Rochester news about Kodak

[Photo Engineer]

Fabrizio;

Kodak had smaller machines, but as I posted earlier, they were dismantled several years ago. They don't have the money to build new small machines. So, they are stuck with an earlier decision to produce high volume, high quality film and now they cannot easily back up to low volume.

And, as volume goes down, and maintaining Kodak's quality, then the price goes up. Many here already complain about their prices and will use other films instead.

That is the problem.

PE

 

[Colin Corneau]

Whatever Kodak does, however it does it...what's abundantly clear is they are in dire need of help in public relations. They are woefully ham-fisted in how they are representing themselves not only to the photographic community but the public at large.
I agree completely about the head-slapping, baffling situation of not advertising their film offerings (which quality-wise are the best in existence) -- regardless of how niche the market is, you have to spend a dollar to make ten.

But the larger issue is appearing callous, remote, uncaring...compare and contrast the Ilford situation re: PR with Kodak. The former just announced a big price hike, but was communicative and forthcoming...the latter is deafening silence and not much else.

Bizarre.

 

[alanrockwood]

...Ferrania produces colour film...

Does Ferrania still manufacture film?

I believe the US manufacturing plant has closed. Perhaps the plant in Italy is still operating. However, I read somewhere that the film making operation was not profitable as was basically being propped up by the Italian government for prestige and/or political reasons.

Perhaps more interesting is China. Some Kodak film was manufactured in China a few years ago. Do those machines still exist?

A final note or two about coating machines. It is my understanding that when Agfa went belly up a few years ago the coating machines were destroyed, which is probably an indication of the value of high volume coating machines on the secondary market. What happened to the machines that Forte used when they quit the film business?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Coating machines are indeed more valuable as scrap than the products they produce, but many of them have survived the scrap heap. China makes some B&W films, but Kodak no longer has any film production there. AFAIK, the Chinese do not produce any color films.

PE

 

[alanrockwood]

I found a website that lists color film as a product of Lucky in China. I don't know much about it.

http://www.luckyfilm.com/html/product/mastersite/en/cf/index.html

 

[mrred]

I found a website that lists color film as a product of Lucky in China. I don't know much about it.

http://www.luckyfilm.com/html/product/mastersite/en/cf/index.html

I use Lucky (BW) and I like the emulsion. It does suffer from a bad base, as in ringlets of curl in 35. The 120 base is only slightly better. The 120 paper has poor taping and frequently ends up with a roll of used film with nothing left to hold it togeather. All that said, it's a fun cheap film to play with.

The colour is only available in 35mm. Because I know they make the SHD, they have the physical means to make 120. They don't, so I assume they probably don't make it themselves. I could be easily wrong. It could be that they use what ever factory Kodak left behind, and they might have only made 35mm there.

The BW emulsion does not resemble anything I have seen fron Kodak. I think it is safe to asume there is no formula sharing going on here.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I found a website that lists color film as a product of Lucky in China. I don't know much about it.

http://www.luckyfilm.com/html/product/mastersite/en/cf/index.html

Kodak supplied materials and coating expertise to produce color films in the 90s using formulas from an earlier period. IDK how much of the film was made there and how much was made in the US and shipped to China. That ended. From that point, Lucky or whatever company three, could make their own. IDK how much they make or what quality it has from personal experience, but reports here say that the color film is grainier and less sharp than other similar films on the market.

PE

 

[JayGannon]

PE: I dont know if you would have any knowledge or experience in it but how much of Kodaks film business has been motion picture stocks vs stills stocks? Either historically or currently?

 

[Ray Rogers]

A Kodak Assisted Outcome??

Kodak supplied materials and coating expertise to produce color films in the 90s using formulas from an earlier period... reports here say that the color film is grainier and less sharp than other similar films on the market.

PE

duh!

 

[nickrapak]

PE: I dont know if you would have any knowledge or experience in it but how much of Kodaks film business has been motion picture stocks vs stills stocks? Either historically or currently?

I remember reading at one point that 90% of all film coated by Kodak was Eastman Color Print film, the film used for release prints to theaters. That's not even including the camera original and intermediate films.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Very true, and I understood your point at the time. Fear not: probably a lot of other people did too.

I think you're right. But to me, that's water under the bridge. When Kodak expanded, the future looked bright and expansion seemed a good economic choice. It is fair to say that a lot of businesses have been blindsided by change.

When it became clear that film was starting a major decline in sales, Ilford chose to restructure, get smaller and concentrate on black and white film. While Kodak chose to use the cash from film operations to try to turn into a digital company. Ilford's parent has a division that sells printer paper, by way, so it isn't film only either. Again, water under the bridge. Both were legitimate strategies. I prefer one but understand the other.

I still maintain that there's too much panic in threads like this. We'll go crazy if we post about every negative prediction from every obscure stock tout or committed digital evangelist or negative nellie. I've been reading about the imminent death of film for five years now, and it's still here. I don't know about anybody else, but I bought some film from Kodak and Ilford this week, not to stick in a freezer, but to use. I'm shooting some of the new Portra 400 this weekend, and I can't wait to see the results.

-Laura

Thank you Laura.
Unfortunately I don't have thick skin, so I appreciate your words.

Besides, you and others have made some good points.
--------------------------------------------------------
I've always felt Kodak was a like Big Brother, in the good sense of the term.

They were a big company
that made products in quantities small enough
for the bright-eyed little boy and girl to perform magic in their makeshift darkrooms...

They were an active dream weaver...
and all the while their bread and butter actually came from
mom and pop vacation snapshooters and the movie industry.

(Yes that's speculation-what do you think?)

 

[Ray Rogers]

BTW, whatever did you mean by "the mistakes in you glossry"?

PE

I meant that the mistakes in your glossary (= word list, dictionary etc.)
(published on Emulsion 101 under your name)
were rather obvious.

Is it possible they are simply cut and pasted from your book draft?
If so, maybe they are cut and paste errors.

 

[André E.C.]

Only PE can defend or victimize Kodak, lol, hey, they got what they wanted, drop out of the film market smoothly and if possible victims of something...
Perez got what he deserved and wished for years, Kodak is a victim of Kodak policy, nothing else.
The only ones needed are the ones commited to film, those who aren't, goodbye and good luck.

Support Ilford!

 

[Rudeofus]

No, the chemical companies that make kits are NOT equipped to coat film or paper. There is absolutely no crossover in either production facilities or coating.

What I wanted to say is this: there are companies independent of Kodak and Fuji which can create highly sophisticated photo chemicals - I doubt they could do this without advanced understanding of color film chemistry. And these companies can deal with low volumes properly. At the same time there are companies which can coat film in low volumes while turning out a profit. If these two skills can be combined and the relevant patents expire, I see no reason why a company couldn't pick up the slack after Kodak drops the ball on film.

If you look at the Kodak-Lucky partnership: that's exactly what we don't need. The aim of this was to mass produce cheap film for the Chinese consumer market which wasn't expected to be able to afford digital cameras. They were proven wrong and the deal collapsed. A decent film camera may cost 1/10 of a dSLR, but it's still more expensive that the camera which comes with your cell phone. Cheap consumer film isn't going anywhere IMHO.

What I would like instead would be a small but decent menu of good color films which have nice and well known characteristics. Give me a few films which behave like Portra, E100G, E100VS, Provia 400X, throw in a Velvia lookalike for the folks who like it and be done with it. Make the menu complete with some specialties like a usable ISO1600 color negative film and create yearly specials which follow trends in taste. Charge 20-30€ per roll/box of 5 sheets if you must, make it like a choice between a bottle of good red wine and a roll of film. Film shouldn't be something companies should be ashamed of (guess why Kodak doesn't advertise film! ).

 

[Alan Johnson]

Fabrizio;

Kodak had smaller machines, but as I posted earlier, they were dismantled several years ago. They don't have the money to build new small machines. So, they are stuck with an earlier decision to produce high volume, high quality film and now they cannot easily back up to low volume.

And, as volume goes down, and maintaining Kodak's quality, then the price goes up. Many here already complain about their prices and will use other films instead.

That is the problem.


PE

Fotokemika in Croatia (Efke, Adox) has smaller machines that are said to be economic at lower levels of production.

 

[Athiril]

Only PE can defend or victimize Kodak, lol, hey, they got what they wanted, drop out of the film market smoothly and if possible victims of something...
Perez got what he deserved and wished for years, Kodak is a victim of Kodak policy, nothing else.
The only ones needed are the ones commited to film, those who aren't, goodbye and good luck.

Support Ilford!

Ilford don't make Tri-X or various colour products.

 

[JayGannon]

I remember reading at one point that 90% of all film coated by Kodak was Eastman Color Print film, the film used for release prints to theaters. That's not even including the camera original and intermediate films.

Yeah I would have thought the figures were something like that.
Thanks. I can see the volumes of release print sales plummeting for sure, but I would say the other markets are relatively stable.

Speaking about motion picture stocks here btw not stills stocks. In my experience the volume of people shooting on 35mm and 16mm stocks hasn't changed a huge amount but apart from some people like the Cohen brothers once its shot its then scanned to DPX and is cut and released digitally.

But I think the motion picture print stocks may be the key to keeping a small volume spin off alive, because the demand for them is very much still there.

 

[eclarke]

People think of a coating machine in terms of a kitchen implement. Ron explained the size complexity and startup procedure for Kodak's equipment..you can't make a yard of Kodak quality film or a sheet of kodak quality paper.
I guarantee that everybody at Kodak wants to make as many analog products as possible. The first generation of young adults who grew up on digital photography will be having their own kids who'll never know analog photography existed......film will just be forgotten. If nobody wants to buy the product it doesn't matter what Kodak wants to do.

All of you armchair economists have forgotten taxes which are higher in NYS than just about anywhere in the US, and here in Monroe county they are just about higher than anywhere in NYS. So, Kodak bears a HUGE burden in taxes and in fact, this was the reason that they were literally forced to demolish buildings that could have been renovated and rented out as office, lab or manufacturing space. It was less expensive to turn those buildings into grassy areas.

As for the earlier comment about one sheet being as easy to coat as a mile, this is a very poor argument. The methods used to coat single sheets increase labor costs and defects. In fact, as you go from 1 mile to 1/2 mile, the costs are the same using the same equipment, but the idle time increases burden as the plant and machine must be kept tempered even when idle. So there are two ends to this train of scaling, the low end which is impossible on a production scale and the high end which is near impossible as you scale it back due to hidden costs.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I meant that the mistakes in your glossary (= word list, dictionary etc.)
(published on Emulsion 101 under your name)
were rather obvious.

Is it possible they are simply cut and pasted from your book draft?
If so, maybe they are cut and paste errors.

Ray;

I have no idea what this is about. That post is on another web site entirely. I suggest you continue this over there.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fotokemika in Croatia (Efke, Adox) has smaller machines that are said to be economic at lower levels of production.

Alan;

Many products require more than one layer. Color film requires up to 14 layers. The machines at Efke for example, only apply one or at most two layers in one pass and therefore would require 7 passes to 14 passes through a machine for one color film. In addition, they coat at about 100 ft / min. To get a real feeling for this, their production of color would be at about 1/7th that rate for a 2 station coater and with a huge defect rate due to the method of coating and the constant rewinds. The film would therefore be very very expensive to produce in sufficient quantity.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Only PE can defend or victimize Kodak, lol, hey, they got what they wanted, drop out of the film market smoothly and if possible victims of something...
Perez got what he deserved and wished for years, Kodak is a victim of Kodak policy, nothing else.
The only ones needed are the ones commited to film, those who aren't, goodbye and good luck.

Support Ilford!

Anyone can criticize Kodak. Even I do that! But, I have to remind you that I have had a peek behind the Silver Curtain so to speak and know a bit more about what is going on there than the average individual posting here. Thats all.

PE

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I will truly be bummed when TriX is gone

Along with other Kodak film.

Jeff

 

[Ray Rogers]

Alan;

Many products require more than one layer...To get a real feeling for this... production of color would be at about 1/7th that rate for a 2 station coater and with a huge defect rate due to the method of coating and the constant rewinds. The film would therefore be very very expensive to produce in sufficient quantity.

PE

Maybe they could learn to roll and unroll with fewer defects... ?

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

May be Kodachrome discontinued because of repair of machinery cost ? I dont know they were new machines or old . In magazine world , National Geographic was the major kodachrome user and I read at their blog that they switched to soy bean based inks not because of cost but they are easier to manage on old machines. With a less precise calibrations , these inks were successful to produce good results.
May be Kodak will produce film at the beginning of need of major parts change or renovation.


Umut

 

[removed account4]

maybe they should concentrate on 1 thing instead of spreading themselves so thin ..
other analog manufacturers are doing that, and seem to be doing OK ...