Rumor so far.... Kodak is killing off all B+W paper products.

[aldevo]

Right on Gnashings. In the past I was a 101% Kodak person. It's not the products, but the mission their on. Don't buy a freezer, and stock pile paper
which when you run out....then what ?. They stated it's a 3 year plan. Film will go bye, bye. Lets wave bye, bye NOW. Someone grab a shovel and bury the yellow whale !. Spend your money on products from a company interested in B&W, and not give it to a company that will use it to further non-silver based imaging products. Scanning negatives to print on a printer can't possibly help matters either.

Jennifer

I'm sorry but this attitude continues to amaze me.

Let's face it - any remaining silver gelatin-based photography products are on borrowed time. What possible purpose do you serve by depriving yourself of optimal results to spite a manufacturer? If you like what's in the yellow box - use it. If you don't - go elsewhere.

Hey, in the long run we'll all be dead; it's the short-term I'm worried about.

It simply amazes me that Kodak has the decency to at least give us 6 months notice that they will cease paper production voluntarily. Forte, Ilford, and AgfaPhoto - on the other hand - implode without a warning leaving us to fill our freezers in a panic because they are demonstrably incompetent when it comes to producing and pricing their products. And that act of defacating all over we the customers seems to earn them sympathy without end.

Not from me, at least.

Somehow, having gone through the trauma of Forte and AgfaPhoto (whose papers I use far more often than Kodak's) going on life-support, I like the way Kodak has treated me better. They haven't got my sympathy, exactly, but I'm not going to boycott Tri-X out of disappointment. They wont' be getting a slice of my paper budget - but, oh well, that's their choice.

Also, let's keep in mind one consideration about mission statements - they are pure BS. Kodak's come from marketing central for the benefit of stockholders. If film were a growing market (it is not and will not ever be again) Kodak would abandon digital so fast your head would spin because the profit margins are better.

Ilford spouts this feel-good David vs. Goalith junk because, well, people seem to suck it up. For all I know their facility will be pad-locked tomorrow. Fortunately, I haven't got the inclination to buy their film or paper (again, results or lack thereof) so I'm not setting myself up for probable disappointment if they go the way of the do-do.

My attitude would change if they started offering me a paper I thought gave me a decent DMAX or toned worth a damn. But if I had my druthers I'd wave the proverbial magic wand and give Polymax FB and Polycontrast IV RC a new lease on life - even if that meant Ilford never, ever sold another box of Multigrade. Why? Well, I always got better results with Polycontrast IV and I always had a hankering to try Polymax FB (though I won't now).

Results uber alles. To hell with everything else.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Thanks for the information Michael. As long as you have access to the master rolls of AZO I am not worried. As you have said there is up to 5 years worth at current consumption rate and in that time we should have a viable alternative thanks to your efforts.

As far as your efforts to secure a new source for a chloride contact paper, let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

 

[Jeffrey A. Steinberg]

I am so depressed. My investment in film cameras is 10K+ and my darkroom is similar.

I will go on. I was 100% kodak and will now switch. Two questions:

1) Is there an alternative film that even comes close to Tri-X. Tri-X is my main film and I just love it. My lack of knowledge on alternatives--after 25 years as an amateur--speaks to my dedication and previous satisfaction to Kodak. What else is there I should invest in?

2) What is the equiv. to D-76 (which I like but not love) that is from another manufacturer.

Thanks for answering thsi. I hope it wasn't a question on one of the 10 other pages in this thread. I did not read the entire thread.

 

[aldevo]

I am so depressed. My investment in film cameras is 10K+ and my darkroom is similar.

I will go on. I was 100% kodak and will now switch. Two questions:

1) Is there an alternative film that even comes close to Tri-X. Tri-X is my main film and I just love it. My lack of knowledge on alternatives--after 25 years as an amateur--speaks to my dedication and previous satisfaction to Kodak. What else is there I should invest in?

2) What is the equiv. to D-76 (which I like but not love) that is from another manufacturer.

Thanks for answering thsi. I hope it wasn't a question on one of the 10 other pages in this thread. I did not read the entire thread.

1) More Tri-X. What possible purpose do you serve by depriving yourself of a film you love? Whatever you pick as an alternative is as likely or more likely to disppear when Tri-X does.
2) Well, if you must avoid Kodak, try Ilford ID-11. It is, for all intents and purposes, identical. It's slighly harder to mix (comes in two packages), but you'll get used to it.

 

[gnashings]

People don't "suck it up", they relate to it. There is the difference. People also generally don't go where they're not wanted. Its hard to fathom the "logic" of a statement that lauds Kodak's good will for giving us notice... They do so because they can. Ilford and Agfa "implode without warning" - I hope none of us here "implode" or "explode" or come to any other unfortunate end, but I won't hold it against you if you don't inform me in advance of an event which by its very nature gives no warning of its apporach. I'm sure Kodak would not be so generous as to give us their philantropic six month warning if it was to read "well, we might go bankrupt in perhaps as little as six months...so, stock up guys!" The reason they do is because unlike Ilford or Agfa, their move comes under no duress - its their, purely financial and wholly voluntary move. Decency...
I wouldn't care much about mission statements, if they were not clearly reflected in actual moves the company makes. How exactly are they pure PR BS? Is Kodak secretly going to keep making paper, but, shhhh, no one tell the shareholders! No - they stated their mission, they are making the moves to back it up. Good for them and good riddance, too!

Peter

 

[Jeffrey A. Steinberg]

1) More Tri-X. What possible purpose do you serve by depriving yourself of a film you love? Whatever you pick as an alternative is as likely or more likely to disppear when Tri-X does.

It took me a long time to get exposure plus development right with Tri-X. It will take me a few years to get the same thing right with something else (I learn slow). So, why not start learning on something that will be around longer (hopefully).

I hope I am not being a ludite with film. I really like the film look and I joined APUG to find like minded individuals. But--don't kill me here--am I bucking the wrong trend. is it possible to get the film look digitally. Up until now, the answer for me has been "no"--either the resolution on DSLRs has not been there or the black's on printers were not as robust as my silver-based efforts. I think I need to continually look at this every few months. In the end, if I can make good images with newer methods, is that so bad?

I will still move forward with film. I am just realizing I need to be open. I always assumed Kodak would be there for me. This is an event that realy makes me think. I hope I have not offended anyone. That is not my intent. Just a blog on my thoughts.

I have been involved in film since 1980 when I got my OM-1 (I think that was the year. I graduated to medium format in 1997 and I have never looked back. Just completed my dream darkroom. I sure hope I can continue to get my hands wet in the soup for the remainder of my useful lifetime.

 

[MattCarey]

You might be right, I dont know either, but either way I am thinking Kodak's film making days are numbered.....

I skimmed their annual report. In 2004

"In 2004, we achieved overall revenue growth of 5%, fueled by a 42%
growth in revenues from our digital products. In fact, Kodak gained market
share in virtually every digital category in which we participate."

42% growth in digital revenue only equated to 5% in total revenue. Either digital is a small portion of the total revenue (I doubt) or they are losing revenue fast elsewhere.


Here is a quote highlited in the Kodak 2004 annual report:

"From robust digital revenue growth, to our ability to manage effectively the decline in our traditional film business, to fulfillment of our digital acquisitions plan, our results are evidence we are building a more diversified, leaner, stronger Kodak for the future.”

and

"The rapid growth in digital during the year impacted traditional
product sales, particularly in mature consumer markets such as the U.S.,
Europe and Japan. However, we maintained market share in these valuable
traditional businesses, and continue to see increased sales of consumer
film in emerging markets."

As long as "emerging markets" need Tri-X...well...

Matt

 

[aldevo]

I skimmed their annual report. In 2004

"In 2004, we achieved overall revenue growth of 5%, fueled by a 42%
growth in revenues from our digital products. In fact, Kodak gained market
share in virtually every digital category in which we participate."

42% growth in digital revenue only equated to 5% in total revenue. Either digital is a small portion of the total revenue (I doubt) or they are losing revenue fast elsewhere.
Matt

The latter, definitely the latter. Film revenues are declining by nearly 30% a year.

And they are not stating that digital revenue is only 5% of total revenue.

Rather, they are stating that even with a 42% growth in digital revenue, their *overall* revenue growth was only 5%.

Believe me, Kodak would have preferred it to remain a film-only world. Digital photography is a facet of consumer electronics; a market segment where margins traditionally suck.

 

[John L]

Perk up!

You can buy oil paints, acrylics, charcoal, gouache, and all sort of other supplies for art forms that became small hobbyist niche markets many decades ago. There is no reason why you won't be able to buy B&W film, chemicals and paper many decades from now.

You just won't be able to buy it from a Fortune 500 company. It'll be made by a small company, focused on small hobbyist markets and sized to be profitable in those markets. You may also pay more for the products, and have to buy them at a handful of specialist shops, from online sources, or even direct from the manufacturer. And the products may be manufactured in China, India, Eastern Europe, or whereever the costs are lower.

Is that going to be a change that takes some getting used to? Sure. But is that going to mean you can't be a B&W photographer? Absolutely not. It may not even mean you'll have a smaller selection of film and paper.

B&W photography is in the final stages of evolving from a mass market activity to a fine art. Not such a bad thing.

In the medium term, I think it would be wise to shift as much spending as possible away from Kodak and toward Ilford and other companies that are committed to B&W film. Kodak is on a mission to go digital, their new CEO Perez is a 100% digital guy (former head of Hewlett-Packard's printer biz), and whether sales of traditional film decline by -15% per year or -17% per year isn't going to change their game plan. They will be shutting down the film business, piece by piece, whether you buy the yellow boxes or not.

So use your dollars to help Ilford and the others successfully make the adjustment.

 

[jd callow]

My understanding is that film, paper and chems are kodak's profit centers and that they are using the cash generated by the trad products to fuel their money losing efforts in digital.

The idea being that the trad product are going away and digital won't always lose money.

They have little or no interest in trying to grow the trad. business because they believe there is no future in it for them. As segments of the traditional business dip below an acceptable profit bar they will drop the segment. I suspect B&W film has a bit more time than Kodachrome and that many of their medical films are not too far behind.

Colour films and papers will be the last to go.

I have 15 or 20 rolls of iso 25 kodachrome. Should I sell now or wait until they announce the final dev runs?

 

[aldevo]

People don't "suck it up", they relate to it. There is the difference. People also generally don't go where they're not wanted. Its hard to fathom the "logic" of a statement that lauds Kodak's good will for giving us notice... They do so because they can. Ilford and Agfa "implode without warning" - I hope none of us here "implode" or "explode" or come to any other unfortunate end, but I won't hold it against you if you don't inform me in advance of an event which by its very nature gives no warning of its apporach.
Peter

C'mon Peter....

Do you *really* think Agfa, Ilford, and Forte had no advance warning of their impending dire straits? They didn't forewarn of their condition because they were worried that people would turn elsewhere in a panic. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm not implying any philanthropy on Kodak's part. I couldn't give a damn what their intent is, I'm simply better disposed towards them for not leaving me in the lurch.

I really don't care what "message" Kodak sends. As long as Tri-X still beats the snot out of the competition (for my purposes, at least) I'm going to buy it. For as long as I can.

Ilford could go belly-up tomorrow for all I care. And my sentiments wouldn't change if they donated their profits (if any) to save the rain forests. I just don't like their stuff.

 

[aldevo]

My understanding is that film, paper and chems are kodak's profit centers and that they are using the cash generated by the trad products to fuel their money losing efforts in digital.

The idea being that the trad product are going away and digital won't always lose money.

They have little or no interest in trying to grow the trad. business because they believe there is no future in it for them. As segments of the traditional business dip below an acceptable profit bar they will drop the segment. I suspect B&W film has a bit more time than Kodachrome and that many of their medical films are not too far behind.

Colour films and papers will be the last to go.

I have 15 or 20 rolls of iso 25 kodachrome. Should I sell now or wait until they announce the final dev runs?

I agree with your analysis. What I disagree with is the suggestion that Ilford's future is rosier. Ilford has better than half of the world-wide B&W paper market already. Even if they extend that to 100% tomorrow - well they would still be selling less paper than they do today in three years if current market trends continue. And I think they will.

Also, Kodachorme 25 has been out of production (already) for several years. People already pay pretty good money for it.

 

[aldevo]

Perk up!

You can buy oil paints, acrylics, charcoal, gouache, and all sort of other supplies for art forms that became small hobbyist niche markets many decades ago. There is no reason why you won't be able to buy B&W film, chemicals and paper many decades from now.

You just won't be able to buy it from a Fortune 500 company. It'll be made by a small company, focused on small hobbyist markets and sized to be profitable in those markets. You may also pay more for the products, and have to buy them at a handful of specialist shops, from online sources, or even direct from the manufacturer. And the products may be manufactured in China, India, Eastern Europe, or whereever the costs are lower.

Is that going to be a change that takes some getting used to? Sure. But is that going to mean you can't be a B&W photographer? Absolutely not. It may not even mean you'll have a smaller selection of film and paper.

B&W photography is in the final stages of evolving from a mass market activity to a fine art. Not such a bad thing.


So use your dollars to help Ilford and the others successfully make the adjustment.

Trouble is, China is a command economy and present strategic planning isn't geared towards niche products. It's going to produce the lion share of digital imaging products in the future; it doesn't give a rat's ass about the small hobbyist market.

India is currently seeing wage inflation of nearly 20%.

E. Europe is the wildcard but I'm not hopeful. These countries seem destined to become Euro Zones (i.e. use the EMU). That means their cost of capital will go up.

Ilford, btw, does not have the luxury of producing its film and paper elsewhere; it has an extended lease arrangement for the plant, property, and equipment it used to own outright.

I hope you're right but I don't see how anybody can put a positive spin on the latest developments. As players drop out of the market, we can expect to pay more. I don't particularly want to be extorted by any market players - regardless of what their mission statement purports to be.

Do we really think Forte, Efke, and Foma *want* to be in B&W photography exclusively or do we simply assume so and look past the equally plausible explanation that they just lack the capital to compete effecitvely in the digital imaging growth market? These companies, after all, are using production infrastructure that in some cases is more than 50 years old.

Forte, at least, has entered the inkjet paper market in the past several years. Should we now question their commitment to B&W?

No, for me the wise course of action remains the same. Buy what appeals to me and don't try to second guess the future.

For now, at least, that means Tri-X, APX 100, Agfa Multicontrast Classic, and Forte Polygrade.

No Ilford for me, thanks.

 

[jd callow]

IWhat I disagree with is the suggestion that Ilford's future is rosier. Ilford has better than half of the world-wide B&W paper market already. Even if they extend that to 100% tomorrow - well they would still be selling less paper than they do today in three years if current market trends continue. And I think they will.

I am not making any predictions about ilford. I do think that a company can manage its self in a declining market though. I also believe that the decline in b&w will level off. Ilford has a chance to get a bigger share, use its experience and share size to produce at a profit and to use the profits in a manner which will ensure its future -- as in diversification.

 

[gnashings]

Do you *really* think Agfa, Ilford, and Forte had no advance warning of their impending dire straits? They didn't forewarn of their condition because they were worried that people would turn elsewhere in a panic. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Not for a minute - they knew, and didn't tell because it simply is not done and neither would Kodak if it was in the same situation. Their polite "warning" -as in "Here, bottom feeder, we stopped making the slop you eat, so better stock up", comes as a result of the luxury afforded by their particular situation. I am sure Ilford and AGFA new damn well they were in trouble (as did anyone who even looked at a roll of film) - but you simply don't advertise that fact to the world - no one does, not Kodak, not any other company. It is a PR move, but you have to play the role of the orchestra on the Titanic, if for no other reason than to attempt to make the eventuall crash perhaps a bit less forceful. Its just how the corporate world works, has worked and will work.

And I am not urging you to buy Ilford. If what Kodak is doing does not bother you - keep trucking with Big Yellow. It bothers me, so I won't. I think I stated clearly enogh that the only purpose this choice (yours AND mine) will serve, is your personal satisfaction - it will have no impact on the fortunes of Kodak. Fortunately, Dektol is the only thing I used to use regularly, Trix on occasion - when I wanted that type of thing. I like Ilford, and if they give me a paper developer that matches Dektol for my needs, they will get my money - if not them, someone other than Kodak will anyway. Not for the rainforest or starving orphans - much more selfishly, in fact - because of little ME. I get fuzzy all over, because they... really like me, just the way I am, film and all

Rats(kodak) off the sinking ship (film photography) and the passangers (us) are watching. Forgive me if I don't throw them (the rats) the last of my crackers.

 

[aldevo]

I am not making any predictions about ilford. I do think that a company can manage its self in a declining market though. I also believe that the decline in b&w will level off. Ilford has a chance to get a bigger share, use its experience and share size to produce at a profit and to use the profits in a manner which will ensure its future -- as in diversification.

I don't see where they have the latitude to diversify. Part of their severance from Doughty-Hanson (the London buyout firm that cut them loose) was that Doughty-Hanson retained the digital imaging product line that still carries the Ilford name. I can only imagine they have a non-compete agreement here.

By the way, the "sheer size" of Ilford equates to fewer than 400 production workers.

Surviving in a niche market means you can do small, irregularly-timed production runs to suit specific distributors. It doesn't appear that smaller players than Ilford (Forte, Sterling, etc.) with lower labor costs than Ilford have managed this successfully.

I honestly commend Ilford's management team in boldly pressing ahead. But admiration for them won't inspire me to buy their stuff because there's still stuff in the marketplace I prefer.

 

[jd callow]

Aldevo, you seem to have the answers. I suspect that there are alternatives other than those that you or i can see. As hard as it may be to believe some of the people running these companies are smart.

I don't see entering the digital market as a form of diversity. I see it as a very high risk venture. Once Ilford is making money they could buy a biscuit company.

 

[gnashings]

I don't see entering the digital market as a form of diversity. I see it as a very high risk venture. Once Ilford is making money they could buy a biscuit company.

Or pie and ladies' underwear!

 

[Paul Howell]

I wonder why Kodak didn't try and spin the paper division off to drum up some cash?

 

[Flotsam]

I wonder why Kodak didn't try and spin the paper division off to drum up some cash?

That's what I wonder. B&W Paper doesn't compete with digital and they have the machinery,patents,personel, distribution, consumers and brand recognition already in place. Seems like that would be more valuable than a write-off.

 

[juan]

Flotsam, you appear to be guilty of long-term thinking. Don't you know the accountants and executives think only quarter to quarter? A quick profit this quarter allows one to skate another couple of quarters.

 

[DKT]

alright--I've had a couple days worth of mulling and forward thinking with my coworkers--we're all in the same boat, last of a dying breed so it seems--so forgive me if this sounds nasty or ranting.

my remark earlier about the volume of material sold & used by amateurs was unfair, but it can't be ignored. I don't expect someone shooting 4x5 and developing it in a tray in their bathroom, to run out and shoot 100 sheets a week. I don't know where to go with this without torquing out. A guy I work with commented that the line of work we do, just doesn't matter. It's a drop in the bucket in the scheme of things.

alright, this talk about the 6 mos. notice. It bugs the hell out me. There was no advance notice. To say so is a total cop out. Kodak gave us a notice with the carousel projectors. The rep they had for gov't sales sent out a nice letter to everyone, thanking them for the years of patronage as customers and it had a timeline of phaseout and extended support for parts and service. Those projectors are still being serviced. They gave this notice almost a YEAR in advance.


Six months notice? You know--there are probably not many royalprints still around--but if you had one of these machines, you'd be screwed right now. You all don't give a **** about these machines, so I won't get into it, but Kodak, like Ilford--both quietly began gearing down years ago. They quit making machines and slowly phased them out. The writing was on the wall a long time ago, it's only now that the pain has begun.

Let's look at Ilford and Kodak in the commercial lab world. I'll try to do this briefly without blowing a gasket, but they had two different approaches. Kodak--very similar to the projectors. Notified customers a year or so in advance and phased out parts over a five year period. At the end of the five years, they actually gave a lab in my dept. all the spare parts left in the region. Gave them for FREE. The rep came and handed them over, and thanked them for 20 some odd years of being a customer.

Ilford? They didn't tell anyone. They changed their story about a zillion times, and they're still doing it. We had a contract with them for ten years at 2000 bucks a year, and they never even told us they quit making parts until they couldn't fix the machine. They took our money for god knows how long, with no parts. The contract ran out with almost a month left on it, and no refund for that time. They were on such bad terms apparently with Serco, that serco locked the doors to the offices they had in Ilford's building in NJ, and wouldn't let any of the remaining parts go. You can still can't hardly get parts for the machines now. Serco is gone. All the original factory trained Ilford techs are gone. Poof--no notice--nothing. No letter sent out thanking customers. Not even a form letter.

But like I said--y'all don't give a hoot about that. sounds like sour grapes or something, but I've never forgotten the lemon processor that fell apart and they practically had to be arm twisted into replacing and wouldn't honor the warranty. Then, ten years later and all that money down the drain and not even a so long. not even a phone call. you know that day they announced their bankruptcy? We actually had a service call that day from Serco. The tech was the plane in Newark and they yanked him off and delayed his visit. Serco didn't even KNOW about Ilford's bankruptcy and they were all ex-Ilford employees from the processing division. They worked in the SAME damn building in Paramus NJ.

so spare me, please. These companies are in business, it's not a damn charity. I used to think somehow it was noble or something to be in business doing a service like preservation, but that too is a business. The numbers aren't there. It doesn't matter if you order almost a half million sheets of paper. It's nothing. If some product is the best thing in the world and will last forever, it won't matter if the numbers aren't right.

so, yeah I have to stop reading this stuff and get back to my little world where we have a warehouse fulll of paper to last for several years. One guy I work with, jokingly says he's going to stockpile enough to last until he can retire and then leave it up to us to figure out what to do. I can't make it that long. I have too many years left, and it looks like it finally caught up with me. I had some naive notion that the archival world was a safe place, but that ain't the case.

So I don't blame you--the hobbyists. I'm just as guilty as anyone, becuase I use digital cameras and inkjets as well. If I was totally clean--film and paper only--then I'd have more of a soapbox to stand on.

so it goes

my opinions only as always

 

[Jim Chinn]

That's what I wonder. B&W Paper doesn't compete with digital and they have the machinery,patents,personel, distribution, consumers and brand recognition already in place. Seems like that would be more valuable than a write-off.

Every image that is produced via a film camera and traditional materials is one less that should have been made with digital means in the thinking of digital companies.

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

Re: DKT
I know of a couple schools and one of the remaining custom labs in the area here who are equally pissed about Ilford's handling of the processor business. Essentially the same rant about bailing on supply and support.
Unfortunately as anyone who's lost their "guaranteed nest-egg" pension to coroporate A*'s shell games can tell you, big business is often about the bottom line and if those who 1st got 'em to the top don't compute off they go.

 

[SteveGangi]

I'll just use whatever paper is left. If Kodak drops out, I'll use Ilford. If Ilford drops out, I'll use Fuji etc, etc, etc.