Late breaking Kodak news

Photo Engineer · Jan 13, 2007

Well, lots of comments to reply to.

First, I don't have clout. I got complaints that only subscribers could read the post and they felt it important. I sent a note to Sean, and he was doubtful. A while later it was moved so I assume he got complaints. And, I just didn't want to retype it as I'm lazy and didn't want to double post. So that answers that.

All reversal color films are in a steep decline, as are B&W small format. LF film is holding up and may be the last man standing. Color negative and motion picture are holding up.

I'll use the example of Kodachrome. Kodak had full page ads up till 1990, but sales kept dropping very rapidly. You can't keep beating a dead horse. They even came up with a 400 speed Kodachrome which was very very good and it would not sell. So, ads ceased. The dropoff came before the ads stopped.

And, finally, with all of this talk, what happend to Ilford when Agfa ran into their troubles? Even Ilford had a serious problem.

Now, as for buying Kodak products, I buy Kodak color negative film, Ilford Paper and Kodak and Ilford B&W film. My specialty products include Kentmere paper.

And, don't forget, I make my own.

PE

Lee Shively · Jan 13, 2007

Went to my first pop music large hall concert in over 20 years last night. Huge crowd, a sold-out evening with people ages 12 to 80. Everyone had a camera from the looks of things. But I didn't see anyone using even a disposable film camera. All I saw was the glow of screens from camera phones, digital point-and-shoots and DSLRs.

The performances were fun. The crowd was obnoxious. I can wait another 20 years.

eddym · Jan 13, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I'll use the example of Kodachrome. Kodak had full page ads up till 1990, but sales kept dropping very rapidly. You can't keep beating a dead horse. They even came up with a 400 speed Kodachrome which was very very good and it would not sell.

Don't you mean 200? I used to shoot Kodachrome 200, but I don't ever remember any 400 Kodachrome. Did I blink and miss it?

Photo Engineer · Jan 13, 2007

eddym said:
Don't you mean 200? I used to shoot Kodachrome 200, but I don't ever remember any 400 Kodachrome. Did I blink and miss it?

You blinked.

It was 1988 and it was t-grain 400, and it was superb.

PE

firecracker · Jan 13, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I'll use the example of Kodachrome. Kodak had full page ads up till 1990, but sales kept dropping very rapidly. You can't keep beating a dead horse. They even came up with a 400 speed Kodachrome which was very very good and it would not sell. So, ads ceased. The dropoff came before the ads stopped.

So, is this a slow and gradual death of a company seeking mercy killing in a sense?

I buy and use Kodak photo chemicals mostly: Dektol, Selectol Soft, Selenium toner, Sepia toner, etc. I was thinking about adding the liquid non-hardening fixer and some film developing agents also to my list.

For film, I still shoot TriX, but that's not much. Also, I shoot Gold 400 color neg for fun, and that's even less...

I don't need any ads for to find what I need. Ads are expensive and cost a lot of money. That kind of money can be better saved for paying their employees in all status.

PHOTOTONE · Jan 13, 2007

David Brown said:
Well, if that's true, then what's the problem? As soon as digital "equals" film, I'm not going back into the stinking darkroom. Why would I? This is not a religion. (Or is it?) :rolleyes:

You mean you are wiling to spend tens of thousands of dollars on state-of-the-art digital equipment to equal the results you can get with a few hundred dollars of analog equipment?

jd callow · Jan 13, 2007

Some things can't be compared for some people and for some processes. When film goes I'll probably go back to painting. I'm hoping I have a few years or even a decade or two -- fingers crossed.

André E.C. · Jan 14, 2007

When film goes, I`m done with photography!
If paper is available, it`s maybe a great time to print everything all over again.

Cheers

André

digiconvert · Jan 14, 2007

André E.C. said:
When film goes, I`m done with photography!
If paper is available, it`s maybe a great time to print everything all over again.

Cheers

André

So you see yourself as a film user who takes photographs rather than a photographer who uses film ? I enjoy film photography (reasons include cost, lack of obsolesence and the quality of BW images) but I enjoy photography whatever the medium.
However I do not see any reason to give up just yet, I think colour negative film and BW MF/LF will be around for a while longer, the market film has really lost is the mass P&S market which camera phones have taken over and a lot of the professional market which uses high end DSLR or Digi backs on Hasselblads/Sinars etc. The MF/LF market for serious amamteurs/professionals will remain a niche (as it always was) and will be serviced by the likes of Ilford for a decade or more I guess.
If that doesn't happen I'll get a (by then cheap) Leaf or other digi back for my Bronnie and learn some new skills.

Cheers; Chris Benton

André E.C. · Jan 14, 2007

digiconvert said:
So you see yourself as a film user who takes photographs rather than a photographer who uses film ?

Whatever may suit you Chris, I don`t enjoy digital photography and that`s it, when film goes, I go full power for darkroom work.

Cheers

André

Muihlinn · Jan 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Sorry guys, you are just not using enough Kodak film.

I have been a long-time kodak user, but I got sicked of them and their marketing policies that blames us for the lack of demand after years of making things difficult to use their film (I'm thinking about Kodachrome) , or tired about hearing that TMAX 100 is a good substitute for almost everything that once was in their catalog, as well I had some less-than-pleasant experiencies which won't be polite to say here.

All I use now are occasional portra rolls, and a early 70's chemical mixer stick, I'm sorry for those who will loose their jobs, but I won't be me who drop any tear for them.

donbga · Jan 14, 2007

Flotsam said:
Even in film, designing and marketing cameras was never their forte.

I'm sorry but that is not correct.

haris · Jan 14, 2007

digiconvert said:
So you see yourself as a film user who takes photographs rather than a photographer who uses film ?

Well, I don't know for others, but for me, kraft part of photography is important, and even could be decisive part. I am not sure will I continue photography if digital is only choice. I think I won't. You know, I still write with fountain pen, use mechanical pocket watch, prefer letters to Emails in intimate comunication, read books not PDFs on screen and listen vinyl records. And I am 38. There is something deep inside me choosing the WAY how to tell something, not only WHAT to tell...

Regards

PHOTOTONE · Jan 14, 2007

If you learn photography with analog methods, it will make you a better digital photographer (if you choose to go that route).

FrankB · Jan 14, 2007

David Brown said:
Well, if that's true, then what's the problem? As soon as digital "equals" film, I'm not going back into the stinking darkroom. Why would I?

Well, if you don't enjoy it, and you can afford the digital equipment and consumables required, then I don't suppose you would.

Personally I spend all day in front of a computer screen and have done for the last two and a half decades. It has little remaining appeal for me. Time in my (odour-free ) darkroom is (for me) a pleasant escape from that. Photoshop would not be.

Moving a cursor around a screen with a mouse or graphics tablet and seeing a print come out of a printer has no magic for me at all. Seeing a roll of negs come off the reel or a print come out of the fixer is (for me) still a 'magical' feeling.

The two experiences (for me) do not equate even if the end product (one day) does. See my sig.

David Brown said:
This is not a religion. (Or is it?) :rolleyes:

Not for me. Just a hobby.

But one that I value.

Rolleijoe · Jan 14, 2007

André E.C. said:
"Kodak is dead"!

Long live Ilford!

Cheers

André

If Illfried were all that was left, then I would certainly have no choice but to print digitally, and perhaps start coating 4x5 glass and use nothing but the Speed Graphic until I could find something to put in the Rolleis.

Until then, for now there is still Plus-X, Tri-X, Rodinal, Foma, and Efke films/papers to fill the void. Although I'm quite dismayed to see EK laying off any more employees.

Photo Engineer · Jan 14, 2007

With all the layoffs at Kodak, and the cutback in production, I believe that Kodak B&W film production is still a lot higher than that of Ilford. IDK for sure, but that seems to be the case considering the coating speed, width and # of machines still in use.

Add in color films and color paper, and it is way higher than Ilfords, and that I do know.

PE

Rolleijoe · Jan 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I believe that Kodak B&W film production is still a lot higher than that of Ilford. IDK for sure, but that seems to be the case considering the coating speed, width and # of machines still in use.

Add in color films and color paper, and it is way higher than Ilfords, and that I do know.

PE

That's good news at least. I remember speaking with someone at ext19 (sorry, can't recall the fella's name) a few years ago when the new coating machines came in, and I'm fairly sure we're looking at, at least Plus-X & Tri-X being around for a minimum of 20-25 years.

Hopefully the EK chemies will still be around then too. I love the T-Max paper developer, and fixer. Really nice indeed, along with HC-110 when a "soft" look is wanted.

lightranger · Jan 14, 2007

André E.C. said:
When film goes, I`m done with photography!
If paper is available, it`s maybe a great time to print everything all over again.

Cheers

André

That right! I am going to reprint most of my existing portfolio while I can still get the paper I love to work with. All of my future negatives will have to find their way with what ever paper is available at the time. I feel fortunate to have been able to work in the darkroom for the past 35 years, and have put together a fairly good body of work. I have been wondering what the future value of a quality traditional silver print with have is the future,(compared to now) if the process does go away. I realize it depends on who, what and where, but over all will they be in demand or fade away as an old inferior image of the past?

PHOTOTONE · Jan 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
With all the layoffs at Kodak, and the cutback in production, I believe that Kodak B&W film production is still a lot higher than that of Ilford. IDK for sure, but that seems to be the case considering the coating speed, width and # of machines still in use.

Add in color films and color paper, and it is way higher than Ilfords, and that I do know.

PE

KODAKs higher production capacity could be a blessing or a curse. On the one hand if they are utilizing their facilities more, actually still coating more linear feet of film per year, that is good. However, with a larger capacity facility, if they continuously underutilize it, then it stands a chance of being considered redundant and eliminated. I think Forte experienced this. Ilford being smaller, may actually be "better" for their survival in the long run. Just my thoughts.

Photo Engineer · Jan 14, 2007

The advantage Kodak has is that they coat with a lot more machines and at considerably higher speeds, and they do it 3 shifts a day.

So, to cut back, first they reduce to 2 or 1 shift, then they cut back # of machines in use in a given building, then they slow the machines down. The plant is in full operation but at reduced capacity and it can always pick up if the need arises.

That is the advantage of having a top-of-the-line facilitiy. Neither Forte, nor any of the other 2nd and 3rd tier facilities can do that.

PE

David Brown · Jan 14, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
You mean you are wiling to spend tens of thousands of dollars on state-of-the-art digital equipment to equal the results you can get with a few hundred dollars of analog equipment?

No.

First, I was responding to (and quoted) a prior post that said: "the digital imaging industry is dynamic and their eventual goal is to make images which are superior in all ways to analog."

I hardly believe that this goal has been met at this time. However, if it were to be met, I simply said that I'd give up the darkroom. (Yes, I haven't forgotten that I used the adjective "stinking" - that was to get your attention.)

And, if digital ever does "equal" film, I mean by that it would have to be equal both in quality AND cost! So, if film is ever gone, and by that time, I can do digital for the same (or better) result and for a reasonable cost, I will not give up photography just because I don't like Kodak, or my favorite paper is no longer made, or whatever. This is a hobby for me and for many others on this site. Maybe we all need to just take a deep breath, step back and enjoy the hobby! Sometimes all this "product availability" stuff is just taken way too seriously! Yes, I miss Panatomic X, Polycontrast paper and being able to get Kodachrome processed easily, etc. But I have moved on to other films and papers and I still am learning and making better images than I used to. Apparently with what some consider inferior products.

smieglitz · Jan 14, 2007

David Brown said:
... And, if digital ever does "equal" film, I mean by that it would have to be equal both in quality AND cost! ...

Digital will never "equal" film irrespective of quality and cost. The process aspect is not the same.

Digital and conventional photography are two different media that share some, but not all, characteristics. And I don't see how they could ever be considered equivalent.

Joe

isaacc7 · Jan 14, 2007

lightranger said:
That right! I am going to reprint most of my existing portfolio while I can still get the paper I love to work with. All of my future negatives will have to find their way with what ever paper is available at the time. I feel fortunate to have been able to work in the darkroom for the past 35 years, and have put together a fairly good body of work. I have been wondering what the future value of a quality traditional silver print with have is the future,(compared to now) if the process does go away. I realize it depends on who, what and where, but over all will they be in demand or fade away as an old inferior image of the past?

I think that it won't really affect the demand one way or the other. Take a look at the "premium" that carbon prints, carbro, and albumen get... A photograph must have historical importance, or be made by a well known photographer in order for it to be in any kind of demand. A strong image is the first requirement, I think you'll find that trumps whatever process was involved in making it. Remember, the value is in what someone will pay for it, not how much blood and sweat it took to create it

Isaac

copake_ham · Jan 14, 2007

André E.C. said:
"Kodak is dead"!

Long live Ilford!

Cheers

André

Why in the world would anyone here post such a statement?

The possible loss of a major competitor in the film business does none of us any good.

Would YOU want to be beholden to a monopolistic producer?

Late breaking Kodak news

Moderator

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency