Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

[mikebarger]

So is there some evidence that total marker sales are not spirally downward. It's only apples to apples if that is so.

Anybody can maintain that logic in a growing market.

Mike

 

[2F/2F]

Kodak STILL offers a big portfolio of film.

A "big portfolio of film"?

Such as:

Plus-X (no sheets)
Tri-X 400 (no sheets, uncommon in most walk-in pro shops, who seem to favor the 320)
Tri-X 320 (sheets only)
T-Max 100
T-Max 400

So, five black and white films, only two of which are available in all formats, and they have a "big portfolio"?

Now, consider the use of the word "still". It begs historical perspective. Use it to put this list up against one from five years ago. Try ten. Twenty.

No. They do not "STILL" have a "big portfolio". They have a "small portfolio"; almost bare bones, in fact.

Does anyone else see Plus-X and Tri-X going before either of the T-Maxes? The format availability leads me to believe this is the way it might shake down in the end.

 

[jeffreyg]

Kodak's loss will be Ilford's gain. (120) Delta 400 and 100 are perfectly good films as well as HP 4 & 5 in 4x5 size.

 

[mikebarger]

Does anyone sell a larger all encompassing film portfolio in the US?

Mike

 

[2F/2F]

Ilford:

FP4 (all formats)
HP5 (all formats)
Pan F (no sheets)
Delta 100 (all formats)
Delta 400 (no sheets)
Delta 3200 (no sheets)
SFX (no sheets)
Ortho (sheets only)

Kodak, after this announcement:

Plus-X (no sheets)
Tri-X 400 (no sheets, uncommon in most walk-in pro shops, who seem to favor the 320)
Tri-X 320 (sheets only)
T-Max 100
T-Max 400

Not only do Ilford have more emulsions, but they have more cross-format emulsions.

Ilford:

Eight emulsions total
Three available in all formats (two of which are random-grain emulsions)
Four available in small and medium only
One available in sheets only

Kodak:

Five emulsions total
Two available in all formats (neither of which is a random-grain emulsion)
Two available in small and medium only
One available in sheets only (which I predict will be the next to go)

From memory, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The difference between my last two lists is exactly what is killing Kodak, IMHO. Which of these two lists is the more varied and useful "palette" to a serious photographer? Ilford, hands down. Not a thing wrong with any single Kodak product that remains, but look at their total palette compared with Ilford's.

The fact that Kodak does not have a single random-grained product that is available in all formats (and has not for quite some time) is totally insane to me, and is the biggest single reason that I mostly use Ilford instead. There is no apparent method to their madness, except perhaps putting T-Max 100 and 400 up on a pedestal.

 

[Martin Reed]

Would the OP posted if Fuji deleted a film? Not that Fuji ever did or would do. No only Kodak deletes film. How about going after Fuji for deleting its films? Or is this a thinly veiled attempt at Kodak Bashing, again, again, again?
Steve

I posted the release simply to inform the user base that the materials were, to use Kodak's own phrase, 'Retired', and maybe give a little more time to grab some stock. To be fair to them, Kodak have actually posted a release that was distributed to the dealers.

If there was, in response to this knowledge a significant increase in sales of some of the lines it might earn them a reprieve- it's happened before.

 

[mikebarger]

I don't want to come off as if I don't like Ilford, as I stated before I use HP5 in 4x5.

I really don't understand the Kodak bashing while others can totally ignore a segment (Ilford as an example in 220) and it doesn't raise an eyebrow.

But, I've learned long ago when it comes to emotions there is no logic (myself included).

Mike

 

[Sim2]

Sim2
Spinning them off as a separate part of Kodak isn't going to generate any addition profit but will generate extra overhead.
Mike

They have the overhead already, spinning into a specialist dept would if anything have reduced their overhead on analogue products.

Sim2
I suspect there must not be anyone beating down the door to buy the analog part of the business.
Mike

They may not have beaten the door down but if Kodak wanted to sell there would be a buyer - I suspect that an ex-blue chip company would rather see the product die than see someone else make a success of it - how ever small.

Guess that's where our hero Ilford should step up to the plate and buy the Kodak analog division and make it a division of Ilford. Then all B&W film would be protected forever and we would get 220 back right away.
Mike

I think this would be great for us, unlikely but let's keep our fingers crossed!


I think, and this is only my opinion, that Kodak management had the "big company" management style and expectations (which was right in their heyday) of volume production, volume sales and the cost benefits of large volume production - when the management really only know how to deal with managing growth and expansion it can be difficult to see how to make smaller volume sales profitable. It takes a very brave executive in the 30 floor head office to say that the survival/profitability is best served by downsizing to a 5 floor office.

Many big blue chip companies have or have had specialist divisions that have not only produced viable product in a niche market but added value and prestige to the umbrella or sponsoring company. Ford set up the RS division, Mercedes have the AMG connection, Toyota - Lexus etc just some examples from the auto industry which is also a declining industry.

But what do I know? Just sorry to see our raw materials going - perhaps not helped by old school management thinking.

 

[Tim Gray]

So, five black and white films, only two of which are available in all formats, and they have a "big portfolio"?

Not counting this announcement, since we don't know what's going on yet, but:
Tmax 100, 400, 3200, Plus-X, Tri-X 320 & 400
Portra 160NC, 160VC, 400NC, 400VC, 800
Ektar 100
BW400CN
Gold 100, 200, 400, 800 - I'm not up to date on which of these are actually available - point is there is a consumer line too
And a smattering of slide films. Again, I'm not up on what is still available, but there are a couple types available.

More than 5. The B&W offering is more or less on par with Ilford (100/400/3200 speed new tech films, 100/400 old tech). Ilford does have PanF+ and SFX200 in addition. We'll ignore the fact that Ilford doesn't do color.

Fuji has what, Neopan 400, 1600, and Acros? Fuji's color offerings are about on par with Kodak I feel. They have more E6 stuff available.

If Kodak's offerings are 'meager', then we REALLY don't have much choice anymore.

 

[Tim Gray]

I should note that while I am upset about this announcement, I'm not going to sit here and piss and moan about how Kodak screws us all. I DO shoot their products and will be quite upset if all of these discontinuances do go through. I'll be sad if Plus-X gets the ax too. I have some faith that at least Tri-X 400 will stick around for a while.

However, they are in business, and if they can't sell enough TMZ to make it their money back, how can I blame them?

 

[peri24]

kodak will have a slow and long agony till their death, i'm not any economic or business expert, but, i think that cutting out their product line it's not the way to save your ass. Such a big company should have future plans, don't know, get more efficent, spend some money on adverts, promote film photography. I was taught that if you dont believe in what you do you are done. Anyway...
So, we just have now 2 4x5 films at higher iso left, tmax and hp5, and one ultra high iso in 35mm. So what should i do know now if i don't like tabular grain (tmz doesn't count) and need 4x5 at 400iso and something ultrafast in 35mm??

 

[2F/2F]

So what should i do know now if i don't like tabular grain (tmz doesn't count)??

Tri-X 320 will still be left in sheets, so we have three.

After that is gone, use anything other than Kodak, I guess. Too bad...but what else is there to do?

 

[peri24]

do you think that they will just made TXP in 4x5? after trashing out 120 and 220?? dont think so!
oh boy txp in hc110! i love that combination...
but you are right, no more kodak after i finish all my supply, i'll come back to ilford, it will be painful very, but its that or digital!

 

[B&Wpositive]

P3200?

Already?

You gotta be kidding me.

Ilford Delta 3200 and Fuji Neopan 1600 are NOT replacements as they have different characteristics (Delta 3200 being slower and grainier than TMZ)...though I suppose they will suffice once TMZ is gone. I'll have to play with different developing methods. At least Delta 3200 is available in 120.

No more 220 b&w?

TXP 320 is one of the reasons to shoot film as far as I'm concerned!

Did anyone ever think that maybe part of the reason Kodak's film sales continuously drop every quarter has something to do with the fact that they are steadily making less film types...maybe a slight connection there, lol?

Long live Ilford b&w!

 

[mikebarger]

Film as a preference for capturing images continues to shrink because the "other" type of camera continues to increase its dominance.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Film as a preference for capturing images continues to shrink because the "other" type of camera continues to increase its dominance.

I haven't heard anyone say lately "Wow, there's a new, fabulous type of photography called digital".

Digital is old now. It reached sauration over a year ago. It's not the latest, greatest thing anymore; I really don't see much more film market contracture happening in the future (as far as still film is concerned, that is at least; motion picture film will surely contract further in sales as time goes on and more capture and distribution for movies shifts to digital). Most everyone in still photography who has gone totally digital already has done so a while ago.

 

[mikebarger]

What do you think young couples just entering the consumer market are buying, the market is still growing.

Concerning movie film, I believe I've seen PE warn of serious problems for film when it goes away. I don't recall the reasoning, but I "think" it had to do with 35mm motion picture carrying the overhead for everything else film.

 

[viridari]

Imagine Kodak cashing in on the "cheap film camera" market & introducing a brand new Brownie that consumes 120 film. I think they could be doing a lot more to find a new way to profit from film, even if it means film is no longer the big business that it used to be. Getting rid of one product after another kind of makes it hard for customers to buy anything, ya know?

I've been shooting for about 2 years. I started mostly with Fomapan, I sampled Ilford products & Fuji products, but mostly I shoot Kodak now. I think that's going to change.

 

[Chazzy]

Kodak is suggesting 400 speed Tri-X as a substitute for TXP in 120, but obviously we have other choices to explore—and might as well explore them. What does Fuji make in 400 speed black and white films? I know nothing about Fuji films. Are the frame numbers clearly visible through the red windows in old cameras? Unfortunately I had to give up Ilford films in that connection, because the numbers were illegible.

 

[DBP]

As I recall, a few years ago Kodak built a new B&W coating plant and changed the formulations of Tri-X and I think Plus-X. Remember also that they recently redesigned the two slower T-Max films. So it would look like they are shutting down the stuff not made on the new machinery, which would be logical in a shrinking market. I have been hoping they would apply some of the wizardry that went into the two other T-Max films to produce a better superspeed B&W film.

 

[Chazzy]

Tri-X 320 will still be left in sheets, so we have three.

But how long is Kodak likely to continue making it in sheet film only? Knowing Kodak's eagerness to drop products with slow sales, I would say that this would be a good time to either put a good supply of the stuff into the freezer, or else start looking for a replacement. When Kodak finally drops TXP in sheet film, what do you want to bet that they have the nerve to suggest Tmax 400 as a replacement?

 

[Ektagraphic]

Still no actual proof from Kodak? This would be horrible though. Instead of bashing Kodak, why don't we all keep supporting Kodak and maybe they can turn around. If everyone abandons them, I don't think that they can be upset that they are not surviving.

 

[fotch]

......
I've been shooting for about 2 years. I started mostly with Fomapan, I sampled Ilford products & Fuji products, but mostly I shoot Kodak now. I think that's going to change.

You think that is going to help? If you like Kodak, keep buying it. If they can make a profit, they will keep making it. But, if your employer suddenly quit paying you, would you continue to work for them? Film producers are fighting for survival like never before.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

You think that is going to help? If you like Kodak, keep buying it. If they can make a profit, they will keep making it. But, if your employer suddenly quit paying you, would you continue to work for them? Film producers are fighting for survival like never before.

Agreed, I am angry at Kodak for that decision, but I will continue to use Tri-X as my main film.

I still prefer the look of Ektachrome to Fuji slides, and still love the new Ektar.

To put it simply, I am really a big fan of Kodak and I want to remain so as long as possible.

The loss of TMZ is a pain, I discovered recently that I prefered it over all high speed film or pushed TriX and I was ready to eat the price difference for the prettiness of its grain / level of shadow details.

Best,

K

 

[BetterSense]

Does anyone else see Plus-X and Tri-X going before either of the T-Maxes? The format availability leads me to believe this is the way it might shake down in the end.

I would imagine that the tmaxes would be the last to go, and I suppose that's the best scenario. I don't even like tmax film, but I recognize that they are technically amazing and if there is going to be a "last kodak film standing" it should be the tmax films.