Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

MikeSeb

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,104
Location
Denver, CO
Format
Medium Format
mikebarger said:
Boy Mike, you're on a roll. Any Crown involved here?
Click to expand...

Haha! Thanks for the good-natured smackdown; I'm getting a bit carried away I know!

But it's the same story every time EK drops a film some gal/guy somewhere on an ice floe treasures---as if EK decided to personally hose that one user. Guess people need to feel unique and special, even if only in being "victimized" by an evil corporation.

Then the Kodak bashing begins, accompanied by a lot of breezy advice about how EK can just "adapt" to the shrunken worldwide market for film. 'Cause goodness knows, no one at Kodak could analyze any of this stuff without us. Kodak just hates us and doesn't care about our individual specialness.

No Crown involved. It's only 1 pm here so too early for that, for me. And it would be Pappy, anyway....
 

Sal Santamaura

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
Ektagraphic said:
They should make TMAX 220 or something. We should all write to Kodak. It might not help alot but it wouldn't hurt.
Click to expand...
Not possible. TMAX 120 is coated on a 4.7 mil base, much thicker than most other medium format films. For example, 120/220 TXP is/was on a 3.9 mil base. One couldn't fit that much TMAX on a spool.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
And it would be Pappy, anyway....

got a bottle of Pappy 15 left ... for Lent
 

peri24

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
134
Location
Finland
Format
Medium Format
MikeSeb said:
But let's all speculate and criticize, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

sorry, i'm not speculating or whatever, i'm just a guy who take pictures, kodak is the one who are speculating with his customers!!
and yes i criticize kodak till death!
 

Ektagraphic

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,927
Location
Southeastern
Format
Medium Format
Sal Santamaura said:
Not possible. TMAX 120 is coated on a 4.7 mil base, much thicker than most other medium format films. For example, 120/220 TXP is/was on a 3.9 mil base. One couldn't fit that much TMAX on a spool.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to coat a thinner TMAX to make 220 an option?
 

Andrew Moxom

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
4,888
Location
Keeping the
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Sal Santamaura

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
Ektagraphic said:
Is it possible to coat a thinner TMAX to make 220 an option?
Click to expand...
I don't know with absolute certainty (PE?), but expect it is technically possible. However, the point is that, even with one 220 black and white film available worldwide, Kodak's sales of TXP weren't sufficient to support profitable production. Why would it invest even one penny to develop a 220 version of TMY2?
 

Cainquixote

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
46
Location
Napoli
Format
Multi Format
Are you seriously defending the company that launched a professional b@w only digital camera as a model of common sense in corporate america. The history of kodak's screw ups is almost as long as their successes.

People are upset because they are discontinuing a product. Hell they are abandoning a format.

What has people pissed is how kodak has done it.
"Hey guys i know you like our products, but were done at the end of the week. Try some of our other craptastic products that may or may not be around in 6 weeks."

Kodak is just like any other company. They need brand loyalty from the consumer. The way they dropped this message to the market doesn't inspire it in me or the other 400 people that shoot this film.

Give me 4 months and it would have been easier to swallow. Give me four weeks and you get a wtf reaction. Those guys have known for months this day was coming and didn't bother to share it with the customer.

I have to look at the market and figure out who will have a film product for me in 2 to 6 years. My money isn't on kodak. I'll support with my wallet who i think will be around and is committed to analogue image making.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I've read most of this thread laughing and crying as I went.... I swore I would stay out of it.....

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! ). In any event, one roll of film can be made in less than an afternoon even though it takes over a month to gather all of the elements to get to that target date. So, they can make one roll or 100 rolls once the materials are gathered. This is the good news.

The bad news is that film spoils. So, once coated, Kodak must sell every bit of the coated material in a reasonable time so that you do not get short dated or out of date material. Otherwise, the material becomes scrap!

Hearken back to Kodachrome. It was coated once a year, then once every 18 months and finally the remaining master roll was spoiling in the storage room before it was sold. That is the point when you know you cannot coat it and sell it before it spoils. This is probably the case with the canceled films as well. They are spoiling on the shelf in Kodak's storage or on the dealers shelves and are being returned.

On another note, the 220 split paper is almost impossible to buy. The equipment to spool it is more complex and harder to maintain, so many companies have discontinued 220 due to this additional problem on top of low sales.

So, here we are with that 38,000+ membership. As an approximation, each member would have to buy a roll of film of each type each week to keep each product in motion across the counter without spoiling. So remember, it takes all of us buying a single product today to use one master roll of one product in 35mm. Since product is stalled on dealers shelves and spoiling in Kodak warehouses, I can pretty much guess that we are only buying a tiny fraction of what is really needed to turn things around.

Now, when Fuji or Ilford cancel a product it is more like "poor guys, sorry to hear that" and you move on. Kodak has always taken the brunt of law suits and complaints. Why not keep up the good work. The workers work an honest day at EK on analog products, but they cannot force you to buy product. The drop in sales below a sustainable level in any company's products must take place BEFORE they cancel it. So, you stopped buying, and then they stopped selling, not vice versa. That is foolish. They need the money.

PE
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,977
Location
Massachusetts
Format
Multi Format

I hope you'll share your results.
 

Sim2

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
492
Location
Wiltshire UK
Format
Medium Format


And I just love these kind of responses.
Ilford did go bankrupt, restructered a company to exist/prosper in a new commercial environment.
Adox see some cemmercial sense in adding products to their small product line in a declining market.
Rollei branded (slightly odd) films, chemicals etc keep being introduced.
Kodak are allegedly reducing their product line in the same market place.

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the whole of EK should be restructured just to fit in with supplying the now niche market - what annoys, baffles and confuses me (and perhaps others) is the the whole of the Kodak management cannot seem to be able to restructure a small (and declining) part of their business into a viable division in response to a changing market place.

Their attitude appears to be that if the 1980s business model, production volumes, sales volumes and profits cannot be applied or doesn't work in 2010 then Kodak will slip out of the market rather than adapting what was very profitable into somwthing that is niche. Kodak should have the management that can see how to adapt and survive but gives the impression of not being able to contemplate anything other than their heyday.

At the same time other manufacturers appear to be able to restructure and maybe even survive in repsonse to the new market place.

To my mind, it is this disparity when comparing producers in the same market place that is the annoying and frustrating thing about the whole episode. Some seem to be able to adapt, others seem unable to adapt.

I do not think that anyone actually wants Kodak to dissappear, I do not think that anyone wants Kodak products to be withdrawn from our range of choice. Most people would still like to be able to choose whether to buy the yellow box or not.

Perhaps people are using this as an area to vent their frustration and inability to change events - welcome to the internet!
 

Sim2

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
492
Location
Wiltshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Photo Engineer said:
One master roll of film will produce about 35,000 rolls of 35mm film (or the corresponding number of 120 or 220 film

PE
Click to expand...

That is actualy a very interesting statistic, thanks. Does make me wonder why the master roll has to be that size?

I know that economics of volume production will be a factor etc but is there a reason why the master roll has to be 6 feet x 35,000 in length?

Could a machine theoretically be reconfigured to produce a master roll of say 20,000 rolls? Who defines the size of the master roll?
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
The master roll is 42" x 5000 ft. The usable surface area is 40". The number is calculated (approximated) for 35mm. Your figure is way off.

And, 5000 ft is the standard roll size (or the metric equivalent) in the film industry AFAIK. It can be cut narrower or shorter but that increases cost. Remember, there will be defects in every master roll that must be cut out before sales.

PE
 

Sim2

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
492
Location
Wiltshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Photo Engineer said:
The master roll is 42" x 5000 ft. The usable surface area is 40". The number is calculated (approximated) for 35mm. Your figure is way off.

PE
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. Just used your initial figure of 35,000 rolls per master roll. My bad. :rolleyes:
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Photo Engineer said:
I've read most of this thread laughing and crying as I went.... I swore I would stay out of it.....
Click to expand...

I know, but thanks for explaining again. 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.

One way or another, I'll figure out how to use the film that I like. I can deal with TX instead of TXP and 120 instead of 220, and if it ultimately means shooting less medium format and more large format, that's okay too, and ultimately I can even cut down a larger format to 2.25x3.25" sheets, if I've got to shoot that format. Materials have always been discontinued and changed and adapted, and as I see it, I just have to figure out how to do the work that I do with what's available.
 

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format

Andrew,

The reason I spec'd the CI time instead of the 'push' time was to get you to a real time ! Check the CI tables at the end of the Kodak document , and you'll see this the .gif below. 6.5 minutes, with agitation every 30 seconds should make that one stop bump. 7 1/2 ' at 68˚ would be a good idea. I'd extrapolate further and divine a time based on 1 minute agitation: look at the 'large tank' times.

I suggested D-76 because there is more of a curve through the shadows than T-Max developer has. I think HC-110 would also be a better choice the T-Max, if we want to mimic TXP.

d
 

Attachments

  • TMY2.gif
    4.9 KB · Views: 97

BetterSense

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
3,151
Location
North Caroli
Format
35mm
the the whole of the Kodak management cannot seem to be able to restructure a small (and declining) part of their business into a viable division in response to a changing market place.
Click to expand...

It looks like that is what they are doing. You just don't like the way they are doing it.
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,977
Location
Massachusetts
Format
Multi Format

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.
 

mikebarger

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
1,937
Location
ottawa kansas
Format
Multi Format
Maybe we should edit the thread and just have David's response. It certainly is better than all the rest, mine included.

Mike
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
SuzanneR said:
Didn't Paul Strand complain about a particular paper being discontinued? I read that someplace, but couldn't find where.
Click to expand...

I think that was Velour Black, which many people lamented.

Karsh despaired when Kodak discontinued their desensitizer used for development by inspection due to environmental regulations, but he was an important enough client that they had a case made in Switzerland and had it shipped to him in Canada.

What about when commercial platinum paper was discontinued? Wouldn't that be a great product? I mean, there was Palladio in recent years, but what about having a selection of several different platinum papers? Well, the platinum printers who are really dedicated make their own, and they have more control over the process that way anyway.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,263
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

One of all the major companies problems which dates from the boom days of the late 80's is they still offer too many close alternatives, so in Kodak's case 4 fast B&W films of around 320-400 ISO means they are diluting their own sales of core products. (Tri-X 320, Tri-X 400, Tmax 400 and the Chromogenic film).

Ilford & Fuji still offer 3 400 ISO films too and people missed a post here about a Fuji B&W film disappearing - announced the same day perhaps because it's not exported widely.

It had been Kodak's original intention to phase out Plus-X & Tri-X years ago after the hoped for wide take up of Tmax films, but that didn't happen. Similarly the same happened with Ilford & Fuji, although it's the T-grain equivalent emulsions at Fuji that dominate their B&W export sales.

30-40 years ago we didn't have these choices of similar speed emulsions in B&W or colour from the big manufacturers, and in reality we were no worse off.

Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the craft should be able to make superb images with almost any of today's emulsions (of each speed range) & from any manufacturer.

It would have made more sense if Kodak "Senior Management" had made a clear cut official statement along the lines of we are rationalising our product range, but that's just not their style. Instead we are left assuming that there's probably more product that are no longer being manufactured, and we'll get told when there's a months supply left in the warehouse.

One last point Ron says quite correctly
Photo Engineer said:
The workers work an honest day at EK on analog products, but they cannot force you to buy product.
PE
Click to expand...
But you have to be able to find the products, and Kodak's distribution system went horribly wrong in many countries outside the US a few years ago now, but has never really recovered. That's a "Corporate Management" problem and not down to the Film Division, but it has a big impact on it.

Perhaps the Film Division should be split off and allowed to become autonomous, it makes money & profits after all.

Ian
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…