Michael Smith

[naturephoto1]

I think the industry is synergistic.

Increased or renewed availability of any film or paper is good for everybody. Why the reintroduction of an AZO type paper would be thought to impact anybody but AZO users is a little provincial.

The more fine prints being made, AZO or otherwise, the stronger traditional photography will be. I think the low has been reached, and our brand of work will stabilize with perhaps a slight increase over the next several years. Film will never return to its heyday, but has a good chance of surviving quite a long while.

Though this is the B&W; Film, Paper, Chemistry Forum, it should apply to color as well as B&W.

Rich

 

[removed account4]

Doesn't do much for printing Velvia transparencies either.


FWIW, I'm glad Michael loves the process enough to take on the risks associated with producing it independently. I wish him the best of luck.

i have acutally used azo as an internegative for printing velvia.
it works very well

 

[c6h6o3]

Possibly a bit too narrow. Those of us who shoot 35mm are going to look a little strange with our 11x14" matts surrounding a 1x1.5" image, if all that's left is silver-chloride contact printing paper. A gallery opening with all the attendees wearing monocles will certainly be an indelible image.

You're right. That is too narrow. We should also allow the attendees to wear pince-nez.

 

[StephenS]

Not everyone, even kids, sees any magic in the darkroom. It's too bad but many see it as boring.

Personally, I think the best approach is not to look at film/paper as "traditional", as that seems to equate to "old fashioned", but to look at it as using the best system available to make the photographs you want to make.

I'm not one of those people who damns anything not analog - there are other great tools out there and I want to use what works best for me. If I went around preaching the evils of digital I think people would be less likely to take seriously the fact there is still an important place for film.

As someone who has been using digital capture devices for 15 years now and been involved with the conversion from film to digital, I still feel strongly about film and it's my medium of choice.

Don't lament the past and what's gone but instead look to the future and find ways to keep film viable by finding a link with the new technologies. I think digital negatives for superior contact printing is a great example of this.

I hope it becomes like the choice between shooting color or B&W - an asthetic one and not a necessity one.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Does this paper actually exist now? Are people receiving their paper?

B.

The most recent information I saw was on his AZO forum where he said that when the LODIMA paper was tested it was to contrasty and needed to age. I don't know if he means the paper has already been coated and needs to age or they have just the emulsion made and it needs to age before mass coating can be done. Either way he said they would test the paper again in October.

It looks like if the paper tests OK in October we might see Lodima paper sometime in 2007. If they still are having problems after the October tests your guess as to a date of availability is as good as mine.

 

[fhovie]

I realize that the only real vote is with cash - That is why I pre-purchased my last paper order with Michael so he could get the stuff manufactured. There is an interesting attitude I see though - A lot of people, with their own Holy Grail, and all is well until it is their pet that is shot. (And since AZO is not their pet, this is all much to do about nothing) Although I don't use Velvia (well - I do have SOME in the freezer) - I would certainly do what I can to keep it in production because when it is gone, there is nothing else quite like it, and my creative choices would be again cut back. So - I don't use Velvia (much) but I would miss it if and when I would want colors that are super saturated with the response Velvia has, I would have to use something I may like less than Velvia. I like AZO. I will miss it. I hope I like the new paper. I would like to think most APUG people would stand together to keep our (collective) materials from going away because we are not a big voice. Maybe we are just a quiet voice. If EVERY APUG person, 15,118 film users, had told Kodak that if they dumped a particular product, they would not purchase ANYTHING from Kodak again, Kodak would have realized that to earn the right to sell the comodity, they must also sell the legacy, and we may still have AZO. It is possible. When Kodak no longer offers TRI-X, that will be when I write that letter. As much as I like TMAX film, if Kodak will not support me with TRI-X, I will not support Kodak in any way. If all of us voiced our concern, they would likely listen. - Just a thought - maybe it is just a pipe dream, but it sounds good.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak, AFAIK, is still making Tri-X on a regular schedule, but they could not do the same for Azo. It just sat on the shelf except for the few orders from M&P and those others devoted to it.

I've tried to explain the difficulty of maintaining a product, especially with an irregular schedule such as once every 2 years, but I guess you don't get the point. Much of the B&W paper products spoiled on the shelf at EK due to slow sales.

I was at the photo store today, the largest in Rochester, and they said that their film is largely spoiling on the shelf. They no longer stock Endura, Cibachrom or any sheet film of any type.

This includes Fuji, Kodak and Ilford brands.

PE

 

[kjsphoto]

I think the reason being is that most peple nowadays order online as you can get better prices and support the smaller guys like JandC and Freestlye for example.

 

[fhovie]

I appreciate the comment about manufacture challenges.

I work for a manufacturing company. I watch the product managers sift through the sales lists and drop products that we only sell a few a year of. I am a sales manager and have been a product manager. Selling specialty items is what keeps a company first in mind for the every day stuff. Cherry picking is good for the company and bad for the customer. Kodak is selling at $20 a share today when it was $85 a share in 1997. Lost customers - lost revenue - bad management. Well - could be the victim of Digital - but wait - Kodak does do digital. Humm. Maybe, they could have streamlined and right-sized to affordablly meet customer needs - instead they hack the product line and send a lot of people packing. - They meet their own needs.

AZO has a huge shelf life. They could make a run every 5 years or less - or:

Here is an interesting idea ... subcontract what you cannot do affordably. Instead of sending everyone away. Gee - how tough could it have been for Kodak? Michael did it and he is not even a manufacturer. It is the whole idea of letting accountants run the company. What Kodak should have done is contract with a company who could make their product for them and jack up the price to cover it. What did we all pay for Tech Pan??? If we want it, we will pay for it. If they can not do it, they could get someone to do it for them with the same specs and formulas. I don't think they care too much.

 

[bill schwab]

I was at the photo store today, the largest in Rochester, and they said that their film is largely spoiling on the shelf. They no longer stock Endura, Cibachrom or any sheet film of any type.

I certainly do not disagree Ron, but I too think a lot of this is due to online sales. Although I buy more film, paper and chemicals now than I ever did and try to buy as much from my local supplier as I can, I find it hard to buy in bulk from them and have to pay 20-40% more for certain items I now buy online.

B.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Kodak is selling at $20 a share today when it was $85 a share in 1997.

AZO has a huge shelf life. They could make a run every 5 years or less - or:

Here is an interesting idea ... subcontract what you cannot do affordably. Instead of sending everyone away. Gee - how tough could it have been for Kodak?

Excellent points Frank. The bottom line says it all. I'm an engineer, not an MBA, but IMO, Kodak should have broken itself up into smaller/trimmer companies years ago instead of trying to stay the huge monolith; many of the other huge monolith corporations did it and are in much better shape today for it. So what if you can't run single weight paper at 3500 feet per second. Keep one little line going at the slower speed and fill the niche. As you pointed out, Azo has an extremely long shelf life. Run it every 5 years or so.

 

[skillian]

I'm a huge fan of Azo, but Kodak is in serious trouble and has much bigger issues to worry about. Film and paper simply aren't going to keep the doors open over there. In a very short time, they have gone from the razor-blade business the company was built on which had huge margins, big barriers to entry and few competitors to a hyper competitive, lower margin business selling razors. Worse, it's a market dominated by foreign consumer electronics manufacturers who have considerable production and engineering advantages. The best thing Kodak has is a brand and channels of distribution - but this isn't going to be enough if they can't carve a niche for themselves in the market that exists today. Big yellow is fighting for its life right now and Azo wasn't even a blip on the P&L radar screen over there - I doubt seriously if the CEO even knew the product existed. This is the sad reality, but the management team over there has a very tough road ahead. However, I've said before that I beleive the demise of traditional materials at Kodak and perhaps even other suppliers could be the best thing to ever happen to folks like us. Kodak isn't even out of this business yet and we're already seeing enterprising folks like MAS and J&C step up to the plate with interesting new products. For once, we're seeing folks like ourselves driving the market with products geared towards artists and serious users instead of products that were the byproducts of large commerical or consumer businesses. This is indeed an exciting time!

 

[MattKing]

I'm a huge fan of Azo, but Kodak is in serious trouble and has much bigger issues to worry about. Film and paper simply aren't going to keep the doors open over there. In a very short time, they have gone from the razor-blade business the company was built on which had huge margins, big barriers to entry and few competitors to a hyper competitive, lower margin business selling razors. Worse, it's a market dominated by foreign consumer electronics manufacturers who have considerable production and engineering advantages. The best thing Kodak has is a brand and channels of distribution - but this isn't going to be enough if they can't carve a niche for themselves in the market that exists today. Big yellow is fighting for its life right now and Azo wasn't even a blip on the P&L radar screen over there - I doubt seriously if the CEO even knew the product existed. This is the sad reality, but the management team over there has a very tough road ahead. However, I've said before that I beleive the demise of traditional materials at Kodak and perhaps even other suppliers could be the best thing to ever happen to folks like us. Kodak isn't even out of this business yet and we're already seeing enterprising folks like MAS and J&C step up to the plate with interesting new products. For once, we're seeing folks like ourselves driving the market with products geared towards artists and serious users instead of products that were the byproducts of large commerical or consumer businesses. This is indeed an exciting time!

The only disagreement I have with your points here Scott, is that Kodak was more than just big yellow - they were also the reliable supplier and source of expertise to the small store at the corner. They had a small dealer support system that worked, and was accessable. Even more important, Kodak was a huge number of very dedicated and knowledgable people, that the small store owners and customers could rely upon. Kodak sales and support staff were expected to know their stuff, and to care about their stuff, and they did.

My father used to socialize a lot with the other Kodak employees he worked with. I used to be around them a lot. They really cared about film and photography (and graphic arts, and microfiln, and X-ray materials, and chemicals, and ...). They really liked to share their enthusiasm with others.

Michael Smith and John at J & C and other similar people can do a lot, but they can never have the reach that Kodak had, even with the internet, and other modern means of communication.

 

[c6h6o3]

Kodak, AFAIK, is still making Tri-X on a regular schedule, but they could not do the same for Azo. It just sat on the shelf except for the few orders from M&P and those others devoted to it.

I've tried to explain the difficulty of maintaining a product, especially with an irregular schedule such as once every 2 years, but I guess you don't get the point. Much of the B&W paper products spoiled on the shelf at EK due to slow sales.

I was at the photo store today, the largest in Rochester, and they said that their film is largely spoiling on the shelf. They no longer stock Endura, Cibachrom or any sheet film of any type.

This includes Fuji, Kodak and Ilford brands.

PE

Uh-oh.

 

[skillian]

Matt,

I hear you, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation as it exists today. Like it or not, Kodak is indeed a massive international corporation with a responsibility to the shareholders who actually own the company. We can all lament the loss of an earlier time when things were different, but those independent dealers and traditional products simply don't represent a big enough business to save this company - that's reality. Having said that, I'm not sure where our disagreement might be. I'm sad to see these products go, but I'm excited about what the future might hold from new sources of product.

 

[John McCallum]

I'm a huge fan of Azo, but Kodak is in serious trouble and has much bigger issues to worry about. Film and paper simply aren't going to keep the doors open over there. In a very short time, they have gone from the razor-blade business the company was built on which had huge margins, big barriers to entry and few competitors to a hyper competitive, lower margin business selling razors. Worse, it's a market dominated by foreign consumer electronics manufacturers who have considerable production and engineering advantages. The best thing Kodak has is a brand and channels of distribution - but this isn't going to be enough if they can't carve a niche for themselves in the market that exists today. Big yellow is fighting for its life right now and Azo wasn't even a blip on the P&L radar screen over there - I doubt seriously if the CEO even knew the product existed. This is the sad reality, but the management team over there has a very tough road ahead. However, I've said before that I beleive the demise of traditional materials at Kodak and perhaps even other suppliers could be the best thing to ever happen to folks like us. Kodak isn't even out of this business yet and we're already seeing enterprising folks like MAS and J&C step up to the plate with interesting new products. For once, we're seeing folks like ourselves driving the market with products geared towards artists and serious users instead of products that were the byproducts of large commerical or consumer businesses. This is indeed an exciting time!

like to say ... great post!

Actually, one of the best posts I've read on the subject.

 

[Ray Heath]

there seems to be alot of resentment towards companies that only care about making money, but isn't that what a commercial enterprise does?

isn't that how it exists?

how many here will, or have, stopped using products that have become more expensive?

how many will suddenly find they can actually make good images with something other than their favourite materials?

how many will expand their artistic endeavours to new areas of creativity?

 

[donbga]

I certainly do not disagree Ron, but I too think a lot of this is due to online sales. Although I buy more film, paper and chemicals now than I ever did and try to buy as much from my local supplier as I can, I find it hard to buy in bulk from them and have to pay 20-40% more for certain items I now buy online.

B.

Bill,

I think to some degree you may be correct, however online sales for non-digital products have increased due to lack of demand of analog materials locally. I live in a large metro area that used to have quite a few photo stores that stocked analog products. Now most of those products have disappeared from their shelves and have been replaced with digital based products.

Ciba is gone and R4 materials are gone as well as many black and white papers. It is almost impossible to purchase black and white sheet film of any brand (I don't check any longer since I purchase online.) You may still be able to purchase Velvia at a couple of locations. I used to shoot a couple of boxes a year but not anymore because local processing is so limited.

All of the rental darkroom facilities have closed their doors or converted to digital labs. Only two pro labs process E-6 film now, 2 years ago there were 6.


Things are changing pretty quickly; as we go forward I think most analog materials will be solld online and not in brick and mortar outlets.

 

[doughowk]

As fine art photographers, we are a niche market. For too long we've relied on products manufacured for the mass consumer market. A case in point is Polaroid's SX-70: once they lost consumer demand to digital, the product that many artists were dependent on is dropped. Photographers need to utilize products that are or can be manufactured in smaller quantities. We also need to become more independent of suppliers by fabricating products to our own needs. There are a couple of exciting aspects to these changing times: 1) suppliers to niche markets can innovate to their specific needs; 2) photographers can (or may be forced to) explore all aspects of photography similiar to 19th century photographers. And its not just traditional processes: Lith printing is an example of recent innovation in photography.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

The problem is not that these items were not profitable, but that the profit margin isn't high enough to "warrant" their continuation (bottom line mentality of corporate executives). If Sam Walton had this attitude, there would be no Walmart. George Eastman, too, I think. Good for Michael and Paula.

 

[juan]

The other problem, as I understand it, is that Kodak increased its minimum annual order requirements a few years ago. The local store in my city couldn't justify buying that much Kodak stuff, so they had to stop buying Kodak products altogether. They now stock a smaller quantity of Ilford products.

Chris Anderson of Wired Magazine has written an interesting book titled "The Long Tail." He says the future of business is selling less of more individual items. I think we are seeing this progression in traditional photography.

And my kudos to Michael and Paula - I can't wait to see the paper.
juan

 

[Aggie]

Kodak just divested it self of the actual digital camera business. They are now concentrating on printers. Isn't that what Perez did at HP? Seems he came on board and did everything to really kill film based products. I think building the plant in Canada then closing it was bad. Then they turned right around and built the same plant in Brazil at another huge cost. That plant was closed almost immediately. That is two large facilities that operated for a very very short time, only to be closed. Bottom line those plants cost money to make. They took those losses and lumped them inot the dwindling film revenues and then justified it by saying that film was losing them profits. to me it was suptidity to build those plants and then just close them. Real accounting would show that yes the profits were down, but no they were not losses. Short sighted and deliberate moves were what caused the problemns at Kodak. The cash cow that was film could not be milked for exxcess to appease stock holders when someone made stupid decisions.

 

[StephenS]

The other problem, as I understand it, is that Kodak increased its minimum annual order requirements a few years ago.

This is what I was told at a local photo store as well.

Normally when I buy film it's in bulk where I can get the best price - 100 rolls of Tri-X from B&H or 50 rolls of whatever from wherever. I would go to the local place mostly to get a couple rolls of something I needed fast or maybe something I wanted to experiment with. I'd also buy my Polaroid 55 there and chemistry, small darkroom items, a sync cord, etc.

So a few months ago when I wanted something, can't remember exactly what now, I was told it was a special order item because Kodak would only ship them a certain amount and they wouldn't order it unless someone asked as it would sit on the shelf otherwise. And this wasn't for something uncommon - it was for a mainstream film, maybe in 120 format.

But I can't say this is surprising. When I walk in there is always someone buying a new digital camera or a printer and the same used film cameras are sitting in the display case for months.

Even though this is a small store its a good one as it caters to local professionals and has a lot of items that crowd needs. But as all those guys go digital, they won't be buying film either. They certainly won't be buying paper. But since there are several local colleges and univerities (and the university is a big one) the students need supplies for class. If it wasn't for that, I doubt they'd even keep any new stock of paper or darkrooms stuff.

If it don't sell, companies won't produce it. I think it's that simple. Maybe fewer choices is what will keep film alive?

 

[fhovie]

It is not just profit. Yes - cash is king. But - at the end of the day, just as important is corporate culture. Good corporate culture tries to do the right and honorable thing by meeting the needs in the market place in such a way that they become the preferred vendor because they are easy to do business with. Making distributors buy orders so large they drop off the list saves paperwork and eliminates jobs. It shuts down plants and ends product lines. The company I work for tries to do the same stupid thing and I stop it where I can (the west). Keep the little guy on line and some day you can earn more of his business and grow the account.

Stupidity is NOT honorable - they have stockholders. To squander stockholder equity by making numerous bad decisions is tantamount to theft. They should have hired people that are smarter than they are and listened. This is not the first industry to go through this change. Remember vacuum tubes? There were a few companies that positioned themselves to become the last ones standing and they are making huge margins today selling transmitting tubes - who would have guessed there are things that transistors do not do well? Does anyone think that the market place will discover that there are things film does better? Did pressboard make hardwood obsolete? Sure, the size of the market will be only a fraction of what it was before but the profit will be higher - for those companies being run by folks with better than double digit IQs. How many huge companies have pathetic profits to go with huge revenues? Next to them is a company with one tenth the revenue and twice the profit. Kodak will not make the transition and they will fall into memory - Like a historical event that came - and went. Someone smarter will be there after who will make a ton of profit on a tithe of the revenue.

 

[donbga]

It is not just profit. Yes - cash is king. But -

I hear your agnst, but the reality is that the bottom line rules in corporate board rooms. Kodak isn't the only giant film company in trouble, Fuji is also.

Film sales, especially pro film sales, are in a downward spiral and will not ever recover to the position it once held. Companys have to re-invent themselves or perish.

Medium and large format film products are destined to become a strictly niche product used mainly for the fine art market.

Watch Photokina news bulletins this year and you will see that new film products are all but forgotten.