I admit to being somewhat mystified at the complaints directed at Kodak for their decision to discontinue certain films that are not selling enough to justify continuing production. Kodak is in business to make a profit, and the Board of Directors has to answer to the owners of the company-and some of us on APUG are probably owners of Kodak stock. If "our" company fails to make a profit, then the owners have a perfect right-indeed, a duty-to complain to the BOD and the CEO to do everything in their power to make a profit. Thus, stop production of film that is not making a profit, but is adding to costs. If a certain coating maching can only be used for film "TRI", and TRI isn't selling enough rolls in a given size to cover the costs of making TRI, then the company MUST stop making TRI or suffer the consequences. Those of us who are using the film that has been discontinued are unhappy, and rightly so. After all, our standard methods over the years have been honed using films that we have become familiar with. Nevertheless, to expect Kodak to make a product that they are losing money producing is simply unrealistic. Gosh....by the same logic, Ford should still be making the Edsel because some consumers enjoyed driving Edsels...
Obviously, except for PE and some others who are very knowledgeable about the process and art of making film for mass markets, most of us have no idea of the costs and difficulties involved with producing any particular film at Kodak. We have no owners to answer to, and if we decide to buy Ilford film instead of Kodak film...well, that is the choice that we have made. If the Kodak film is no longer available because of the choices many have made...regretable, but completely understandable.
