Some Kodak B&W Film Deletions

[clayne]

Consider yourself corrected. Kodak has improved the TMax line of film.

Steve

They've just disimproved it with the news of TMax P3200. Also, plenty of people don't care for TMX, TMY, etc.

With each year, we continue to lose more and more character in everything. If you want to be pissed at somebody, be pissed at consumers who demand their BS photos as fast as absolutely possible. There's little regard to quality these days - it's all about "now, now, now!"

 

[DLawson]

But Kodak is, as far as I am concerned, a dead-end street. They made certain business decisions, for the good of the business. I understand, and respect, their decisions.

The irony (at least from the current vantage point) is in which business decisions lead here.

If I've correctly understood PE's posts (or maybe podcast comments), Kodak bet big on film 15-20 years ago, at the last market peak before digital. They built high capacity coating lines and scrapped the low capacity equipment because film was going to stay Big. Now that film isn't big, it is less and less justified to make the film runs that their equipment makes, and there isn't enough projected benefit to justify the expense of building low volume coating machines.

I agree that it looks as if Kodak is milking an aged cash cow, watching for the point where the benefit no longer justifies holding it back from the butcher.

What I can't quite tell is whether the Kodak management is happy about that or sad. Unless someone designs a cheap, industrial-grade coating (etc.) machine for small runs, I suspect they are in a corner either way.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Well yes, for the most part it isn't Kodak's fault the mass consumer market has gone over to digital; although how this relates to black & white film sales is another question, as I'd have thought 80-90%* of casual consumer sales for the last 20 years have been for colour negative films.

Tom

* unverified hunch

 

[Ian Grant]

Well yes, for the most part it isn't Kodak's fault the mass consumer market has gone over to digital; although how this relates to black & white film sales is another question, as I'd have thought 80-90%* of casual consumer sales for the last 20 years have been for colour negative films.

Tom

* unverified hunch

Well based on the market here in Turkey Kodak's sales are 99% based on Colour negative sales, and that sector is decreasing the fastest.

One lab owner here told me he's switched off his C41 machine because there's just not enough film going through it to justify running it any longer. He still has plenty of business for his RA-4 processor, from the public and his own plus a couple of other Studios.

Ian

 

[Cainquixote]

Well i just ordered 15 rolls of tri-x 320.
10 rolls of neopan
and 10 rolls of foma in 400.

after pay day i'll prolly pick up another 20 of the tri-x 320.

I'm sad to see it go. Loading up a 220 back and being set for an hour in the studio was awesome.

 

[lxdude]

For me, losing BW400Cn in 120 really hurts. It's just not practical for me to develop film at this time, and I have very little of what I shoot printed, so it's practical to have it done by someone else. I found I really like BW400CN any time I don't want much grain. I recently bought a 645 just for the larger negative, then this happened. As for Tri-X 320, well, I recently tried some and love it, and was planning to use it once I have a place to develop. And I much prefer 220, so it hurts double.

I think one of the reasons this sort of thing is so distressing and makes for disgust and anger at Kodak, is that we know Ilford will try their best to match market demands and strive to deliver as many products as they can. Their existence depends on serving B+W photographers, and fewer choices can mean fewer film photographers. They have thrown all in with B+W, so there is no doubt as to their commitment.

I think many people are really beginning to wonder about whether they should commit to a Kodak product, only to see it go away. Especially in B+W, where a preferred film/developer/method combo often represents a lot of time and effort invested. And it's getting to the point where many are seriously doubting Kodak's commitment to, not just products, but product lines. From "B+W? Maybe." to "Film? Maybe."

Kodak used to be synonymous in the US with film, and I, a Kodachrome user, just naturally went to Kodak for B+W film on the occasions I shot B+W. By shrinking their offerings so far, they just no longer seem to be someone to go to. They go from responding to a shrinking market to contributing to a shrinking market for their products.

I know this has been talked to death, but I do believe that Kodak fell prey to the same mentality that afflicts many large companies: an inability to see how to succeed on a small scale. Sometimes spinning off a division can save it: that is, freeing it up from old thinking. I'm not saying that's the answer for Kodak, but can see that freeing up a still photo products division or B+W division could be a way to help it survive. After all, a product may not be as profitable as it used to be, but having no product to sell means no money to be made.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Here is an interesting page on Kodak films:

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

Kodak has such a rich history. They even invented the scratch ticket.

 

[Ektagraphic]

A guy at Kodak whom I have worked with many times said (unofficially) that one of the 120 tri-x will probably go but the 4X5 Tri-X is safe for now and the 220 is up for debate. He also said that Plus-X will probably go after the couple of master rolls they have empty out. Kind of sucks I love plus-X and I think I'll shoot some more now. I was on a bit of a Tri-X kick but I need to strike up a combo. Let's show them

 

[Ira Rush]

Ahhh... The Plot Thickens!

For what its worth...

Just received an e-mail response from my contact at Kodak, and here in part is what was said...

"I have heard of no plans of discontinuance of any of our current lineup of 220 films which include:
Kodak Professional Portra 160NC/VC, 400NC/VC, Tri-X 320, and E100VS.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you need anything else."

Now my main concern was 220, especially TXP, and the 100VS.

But needless to say there seems to be much confusion and if anyone has an official release, that is "carved in stone" please post

 

[wclark5179]

"it's all about "now, now, now!"

That is so true.

I agree with that statement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well i just ordered 15 rolls of tri-x 320.
10 rolls of neopan
and 10 rolls of foma in 400.

after pay day i'll prolly pick up another 20 of the tri-x 320.

I'm sad to see it go. Loading up a 220 back and being set for an hour in the studio was awesome.

I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X 320. I have never used it. I am glad that I have a large freezer.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

But needless to say there seems to be much confusion and if anyone has an official release, that is "carved in stone" please post

The OP, Martin Reed of Silverprint, posted details from Kodak.

There's no confusion, and these won't be all the films Kodak have already stopped manufacturing. These decisions aren't recent - they were made quite some time ago but only become public when the stock level reaches a few weeks or months sales.

The reality is that we still have far more choice of films from the major manufacturers now than when I began photography seriously back in the late 1960's, in all formats and B&W, Colour Neg & E6.

There will come a point soon when not every company will offer a choice of Conventional or T-grain (or equivalent) B&W films of the same speed, they will begin to settle for one or the other because it makes more economic sense.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The reality is that we still have far more choice of films from the major manufacturers now than when I began photography seriously back in the late 1960's, in all formats and B&W, Colour Neg & E6.

Ian

- and so there was a peak of availability sometime in the 1990s? Thinking back to the Jessops catalogue around 2002/03 (before I knew of Silverprint), I remember even Jessops listed a wide variety of films, medium format, darkroom items etc.

Tom

 

[lxdude]

I don't get what it is with 220 being so much less popular.
In 35mm 12 exp. and 24 exp. rolls are gone, and 36 exp. remains. I like 220 because I have to change it only half as often, which is very handy, especially when it's raining or the wind is blowing.
It's also nice to not have to stop so often when in the middle of things.

 

[Ian Grant]

- and so there was a peak of availability sometime in the 1990s? Thinking back to the Jessops catalogue around 2002/03 (before I knew of Silverprint), I remember even Jessops listed a wide variety of films, medium format, darkroom items etc.

Tom

I'd guess the Peak was late 80's early 90's, by the mid 90's the decline had begun and the first films were very quietly disappearing.

Ian

 

[Darkroom317]

I don't get what it is with 220 being so much less popular.

A lot of cameras can't use it for various reasons. Some older cameras have a red window in which one can find out which exposure they are one. 220 does not have a paper backing along the whole length of the film and thus would not work with these cameras. Also, many cameras and backs only have a pressure plate setting for 120. Without the proper pressure plate setting the image could be out of focus in some areas.

 

[SuzanneR]

Even with cameras that can use 220 film, it can be hard on a camera. I used it a lot with a Mamiya 7, and it landed in the repair shop!!! I've not really used it in that camera since, but the 220 backs for the RZ work very well, and don't seem to be too brutal on the camera.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Simply, not as many cameras and backs take 220.

My Bronica S2a backs are switchable, and of the various rollfilm backs I have for my 4x5" and 2x3" Linhof Technikas, I've only got one 6x7 220 back, and I can swap the insert between 2x3" and 4x5" shells, if I want. They're quite hard to find, as are 220 backs made by Graflex.

Anything with a red window can't take 220. My Noblex isn't set up for 220, but you can use it, if you don't mind losing one of eight 6x12 frames.

I'd shoot 220 over 120 all the time, if I could.

Zeiss has also claimed that 220 had better flatness than 120. There have been questions raised about that claim, but it's an interesting possibility.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Steve, I used it many years ago unsuccessfully at that... Admittedly, I didn't know what I was doing at that time (about 18 years ago!). At any rate, I recently tried it again last October and has been the only film I've used apart from a few rolls of Neopan 400 and ACROS. I really like TXP in TMAX developer mixed 1:4 souped for 7 1/2 minutes @ 68 degrees... It gives me great negs. I love the look of the film and how it prints.

A.

I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X 320. I have never used it. I am glad that I have a large freezer.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't get what it is with 220 being so much less popular.
In 35mm 12 exp. and 24 exp. rolls are gone, and 36 exp. remains. I like 220 because I have to change it only half as often, which is very handy, especially when it's raining or the wind is blowing.
It's also nice to not have to stop so often when in the middle of things.

It's never been that popular, none of the professional photographers I know ever used it for a variety of reasons. 120 isn't shot like 35mm it's slightly more contemplative, not all cameras or film backs can take it, some don't like processing it, and it's rarely easy to buy (UK).

It needs a completely different film base and then also a separate finishing line to spool the film so unless volumes of sales are high it's costly to make hence the reason it's being dropped.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's the word--

David,

Thank you for your note. First off I want to be very clear that TXP 320 sheet format and TX 400 availability continues unchanged. These are very strong sellers that our customers and Kodak remain very committed to. Of the products impacted, our notification has been posted to the web. Please reference this link:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263

The announcement at the center of this conversation is not entirely accurate as no decision has been made to discontinue T-Max P3200 (TMZ). You may be surprised to learn that our total TXP 320 -120 & 220 format production is less than 5% of our total Tri-X production, and it is this limited level of photographer and market demand that drive these sorts of difficult decisions. Kodak will continue to offer products where photographer demand makes it a viable offering within our professional film portfolio.

Keep shooting!

Sincerely,

Scott P. DiSabato
Sales Manager, Imaging Specialty and Pro Film Marketing Manager

Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650-0403
www.kodak.com

 

[Cainquixote]

soup

I just ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X 320. I have never used it. I am glad that I have a large freezer.

Steve

d76 1+1 for 12mins 45 seconds is awesome when used in a studio, or controlled situations with ambient.

i even shot a roll of it at pompeii. Not the best situation for that film but i got quite a few keepers that day.

 

[SuzanneR]

Thanks for the link, David. I've ordered 25 rolls of 220 format TXP this week. Think they'll change their minds???

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for the link, David. I've ordered 25 rolls of 220 format TXP this week. Think they'll change their minds???

Me too--that's 50.

 

[Ira Rush]

The OP, Martin Reed of Silverprint, posted details from Kodak....Ian

Yes, I stand corrected.

I just received the following link from my sources, which now makes me think that perhaps they were waiting for the right time to announce.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263


Looks like I need to stock up on TXP 220/120