Open post to "Kodak's" APUG members

Jedidiah Smith · Oct 17, 2007

Kodak, thank you for continuing to produce top quality analog products. May there be many more years to come!
Plus-X 125
Tri-X
Tmax 100
Tmax 400
Gold 100! (a better color film than you might think given the low price)
Portra 160
Kodachrome K64
Lots of D76 and some Xtol...Dektol, fixer, photo flow, etc.
And soon C-41 and RA4 chems and Endura paper - as soon as I get the phototherm!
Jed

mmcclellan · Oct 17, 2007

I'm a devoted user of Tri-X and HC-110, along with Selenium Toner. Otherwise, I confess to not using much from Kodak as they have essentially pushed me to other suppliers over the years. But it would be a great pity for them to leave the analog business entirely.

Steve Roberts · Oct 17, 2007

Scandium said:
I'm using very few Kodak products any more.

Likewise.
I always liked the combination of Ilford B/W films printed on Kodak paper and shot slides mainly on Kodachchrome 25 or 64.
The papers are no more, likewise K25. K64 processing issues have effectively finished it for me. The upshot is that there's really nothing that Kodak make that I regularly use, so for my own purposes I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether Kodak live or die, though clearly for the sake of those who do use their remaining products I hope the former is the case.

Steve

Andy K · Oct 17, 2007

I use HIE. If that goes there isn't much that can match it.

tim_walls · Oct 17, 2007

Steve Roberts said:
Likewise.
I always liked the combination of Ilford B/W films printed on Kodak paper and shot slides mainly on Kodachchrome 25 or 64.
The papers are no more, likewise K25. K64 processing issues have effectively finished it for me. The upshot is that there's really nothing that Kodak make that I regularly use, so for my own purposes I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether Kodak live or die, though clearly for the sake of those who do use their remaining products I hope the former is the case.

The only reason I don't use more Kodak products is that I can't afford to - they're not exactly the cheap option as a general rule of thumb. I love TMax100 and 400, but the one I really wouldn't want to live without is Ektachrome E100VS...

Although, I'm still mourning the loss of EIR; canned about 2 months after I'd discovered the stuff... I now have two rolls in the freezer that I'll probably never use because nothing will ever be important enough to use one of those rolls on!

munz6869 · Oct 17, 2007

As B&W rollfilm goes, Plus X is actually quite reasonable down here - for 120 rolls it's AU$6.75 ea, compared to say AU$6.30 for thin and curly Lucky film - After losing my fave APX100, I'll keep buying Plus X 'till that goes too...

Marc!

Don Wallace · Oct 17, 2007

I use:

(in medium and large format)
Tri-X
E100 (or whatever it is called now)
160NC/VC
400 NC/VC
(I just discovered colour neg in 8x10. Yum yum. I intend to shoot as much of this as I can afford because I afraid it will be discontinued.)

I also use:

Dektol
Selectol
Selectorl Soft
Kodafix
Kodak stop bath
Kodak Hypo
HC-110
D-76

Probably other stuff as well that does not spring to mind.

Why can't Kodak have a department solely for traditionalists like us? Why can't Kodak see us as a kind of niche "prestige" market? Look at the Fender Guitar company. Most people want a regular "off the wall" guitars, but Fender has a "custom shop" that makes small runs of some pretty fine instruments. Martin does the same. Both firms not only make money doing this, but serve to maintain a very prestigious image, which does make a difference in the marketplace.

Why not, for example, bring back Kodak black and white paper, directed solely at a fine art market? I love Kodak products and it mystifies me why that company has so little interest in its own tradition, not only for the sake of tradition, but for the sake of its own prestige and image.

Kodak keeps thinking like a huge tanker in an age when many markets are more like small ships (and there are a lot of them). You can do both.

Bob Carnie · Oct 17, 2007

I completely agree with Don

Photo Engineer · Oct 17, 2007

Kodak does have such a department. David Goldfarb mentions talking to the rep at a conference.

In fact, there is an entire division at Kodak devoted exclusively to analog (film) products which reports to Mr. Perez. The sales and PR people interface with people like us.

PE

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 17, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak does have such a department. David Goldfarb mentions talking to the rep at a conference.

In fact, there is an entire division at Kodak devoted exclusively to analog (film) products which reports to Mr. Perez. The sales and PR people interface with people like us.

PE

That would be scott [dot] disabato [at] kodak [dot] com, Marketing Manager in the Professional Film Division.

Don Wallace · Oct 17, 2007

I am delighted to hear that Kodak does have an interest in this, but having said that, I still wonder what happened to Kodak paper. If they are serious about meeting the needs of analogue photographers, then how can they ignore the paper on which we print? To use my guitar analogy, this would be a little like Martin saying they still make custom necks but have stopped making soundboxes. Well, the two go together and if Kodak doesn't make both, then surely we can be forgiven for wondering about the concerns of this special department.

I love Kodak products and I am saddened that their attitude toward silver-based photography appears to be one of declining interest.

fschifano · Oct 17, 2007

munz6869 said:
As B&W rollfilm goes, Plus X is actually quite reasonable down here - for 120 rolls it's AU$6.75 ea, compared to say AU$6.30 for thin and curly Lucky film...

A $.45 difference between Lucky Pan and Plus-X makes the choice a no-brainer. A couple of years ago, a friend brought back a few bricks worth of Lucky Pan from mainland China for me. It was really cheap, $.50 US, per roll, so I figured it would be fun to play with. Compared to Plus-X, it's trash. It's grainy, has low resolving power, terrible contrast and poor anti-halation properties. The infernal curl, along the long axis no less, is the least of the problems. She's going back this year and has asked if I want more. In spite of the ridiculously low price, I've declined the offer.

Photo Engineer · Oct 17, 2007

Don Wallace said:
I am delighted to hear that Kodak does have an interest in this, but having said that, I still wonder what happened to Kodak paper. If they are serious about meeting the needs of analogue photographers, then how can they ignore the paper on which we print? To use my guitar analogy, this would be a little like Martin saying they still make custom necks but have stopped making soundboxes. Well, the two go together and if Kodak doesn't make both, then surely we can be forgiven for wondering about the concerns of this special department.

I love Kodak products and I am saddened that their attitude toward silver-based photography appears to be one of declining interest.

See my posts about paper manufacturing elsewhere. Kodak was losing serious money from that operation and was unable to continue. It seems that too many customers liked less expensive papers from other manufacturers and Kodak could no longer compete.

PE

Don Wallace · Oct 17, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
See my posts about paper manufacturing elsewhere. Kodak was losing serious money from that operation and was unable to continue. It seems that too many customers liked less expensive papers from other manufacturers and Kodak could no longer compete.

PE

We seem to be going around in circles. The argument was that Kodak is losing money so they are slowly but surely abandoning silver-based photography. I suggested, however naively, an alternate approach: a special department devoted to this particular niche market, something like that used by manufacturers of musical instruments. You said that there already is a special department. I said, ok, if so, why are they not interested in one of the most important products, i.e., paper. You said they lost money on it.

Which brings us right back to square one: even if it does have a "special department," Kodak has a declining interest in silver-based photography which makes most of us not only nervous but sad.

Andy K · Oct 17, 2007

Page 7 and no response from anyone at Kodak, which is what the OP was asking.

Joe VanCleave · Oct 17, 2007

Just as a data point, but it most likely would have taken Mr. Simon R. Galley of Ilford/Harman less than 7 pages to respond, based on his previously demonstrated dedication to the traditional photography market, had this thread been about Ilford. Which I think is what the OP, and others, were alluding to: a personal presence - think laison - between the Kodak corporation and traditional enthusiasts.

~Joe

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 17, 2007

Marketing and PR types from Kodak are likely to be at PhotoPlus Expo, which starts tomorrow, rather than browsing the internet forums at the moment.

Andy K · Oct 17, 2007

With respect David, people have been asking similar questions on many websites for several years now. Not once have I ever seen a response from anyone at Kodak. When it comes to customer relations 'little' Ilford have beaten Kodak to a pulp.

Ian Grant · Oct 17, 2007

Perhaps you could close the thread to allow Kodak to respond ?

Ian

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 17, 2007

Ian Grant said:
Perhaps you could close the thread to allow Kodak to respond ?

Ian

That's a reasonable request. Thread to reopen Oct. 21.

Open post to "Kodak's" APUG members

Jedidiah Smith

mmcclellan

Steve Roberts

Andy K

tim_walls

munz6869

Don Wallace

Bob Carnie

Photo Engineer

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Don Wallace

fschifano

Photo Engineer

Don Wallace

Andy K

Joe VanCleave

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Andy K

Ian Grant

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Open post to "Kodak's" APUG members

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency