Some Good News.... Kodak sees resurgence of film

[removed account4]

Funny but in my 'hood, "resurgence" is a bit wide of the mark since pro labs that run tight C-41/E6 lines are thinning out quickly, almost to the point of vanishing. However chipper Kodak is about film, labs aren't seeing any significant uptick in their processing business sufficient to support anything resembling a "resurgence." I'm thinking I'll be lucky to get C-41 processing for whatever film(s) KOdak still makes in the near future.

oh well ...
at least kodak is being visible in saying film isn't dead yet ...
...

 

[Q.G.]

Over here, it's not more expensive than it used to be.
But i have to wait at least a week, if out of luck two weeks, to get the film back from the lab. Used to be same day, within the hour often.

But that's about labs. If there is a resurgence, they are not going to appear at every street corner again until it has been proven that the resurgence is real, substantial, and here to stay.
So not a direct nor acurate measure (yet) for whether there is a resurgence happening now or not.

 

[CGW]

Part of the lab issue is equipment, parts and service. When N. American pro labs began wholesale ditching of processing 3-5 years ago, the market for used gear like Refrema processors tanked, so much of it either went to storage(bad)or to scrap(worse). Many labs had old processors that simply weren't worth maintaining or replacing in the face declining processing revenues. Even if there's a renaissance in film processing(unlikely), there won't be much used gear to revive or many labs willing to invest in new dip-n-dunk lines. What's next, JOBOs next to the Slurpee machines in every 7-Eleven? Sadly, I don't think Kodak, at least in N. America, is particularly well-informed about the damage sustained by processors.

 

[fotch]

Some people see a half filled glass of water as nearly empty, others see a half filled glass of water as nearly full.

Its almost hilarious to read the postings of these Drama Queens who profess the sky is falling. However, having a negative or positive outlook can be contagious.

If you think and feel positive, your more likely to have a positive outcome.

JMHO

 

[CGW]

Some people see a half filled glass of water as nearly empty, others see a half filled glass of water as nearly full.

Its almost hilarious to read the postings of these Drama Queens who profess the sky is falling. However, having a negative or positive outlook can be contagious.

If you think and feel positive, your more likely to have a positive outcome.

JMHO

There's a wide margin between being optimistic and delusional, too. Kodak plays for money, not sentimentality.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm off now to go shoot some Kodachrome. It's a rare sunny day here in the Pacific Northwest. I've got 4 rolls and 33 exposures left to go. Then my lifetime association with Kodak ends. Not by my choice. By theirs...

...or get off the pot. Kodak film is still readily available. If you don't want to use it do [due] to some pronounced melodrama - your loss. In the meantime we'll still be shooting it - along-side the other brands.

My lifetime association ends simply because Kodachrome is the last and final Kodak product that I still use. Kodak has chosen to take their company in a direction that no longer parallels my needs as a photographic consumer. And that was their right to exercise.

I am interested in neither their digital offerings, nor their transitional analog offerings. If I had been convinced by their past actions that their current analog offerings - including their updated Portra 400 color negative film - were not intended to be transitional, then my decision may have been different.

But sadly, I have not been so persuaded, as Kodak has already stated their desire to get out of the film business as soon as is practicable. And they have convincingly - at least to me - demonstrated that intent by already discontinuing the bulk of their analog products. So I am being forced to look elsewhere for my long-term analog needs.

Why this line of reasoning seemingly surprises you is a mystery to me.

Kodak is as far within their rights to unilaterally withdraw any of their products from the marketplace without consulting me as I am in deciding which, if any, of their remaining products to continue to use without consulting them.

You see 'clayne,' that's how business works. It's a symbiotic marriage of convenience, until it's no longer symbiotic for one or the other party. And your emotionalism aside, that level of acceptable symbiosis ("your loss") is not for you to decide for anyone other than yourself.

And just out of curiosity, why on earth would you continue shooting Kodachrome? At least after December 30th? Have you not heard? It's been discontinued...

:confused:

Ken

 

[michaelbsc]

Funny but in my 'hood, "resurgence" is a bit wide of the mark since pro labs that run tight C-41/E6 lines are thinning out quickly, almost to the point of vanishing. However chipper Kodak is about film, labs aren't seeing any significant uptick in their processing business sufficient to support anything resembling a "resurgence." I'm thinking I'll be lucky to get C-41 processing for whatever film(s) Kodak still makes in the near future. The VC/NC issue is--and will be--irrelevant.

A couple of months ago, before this thread started, I posted

.... I dropped into a local camera store last weekend (at least the most local camera store around, about 2 hours north from me) and the owner said he had sold more film and chemicals in the past six months than in the past two years.

Perhaps we've hit the bottom for now, and we can reach a reasonable equilibrium of stable sales.

in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Now, I'll grant that QG's concern is valid, and the point is taken. But the fact that there's ANY research going on in film is cause to bang the gong so far as I'm concerned.

 

[R gould]

I know that Jersey is a small island (just 45 sq miles), but we have two outlets for film, both with minilabs,and they are both stocking more film recently,considreably more in one case, and one tells me trhat they have sold more film,especialy blak and white, tham for a few years, and that there is a distinct increase in nthe bcolor processing, and I have certainly seem more people, both young and old, with film cameras, and a collectable and used camera dealer that I buy from recently told me that his buesiness was very healthy indeed lately, with plenty of younger people buying film cameras,so who knows,kodak could be right,Richard

 

[Erik Petersson]

No problems what so ever with processing in either Stockholm or Moscow, two cities that I often visit. Transparencies takes a couple of days, C-41 and b&w within the hour or the day if you know where to go. So I do not experience these big problems with processing that some of you are mentioning.

 

[CGW]

Erik, the point is that processing survives where film sells. That's been the problem in many parts of N. America.

 

[michaelbsc]

Erik, the point is that processing survives where film sells. That's been the problem in many parts of N. America.

At least part of the criticism leveled at Kodak is over just this point, and I think it's valid.

The two require a symbiotic relationship for both to work. And if Kodak isn't up to selling film, at least in NA that leaves many of us to go begging.

Now, from Kodak's perspective, if a million dollars of advertising expense results in a million dollars of increased margin revenue, then what's the point? That's no gain, for a pretty fair amount of risk (overbudget, etc.) in getting the advertisement together.

But, OTOH, if a million dollars of advertising expense results in 1.1 million dollars of margin revenue, and that million dollars doesn't have to be taken away from another revenue stream that could have produced 1.11 million, then it's a no brainer.

These are the kinds of discussions we will never see in public with Kodak's decisions. All of that happens behind closed doors, and we only see new printer ink and one fewer film choices.

In the end, it isn't Kodak's love or hate for film that is the decision point. It's the revenue stream.

What can we do? Get the serious digital crowd to see an advantage in film.

Well, let's see, a 135 frame is 24x36mm. A high end desk scanner can get quite a lot out of that, and a pro scanner can get even more. There's no reason to believe that the consumer scanners won't get better, too.

How much does a 20MP camera cost, that only gets captures which are no better resolution (ignoring other ease of use and quality factors) than a cardboard box and plastic disposable camera gets?

What I've been telling kids who ask me is get a fabulous 35mm body from the thieving auction site for cheap as dirt, and since almost every one of them wants color shoot C-41 in it and drop it at Wally World. Walmart sends everything out these days, so it goes to Fuji's processing center, which is certainly good enough for most. And check that you want the CD when you get it processed.

You get back your pics, 3 are keepers, 33 are snapshots, and you rescan those on your home scanner at way better resolution than you can get with any digital camera a teenager can afford. The CD from Fuji becomes the proof sheet. (Hey, let's call it a Proof CD.)

Ten years from now, if the kid really does become a super whizzbang artist and wants to rescan the image at 4 times the resolution they did on their desk top, then it's still good.

How's it working? Well, I got one kid interested and shooting film. But how many would doing nothing get us?

Michael

 

[Erik Petersson]

Erik, the point is that processing survives where film sells. That's been the problem in many parts of N. America.

Apparently this have gone further in North America than in Europe.

 

[CGW]

Michael, I'm with you emotionally but not practically. The whole analog imaging ecology is shot in many locations. Nikon is all but out of the scanner business. as are others who once made prosumer film desktop models. They're a dead-end. I'd agree, too, with the hybrid approach to 35mm but it's often impractical/impossible when cheap bigbox dev/scan/print service vanishes.I'd used this approach up until just recently here in Toronto. I've all but dropped 35mm for MF but the same constraints are obvious. It's hard to argue about a film resurgence with a pro lab that just doesn't have the traffic to break even on high-maintenance C41 and E6 lines. I do what I can to keep pushing cash across their counters but know it's not enough. Still, I keep pushing film and loaning gear to the delusional, hoping word will spread.

On that, this piece form today's NYT holds out some hope. Jacques is a very cool publication:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/fashion/03porn.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leder&st=cse

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Business is not all about making money. It's all about making the most money, regardless of any other considerations.

On that, this piece from today's NYT holds out some hope. Jacques is a very cool publication:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/fa...q=leder&st=cse

Heh, heh...

Maybe THAT will catch the eyes of the omnipotent beancounters at Kodak?

:eek:

Ken

 

[Ektagraphic]

This articles makes me feel quite happy!

 

[dehk]

I say everyone should load it up and go shoot something.

 

[Donmck]

"It almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film"(Kodak marketing)

Almost--

Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $466 million, a
21% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines.
Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $29 million, compared with
earnings of $51 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily
driven by industry-related declines in volumes and increased raw material costs, partially
offset by cost reductions across the segment.(Kodak Financial)


http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTQ3NTJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

 

[MaximusM3]

Some people see a half filled glass of water as nearly empty, others see a half filled glass of water as nearly full.

Its almost hilarious to read the postings of these Drama Queens who profess the sky is falling. However, having a negative or positive outlook can be contagious.

If you think and feel positive, your more likely to have a positive outcome.

JMHO

I feel very positive and put my money where my mouth is...ordered another $500 worth of film from B&H yesterday!

 

[dehk]

I feel very positive and put my money where my mouth is...ordered another $500 worth of film from B&H yesterday!

You the man.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I feel very positive and put my money where my mouth is...ordered another $500 worth of film from B&H yesterday!

Wow! Thanks That's awesome. What films? . Don't forget Kodak has a rebate going on...

 

[MaximusM3]

Wow! Thanks That's awesome. What films? . Don't forget Kodak has a rebate going on...

Hey Patrick..a big load of Tri-X 35mm and 120, PlusX, Portra 400NC before it goes, TMAX400 35mm and 4x5. What's up with the rebate?

 

[jp498]

Part of the pessimism is surely due to Kodak getting out of the photo paper (not inkjet) business. [jest]Surely film must be next[/jest]. I never was a huge fan of their photo paper. Used to buy Kodak and Ilford. Now I buy Ilford and Foma. No big loss. If you botch a piece of paper once in a while due to quality control, it's not the end of the world, since you just print another.

I believe their film is much better than their paper ever was. Paper was not innovative either. It's a commodity used in a very strictly controlled manner. I'm glad to see them tooting their horn about their film. They hold the keys to both retro and innovation at the same time with regard to film.

With film though, I'm moving back to Kodak for the most part. Not because of any threat or anything, but they are making some nice B&W film. I've never had any trouble at all with their Tmax films. Ever. I'm also pretty comfortable in how it exposes and processes; familiarity does count for something too. Sometimes I buy other stuff to play with, but when I know exactly how I want it to come out, Tmax will do it.

I tried some cheap foma 120 film last year and it exhibited a manufacturing defect widely discussed on here, and the grain was was more "40-grit" looking than I'd hoped. Nothing wrong with big grain, it's just not my style. I tried some Fuji Acros 100 for 120, and it was grain free and super smooth looking to a fault that it showed off lens imperfections and didn't really look analog, which was not my style either for 120 shooting.

I've used some other film for 4x5 and it was chosen because it's slow and I can use it with Caffenol-C. It looks fine, but is more apt to have pinholes or scratches than what I get with kodak TMY2 4x5. I've decided to keep some of the other around for when I need slow film or special processing, but I reordered some TMY2 and just love how it comes out with Xtol 1+1. It's sort of a timeless look with modern qualities.

For 8x10, I use Foma film. I don't shoot a ton of 8x10, but Kodak packaging 10 sheets to a package seems like trial size, with correspondingly low-volume prices. Mentally, it says, "Don't use too much", when the message should be the opposite. I'm used to buying 50 sheets of film at a time or 100 sheets of paper at a time or 5 rolls of 120 at a time, or 20 rolls of 35mm at a time. I'm not spray and pray with film, but I like to keep a good amount in stock since it's internet/mail ordered rather then retail, and I would avoid certain shooting opportunities if I only had say 3 sheets of 8x10 left.

 

[Ektagraphic]

That's awesome! Long live the Kodak. The rebate is here...http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/KProFilm20Rebate.pdf How long will it take you to use all that? lol

 

[MaximusM3]

That's awesome! Long live the Kodak. The rebate is here...http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/KProFilm20Rebate.pdf How long will it take you to use all that? lol

Thanks, Patrick! Now I may just order some more!

How long? Not long..If I blow off work, which I try to do as much as possible I sometimes go through 2-3 rolls of Tri-X per day. Consider that I ditched digital for everything so.. all the pictures I take of my crazy kids are also on film. That adds up quickly, especially with an 18 months old.

 

[clayne]

My lifetime association ends simply because Kodachrome is the last and final Kodak product that I still use. Kodak has chosen to take their company in a direction that no longer parallels my needs as a photographic consumer. And that was their right to exercise.

So you never shoot Tri-X?

Seriously, your loss.