Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

Tim Gray said:

As far as 220 and Tri-X. I have to say I just got my first MF camera and have no real intention of shooting either 220 OR TXP. I just went with 400TX. 220 doesn't really seem cheaper per frame for developing or film costs, so the only real advantage is not having to change rolls. And to be honest, having only 12 shots on a roll is kind of nice.

Click to expand...

Starting shooting more of that MF camera of yours and you'll see just how nice 220 can be.

220 is a better format with less hassle than 120. For the people who are switching things up mid-stream on an often basis - use a camera with swappable backs (you probably are already).

So, I really have to discount the distribution system as the problem.

Right.

SuzanneR said:

Agreed... this is certainly not the first film to be discontinued. And other companies have discontinued (or altered) products over time, not just Kodak. One thing that is consistent in analog photography... products change!!

Didn't Paul Strand complain about a particular paper being discontinued? I read that someplace, but couldn't find where.

Click to expand...

See the quote I live by!

Photo Engineer said:

Ian;

Ilford's distribution system here in the US and Canada was messed up badly and is still slowly recovering, but sales is the problem. I can get any product I want at the local stores within less than a week, but they don't stock it from either Kodak, Fuji or Ilford. They just cannot move it and don't want it on the shelf! Film, paper and chemistry are not high volume movers no matter what kind of distribution system there is.

So, I really have to discount the distribution system as the problem.

PE

Click to expand...

I'm not talking US prime market. It's a two edged sword.

Here in Turkey I can easily buy Ilford, & Foma film and a bit of Fuji, but Kodak's B&W is almost non existant, and on travels abroad (South America) wanting B&W I just couldn't get Kodak films 2 years ago, so that prompted my switch back to Ilford after 20+ years.

On returning to the UK, I found most places sold Ilford and again a it of Fuji and the odd roll of Kodak.

More recently on my last vist home one store owner with almost no stock on the shelf told me his sales of B&W were increasing but customers ordered 20-30 rolls at a time & it was ordered in specially & not kept on the shelf.

Ian

David A. Goldfarb said:

For every round of this, we've got a lot of new members who haven't heard the old songs before, and there are always a few who never quite got the tune.

Click to expand...

I find this rather patronising, at best.
As a "newbie" on the site I can only apologize that I wasn't here on day one, haven't read all of the historical threads and don't know what eveyones opinions are.

I think the site is a brilliant resource, with some incredibly talented people and a wealth of knowledge that could be shared. If the "newbies" get drowned out and afraid to post opinions that might have been said before, the active face of the site will stagnate.

For what it is worth, I couldn't give a fig for Kodaks survival - when I was shooting for press agencies and Fuji introduced Velvia with no response from Kodak, that was the moment they lost the plot and the thousands of pounds we used to spend on film and consumables. They are nothing to me now but I appreciate people do like/use their products and will be sad to see them go.

I have been interested in this discussion on a theoretical level of how to manage change from a customers point of view and how a company can survive in a changing marketplace.

It seems a pity that people with knowledge will not share that when questioned by newcomers.

I can only apologise for boring you to death with all your old arguements.

I have seen several people in here ask Kodak to give more advanced notice of discontinuation. Kodak can't win in timing. If they announced it in August, and said 6 months until stock out, people would complain when it was all sold in 3 weeks. If Kodak announces 3 weeks until stock out, people would complain about there not being advance notice. However, there is no difference in the end result. The film is gone in 3 weeks.

Photo Engineer said:

There are 38,000+ APUG members right now. One master roll of film will produce about 35,000 rolls of 35mm film (or the corresponding number of 120 or 220 film - you go figure it out, I'm tired of this! ).

Click to expand...

PE, allow me to make one subtle point about those APUG numbers:

2009/03: Messages: 663,680 | Members: 32,448
2010/02: Messages: 808,826 | Members: 38,646

Sim2 said:

I find this rather patronising, at best.
As a "newbie" on the site I can only apologize that I wasn't here on day one, haven't read all of the historical threads and don't know what eveyones opinions are.

I think the site is a brilliant resource, with some incredibly talented people and a wealth of knowledge that could be shared. If the "newbies" get drowned out and afraid to post opinions that might have been said before, the active face of the site will stagnate.

For what it is worth, I couldn't give a fig for Kodaks survival - when I was shooting for press agencies and Fuji introduced Velvia with no response from Kodak, that was the moment they lost the plot and the thousands of pounds we used to spend on film and consumables. They are nothing to me now but I appreciate people do like/use their products and will be sad to see them go.

I have been interested in this discussion on a theoretical level of how to manage change from a customers point of view and how a company can survive in a changing marketplace.

It seems a pity that people with knowledge will not share that when questioned by newcomers.

I can only apologise for boring you to death with all your old arguements.

Click to expand...

I didn't take David's post that way- it seemed to me to be making the point you are, that there are new folks around here and so things can sometimes be repeated and we should have some patience when they do.

I took David's comments to be encouragement to me to keep up the repetition as it is serving some purpose for the newbies. Thanks David.

PE

clayne said:

PE, allow me to make one subtle point about those APUG numbers:

2009/03: Messages: 663,680 | Members: 32,448
2010/02: Messages: 808,826 | Members: 38,646

Click to expand...

Clayne;

Your point is lost when you consider that most of those posts were made by the same people. Go ahead, read through a thread and see how many people are really active and how many just "lurk".

This is no indictment of anyone, just a statement about the "subtle point" you claim for your comment.

PE

What, the last 5,000 members post a lot?

Mike

SWphoto said:

I didn't take David's post that way- it seemed to me to be making the point you are, that there are new folks around here and so things can sometimes be repeated and we should have some patience when they do.

Click to expand...

Photo Engineer said:

I took David's comments to be encouragement to me to keep up the repetition as it is serving some purpose for the newbies. Thanks David.

PE

Click to expand...

Exactly. Not everyone here has long experience with traditional photography and just don't realize that some of this isn't new, and it's not necessarily a surprise.

Andrew Moxom said:

Don, I am trying the TMY-II as we speak. After looking at the times for TMAX developer, they quote iso 400/800 at the same time for 7 minutes @1:4 dilution. TXP was 7 1/4 @ box speed. So not much in it really.

I went out into the back yard and ran some tests @ 400 and
800 and will use the standard dev time in TMAX developer to see how it looks.

A.

Click to expand...

TMY-2 in Tmax Developer is beautiful. I dilute the developer 1+7 to get more manageable times and I like the tonality it gives. Try it at 1+7, 9.5 minutes, 68 degrees. Agitate first 30 seconds then 4 inversions every minute.

chriscrawfordphoto said:

TMY-2 in Tmax Developer is beautiful. I dilute the developer 1+7 to get more manageable times and I like the tonality it gives. Try it at 1+7, 9.5 minutes, 68 degrees. Agitate first 30 seconds then 4 inversions every minute.

Click to expand...

Chris,

what have you found re. the ISO for the processing you describe?

Thanks,

Rick

SWphoto said:

Chris,

what have you found re. the ISO for the processing you describe?

Thanks,

Rick

Click to expand...

I shoot it at 320. Thats close enough to 400 that I'd test it just to be sure since my meters might be different than yours.

nickrapak said:

I have seen several people in here ask Kodak to give more advanced notice of discontinuation. Kodak can't win in timing. If they announced it in August, and said 6 months until stock out, people would complain when it was all sold in 3 weeks. If Kodak announces 3 weeks until stock out, people would complain about there not being advance notice. However, there is no difference in the end result. The film is gone in 3 weeks.

Click to expand...

Kodak could say "we're going to discontinue manufacture in six months" which should hopefully give customers ample opportunity to stock up before it's all gone.

viridari said:

Kodak could say "we're going to discontinue manufacture in six months" which should hopefully give customers ample opportunity to stock up before it's all gone.

Click to expand...

In a perfect and predictable world this might work. In today's market where no business models work and sales can drop 30% in one quarter with no warning after some increases, it makes management a bit confused sometimes.

PE

I.like Photo Engineer.promised myself not to comment on this but I feel that I have to.GET OVER IT !!!!.I was always was under the impression that the majority of the members that belong to APUG are reasonably experienced professionals that know their craft and can adapt to almost any circumstance that comes along.

I can tell by reading the posts to this thread that some prefer to wring their hands and cry woe is me every time a film or paper or any analog product is changed, modified or discontinued.The fact is that the manufacturer doesn't always provide sufficent notice when a product is going to be discontinued.We should all be grateful for the films,papers and chemicals that we do have.


I also believe that we should continue to provide feedback and encouragement to the remaining manufacturers to continue to do R&D and bring products to market that will benefit the majority of analog photo users as well as be financially viable to the manufacturer.

Just my two cents worth.Thank you for listening.

Doug

A new product example is MCC110 and MCP310. I used to buy mostly Ilford paper, but also some of the others brands.

I'm plowing all of B&W paper money into these two products and not dilute it between several companies.

Mike

There are a few possibilities for 220 b&w film which I can think of. Fuji still makes color print film and color slide film in 220 size. This means that it has a film base with the correct thickness for 220 as well as the equipment to package it. Fuji could offer ACROS and Neopan 400 in 220 in some kind of limited quantity and I think there would be a market for it. Another possibility is that Ilford could work together with Fuji. Either Fuji would make the film and package some as Fuji and some as Ilford or Ilford could coat the film and ship it to Fuji for packaging with some being sold under each name. If Ilford has the abilty to coat smaller volumes of film and can source or make the thinner base then this is a possibility. The last thing I can think of is something mentioned in a photo.net posting. The 220 film could be sold in kit form. The film itself would be sold in the correct width and length and would be packed rolled up in a foil packet. The leader and trailer paper could also be sold in rolled up form with self adhesive strips with a peel-off wax paper cover. A small plastic jig could be devised to make lining up the adhesive with the ends of the film easier to do in the dark. An empty spool would also be needed. The exact thickness of the leader and trailer paper is not as critical as it would be for 120 because it does not sit behind the film after the film is loaded. Dedicated b&w film users who develop and print their own film and who sometimes bulk load 35mm stock should not have any problem putting the parts together from a 220 kit. Some money could be saved by not having a name or frame numbers flashed onto the film.

The questions of how Kodak does business are less interesting to me but there is a certain mindset in the press concerning film. Recently Kodak announced its 4th Quarter 2009 results. In one article I read, the author criticized Kodak for continuing to make film but conceded that Kodak's cost cutting enabled it to more than offset lower film sales volumes. The result was that a substantial part of Kodak's profits for the Quarter came from film and film related products. If Kodak ceased making and selling all film and film related products tomorrow, it would be out of business by the end of the week. Whether Kodak will ever be able to make the transition to a filmless company so that it can stay in business with only non-film products renains to be seem. It doesn't seem likely. It is in Kodak's interest to prolong its involvement with film for as long as possible. There is little if anything for Kodak to gain by antagonizing the very customers who are keeping the company in business. The argument that Kodak is only looking out for its shareholders by treating its film customers the way it does seems like a weak one. Was Toyota looking out for its shareholders when it used defective brake parts? Was General Motors looking out for its shareholders when it went bankrupt, rendering its stock worthless?

There was some discussion of an Ilford/Fuji partnership for B&W film in 220 a few years ago, and as I understand it, Fuji wasn't interested, or couldn't do it in a way that would be profitable to Harman.

The idea of spooling 220 with hand labor in a country where labor isn't as expensive as it is in North America, Japan, or Western Europe could be interesting. Film packs were hand assembled, and they seem much more complicated than 220.

David A. Goldfarb said:

The idea of spooling 220 with hand labor in a country where labor isn't as expensive as it is in North America, Japan, or Western Europe could be interesting. Film packs were hand assembled, and they seem much more complicated than 220.

Click to expand...

Is a machine to spool 220 extremely expensive?

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.

Ektagraphic said:

Is a machine to spool 220 extremely expensive?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is apparently a very complex and huge piece of equipment. Ilford's was evidently old and too expensive to repair or replace given the small market for 220. I believe that some of the APUG members who went on one of the Ilford factory tours saw the machine and reported that it was obvious why they couldn't just build another one.

I have to wonder whether more 220 Black and White would be sold if it was available in other films.

Tri-X 400 would seem to be a natural.

Could Plus-X 220 increase Plus-X sales?

Would Tri-X 400 in 220 or Tri-X 320 in 220 be appropriate for special runs like those special cuttings for ULF?

Is the 220 machine at Kodak (afaik the last one extant) even capable of continuing to finish the Portra emulsions?

Matt