New Layoffs at Eastman Kodak

[Xmas]

No detectable difference between Tmax and Delta and you can still get in date Delta 3200.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I meant that nobody else could produce and sell a film branded Kodak T-max because they do not have the technology even if they were to acquire the permission.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Alan,

T or tabular Grain is a form of controlled crystal growth technology, FUJI and ILFORD are technically fully capable of CCG. But as PE has said, and I have said as well, no coating machine can fully replicate another, different raw materials ( even if they are generic ) the actual coating vessels, the actual web, the drying envelope ( probably impossible to replicate )....but the REAL difference is the automated emulsion manufacturing, you dont buy these, your engineers build them, ours is different to KODAK's and FUJI's and guess what theirs are different to ours... if KODAK or FUJI set out to coat HP5+ they would get pretty damn close, and vice versa, but they would look and perform differently and have different sensitometry GUARANTEED.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Xmas]

I meant that nobody else could produce and sell a film branded Kodak T-max because they do not have the technology even if they were to acquire the permission.

You need to be holding a wake not talking up Tmax?

But what difference will you get between Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, the Tmax is faster yes, but can you get it?

The Agfapan100 you can get says new emulsion, not the same as the old one, but with blind 16x20 prints no difference, agfa failed about 2005.

 

[PKM-25]

You need to be holding a wake not talking up Tmax?

Bullshit. As long as I can get it I am using TMX and TMY and so are thousands of other photographers. TMY2 in particular is nearly un-matched and considered one of the best black and white films ever made, the only t-grained 400 ISO black and white film available in sheet film. In regards to the last point, Ilford would damn near *have* to produce Delta 400 in 4x5 and larger if Kodak products fell by the wayside, the potential profit would be too significant to pass up.

I like Delta films a lot, it would be no big deal to move to them for all formats. But there is something about TMY2 that is flat out otherworldly for it being an ISO 400 film. Kodak set out to improve it over the older version and not only did they do that....they created a spec sheet crushing monster....

I have about ten years worth of both TMX and TMY2 in 4x5, but in 120 I am moving to Ilford Delta films because they offer both speeds in that format.

 

[MDR]

X-Mas Delta and T-max aren't even remotely close they are both designer grain films but that's were the similarities end. Delta 100 has the edge in contrast and T-Max 100 has the longest tonal curve of any B/W film if I want the look of 1930's film I can use T-Max and it gives me results very close to what was the norm 80 years ago. Delta 100 is the go to film if I want a bit of oomph, little grain and more modern look. T-Max 400 is much less grainy than Delta 400 (love the grain of Delta 400) and has a very different curve. My favs in order most to least Tmax 100>Delta 400 >Delta 100>T-Max 400 and the only reason T-Max 400 is my least favourite of those four films is because it lacks grain other than that it is probably the most versatile B/W Film currently in production.

As for the price were I live Kodak is lower priced than Ilford and Fuji B/W Film.

As Simon said a mfg. can't reproduce another mfg. product 100% and if your look is in demand and the only way to get that look is to use a certain emulsion you will react emotionally and try to preserve it as long as you can.
Compare the look of Christopher Doyle's HKSC, ASC (cinematographer I know) work of the 80's and early 90's and his mid 90's to contemporary look it's different and a lot of people prefer the older look of the now discontinued Agfa Emulsion that helped Doyle get his signature look. Both photographers and cinematographers have to adapt after an emulsion is lost but it takes time and for a pro photographer it's often not possible to take that time and a small slump/pause can also result in a loss of revenue or even worse getting out of fashion and loosing jobs.

 

[Xmas]

Bullshit. As long as I can get it I am using TMX and TMY and so are thousands of other photographers. TMY2 in particular is nearly un-matched and considered one of the best black and white films ever made, the only t-grained 400 ISO black and white film available in sheet film. In regards to the last point, Ilford would damn near *have* to produce Delta 400 in 4x5 and larger if Kodak products fell by the wayside, the potential profit would be too significant to pass up.

I like Delta films a lot, it would be no big deal to move to them for all formats. But there is something about TMY2 that is flat out otherworldly for it being an ISO 400 film. Kodak set out to improve it over the older version and not only did they do that....they created a spec sheet crushing monster....

I have about ten years worth of both TMX and TMY2 in 4x5, but in 120 I am moving to Ilford Delta films because they offer both speeds in that format.

I did not say you should not use TMax and it is rare for me to use any of the Deltas, so I was not evangelical.

But Ilford might not make replacements for Kodak packaging, you would/will have to wait.

You could in the event ask for a custom coating but they have rules for their once a year run.

It could be similar to Tmax3200, Plusx, 220 mono,...

I have had to do without my favorites Kchrome25, APX400 and Fotokemia emulsions, & 220 mono. I still have half a dozen 120 APX400 left.

Id say you lucky to have a good cache.

 

[Xmas]

X-Mas Delta and T-max aren't even remotely close they are both designer grain films but that's were the similarities end. Delta 100 has the edge in contrast and T-Max 100 has the longest tonal curve of any B/W film if I want the look of 1930's film I can use T-Max and it gives me results very close to what was the norm 80 years ago. Delta 100 is the go to film if I want a bit of oomph, little grain and more modern look. T-Max 400 is much less grainy than Delta 400 (love the grain of Delta 400) and has a very different curve. My favs in order most to least Tmax 100>Delta 400 >Delta 100>T-Max 400 and the only reason T-Max 400 is my least favourite of those four films is because it lacks grain other than that it is probably the most versatile B/W Film currently in production.

As for the price were I live Kodak is lower priced than Ilford and Fuji B/W Film.

As Simon said a mfg. can't reproduce another mfg. product 100% and if your look is in demand and the only way to get that look is to use a certain emulsion you will react emotionally and try to preserve it as long as you can.
Compare the look of Christopher Doyle's HKSC, ASC (cinematographer I know) work of the 80's and early 90's and his mid 90's to contemporary look it's different and a lot of people prefer the older look of the now discontinued Agfa Emulsion that helped Doyle get his signature look. Both photographers and cinematographers have to adapt after an emulsion is lost but it takes time and for a pro photographer it's often not possible to take that time and a small slump/pause can also result in a loss of revenue or even worse getting out of fashion and loosing jobs.

I use HP5+ bulk (100 foot) Trix is >2x £! (as is Tmax400)
Id have no problem if it was the other way around Id use Trix.
If the Kodak bulk goes to best before date and is /4 cheaper I'll be first in queue. Id suggest you would not pay the premium we have.
One can question why KA have a premium on 100 foot.

http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Kodak-Tmax-400/products/193/

You would expect KA to look at relative prices?

 

[MattKing]

I am sure that Harman would be happy to quote on a request for proposal from KA for production of a replacement for Tri-X, TMax 100 and TMY-2 if and when Eastman Kodak stops making them for KA.

They are happy to do contract manufacture to specs.

And I would guess that costs would be similar.

And that there could very well be further cooperation between the businesses, given that they both have manufacturing facilities in the UK.

The replacement films wouldn't be the same, but they would surely be more similar than if KA was getting Foma to do the manufacture.

The real problem is the colour films.

 

[MattKing]

And as for the disparity in cost for bulk film - production costs (including finishing and packaging costs) depend on volume. I would venture a guess that it costs as much for that finishing and packaging as it does to make the film.

KA's price is dependent on what Eastman Kodak charges them.

So I expect that Eastman Kodak has determined that the finishing and packaging costs for bulk film require them to charge more (per "roll") than the individual rolls.

 

[Xmas]

And as for the disparity in cost for bulk film - production costs (including finishing and packaging costs) depend on volume. I would venture a guess that it costs as much for that finishing and packaging as it does to make the film.

KA's price is dependent on what Eastman Kodak charges them.

So I expect that Eastman Kodak has determined that the finishing and packaging costs for bulk film require them to charge more (per "roll") than the individual rolls.

Correct but at a 2x factor the sales volume will be well disappointing so they should have not troubled.

EK also added 15% to cine products 1st Jan 14 and have reduced sales over predictions.

They don't seem to acknowledge the marketplace.

 

[Xmas]

I am sure that Harman would be happy to quote on a request for proposal from KA for production of a replacement for Tri-X, TMax 100 and TMY-2 if and when Eastman Kodak stops making them for KA.

They are happy to do contract manufacture to specs.

And I would guess that costs would be similar.

And that there could very well be further cooperation between the businesses, given that they both have manufacturing facilities in the UK.

The replacement films wouldn't be the same, but they would surely be more similar than if KA was getting Foma to do the manufacture.

The real problem is the colour films.

The EK process is different from Ilfords so KA would need (to pay for) test runs to get close to a clone. Even if they knew the formulas and had got the IPR. Note UK Harrow (now KA) used to coat film but might need to buy the IPR.

KA are getting the sales profits cause they were a creditor they have made no investments.

Note Id not bother if I was an Ilford director, would it make more profit?

The Acros afisansdos would want an Acros clone KA won't have the formula.

Ilford already do an C41 mono film, they could do a C41 tri pack if they saw a cornered market and could justify the investments they have done colour negative in the past.

Ilford have done transparency films in the past... ditto.

Their market predictions may be different from yours.

If Acros and Kodak mono goes then Ilford will be competing in a different fish pond. The market may still be shrinking as some people may go digital rather than switch to Ilford or Foma or Adox or...

The colour fish pond more difficult to anticipate.

I've just loaded my 110 with a Lomo cartridge mono 100 ISO (made in China).

Id hope Ferranni restarts mono eventually not optimistic though- they may make a living with E6.

 

[cmacd123]

At one time Kodak made Tri-X in several places, and travelling photographers often had a preference for one plant's products. While I did not notice any major difference in the British Tri-X I occasionally got, others did....

400TX is a new design, made to be coated on the machine in Building 38. KA's Harrow plant last made TX-400. if they were to try and go it alone, they may decide to try something different again.

Note the AGFAPhoto APX400 NEW, as an example of what we may face in the upcoming decades. Not made in the original place which has now been torn down, It is not clear where it is mixed and coated, but it LOOKS to have been Finished at least at Moberly. (and No don't ask Simon to confirm as he is likely under a non-disclosure agreement. it is a different film, but has similar development requirements to the old one. at a much higher price than Kentmere or HP5+ which probably based on the couple of rolls I have played with being somewhere between the two in tonal quality, although obviously a couple of rolls is not enough to make that sort of judgement.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The EK process is different from Ilfords so KA would need (to pay for) test runs to get close to a clone. Even if they knew the formulas and had got the IPR. Note UK Harrow (now KA) used to coat film but might need to buy the IPR.

KA are getting the sales profits cause they were a creditor they have made no investments.

Note Id not bother if I was an Ilford director, would it make more profit?

The Acros afisansdos would want an Acros clone KA won't have the formula.

Ilford already do an C41 mono film, they could do a C41 tri pack if they saw a cornered market and could justify the investments they have done colour negative in the past.

Ilford have done transparency films in the past... ditto.

Their market predictions may be different from yours.

If Acros and Kodak mono goes then Ilford will be competing in a different fish pond. The market may still be shrinking as some people may go digital rather than switch to Ilford or Foma or Adox or...

The colour fish pond more difficult to anticipate.

I've just loaded my 110 with a Lomo cartridge mono 100 ISO (made in China).

Id hope Ferranni restarts mono eventually not optimistic though- they may make a living with E6.

Noel, you do realize that you are starting to inch perilously close to my own long-held opinions on many of these observations, right? Especially regarding cornered markets.

It threatens to become almost as shocking a revelation as...

EDIT: It's scary, Ken and I think alike.

Ken

 

[Xmas]

At one time Kodak made Tri-X in several places, and travelling photographers often had a preference for one plant's products. While I did not notice any major difference in the British Tri-X I occasionally got, others did....

400TX is a new design, made to be coated on the machine in Building 38. KA's Harrow plant last made TX-400. if they were to try and go it alone, they may decide to try something different again.

Note the AGFAPhoto APX400 NEW, as an example of what we may face in the upcoming decades. Not made in the original place which has now been torn down, It is not clear where it is mixed and coated, but it LOOKS to have been Finished at least at Moberly. (and No don't ask Simon to confirm as he is likely under a non-disclosure agreement. it is a different film, but has similar development requirements to the old one. at a much higher price than Kentmere or HP5+ which probably based on the couple of rolls I have played with being somewhere between the two in tonal quality, although obviously a couple of rolls is not enough to make that sort of judgement.

Yes if UK Harrow still had all the staff, machinery, and manufacturing instructions it would be back to 2004 about, and they would now also need to own the IPR.

They might only have one of the four items. The staff about 400 were let go, Im advised the building is still there.

Starting again not easy.

Your new APX cassettes have an ID code if you need provenance.

 

[Xmas]

Noel, you do realize that you are starting to inch perilously close to my own long-held opinions on many of these observations, right? Especially regarding cornered markets.

It threatens to become almost as shocking a revelation as...





Ken

Hi Ken

You can be unkind, the only think Im confident about is Kodak and Fuji don't see a niche like Impossible and Ferranni do.

& Ilford are cautious.

Note they are moving to a smaller factory footprint.

Glass plates had niche markets for nearly a century after general photography stopped using them.

For example at the same time ('35) as one of the Fleet street (hot news) people was using a ContaxII 35mm another was shooting 4x5 glass plates at a Royal Family funeral. The Hindenburg at Lakehurst similar?

The Kodak and Fuji thing may be more profound than upsetting their afisansdos, eg mini lab owners will be less confident, rats run down hawser lines rather than swimming...

 

[RattyMouse]

When I say the same, I mean the same overall aspect of the photos. Which I assume KA would try to respect. Even if the process of making film is complicated, they can make precise specs about how the film has to be done to be close to the original. All the craft and so on can always be reproduced. I assume KA could have access to the secrets of all the manufacturing aspects and have another film maker to reproduce them.
If Apple would like to change the factory in China where they make iPhones for whatever reason, they could do it. Why KA would not if they are issues with EK ?

Does Kodak Alaris own the intellectual property of Eastman Kodak's films? Do they have the right to do *whatever* they want with the formulations? IF not, then they could not do as you suggest and take their formulations and go elsewhere.

 

[RattyMouse]

Bullshit. As long as I can get it I am using TMX and TMY and so are thousands of other photographers. TMY2 in particular is nearly un-matched and considered one of the best black and white films ever made, the only t-grained 400 ISO black and white film available in sheet film. In regards to the last point, Ilford would damn near *have* to produce Delta 400 in 4x5 and larger if Kodak products fell by the wayside, the potential profit would be too significant to pass up.

I like Delta films a lot, it would be no big deal to move to them for all formats. But there is something about TMY2 that is flat out otherworldly for it being an ISO 400 film. Kodak set out to improve it over the older version and not only did they do that....they created a spec sheet crushing monster....

I have about ten years worth of both TMX and TMY2 in 4x5, but in 120 I am moving to Ilford Delta films because they offer both speeds in that format.

Wow....with a review like this, I have to break down and try a roll or two of Tmax 400.

 

[Roger Cole]

No detectable difference between Tmax and Delta and you can still get in date Delta 3200.

Nonsense. There are quite detectable differences between TMX and Delta 100, between TMY-2 and Delta 400, and between TMZ and Delta 3200.

 

[Nehalem501]

Does Kodak Alaris own the intellectual property of Eastman Kodak's films? Do they have the right to do *whatever* they want with the formulations? IF not, then they could not do as you suggest and take their formulations and go elsewhere.

I really hope they have, if not the situation might be even worse if something bad happens with EK...

 

[Roger Cole]

Bullshit. As long as I can get it I am using TMX and TMY and so are thousands of other photographers. TMY2 in particular is nearly un-matched and considered one of the best black and white films ever made, the only t-grained 400 ISO black and white film available in sheet film. In regards to the last point, Ilford would damn near *have* to produce Delta 400 in 4x5 and larger if Kodak products fell by the wayside, the potential profit would be too significant to pass up.

I like Delta films a lot, it would be no big deal to move to them for all formats. But there is something about TMY2 that is flat out otherworldly for it being an ISO 400 film. Kodak set out to improve it over the older version and not only did they do that....they created a spec sheet crushing monster....

I have about ten years worth of both TMX and TMY2 in 4x5, but in 120 I am moving to Ilford Delta films because they offer both speeds in that format.

I agree with all of this. I liked Delta 400 a lot back when they made it and I used it in 4x5. Even though I've planned to go to HP5+ when my existing supply of TMY-2 is gone, this is purely based on a) economics, and b) that the differences, while quite detectable if one looks for them or in some work, will not matter for mine. TMY-2 is much finer grained than HP5+ but I don't enlarge my 4x5 more than 4x, possibly 5x. It has way less reciprocity failure, but I rarely expose long enough to care. And so on. TMY-2 is an unmatched film, but whether it's worth the price premium in sheets is a personal decision (in rolls there really is no price premium, at least not to speak of.)

 

[Xmas]

Nonsense. There are quite detectable differences between TMX and Delta 100, between TMY-2 and Delta 400, and between TMZ and Delta 3200.

My supplier does not do TMaxP3200 any more... I have a few cassettes unused in fridge. I can still get plusx if I wanted.
If I do 8x10 of Neopan 400 and HP5+ (from 35mm) I needed to look at the file numbers on the back of the print and the file index.
With Delta 100, FP4+, APX100 & Foma 100, Doublex ditto
With Delta 400, HP5+ , Foma 400, Neopan ditto
Sometimes the difference between a 100 and 400 is not easy I have to cheat and do it from lighting
I use Rodinal and Microphen interchangeably which muddies the water a bit
I do have resolution test charts shots but don't print them.
So you can look at prints and tell which ones they are blind distinguish Ilford from Kodak etc
Kodak film must be good, the doublex is pretty good but signature very difficult to pick out
I have had nice prints from PanF but I can cheat on those from lighting sometimes
Sometimes the Foma400 grain is pronounced.
Grain is a subjective thing.

 

[Roger Cole]

Neither does anyone else. TMZ has been discontinued for some time. I have a few rolls left in the fridge and, barely, in date. The stuff does not keep well even cold.

I was already using D3200 because it's available in 120. It's an extremely good film, especially in 120, but it's different from TMZ. Since about the only time I shoot 35mm black and white anymore is in very low light I'll be going to D3200 in 35mm once my TMZ is gone.

As you say it is really hard to pick out the differences in prints if they are well matched. Enlarge enough and the grain differences do become apparent though.

 

[Xmas]

I really hope they have, if not the situation might be even worse if something bad happens with EK...

Some one asked KA by email and they were defensive they were a chapter 11 creditor not really a EK subsidiary. Think their answer on site.

But even if they have and had an intact line 4 at harrow it is back to 2004 when line 4 was last active.

The current films need the Rochester plant.

If you try elsewhere expensive prototyping exercises.

Ferranni are reengineering their last film from a 2009 interregneum so it is possible.

KA would need to want to do it, the IPR and would need investment just like Ferranni.

The want is the difficult one.

 

[Xmas]

Neither does anyone else. TMZ has been discontinued for some time. I have a few rolls left in the fridge and, barely, in date. The stuff does not keep well even cold.

I was already using D3200 because it's available in 120. It's an extremely good film, especially in 120, but it's different from TMZ. Since about the only time I shoot 35mm black and white anymore is in very low light I'll be going to D3200 in 35mm once my TMZ is gone.

As you say it is really hard to pick out the differences in prints if they are well matched. Enlarge enough and the grain differences do become apparent though.

The tmax3200 had a better shadow speed... I was told but I'll donate my cache on your advice.

My 35mm prints can be well grainy but I don't mind - that is why I use mono. But on my portfolio of 50 prints I cannot easily identify film speed or tabular and it is difficult to look up the film type. I may now print some XP2+ and include the type on back.

I need a 120 carrier for the enlarger can only contact 120 until then.