Plus-X is gone. I can't believe it!

frobozz · Dec 28, 2011

brianmquinn said:
Also to drive home my point. Note that in the link that frobozz provided
(#20 ) that there is more then one type of Plus-X listed.
KODAK PLUS-X AERECON II Film 3404
and
KODAK PLUS-X AEROGRAPHIC Film 2402

I'm not sure of the other differences, but one of the big differences between those two is the base thickness. Aerial film users love them some thin base, because then they can get much more film within the same roll diameter and weight constraints.

Oh, and one of them has been officially discontinued, though it's probably still available out there in various distributors' stocks.

Duncan

keithwms · Dec 28, 2011

frobozz said:
Aerial film users love them some thin base

True, but I'll just point out that I haven't had any issues using 5" panatomic x as 5x7" and 5x8" sheet film, despite the thinner base.

frobozz · Dec 28, 2011

I had a lot of trouble using it as 4x5, but I think that's because of the curl being in the bad direction that way, and the good direction when used your way. I need to try cutting my film the other way (cut off a 5" section, trim it down to 4" wide) to get the curl going the less disruptive direction, even though it wastes film.

Duncan

keithwms · Dec 28, 2011

Yes, the curl is definitely in your favour for 5x7 and longer. I think Jim Galli uses it for 5x12 or 5x13 or something. It was he who allayed my fears about using it as sheet film.

If it were possible to cut the aerial stuff to 220, that'd be very sweet. You could probably fit quite a few extra frames on a roll. I briefly worked on modifying an office shredder (!) to cut the 5" rolls to smaller sizes, but I just don't have enough time in my days...

Gerald C Koch · Dec 28, 2011

Photographers are blaming everyone and everything when they are responsible for the demise of Plus-X. Not enough people were buying Plus-X. Eventually Kodak will stop making all film because of lack of demand.

marcmarc · Dec 28, 2011

Wade D, Fuji Acros 100 is a great film. I've warmed up to it after trying out the re-branded Legacy Pro 100 from Freestyle when it was available. Now it's my favorite medium speed film in 120 and 135. I use Rodinal 1+100 and I really like the results I get.

Not enough people were buying Plus-X but that's true for all films I would bet. From what I've read, the trouble with Kodak is that it's so huge. It has to sell an awful lot of product just to break even. Ilford is a smaller company, Fuji has other products that are doing well, and there are even smaller companies like Adox that are trying to get new films out into the marketplace. Many people say that if Kodak had stayed committed to the film market instead of putting all their bets on being competitive in the digital realm, they might not be dying the slow death that they are. I cannot speculate on this since I'm no expert on big business, but I'm sure the shareholders of Kodak might not have liked to hear Kodak say they are putting their money into keeping their analogue film business alive and pouring more money into r&d. All I know is Ilford, to the best of my knowledge hasn't dropped any of their products while Kodak continues to do so.

Roger Cole · Dec 28, 2011

Plus-X is/was a great film, but it isn't that huge of a loss. FP4 is an even better film at box speed. I miss it, but I mainly shoot B&W in 120 where it's been gone a while anyway. Happily using FP4+ and Tri-X. If Tri-X goes away I'll go to HP5+ but while Tri-X is available I slightly prefer it to HP5+.

wblynch · Dec 29, 2011

Plus-X is my favorite black and white film. I never used Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan since I was quite young in those days and didn't appreciate B&W. So when I finally did, it was Plus-X for me.

But we needn't fear for black and white if Kodak dies. The real loss will be color. Who will make color film when Kodak and Fuji stop? Will Lucky ever be a viable alternative?

NB23 · Dec 29, 2011

I absolutely agree. But we must also agree that the term "Demand" in the film world has greatly changed and it has to be understood and reflected upon differently.

Back in the day, the Demand for film-per-photographer was something like 2-rolls-a-day where the average photographer (pro and amateurs alike) was consuming 800 films a year. Good year, bad year.

Nowadays, the same concept of Demand has to be down to something like 20 films a year. I'm certainly giving false fantasy figures but I'm sure I'm not far off.

The new reality is very hard but there was still a share to be had with Plus-X, there was still some demand for it. I am 100% sure that the TMAX100 client wasn't the Plus-X client and Kodak had some work to do to scoop the HP4 clients back home. I personally believe it's Kodak's business model that's at fault. The market is the same for all the players.

I still have a huge stash of films: Plus-X, APX100, Tri-X and my favorite, HP5!! I'm good for a few years.

Gerald C Koch said:
Photographers are blaming everyone and everything when they are responsible for the demise of Plus-X. Not enough people were buying Plus-X. Eventually Kodak will stop making all film because of lack of demand.

edge-t · Dec 29, 2011

Seems like its time to start hoarding your favorite films.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 29, 2011

NB23 said:
I personally believe it's Kodak's business model that's at fault. The market is the same for all the players.

Bingo!

All analog manufacturers have faced the same worldwide conversion to digital, not just Kodak. All analog manufacturers have faced the same worldwide reduction in demand for film, not just Kodak. This part is old news. And it was old news five years ago, in spite of the attempts of some around here to continually beat us over the head with this argument as if we were stupid and didn't notice it. Quite the never-ending one-note tune, I'm afraid...

The issue these days is no longer the drop in demand for film. Everybody realized that reality long ago. It's now all about how are the analog manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, and users dealing with that drop. Who has the will and business acumen to survive? And how are they - or aren't they - doing it?

Each time Kodak drops another product line their public refrain is the same. "Due to a continuing drop in demand for film..." Which is true. Except that it's a drop in demand for Kodak film they are referring to. Other surviving film companies are continuing to hold their own. Some are even introducing new - or resurrecting old - products lines. New films, papers, and chemistries have all been offered within the last year or two. This includes both color and b&w.

Recently Kodak shares have been trading in the 60-70 cent range. Penny stock from a company that not all that long ago was a prestigious member of the Dow Index. Their CEO was just selected in one business analyst poll as one of the top five worst CEOs of the year. He's managed to piss off everyone who thought Kodak should go digital, as well as everyone who thought they should stay analog, and everyone else in between. That's amazing.

Recently Ilford was described here by one of its managing partners as having turned a modest profit last year. And they have so far discontinued none of their mainline products. And have introduced or resurrected several others, including a new specialty 4x5 camera - which, if reports are correct, they can't keep in stock due to demand.

And the same goes for Adox with the former Agfa/AgfaPhoto product lines, including resurrected b&w papers, films and chemistries.

Like the saying goes, it's not about getting knocked down. That happens to everyone at some point. Rather, it's about getting back up. Sadly, that doesn't always happen for everyone.

And for the record, not just Ansel's, but also some of my most memorable photographs were made on Plus-X...

Ken

cmo · Dec 29, 2011

It must be a marketing trick: whenever a film is discontinued and not easily available there is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth - and prices skyrocket, especially for 120 rolls.

Of course it was a nice film, and every film that goes out of production is a loss, but Kodak did not discontinue a film that was overly successful in the last years... well, they are in a situation where they will most probably not discontinue products that help them to make some money.

As others said, FP4 is a very good alternative, but there are others, too. Tmax 400 is actually better than Plus-X, offers two extra f-stops and does not have the old Tmax look, so that's a very good alternative, too.

lxdude · Dec 29, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
Photographers are blaming everyone and everything when they are responsible for the demise of Plus-X. Not enough people were buying Plus-X.

They weren't buying enough given Kodak's production methods.

removed account4 · Dec 29, 2011

i thought 35mm/135 was still available .. and it was 120 that was discontinued.

BrianShaw · Dec 29, 2011

jnanian said:
i thought 35mm/135 was still available .. and it was 120 that was discontinued.

That just recently changed. Now all PX is discontinued.

removed account4 · Dec 29, 2011

BrianShaw said:
That just recently changed. Now all PX is discontinued.

bummer ...
at least they are still making a few ( other ) emulsions in 35mm ...
hopefully the sale of their gelatin plant will
help them scale down operations, so they can
still develop, test and sell world class film ...

Paul Howell · Dec 29, 2011

From what I've read, the trouble with Kodak is that it's so huge. It has to sell an awful lot of product just to break even. Ilford is a smaller company, Many people say that if Kodak had stayed committed to the film market instead of putting all their bets on being competitive in the digital realm, they might not be dying the slow death that they are. All I know is Ilford, to the best of my knowledge hasn't dropped any of their products while Kodak continues to do so.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that both Kodak and Fuji problems are due to scale. Their plants, like Afga and Forte, are very large, huge, they cannot afford to run small batches of film or paper. Ilford, Forma, and the other Euro film producers that remain operate on much smaller scale. As I recall, although I dont how accurate the statement is, on another chat room Fotokomika can make films runs of just 2000 rolls and still make money. Kodak's future is not with film and paper, but they have a double edged issue, digital has a very low profit margin, which is why IBM sold and HP is selling their PC operations. I dont know if Kodak can evey sell its plants.

John Shriver · Dec 29, 2011

Kodak isn't nearly as huge as it once was. Down from 70,000 employees in Rochester to 6,000. But in a city with high property taxes (nearly 3%), so underutilized property becomes a major financial burden.

Kodak has an amazing automated production line. For motion picture film production, a special-order run for all the camera negative film for one movie is feasible. (I suspect that's the status of the B&W Eastman negative films, made-to-order.) But it's probably reached the point that a year's sales of PX135 were less film than it takes for one motion picture worth of camera negative. (One roll of PX135-36 is just 3 seconds of movie film.)

As for the Plus-X Aerecon, I bought a few expired 200' rolls in 35mm, and find that it's a LOT slower than ISO 125 if you want to develop it to a normal gamma of around 0.6, and much grainier than Tri-X. Now maybe that's how those rolls have aged. But aerial film is normally processed for quite high contrast, so the speed will fall a lot when you lower the contrast.

I've never really been a Plus-X user. Never really warmed to the look. So I'm not heartbroken. Nor was I surprised.

wblynch · Dec 29, 2011

Kodak must shrink or die. It appears they prefer death.

Grainy · Dec 29, 2011

In their line up of BW films they can't shrink much more before they are gone. The only one they have left wich I like is tx 400, and then there is tmax 100 and 400 wich I don't care about. If that (or less) is what Kodak is planning to offer of bw films to their customers in the future, then I'm thinking about subscribing to a company wich has more to offer and is still innovative.

Kodak has a lot of great (discontinued) products and a lot of knowledge. I don't understand why they don't do some serious changes in their production lines to be able to produce smaller volumes of several different film types, and do it with profit. If the businessplan is to offer just 3 (or less) products and not do any innovation, then the customers will gradually disappear. Sure, Kodak has done some great work with the new Portra films, but that alone won't save Kodak.

1. Should I stock up and buy like a 1000 rolls of the discontinued Plus-X? Wich will not give Kodak a dime from me in like 10 years.
2. Should I buy fresh film regularly from other manufacturers to help them survive?
3. Should I buy fresh tmax100 regularly and use it even though I don't like it just to help Kodak survive?

Option #2 is the most likely for me, and I guess many others. Option #1 I guess is also an option for many, but that will not help Kodak and it will not help keeping film production alive in other companies.

removed account4 · Dec 29, 2011

wblynch said:
Kodak must shrink or die. It appears they prefer death.

hi bill

it seems like they are doing everything they can do to stay alive.
they still offer a large selection of film ( color and b/w ) in all sizes from 35mm - 8x10,
and larger. canham camera does special ULF orders.
shrinking, in their case means not making films that don't make a certain % profit, and they have been
doing this same thing for as long as i can remember ( i was not happy when 127 vp was discontinued )

if more people bought their film, they could keep it running, but there is no point in making products that
don't sell in a shrinking market.

mrred · Dec 30, 2011

A significant part of their problem is distributor and retail gouging. There is a retailer where I live (a 'pro' one at that) that sells a 5 pack (120) of TMY for $32 and Ektar for $35 - and blame Kodak for the price jumps even though they did that hike a year before they had a reason to. A 4 ltr pack Dektol cost me $6.50 and I went in last week to find they now only sell 1 ltr packs for $4.00. That's effectively more than doubling the price. Yet 100' supplies are within $1-$2 of the norm. It's like they don't want my business.

I would love to buy Kodak C41 chems, but cannot find a local distributer to sell them. No one wants to ship liquids with out you second mortgaging the house.

Kodaks biggest problem is they choked their one pipeline to the customers. They shipped a lot of product direct when they were everywhere. Since they closed up shop in most places, they did not establish viable distribution. That is why they are getting killed so fast.

MattKing · Dec 30, 2011

mrred said:
A significant part of their problem is distributor and retail gouging. There is a retailer where I live (a 'pro' one at that) that sells a 5 pack (120) of TMY for $32 and Ektar for $35 - and blame Kodak for the price jumps even though they did that hike a year before they had a reason to. A 4 ltr pack Dektol cost me $6.50 and I went in last week to find they now only sell 1 ltr packs for $4.00. That's effectively more than doubling the price. Yet 100' supplies are within $1-$2 of the norm. It's like they don't want my business.

I would love to buy Kodak C41 chems, but cannot find a local distributer to sell them. No one wants to ship liquids with out you second mortgaging the house.

Kodaks biggest problem is they choked their one pipeline to the customers. They shipped a lot of product direct when they were everywhere. Since they closed up shop in most places, they did not establish viable distribution. That is why they are getting killed so fast.

I totally agree with your comments about distribution. Kodak used to direct-distribute - your local camera store was your distribution source, and they could order almost everything for you.

On the chemistry issue though, have you seen this post of Mike Wilde's from (IIRC) the "Canadian Source" thread?:

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

Richard S. (rich815) · Dec 30, 2011

Actually being big gives economies of scale that make producing film cheaper ad easier to break even.

And Kodak came to the digital world too late and was betting too much on film getting too late a start towards digital cameras.

lxdude · Dec 30, 2011

rich815 said:
Actually being big gives economies of scale that make producing film cheaper ad easier to break even.

That's what Kodak thought. That only works if they can sell what they make.

Plus-X is gone. I can't believe it!

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency