My Letter from Ilford chairman

[Brac]

I actually wonder if Kodak will be around in its current form, or even at all, in a few years time. Be ready for an announcement like "Kodak sells film manufacturing wing to Chinese"
Matt

Don't forget that Kodak already has a huge film production facility in China which is reported as the largest in Asia, as well as fingers in other pies in that country. Already colour films formerly made in the Kodak factory in France are now being made in the China plant. I don't believe Kodak are going to pull out of film manufacture in the near future, although a few people on this site seem to be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought, an attitude which I don't understand. I think what we will find is that if their film sales continue to decline, eventually all the film they make will be made at the factory in China. That is not something I look forward to but better that than no Kodak film at all.

 

[Uncle Bill]

This is good news, considering the rumours floating around with EK and Fuji.

Bill

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Just a quick note to add to this thread, whilst we are talking about 'high end' silver photography, its current and future niches, and the products and companies that will remain, please remember that many, many photo students around the world still 'start wet' and train 'wet' and most of that is mono and stable, sure digital is used increasingly in education, especially in the non photo school sector, but students are a major, major group of users for us.

I was interested in the 'coat your own section' as you know some people do...especially when they need emulsions on none photo bases but you must listen to photo engineer...he is correct it is quite a manufacturing process, if you would like to see it in action we at ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology are willing to arrange a visit to our manufacturing site at Mobberley, England ( just south of Manchester ) for you APUG members. I mentioned this on the PERCEPTOL LIVES thread and not many people seemed to be interested, still the offer remains.

Simon Galley.

 

[Leon]

wow - Simon - what an offer. I would be very keen to come up and have a look at what is going on there. Unfortunately, I'm at the other end of the country, but if I'm passing by, I'll be sure to take you up on the offer.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Leon,

I fear it will have to be a special trip, I will arrange a date in March 2006 so as I can get 30 or so people together, they can tour the factory, meet our scientists, chemists and also meet our marketing people.

Simon.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know that I can make it to England in March, but maybe in the future, if the first APUG conference goes well in Toronto, we can try to have an APUG conference in the UK and coordinate it with a trip to Mobberley. From New York, it's often cheaper and easier to get to London than to many closer US destinations.

 

[Leon]

Dear Leon,

I fear it will have to be a special trip, I will arrange a date in March 2006 so as I can get 30 or so people together, they can tour the factory, meet our scientists, chemists and also meet our marketing people.

Simon.

Simon - I was posting slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think this is an opportunity too good to be missed ... I'll post a different thread to see if that draws more attention. Can it be early march? I think that would be much easier ... The UK apug members (those most likely to be able to make it to the factory) are having a meet-up in mid-late april, so early in march would not make it too close for people to feel they have to decide between the two.

cheers!

 

[FrankB]

I'd definitely be interested in such a visit.

Also, Simon perhaps we could interest you in visiting us at our (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in the Dales in April...?

It's an informal meet-up-and-shoot type of thing involving photography, gossip, beer and food (not necessarily in that order!). If it appeals to you then it'd be great to have you along.

All the best,

Frank

 

[Photo Engineer]

I don't know that I can make it to England in March, but maybe in the future, if the first APUG conference goes well in Toronto, we can try to have an APUG conference in the UK and coordinate it with a trip to Mobberley. From New York, it's often cheaper and easier to get to London than to many closer US destinations.

David, the APUG conference in Toronto is about the same time as the ICPS conference in Rochester which will draw photographic scientists and engineers from all over the world.

Kodak will be sponsoring tours of their facilities during that conference just as they have in times gone by. So will RIT.

Many APUGGERS will be going by or through Rochester on their way to Toronto. Has anyone ever contacted EK to schedule a tour? You might be surprised at the response. I have no way of knowing either way, but you never can tell.

I can say this, a high speed coating machine, going at full speed is awesome, even in the dark. Well, especially in the dark. A small scale machine would be a real treat for you to watch. They often do coatings in the light to 'tune' them up. That is always interesting to watch.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hey, that's an idea. I'm not one of the conference organizers, but maybe it could be arranged.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Frank et al,

Thanks for the invite to the Dales, what are the dates ? I am sure I could find time for Beer:

As to the factory tour, early March is difficult as I will be at the Focus on Imaging
exhibition, I hear what you say about being too close to the UK meeting in April so how about a date in late May early June...

Simon.

 

[Leon]

Simon - I've started a new thread regarding this issue - follow this link

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and the UK apug meet up in the dales is on 22/23 April. Details can be found on the link that Frank gave in his last post


I'll cut and paste your last point to the new thread. thanks for this opportunity,

 

[Matt5791]

Re increasing prices.

I realise all the stuff about how, in real terms, the price of film is less now than 40 years ago, but unfortunately in the last 5 years Kodaks prices have risen sharply.

My local lab does a few film sales, but stocks virtually no Kodak now, all fuji, because of the huge price difference, eg. Velvia 5 roll 120 pack = £13; E100VS 5 roll 120 pack = £18. It just wasn't selling.

Matt

 

[Photo Engineer]

Re increasing prices.

I realise all the stuff about how, in real terms, the price of film is less now than 40 years ago, but unfortunately in the last 5 years Kodaks prices have risen sharply.

My local lab does a few film sales, but stocks virtually no Kodak now, all fuji, because of the huge price difference, eg. Velvia 5 roll 120 pack = £13; E100VS 5 roll 120 pack = £18. It just wasn't selling.

Matt

And are either of those two companies subsidized by their governments?

Have either of them ever been accused of dumping products at reduced rates in certain countries?

Which of those companies actually has a more begnign attitude towards their employees with better pay, benefits and working environment?

Which is working hardest to clean up the environment, for example by kicking off the replacement of Cadmium and Mercury?

And most importantly, which of those companies never had to develop a color process, but rather was able to piggy back on others color process technology?

Just rhetorical questions for you to consider. No one ever does, especially the last one.

I actually submit to you that Fuji, Konishiroku, and Agfa have never had to do a significant amount of color process development in the last ~30 years, having used Kodak processes. (Agfa did use their own for a while as did Konisiroku, but Fuji even had a Kodachrome work alike in the 50s). The cost of color process R&D had to be factored into a lot of Kodak film. And, there are no licencing fees for processing Fuji film in Kodak chemistry. It is only if one company makes their own version of the kit, and if there is a proprietary chemcial involved that there are fees required.

Just for an example, it took us about 2 years to formulate the first usable color blix for paper and there was no patent involved. Everyone freely sells it today. I wish I got one penny for every kit sold. Why not, I did a lot of the R&D? Well, Kodak does not even get a penny.

You are all so quick to criticize Kodak. I hope that this little post helps you understand the dilemma that Kodak is in being the 'leader'. Oh, and BTW, they are quite well aware at EK of the fact that if they change the process, they will be sued. This was a big factor in one verson of color paper in which the entire product line would have diverged into something entirely different, but which did not happen due to the lawsuits over going from P122 to EP3.

PE

 

[Matt5791]

And are either of those two companies subsidized by their governments?

Have either of them ever been accused of dumping products at reduced rates in certain countries?

Which of those companies actually has a more begnign attitude towards their employees with better pay, benefits and working environment?

Which is working hardest to clean up the environment, for example by kicking off the replacement of Cadmium and Mercury?

And most importantly, which of those companies never had to develop a color process, but rather was able to piggy back on others color process technology?

Just rhetorical questions for you to consider. No one ever does, especially the last one.

I actually submit to you that Fuji, Konishiroku, and Agfa have never had to do a significant amount of color process development in the last ~30 years, having used Kodak processes. (Agfa did use their own for a while as did Konisiroku, but Fuji even had a Kodachrome work alike in the 50s). The cost of color process R&D had to be factored into a lot of Kodak film. And, there are no licencing fees for processing Fuji film in Kodak chemistry. It is only if one company makes their own version of the kit, and if there is a proprietary chemcial involved that there are fees required.

Just for an example, it took us about 2 years to formulate the first usable color blix for paper and there was no patent involved. Everyone freely sells it today. I wish I got one penny for every kit sold. Why not, I did a lot of the R&D? Well, Kodak does not even get a penny.

You are all so quick to criticize Kodak. I hope that this little post helps you understand the dilemma that Kodak is in being the 'leader'. Oh, and BTW, they are quite well aware at EK of the fact that if they change the process, they will be sued. This was a big factor in one verson of color paper in which the entire product line would have diverged into something entirely different, but which did not happen due to the lawsuits over going from P122 to EP3.

PE

I totally agree with every word. The problem is that people don't care and wont pay more becaue of it, infact many people will assume that Kodak - being the originator of these products, should be able to charge less.

I think that Kodak is an amazing compny - just look at the technical information on their website alone, they just seem to have lost their way. Mabey I'm wrong, but this is the way it looks.

Matt

 

[markbb]

And are either of those two companies subsidized by their governments?

Kodak has been subsidised by the US Government via military contracts.

Have either of them ever been accused of dumping products at reduced rates in certain countries?

Don't know, please tell us. Were they 'accused', or were they found guilty?

Which of those companies actually has a more begnign attitude towards their employees with better pay, benefits and working environment?

The workers I know made redundant by Kodak at Harrow, London didn't think their attitude benign, watching their jobs exported to the US.

Which is working hardest to clean up the environment, for example by kicking off the replacement of Cadmium and Mercury?

Please tell us, showing how they are working 'hardest'. Complying with local laws doesn't count.

And most importantly, which of those companies never had to develop a color process, but rather was able to piggy back on others color process technology?

So you would prefer all your suppliers were monopolies?

There's no doubt that Kodak was a leading light in film technology, and others followed in their footsteps. That's not a great deal of help now, though, is it?

 

[Ole]

I actually submit to you that Fuji, Konishiroku, and Agfa have never had to do a significant amount of color process development in the last ~30 years, having used Kodak processes. (Agfa did use their own for a while as did Konisiroku, but Fuji even had a Kodachrome work alike in the 50s). The cost of color process R&D had to be factored into a lot of Kodak film. And, there are no licencing fees for processing Fuji film in Kodak chemistry. It is only if one company makes their own version of the kit, and if there is a proprietary chemcial involved that there are fees required.

Agfa spent considerable resources on developing colour technology - prior to WWII.

Interestingly one of the byproducts of that research formed the basis of what became Polaroid after the war...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak has been subsidised by the US Government via military contracts.

No, they have not been. Military contracts supplied a very tiny percentage of all income. They just sold the space imaging group to ITT due to the low income.

Don't know, please tell us. Were they 'accused', or were they found guilty?

AFAIK, both. They quit.

The workers I know made redundant by Kodak at Harrow, London didn't think their attitude benign, watching their jobs exported to the US.

Yes, I know quite a few of them myself. However, Rochester also suffered as did France and Australia. I was talking over the long haul and going back over many years when Japanese workers were paid a pittance while workers in most other countries in any industry (including the automobile industry) were well paid. I've seen the homes that Japanese workers lived in then, and have seen how they lived.

Please tell us, showing how they are working 'hardest'. Complying with local laws doesn't count.

Mark, in the 1960s, Kodak began a 'crusade' on its own initiative and before environmentalists got involved, to eliminate toxic heavy metals from all products. At that time, they developed the first cadmium and mercury free products on the market for photography. At the same time, they removed ferricyanide from all processes and introduced C41, EP3, and E6 using the much less toxic Ferric EDTA bleach. In addition, formalin was removed from alll products and formalin hardeners were removed from all processes. Unfortunately, a substitute could not be found for the stabilzer, and so that remains to this day for some products. This did not involve complying with any laws at the time. It was based mainly on the foresight of management. EK continues to this day to work for improved environment, and many of the complaints against it have been either accidental or overstated in the press.

So you would prefer all your suppliers were monopolies?

Gee, where did I say that? I said that others never had to do intensive process development work.

There's no doubt that Kodak was a leading light in film technology, and others followed in their footsteps. That's not a great deal of help now, though, is it?

This is about the only thing in your post that I agree with. But it is nevertheless true that Kodak has been tarred with a wide brush with little understanding of the real situation. Kodak did things no one else did in process development. Others took advantage of that without cost to themselves and can therefore reap benefits in lower product cost while Kodak suffers the burden created by this overhead. It has nothing to do with monopoly or anything else. It is a reality of being an innovative leader.

It is also the result of being worker oriented and trying to keep the environment as pollution free as possible. Kodak USA is one of the largest non-union companies in the US due to this attitude towards the worker. Having worked in this environment is different than looking in through the fence or hearing about it from a worker who has been laid off. (and before you comment on that, I sympathize and feel their pain, but just point out that their objectivity has been offset just a bit by their situation)

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Agfa spent considerable resources on developing colour technology - prior to WWII.

Interestingly one of the byproducts of that research formed the basis of what became Polaroid after the war...

Ole, another myth. Sorry.

Polaroid color and Agfa color technology were totally unrelated.

Agfa used fischer couplers and paraphenylene diamine color developers, but Polaroid color used azo dyes attached to hydroquinone derivatives which developed and became immobile.

Even the B&W products differed substantially.

OTOH, the Agfa color products developed during the war were quite good, and their line of products continued being an independant process and product line up until the point where they saw that they could never match the productivity made possible by the Kodak color couplers dispersed in oil drops. The fischer couplers limited coating speed and increased coating defects due to their chemical/physical properties.

At that point, they abandoned their own technology and embraced Kodak technology and processes. From that point on, they didn't do any substantial color process development work. My statement above stands.

PE

 

[markbb]

Thanks for the update, PE. I wont try and quote everything as it'll become a huge post.
I don't doubt that Kodak were huge in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but from then onward they rather lost the plot. Maybe they just go too big & senior managment forgot that they were a photography company? I can only coment on how things are *now*?

 

[Petzi]

OTOH, the Agfa color products developed during the war were quite good, and their line of products continued being an independant process and product line up until the point where they saw that they could never match the productivity made possible by the Kodak color couplers dispersed in oil drops. The fischer couplers limited coating speed and increased coating defects due to their chemical/physical properties.

At that point, they abandoned their own technology and embraced Kodak technology and processes. From that point on, they didn't do any substantial color process development work. My statement above stands.

PE

Yeah but you can't blame Agfa for that. The primary reason as far as I can tell was compatibility. It was not desired to have different processes for Agfa film, Kodak film and everyone else. Were labs to maintain different lines of development for different film brands? That would have been a desaster. That's why Agfa and Fuji and all others adopted the Kodak process. They realized that with Kodak being such a strong force in the world wide market, it would result in a big problem for them if their product could not be developed in the exact same way as Kodak products.

It would have required not only different chemicals, it would have come to the level where lab equipment manufacturers would have been required to make different machines suited for different processes resp. film types. A night mare. Imagine a lab has so many machines for Agfa and so many for Kodak, what would they have done if either had increased their market share at the cost of the other?

Any changes to the process from that point on would have been close to impossible from a commercial point of view, because of backwards compatibility. It would have required changes at every lab in the world, and it would have required the support of the major film manufacturers. Not exactly a situation where you spend a lot of effort on R&D to make a change, especially when what you have seems viable?

 

[Dave Parker]

I am curious, why oh why do these old aurguments keep getting drug up this last few days?!

Geeze..

Dave

 

[Bob F.]

I am curious, why oh why do these old aurguments keep getting drug up this last few days?!

Geeze..

Dave

The consequences of success . Mainly due to new users reading the archives I suspect - as appears to be the case here...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Curt]

Dave, it's the weather and SAD. By the way why would someone put a slide cover, the one inch square, in the center of a ground glass? It's cemented on. It is clear there also; is it to look at the back of the lens? The GG is an 8x10 and it was replaced with one of yours. Much better.

 

[photomc]

Know exactly what your are describing Curt, and that is really strange. Can not think of any reason to do that unless they used it somehow to line up the lens...strange.

Dave, it's the weather and SAD. By the way why would someone put a slide cover, the one inch square, in the center of a ground glass? It's cemented on. It is clear there also; is it to look at the back of the lens? The GG is an 8x10 and it was replaced with one of yours. Much better.