ), and interestingly majority are woman. Because budget issue majority use Efke, because it is cheap and can be bought in shops, but its avaliability is not good (only in one shop, and only 35mm, and with long unavaliable periods). Now, I buy Ilford for extremely affordable price. For example Tmax 120 roll costs in my town about 5 EURO. Efke costs about 2 EURO. Ilford for me costs about 2,5 EURO. (all prices include shipping, customs and tax duties). Problem is that Ilford must be ordered from abroad, and shipping cost is such, that only ordering of larger quantities justify shipping cost. And those students can't afford buying 50 or 100 or more rolls at once to justify shiping costs. I luckilly have job, so I can afford myself to buy Ilford. I am explaining situations why Kodak lost users here (lowering quality and high prices), and why Ilford don't have users here (only ordering from abroad option), and at the end why film photography, and especially b/w photography here is declining.

Saying all that...:

1. Kodak is expencive and not devoted to its customers

2. Efke is turned to western market more than market in countries in which it previously was leader or on second place behind Kodak (former Yugoslavia), so it is not easy to get it here as before, and it is not that much cheaper than Ilford to hassle with ordering it (I am talking about my situation). Other issue is distributors in Croatia (in general, atleast I have that experience) are not easy to work with

3. Ilford, in my case, is affordable and quality products, and easy to get

...it is normal, for me, to turn from Kodak (or even Efke, but not definite), and to go with Ilford for b/w or Fuji for colour.

 

[eumenius]

Precisely what I'm talking about! The situation is absolutely symmetrical, as it probably is in a many post-communistic countries. USA Kodak is maybe much better, but their licensed products usually are of stable low-quality. People here thinks (and not without a good reason behind) that Kodak dumps weak products on Russian market, and no one wants to use second-grade stuff for anything. So Fuji became a real choice, as it is always top quality - including the amateur films like Superia. Ilford is easily available in Moscow, but no one sells EFKE yet - that's too bad, because it would be a nice company to Foma and Forte.

So even if Kodak drops from the market with its film, it would be not a great loss for Russian film photographers. I believe that Fuji and Ilford would fill the gap nicely, like water over a stone.

Zhenya

Same here. As former socialistic country, I belive we had simillar experiences as you in Russia (USSR). Kodak was THE company untill about 10 years ago. Then strange things started to happen. For example, I have friends who are owners or workers in photo labs. They noticed that Kodak is not allways Kodak (and I am not talking about grey products I am talking about original Kodak, or made by Kodak licence). Kodak produced in USA was much beter than same Kodak product made in France or Hungary. I am speaking now about Kodak Gold in particular, but other products had simillar results. That was biggest reason for people to turn to Fuji for colour work. People here have feeling that they are treated as secondgrade people in Kodak eyes, and that Kodak intentionally sells in this market weak products. B/w photographers were here divided between Kodak and Efke. I belive I am only photographer in this country who use Ilford. Here is not more than 20 photographers who work b/w. Everyone else (former colour film shooters) turned to digital. Majority of us b/w photographers are students (that means no budget ), and interestingly majority are woman. Because budget issue majority use Efke, because it is cheap and can be bought in shops, but its avaliability is not good (only in one shop, and only 35mm, and with long unavaliable periods). Now, I buy Ilford for extremely affordable price. For example Tmax 120 roll costs in my town about 5 EURO. Efke costs about 2 EURO. Ilford for me costs about 2,5 EURO. (all prices include shipping, customs and tax duties). Problem is that Ilford must be ordered from abroad, and shipping cost is such, that only ordering of larger quantities justify shipping cost. And those students can't afford buying 50 or 100 or more rolls at once to justify shiping costs. I luckilly have job, so I can afford myself to buy Ilford. I am explaining situations why Kodak lost users here (lowering quality and high prices), and why Ilford don't have users here (only ordering from abroad option), and at the end why film photography, and especially b/w photography here is declining.

Saying all that...:

1. Kodak is expencive and not devoted to its customers

2. Efke is turned to western market more than market in countries in which it previously was leader or on second place behind Kodak (former Yugoslavia), so it is not easy to get it here as before, and it is not that much cheaper than Ilford to hassle with ordering it (I am talking about my situation). Other issue is distributors in Croatia (in general, atleast I have that experience) are not easy to work with

3. Ilford, in my case, is affordable and quality products, and easy to get

...it is normal, for me, to turn from Kodak (or even Efke, but not definite), and to go with Ilford for b/w or Fuji for colour.

 

[Jorge]

I too would like to know why Steve thinks Kodak's products are inferior? I bought the darkroom cookbook many years ago and I did not see any testing presented in it. There are no film curves, there are no paper curves. Maybe the other books written by him and his associate have them, I dont know, but it seems to me the statement that the films are generally inferior is borne more out of frustration than meaningful testing.

Tmx films are different than conventional films, they are neither better nor worse, just different. Many of us who use it (specially those of us working with alt printing) swear by it and find them exceptional films.

As I have stated before, I am not going to go and reward Kodak by stocking $10,000 worth of film, but I will continue to use Tmy for as long as they make it.Specially since it is made on the sizes I need it. Neither Ilford or any of the other film manufacturers make tabular grain films with low reciprocity in the 8x10 and ULF sizes.

OTOH, we have to take into account actions more than words. Michael Kadillac and John have convinced the yellow monster to make Tmy film in ULF sizes for us, does this not count? As I see it, with this action Kodak is acted both in the best interest of their company as well as their customers. They saw an opportunity to make a profit and at the same time please their customers, what is wrong with this?

 

[rbarker]

What is often overlooked in discussions like this is that executive comments are usually tailored to their audience at the time the statement is made. Kodak's CEO's "film is dead" statement was obviously made for the benefit of the Wall Street pundits who directly affect the value of Kodak stock and expect Kodak to be future oriented, even though the company's cash cow is still film. Conflicting comments from other Kodak execs are coming from folks who are still responsible (and compensated) for film-based product lines. Thus, their statements of continued commitment to film should come as no surprise.

Another factor that is often overlooked is that for a company the size of Kodak, the profit derived from a particular product that keeps the product in production is a much larger number than for a smaller company. As such, Kodak is more likely to drop a product that is only marginally profitable - from their perspective.

I, for one, appreciate Steve expressing his opinions, both regarding Kodak and its products. And, FWIW, I agree that Kodak is not "our friend" - because the company has continued to demonstrate it is more focussed on the bottom line than on supporting its film-oriented customer base. Had Kodak had the best interests of its long-time customers in mind, various Kodak products would still be in production, even though marginally profitable by their measure.

Personally, I made the switch to Ilford for B&W products several years ago, largely because I preferred to support a company that was, is, and continues to be solely committed to B&W film and paper. Although Ilford had their line of digital printing papers, that is now separately owned. To me, it only makes sense to do business with the vendors I want to keep around. Others, of course, are entitled to have differing opinions.

 

[DeanC]

I would like to know what in your tests "convinced" you that T-Max is inferior. I gave up on it but have come to realize my problems were that their over priced T-Max RS was giving me serious over development with their stated times. So, I was going to go back to that box and try again. I think that in fairness you should elaborate on your testing. I think Sandy King was a little more generous in his assessment in some recent testing he has done.

Agreed. I'm perfectly willing to believe that what Steve said is true, but I was educated as scientist so I like to see the data and draw my own conclusions.

Steve, would you be willing to share info with us about which films T-Max is inferior to and in which ways?

FWIW, I've got Kodak, Fuji and Iford film in the freezer right now. I'm more likely to give Ilford my money right now, largely based on the fact that they come to this forum and talk to us.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Approximately 1year ago when Ilford was fighting its way out of its financial woes, I was very pissed that this company got itself in such a situation, I use their products daily and our lab took a financial hit by not having product available.
We also use Kodak materials, and I do not agree with the inferiority of its product line. In fact the main 4 (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and Agfa) have in the past delivered absolutely first rate materials .
I hope Kodak prospers and decides to change its Marketing Position and I am willing to use there products without hesitation. Tmax is a good product used properly and in the right hands can outperform other films for certain applications. (studio portrature comes to mind).

Ilford was in Serious Trouble and pulled itself out.(thankfully)
Agfa is on the ropes.(All indicators point to no more product)
Fuji seems to be strong and focused
Kodak seems to be flailing in the wind.(need strong direction)

To say any one of the above's product line is inferior is in my opinion a silly statement.
I am happy to use all of them and some of the other lesser known producers of photographic materials.

 

[gr82bart]

To say any one of the above's product line is inferior is in my opinion a silly statement. I am happy to use all of them and some of the other lesser known producers of photographic materials.

The voice of sanity in a chorus of doom and gloom.

Art.

 

[srs5694]

What is often overlooked in discussions like this is that executive comments are usually tailored to their audience at the time the statement is made.... Conflicting comments from other Kodak execs are coming from folks who are still responsible (and compensated) for film-based product lines. Thus, their statements of continued commitment to film should come as no surprise.

This is a valid point, but it simultaneously raises alarm bells in my mind. If the audiences to which a company speaks are so diverse that it has to "spin" its statements so far that they're (figuratively) clockwise for one audience and counterclockwise for another, then my suspicion is that there's something very much amiss. Perhaps the company's product line is too diverse, or perhaps the company can't decide internally on a coherent strategy in a changing environment, or perhaps any number of other things. Whatever the cause, it doesn't sound good to me.

 

[esanford]

This is a valid point, but it simultaneously raises alarm bells in my mind. If the audiences to which a company speaks are so diverse that it has to "spin" its statements so far that they're (figuratively) clockwise for one audience and counterclockwise for another, then my suspicion is that there's something very much amiss. Perhaps the company's product line is too diverse, or perhaps the company can't decide internally on a coherent strategy in a changing environment, or perhaps any number of other things. Whatever the cause, it doesn't sound good to me.

That's the essence of business... especially large public corporations. Every large business has the dilemma of trying to please multiple constituencies. Consequently, they wrestle with the problems of satisfying multiple markets as well as investment organizations, government regulators and labor unions. In accomplishing this task, they make carefully orchestrated statements (usually structured by PR managers, lawyers and accountants) that are designed to provide information in support of key markets without upsetting others. Moreover, they have to worry about the impact of these decisions on their own employees. This of necessity becomes spin. Also, once a company becomes large, they have to be concerned with covering huge operating costs. As such, they try to perform in varying markets in the hope of finding the right mix that will sustain their large size. First and foremost, they have to please stockholders and lenders. Unfortunately, in solving these problems, customers often become a fungible commodity that is often traded among markets in a manner to ensure profitability. It's not a happy situation for sustaining customers in converging markets, but it is a business reality. So, it's not just Kodak that faces this dilemma. Right now for example, the communications market is going through this problem in spades. So companies like Nortel, Lucent, Cisco, Alcatel, Siemens and others are behaving like Kodak. Many of their customer groups think that they are being abandoned as these companies search for new sources of revenues to sustain their basic existence. To that extent no company can ever be trusted. This means that we as customers must always evaluate the likelihood that any company will fulfill our needs present and future. When we make that evaluation, we have to buy accordingly. None of this is personal; it's just commercial reality....