Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

[Tom Kershaw]

I think PE has explained before why Kodak may not want to post on public forums directly.

Tom

 

[Tim Gray]

Tim, Frank, TMZ isn't discontinued. Also, 2-stop pull after 2 years expiration? Are you storing it on top of the furnace? I just deved some 2004 TMZ, notably increased base fog but perfectly usable negatives. Oh yeah, it was airport scanned 10+ times too. Great film.

I know it's not discontinued yet.

As far as the pull - it's only ISO ~1000 naturally. So not much of a pull at all. I should say I got the stuff on ebay for $2/roll about 5 months after its expiration date (1/2007 I think), so who knows what kind of life it lived before I got it. I used it at 1600-3200 up until last summer, when I started to downrate it and use fresher film for my low light shooting.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can understand the argument that the demand for 220 may be too small to maintain the supply of leaders and trailers, but I'm not so convinced of the impossibility of doing it with hand labor and a bench mounting jig, again recalling that film packs, which were much more complex than 220, were assembled by hand in the dark. Efke, which has long been known as an employer of blind workers, is hand spooling 127, and they've found a solution for 620, and those must be much smaller markets than there would be for 220. Maybe not for Ilford, Fuji or Kodak, but for Efke, this could be an opportunity to find a solution.

http://www.fotoimpex.de/Home/films/e-127/body_e-127.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can understand the argument that the demand for 220 may be too small to maintain the supply of leaders and trailers, but I'm not so convinced of the impossibility of doing it with hand labor and a bench mounting jig, again recalling that film packs, which were much more complex than 220, were assembled by hand in the dark. Efke, which has long been known as an employer of blind workers, is hand spooling 127, and they've found a solution for 620, and those must be much smaller markets than there would be for 220. Maybe not for Ilford, Fuji or Kodak, but for Efke, this could be an opportunity to find a solution.

http://www.fotoimpex.de/Home/films/e-127/body_e-127.html

David, if I recall correctly, there have been a number of complaints about other companies 120 and 220 films with edge fog, loose spooling and other such items, and this goes along with what Simon has said.

It is nearly impossible to do this work with the quality expected of Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. In addition, the two paper assembly package needed for 220 is much more difficult to handle.

Also, going back to the film packs, assembly of the sheets and interleaving was partially automated. And, IIRC, Kodak does employ blind workers in some dark areas but no deaf workers. Deafness is a serious safety hazard in a dark area.

PE

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

When a company is in the Stock market it looses any medium (long ?... what's that !) term action or reflection and is just a stockholder's hostage. Pressure is already high when market/economy is good. I can't imagine the pressure and panic in a down economy and shrinking market. You cannot blame Kodak for all of this. Maybe blame Wall Street...
Unfortunately for Kodak they couldn't do : "Think by Kodak and produced in China". Again the market would have liked it, I don't think Kodak employees would have...
Film is almost dead. As soon as the movie industry will stop using film we can say goodbye to Kodak and else and it's coming very fast.

Better to enjoy everyday we can buy and shoot film while we can. And if someone wants to shout and blame something, he should blame the computer he is typing on, and internet which allows him to be read everywhere in this planet. The digital revolution is a revolution. Kodak is not the only one to be victim and shouldn't be bashed like that. Press industry as we know it until today : paper is in great danger. So many jobs, specialties have disapeared or will very soon. Is it Kodak's fault ?

Order the remaining TX320 and shoot.

G.

 

[Chazzy]

I can understand the argument that the demand for 220 may be too small to maintain the supply of leaders and trailers, but I'm not so convinced of the impossibility of doing it with hand labor and a bench mounting jig, again recalling that film packs, which were much more complex than 220, were assembled by hand in the dark. Efke, which has long been known as an employer of blind workers, is hand spooling 127, and they've found a solution for 620, and those must be much smaller markets than there would be for 220. Maybe not for Ilford, Fuji or Kodak, but for Efke, this could be an opportunity to find a solution.

http://www.fotoimpex.de/Home/films/e-127/body_e-127.html

I can only hope that Efke will give it a try. If they can deal with the small markets for 127 and 620, maybe they can deal with 220 too. Dealing with small markets is something which Kodak seems incapable of doing, and that will be the death of its film operations as the market continues to decline.

 

[DLawson]

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

It certainly helps me. I know it is tiring saying the same things you've said before. (Been there. Done that. Got the tattoo.) But Your posts, and those of others with the industry knowledge, put this in context.

 

[Ektagraphic]

That is really interesting that Efke hires the blind. That must be great for them. A job that they can do with confidence.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

As a side story. There is a blind restaurant in Paris. You are guided in a pitch black room and seated. You are left with your other sensations. When food comes you need to feel for the forks and knifes... As a darkroom guy I was fine. The friend I was with just freaked out big time !

 

[mooseontheloose]

As a side story. There is a blind restaurant in Paris. You are guided in a pitch black room and seated. You are left with your other sensations. When food comes you need to feel for the forks and knifes... As a darkroom guy I was fine. The friend I was with just freaked out big time !

Guillaume -- when I lived in France I had always wanted to go there whenever I made it to Paris, but felt awkward going by myself...never thought of the advantage I would have as a darkroom regular!

As for the deletions...I understand why people are upset, but I don't think I can complain as I have never wanted to use 220 film (I don't have the reels for it, most of my MF cameras can't take it), and never tried Tri-X 320. I use a lot of film, have tried many different kinds, but never saw the need to try this version...I doubt I'm alone in that. I don't like to see films disappear, but as long as there are a few emulsions of different speeds to choose from (from any manufacturer), I'll be happy enough.

 

[mikebarger]

Very rational response Rachelle

Mike

 

[lxdude]

As a side story. There is a blind restaurant in Paris. You are guided in a pitch black room and seated. You are left with your other sensations. When food comes you need to feel for the forks and knifes... As a darkroom guy I was fine. The friend I was with just freaked out big time !

I guess they didn't worry so much about presentation!
I do hope they have the lights on in the kitchen.


My family used to have a restaurant. Out behind it in a separate building was an unused walk-in refrigerator about 10 feet square. I would sometimes go in there and close the door just to experience the utter lack of light and sound. I enjoyed it, but some of my friends would just about freak!

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Noise and touch are your last things to grab there !

 

[Our Fathers' America]

Order the remaining TX320 and shoot...

I'm sorry to see TXP go. Over the past year, this film (and my last few dozen rolls of Kodachrome) have been faithful companions while retracing a motorcycle trip my father took between the 1939 New York World's Fair and San Francisco's Golden Gate International Exposition. While the Tri-X of 1939 is clearly different from the TXP of today, their common lineage is remarkable.

220 is my format of choice, as I can carry twice as much Tri-X in my 1932 Harley-Davidson's tiny saddlebags. Also, it's a drag to use up 600 ml of developer on just one 120 roll when you can process double the exposures in the same tank.

Thank you, Kodak, for over seven decades of Kodachrome and Tri-X: the media of a million memories.

-John J. Newkirk, Author
The Old Man and the Harley: A Last Ride Through Our Fathers' America

 

[2F/2F]

220 is my format of choice, as I can carry twice as much Tri-X in my 1932 Harley-Davidson's tiny saddlebags. Also, it's a drag to use up 600 ml of developer on just one 120 roll when you can process double the exposures in the same tank.

I thoroughly agree with you.

However, here are two tricks for developing four rolls of 120 in a 1 L tank, or two rolls of 120 in a 500 mL tank:

1. Roll two 120 rolls back to back on each reel.

2. Roll two 120 rolls end to end on 220 reels.

 

[Peter de Groot]

I am now over a year busy with analogue photography. Every time when I hear something like this I get the urge to stock up on a film. However I have never used it before. Why start now? I use tri-x 400 135 for school. It is fine to me. I have used Ilford for 120 format. That was fine as well. So I am resisting the urge. Wich is made easier because of lack of money and instead enjoy the films that are still plenty out there. I don't like though that my choices are getting limited every year....but he that's life I guess. And life sometime sucks big time.

 

[fotch]

I am now over a year busy with analogue photography. Every time when I hear something like this I get the urge to stock up on a film. However I have never used it before. Why start now? I use tri-x 400 135 for school. It is fine to me. I have used Ilford for 120 format. That was fine as well. So I am resisting the urge. Wich is made easier because of lack of money and instead enjoy the films that are still plenty out there. I don't like though that my choices are getting limited every year....but he that's life I guess. And life sometime sucks big time.

Your right. Its not the end of the world.

 

[lxdude]

I know. It just feels like it.

 

[Matt5791]

I hate to say it, but I'm really not sure how much Kodak inventory will be left in 5 years time. Dare I say it - will there be any B&W film at all?

It is a masive boost to Ilford though. I know the discontinuance of B&W papers was a huge bonus for them - complete discontinuance of Kodak films would be even more significant, i would imagine.

I really wonder if there is room for Kodak - there are number of smaller manufacturers all stealing market share with good value products (Foma, Efke, Rollei, Adox). It must be very tough and I'm not really suprised at the situation.

 

[Curt]

Freestyle ran out of the film.

Currently Out of Stock - Call for Availability

I've retired my 220 inserts so it's a loss but I'm moving on. Maybe it's Kodaks way of taking attention off of Kodachrome.

Now to buy that extra freezer, pick one 120 roll film and one sheet film, then buy a bulk lot and replenish it from time to time. At my age I have to be realistic as to the length of time I'll be photographing. Estimate 15 to 20 years as a maximum. That's 73 to 78 years old.

It's not as easy for younger people to play the game. It's purely speculation with regard to how long products will be available. If there is one thing that is for sure it's that there will be changes.

I never thought I'd be starting the Carbon Transfer photography process. I make an in camera negative and can print on a variety of papers. It takes the pain out the paper chase for enlarging.

I can control whether film will be available in the future by buying it now and freezing it. After that I'll be making glass plates or printing from my huge back log of negatives not printed. Even though I have not always had a darkroom I never gave up exposing and developing negatives. A good suggestion for the younger people. Keep exposing and developing negatives.

When I'm 80, if I make it there, I will ask my son if he wants the negatives, if he does I'll give them to him if not then I'll destroy them. He will receive all of my prints and will be free to do what he wants with them.

He gets the family negatives and prints my mother gave me and I will not destroy any of them.


Curt

 

[fotch]

Its been my experience and observation that the lesser brands gave less quality and a lower price. This will always attract certain users, and not those who want and need quality products, and willing to pay for them.

I think Kodak and Ilford may have benefited from the downfall of Agfa but doubtful Forte or Ferrina was of any noticeable effect.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Its been my experience and observation that the lesser brands gave less quality and a lower price. This will always attract certain users, and not those who want and need quality products, and willing to pay for them.

I think Kodak and Ilford may have benefited from the downfall of Agfa but doubtful Forte or Ferrina was of any noticeable effect.

Kodak and Ilford are losing sales to the economy brand films.

Everyone loves a bargain.

PE

 

[mikebarger]

And whats a few spots, scratches, and/or poor backing paper among friends??

Mike

 

[Photo Engineer]

And whats a few spots, scratches, and/or poor backing paper among friends??

Mike

Add edge fog, piping (curling) of support and a few with uneven coatings with ripples. Right? I have seen all of these complaints on APUG but not ever for a Kodak or Ilford product. I have seen about 2 or 3 for Fuji.

I apologize to those from the other companies, but this is only the truth as reported here on APUG.

PE

 

[Curt]

Rollei Pan 25 at $6.00 to $6.49 a roll has been consistent in quality from what I've seen from my use of it. It's not Kodak or Ilford and I don't consider it an economy brand film.

CJ