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

[photobackpacker]

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.

Jim, I think their concern is more fundamental than that. Before they get to that sophistication level, they need to have attained a secure standing in their chosen industry.

Think about the change they are trying to make. Kodak grew up in a high-markup, recurring demand, process manufacturing environment. The film and paper processing was a cash-cow and their challenge was to keep their brand in front of customers. It was a marketing driven, process manufacturing firm with incredible brand loyalty.

They are now in a consumer electronics industry where the life of an innovative new product is measured in months and where the business requires continual innovation in order to make a single sale. The manufacturing is different, the competition is cutthroat, the margins stink initially and then get worse, consumer loyalty is non-existent and stockholder nervousness is at an all time high.

Browse this article. My guess is Kodak was caught by surprise by this trend.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Digital-camera-boom-could-be-a-thing-of-the-past-295.shtml

They needed to cut losses far more quickly than anticipated and my guess is they are probably in trouble already.

Kodak is a photochemical R&D and supply company - not an electronics technology company. Their brand name carries little weight, and in fact may be a liability in the consumer electronics industry. In your opinion, who are the top ten consumer electronics/computer technology companies. I'll betcha Kodak isn't on your list. That is the problem Kodak faces.

Stopping production of Black and White paper smacks of a desperation move. They became the #1 digital photography company by cutting prices and profits - not through innovation. They are on the back side of the power curve - having to put more and more energy and money out for less and less profit - just to stay where they are. Shrink the market, miss on a product introduction, rattle stockholder confidence - any one of these will spell disaster. If they do everything right - the will be known as a "me too" market-following has been.

It's sad.

 

[rjr]

Laser,

"If you want an example in the photographic business look at photographic chemical specialty prices. Their specialty items that were once made by large manufacturers are priced far higher than they were when there was competition for these items."

If Agfa and Kodak would ever bail out of film production, the smaller producers would have to face some serious problems. They´d loose either the maker of -for example- sensitizing dyes or a large portion of the public commercial market for these materials, resulting in much higher prices or facing a "no availability" situation. We´d may have to live with orthochromatic emulsions, for example. Or low speed emulsions.

Agfa and Bayer are still highly interconnected and Kodak provides some items to smaller producers that no one else is willing to sell to them.

"The next crisis for fiber-based BW paper will be the supply of baryta-coated paper support. There are very few manufacturers."

There is in fact pretty much only one independent out there - Felix Schoeller of Osnabrueck, Germany, those who closed their Pulaski NY based factory a few weeks ago (and the writing was on the wall at that date!).

You can find some statistics on their output on the companies website, it´s quite a lot. I don´t have the URL at hand, but I provided it at APUG at least one time in the past.

Blaughn,

"Don't forget - they will be cutting all of the people loose as well. There is a sudden glut of people who understand photographic emulsions."

I don´t think many of the people maintaining the production in Brazil knew any details - if they did, it´s not about making a emulsion, but how to run the damn machine. Those who know about it, will go back to Rochester and all of them have signed a non-disclosure agreement. They won´t talk about it.

 

[DKT]

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.
.

yep....one of the techs told me almost all their customers were like us. I was surprised actually how few they had in the US. I understand why they might want to ditch that end of the business, but I can't see how they had a better market as far as volume goes anyplace else. Nobody forced them to keep selling those machines. For every one they sold new, they were just extending the length of time they would have to legally support them. I know they were selling 2150s at the end of last summer, and didn't even hardly have the parts for them. It must have been like a fire sale or something, only they don't tell the customers there are no spare parts. It's like buying a new car and being told you can never get any tires for it. What kind of deal is that? Gee thanks, love the paper. My new 2150 needs a roller, but it makes a great table for these trays.

we were offered one by a dealer. I was like "are you nuts?", but anyone who has never had to deal with them, thinks they're this great company because of the paper. We bought a parts machine from this dealer, to keep ours running, and he tried to sell us this new one for $4500, which is a great deal. My boss just laughed at him and said---"why would I want to buy one of those new? I would need two or three of them to keep it running".

Then--here's the really sad part. Okay, I know a lab who wanted to buy a 2150 last year. They called Ilford for almost two weeks and they wouldn't answer the phone, or return any of the messages. They go to the largest dealer in the state--and tried to get them to do it. They get nowhere. For a month they try to get this machine, to no effect. So, they say "what's wrong with these people? They don't want our business, so forget it, we'll find someone else". So, like a month or two later, we get offered this 2150 from the dealer. I pass this info along to the other lab, and they said flat out, forget it. No way.

there's no rhyme or reason to any of this. It's like they really didn't want the business. I don't know who else they were selling paper to, or why they even bothered to sell those machines. It would have been worth it to just salvage the parts off them, or just leave them in a warehouse forever.

This is primarily the reason why we used kodak. because when we called them for tech support, they always helped. when we sent them emails, they got right back and used tracking systems. Ilford--you send them an email and disappears into some void. Kodak treated the other lab great with their processors, while we were trying to figure out a way to get our money back from Ilford, because there didn't seem to be any other choice.

Then Kodak--well, they were so into the whole gov't purchasing thing, that the places that bid on the contracts weren't even like consumer stores. Just these big warehouses and that's all they did--sold the materials at super low rates. Even the dealers couldn't compete, it was below wholesale. Dirt cheap. They remember this still---purchasing. To them no more Kodak paper, means no more black and white paper. The last time we ordered paper was about a year ago--and Kodak was 40 dollars a box lower than Ilford. We tried to get some ilford and they couldn't guarantee delivery of the order, so that nixed it. It took less than three days to get the kodak in though. We had waited three and a half months the year earlier, for an order of multigrade.

so--you know, great paper (ilford), but they had this service & supply problem. It was like who cares how good the paper is, if you can't get it? I can only hope they do a better job the second time around.


my opinions only

 

[srs5694]

PS. Even if you use Seagull papers, dont you need chemicals and film?

Processing chemicals aren't a problem -- you can mix them yourself. (There's even a "chemistry recipes" section of this forum to discuss just that.) In theory, some of the more exotic constituent chemicals used in developers might disappear if the market for them shrinks enough, but I've seen developer formulas that don't involve such exotica. (Do a Web search on "caffeinol film," for instance -- the "film" is there just to eliminate unrelated hits.) Also, I'm foggy on the details, but at least some of the specialty photographic chemicals (phenidone, metol, p-aminophenol hydrochloride, etc.) seem to be closely related to chemicals that are much more commonly used in hair dyes and other products. Thus, I expect that some of these will remain available, or at least be things that home-darkroom people could make themselves from other substances. If you're concerned, you could stockpile these items. I've heard of decades-old phenidone working just fine, and it's used in such small quantities that a few grams will be all you'll need for a lifetime, so even without stockpiling, a single normal-sized order may be all you'll ever need.

Film might be another issue, though. That's the item that'll be most important to stockpile if it starts looking like film will become flat-out unavailable in the future. At the moment, I'm not convinced that'll happen for at least a decade, and probably much longer. Fewer choices and higher prices, yes, but complete unavailability? Call me skeptical of the claim that the sky is falling.

 

[srs5694]

1) Is there an alternative film that even comes close to Tri-X.

Try a few and judge for yourself.

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

As somebody else pointed out, Ilford ID-11 is often considered a close equivalent. Some smaller manufacturers and house brands are also available. For instance, Freestyle sells one called "Arista 76" that I believe is a close equivalent. (Freestyle's Arista line is basically repackaged stuff from other companies. I don't know who makes their "Arista 76" developer, though.) I've also seen claims that Sprint Standard is a D76 variant that ships as a liquid concentrate, but I don't know how closely equivalent it is in practice -- this could just be marketing-speak to get people comfortable with the idea of using the stuff.

Another possibility is to mix it yourself. The original D76 formula is well known, and there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of minor (and major) tweaks to it available on the Web and in books. Of course, this won't help keep an Ilford or Fuji or Agfa or Foma or whoever in business, but it does have some advantages for you, like lower cost, the ability to mix up as much or as little as you need, and the ability to tweak the formula as you see fit.

 

[thedarkroomstudios]

D-76:
Nacco makes a liquid (and also as 1G powder) concentrate they claim is the same as D-76 as well (aptly named Nacco Super 76). It was a while ago when I tried it here and it seemed the shelf-life or working solution was extremely short.
Nacco Sensidol can't make up its mind if it wants to be Microdol or HC-110

(Who knows, Nacco's probably made by the same folks who make Freestyle's )

 

[derevaun]

A bit tangential here, but Nacco Super 76 is phenidone based and is more like Microphen in terms of look and dev times. But there is TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary:

http://www.photoformulary.com/Deskt...tabindex=2&categoryid=31&selection=0&langId=0

...which "duplicates the working characteristics of Kodak D-76 precisely." I haven't used it, but I'm fairly confident PF will produce chemistry to replace (and improve upon) popular soups from Kodak in particular and major products in general. And in any case their more creative stuff is more attractive to me. Same goes for film: I'm comfortable with the idea that someday I'll be so settled on a process that I depend on a single film for my total happiness, but for now I'm having a good time getting to know new films and combinations.

 

[gnashings]

so it goes

Ah, any man quoting my favorite author can't be all bad

Well, I think you raise an excellent point - to many of us, this is a hobby, and we don't know a single factory rep from Ilford or Kodak, etc. Fact is, Ilford has fallen on hard times, and I am sure the nature of theindustry was not the only factor invovled - it just sounds like the paper & chem & film part of it was theonly part that could be slaveged, and perhaps was worth saving, as fromthe sounds of it, they alienated their professional customers long ago.
And the unfortunate part is, there are jobs and libelyhoods affected by what hobbyists like me only see as a sad inconvenience.
And I have no doubt that Ilford execs want a bottom line and a bonus as badly as anyother suit in any other company - I am NOT under the impression
that Ilford is being charitable, I have no misconceptions as to the fact that if they could tell us they were givena papal decree to be God's suppliers of photo equipment, they WOULD make that claim and count the money. But, for whatever reason, they are not misguided enough to not know where their bread was buttered, and likely will be down the road.
I just don't like to feel like the doggy bag that someone asked for at a restaurant out of politeness for the staff, and conveniently jettisoned as soon as possible. Perhaps its reality that I am having this adverse reaction to, but its my reality, and I don't like what Kodak is saying about it.

Then again I, too, am ranting...

Peter.

 

[fhovie]

TRI X is unique - I will shoot it in LF till I cant get it. TMAX 400 is also a winner - my handheld favorite for MF - I would hate to loose these emulsions. HP5 is on my shelf and occasionally I use it but it is not my first choice - the grain is mushy to me. I am not sure what the replacement emulsion would be. Other than HP5 and Delta ... I have no use for APX400 - I don't know if that will be around either. I am just not trying J&C Classic but not the 400 yet. Materials are changing and I guess we need to be innovative to get the look we want with different materials.

 

[aldevo]

A bit tangential here, but Nacco Super 76 is phenidone based and is more like Microphen in terms of look and dev times. But there is TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary:

http://www.photoformulary.com/Deskt...tabindex=2&categoryid=31&selection=0&langId=0

...which "duplicates the working characteristics of Kodak D-76 precisely." I haven't used it, but I'm fairly confident PF will produce chemistry to replace (and improve upon) popular soups from Kodak in particular and major products in general. And in any case their more creative stuff is more attractive to me. Same goes for film: I'm comfortable with the idea that someday I'll be so settled on a process that I depend on a single film for my total happiness, but for now I'm having a good time getting to know new films and combinations.

Not sure if people have already discussed it, but it's pretty easy to mix D-76 yourself. In fact, there is a derivative known as D-76H that omits the Hydroquinone and D-23 is an even simpler formula that gives results very close to (in my mind indistinguisable from) D-76.

These really aren't much more trouble than buying D-76 or ID-11 yourself and you will likely save a little bit of money.

And you may well be welcoming the cost savings, since as players drop from the film and paper market we can expect both to get considerably more expensive.

 

[aldevo]

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.

You're making a good point but I don't see entry into the consumables (paper, inks) market supporting digital photography as a higher risk venture than, say, trying to hold your position in a market that is showing year over year declines in sales of 20% or more. There's no sign of that trend leveling off. Yet.

Yes, there probably are alternatives. Good ideas are easy to come by but the money to finance them is harder to find.

 

[aldevo]

Jim, I think their concern is more fundamental than that. Before they get to that sophistication level, they need to have attained a secure standing in their chosen industry.

Think about the change they are trying to make. Kodak grew up in a high-markup, recurring demand, process manufacturing environment. The film and paper processing was a cash-cow and their challenge was to keep their brand in front of customers. It was a marketing driven, process manufacturing firm with incredible brand loyalty.

They are now in a consumer electronics industry where the life of an innovative new product is measured in months and where the business requires continual innovation in order to make a single sale. The manufacturing is different, the competition is cutthroat, the margins stink initially and then get worse, consumer loyalty is non-existent and stockholder nervousness is at an all time high.

Browse this article. My guess is Kodak was caught by surprise by this trend.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Digital-camera-boom-could-be-a-thing-of-the-past-295.shtml

They needed to cut losses far more quickly than anticipated and my guess is they are probably in trouble already.

Kodak is a photochemical R&D and supply company - not an electronics technology company. Their brand name carries little weight, and in fact may be a liability in the consumer electronics industry. In your opinion, who are the top ten consumer electronics/computer technology companies. I'll betcha Kodak isn't on your list. That is the problem Kodak faces.

Stopping production of Black and White paper smacks of a desperation move. They became the #1 digital photography company by cutting prices and profits - not through innovation. They are on the back side of the power curve - having to put more and more energy and money out for less and less profit - just to stay where they are. Shrink the market, miss on a product introduction, rattle stockholder confidence - any one of these will spell disaster. If they do everything right - the will be known as a "me too" market-following has been.

It's sad.

I agree with your anlaysis.

But Kodak has really been in trouble with investors since about 1999. Kodak did much of the ground-breaking R&D in digital in the 80's and early 90's - then hesitated bringing it to market.

As I've been trying to point out - there are really two things that the entities that lend companies money tend to look at: profitability and cash flow.

People have a good notion of profitability (though many believe seem stuck on their belief that merely making any money on a product is good enough reason to produce it). They don't have a good notion of cash flow because they don't realize that depreciation of plant, property, and equipment gets added back here. So Kodak could be losing money on a film/paper line and be financially bound to keep producing the stuff because it happens to be getting a healthy stream of cash on its statements from depreciation. Once that depreciation slows, then you get rid of the product line and you take a write-off (you get money towards cash flow).

This is an awfully hard thing to do. Ideally, you time your exit from the market when depreciation is still healthy but you aren't losing your shirt from an operation profitability standpoint.

But the market doesn't always (even usually) cooperate. And if you've got a cash flow issue, you may have to take write-offs earlier than expected.

I think that's what happened here and B&W paper operations were an easy target - if an unfortunate one for us.

There's been talk of taking some large U.S. corporations (e.g. Maytag) private lately. I wish Kodak could spin-off it's traditional analog photo operations, but that's unlikely as the digital side of the house still needs the cashflow to grow.

It's sad.

 

[aldevo]

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.

Ask yourself who wants to enter this shrinking market and of those who do, who has the money to do so? And personnel? Who wants to employ Americans or Europeans? We're too damn expensive and the entire world knows that.

Not even Lucky Films of the PRC is untouched by the delcine in analog photography. They have stated that they will be investing, increasingly, in digital in the future.

By and large there aren't any patents in effect (17 years in the USA) any more in this market sector. There isn't much in the way of innovation going here anymore, just tweaks here and there. How much are those worth?

Besides, sometimes you *have* to take write-offs because you need the cash short-term.

The asking price (always balanced against what a company like Kodak can keep pumping in from the depreciating operations) is going to have to get much lower before this can become a reality. I wouldn't give up hope, but this is probably not likely for some time if at all.

 

[DKT]

Well, I think you raise an excellent point - to many of us, this is a hobby, and we don't know a single factory rep from Ilford or Kodak, etc. Fact is, Ilford has fallen on hard times, and I am sure the nature of theindustry was not the only factor invovled - it just sounds like the paper & chem & film part of it was theonly part that could be slaveged, and perhaps was worth saving, as fromthe sounds of it, they alienated their professional customers long ago.
And the unfortunate part is, there are jobs and libelyhoods affected by what hobbyists like me only see as a sad inconvenience.

well that's just it. It's not Kodak or Ilford's fault really. People like me--and well, there about 6 people like me at work--we're at a crossroads. I can't put it in words, but it depresses me. I'm a photographer, it's what I have always done for a living, and I'll be able to use whatever materials or media I have to for the job. I have no problem with digital, I use it now and see benefits actually to it. Like I run E6 at work, and I hate it. If I never have to run another control strip plot again, I'll be in heaven. I felt that way when I had to color print. I hated it. B/W was differnt.

I'm not all gooey romantic about seeing the print come up in the tray and all that. I've been doing this since I was a kid, and working in labs before I even had a driver's license. The thing I hate about digital--is that I don't have to *think* about what I do with film or paper. It's almost effortless at times, and sometimes it's a boring routine even. But I can do it, and never tire of it.

I've worked in darkrooms so long--as a photographer, not a lab guy. This is important, because the jobs I have had, have all required me to shoot and then do everything else. Our museum and archives labs, are similar to old newspaper labs in this regard--that was the profession I started in, and saw lot of people forced out of when papers began to go digital almost 20 yrs ago.

So--see--I have seen this coming. It's taken many years though, to finally get to the little sanctuary I found myself in. I never planned to work as a museum photographer. It just happened, and now after 13 yrs I find myself in a position of uncertainty and anxiety over the future. Much like those backshop typographers at the paper I worked for, who all lost their jobs. Some moved into other positions, but most were laid off.

So--it's tough. I'm not complaining, I have somewhat the luxury of time compared to others. At work---we can control our destiny so to speak, but what it will take will be for us to bite the bullet,, and admit that we'll have to lower our personal standards a bit to adjust.

It's the loss of craft that's killing me, I hate to say it because I know it sounds trite. Kodak's news just sparked it all off. A guy I work with hasn't slept hardly a wink sine that news came out. I'm telling you--we take the news in a different way. It's the feeling of gloom, that everything we learned in college, and have made a living at, is now about to end.

 

[Flotsam]

It will be interesting to see where the market, both the consumers and the suppliers, eventually stabilize. I was at Pearl Paint yesterday and it seems that users of virtually every creative medium are being adequately supplied and the store was busy mid-day and mid-week. I wouldn't even want to go there on a weekend.

There will always be people who believe "If you want a picture, use a digital camera, If you want a photograph, use an analog camera." Just look at all the snobby, elitists that turn up on this site

 

[gnashings]

I have heard several professional photographers make comments to the effect that in order to stay competitive, you have to go digital. The simple amount of effort and time that they save calls for it. Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!
Therefore, as a proffesional wedding photographer, do I invest in a decent DSLR and a copy of Photoshop, buy a printer or find a place that has a good one, or do I buy film, pay someone to process it (most of these guys don't have the time to do their own darkroom stuff, or its not their forte), wait for the negs, study the proof sheets, send them back to a custom lab, etc etc, and so on and so forth? How long does it take for that crappy digi-gizmo to pay itself off? And the fact that you can have the results back to the bride before the initial euphoria wears off, and she realizes that there actually is NO way to make her look like the cover of Brides Monthly or whatever fantasy she managed to cram her portly frame into for the duration of the period of suspended reality she calls a wedding?
Bite the bullet, buy digital and count the money. Not to mention press photogs with their deadlines and logistical problems (especially foreign correspondace type stuff, I assume).
And if they still like film, if they still, after all that time, get that huge kick from seeing that image come up in a tray... well, they join our ranks here at APUG - namely those who try as they might, will never sustain an industry that is used to being in the big leagues.
The only bright side is, that as Flotsam pointed out very astutely, we will sustain an industry - just not the one that is currently out there. It will be a more costly, luxury and leaisure oriented industry akin to those who make brushes and paints, etc.
The only other hope is this - if we all spin it right, traditional photography will become the Evian (ever spelled that one backwards?) water of picture taking. It will be cool, or fashionable to have a "silver print" of your wedding. It will become something to be seen with - like a handbuilt car, or a cedar yacht. I just don't know if then the cure won't worse than the disease...

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I have heard several professional photographers make comments to the effect that in order to stay competitive, you have to go digital. The simple amount of effort and time that they save calls for it. Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!

Couple of points here. First, badmouthing another professional's work will not impress anyone - OK to take out one of your prints, show it to people and invite them to compare it with work by someone else that you don't think much of, not good to express yourself in the terms you have chosen.
Point 2 - there are people in this world (particularly analog photo fanatics) who will apply rigid technical standards to prints (must have an area of maximum black, must have an area of almost paper-base white). These criteria can be virtually meaningless to the public at large, who may find this kind of print too harsh and a technically "wrong" print (gray-to-gray) better. The achievable tone scale with digital b+w is virtually the same as with silver-based prints - in my personal case, I have not developed digital b+w printing skills to the degree where I can do the same as in the darkroom in terms of dodging and burning, so the darkroom has an edge - the public really don't care. Shots such as "Twilight, Minnis Bay" in my APUG gallery I take (on film) with the intention of making a fiber-based darkroom print, in the vast majority of cases I end up printing digitally (and selling). For wedding photography, speed of proofing is a strong argument in favour of digital, you are unlikely to want the archival qualities and ability to print very big which film could give you.

PS: Don't want to labor the point, but overweight and not outstandingly attractive people looking for a fantasy experience on their wedding day are your CUSTOMERS! Given your evident attitude to people of this kind, are you sure you want to be a wedding photographer at all?

 

[Rlibersky]

My wife is always telling me to not talk about my work with a customer. I seem to be my worse critic.

 

[DKT]

I Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!.

I think you're missing the point here--these prints you describe them as being included in a "thank you" note--are most likely not meant to be a finer-art masterpiece. 99.9% of them will wind up being stored promptly in the vertical file.

As for wedding photography--like any other profession there are all different levels. I would not criticize so quickly--without the benefit of standing in their shoes. I don't consider myself a wedding photographer, but like many other working photographers, I've done my share. Yeah--I've shot them in b/w as well.

When it comes to printing--it's no different than other commercial work. You can elevate it to a "fine art" level--but to make it as a living you need to prioritize the prints. The first round of proofs will be straight prints. If a lab does them--this often means a machine print. Even if you make them by hand with a machine, or by trays--you cannot proof dozens of rolls of film and have each frame be a masterpiece. You will never get them done, never make any money, and in the end, nobody cares because it's a proof. It will not be a great looking b/w print. The final prints will be. That is all that matters. Nobody cares about the quality of the proof. That's the point of the proof--to help with the edit. If a client can read a contact shet with the skill of the photographer--the proof print would never get made. If they knew how to read a negative, then the contact wouldn't even have to made.

So--forgive for sounding like a hardass, but complaining about a flat proof print, or a print put in a thank you note, is a little out of touch. I also agree with the others about tonality. One of my jobs before scanners, was to "print for reproduction"--this meant I had to print a certain way to be able to compress the tones in the print so they wouldn't get lost through the halftone screens. It's a full range print, but flat almost.

Nobody cares about that, when they look at a print on the wall or their refrigerator door. They only care about what speaks to them--and if they're the client and they're happy with your work, that's all that matters. To stand around and bitch about someone else's work is easy--to please your clients is another story, and in the end, nobody cares about what anyone else thinks. you please your client--you get paid. you get more jobs, life goes on.

 

[juan]

The folks in my camera club have recently become fascinated with monochrome, as they call it. Of course they mean digital - desaturating a color image and printing it on an inkjet printer. Their prints have lighter and darker shades of gray - no blacks and no whites. I guess they really are shooting monochrome. They say my Azo prints are too dark. It's all a matter of taste, I guess.

 

[stormbytes]

WTF?!? AZO is being discontinued!??!?! I thought Michael Smith...

Here's the release I was sent:

Kodak Announces Discontinuance of KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black & White Papers

June 15, 2005 Due to the significant declines in market usage of papers
designed for Black-and-White printing, Kodak is discontinuing the
manufacture of all KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black & White Papers.

This announcement has no impact on the production or availability of
Kodak's portfolio of Black & White Films and Chemicals for processing
Black and White Papers or Films.

Most of the Black & White Paper products will remain available through the
end of 2005 - although depending on demand, some specific formats or
products may be exhausted sooner. The paper products affected are:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

Digital Black & White Paper RC base -For Digital Exposure -Traditional

B & W Process,

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

POLYCONTRAST IV RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL V-PRINT Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure -
Traditional B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

KODABROME II RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PANALURE Select RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

POLYMAX Fine Art Paper Fiber base - For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

AZO Paper Fiber base - For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PORTRA Black & White Paper RC base -For Optical and Digital Exposure

RA- 4 Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PORTRA Sepia Paper RC base -For Optical and Digital Exposure

RA- 4 Process

THERE MUST be some mistake!

Michael & Paula KEPT Azo around! Why's it included in this list?? I spoke to M.Smith this morning, before coming across this article, in fact I've got a couple of boxes of Azo on their way! Michael would've said something..

I think this needs clarification

 

[lee]

dear SharpFocus,

Have you been under a rock? Smith has told us there is enough Azo now to last for about 5 years. He is presently working with someone to make a new version of Azo. Please check this thread early on toward the beginings.

lee\c

 

[Jim Chinn]

THERE MUST be some mistake!

Michael & Paula KEPT Azo around! Why's it included in this list?? I spoke to M.Smith this morning, before coming across this article, in fact I've got a couple of boxes of Azo on their way! Michael would've said something..

I think this needs clarification

Kodak produced the last of its AZO a few years ago. What remains (approx 5 year supply) is on master rolls at Kodak. Kodak has an agreement to provide AZO from the maste rolls to Michael and Paula for resale.

At one time it was thought Kodak would do another run of AZO at their Brazil facility. So technically Kodak is correct that there will be no more AZO produced. What remains is considered remaining stock that can only be obtained via Michael and Paula.

 

[stormbytes]

Living "under a rock"

dear SharpFocus,

Have you been under a rock? Smith has told us there is enough Azo now to last for about 5 years. He is presently working with someone to make a new version of Azo. Please check this thread early on toward the beginings.

lee\c

Well now that you mention it...

I do live in a basement apartment in Brooklyn - Technically speaking I think that would qualify as "living under a rock" -

But back to the Azo issue...

I know/heard that Kodak has a 5 year supply and that it would be available through Michael/Paula. I thought that "5 year supply" was measure of continuity rather then a "final countdown". As for making another run, I think that now would probably be as good a time as any to push Kodak for that second run - Brazil or wherever they make it. You got to hit the anvil while its hot. Once things cool down & the shock of all the discontinued product is absorbed/muffled, we'd all be hard-pressed to get Kodak to roll its presses onces again.

As for the "new manufacturer" Michael was looking into, I can only say this:

Better one bird in the bag then two in the sky.

Daniel

 

[Jorge]

LOL..Daniel bubba, you have got to get out of that basement more often, the Brasil plant is shut down....no more papire my friend......your only hope is that MAS comes through...or learn to use another paper...