Some Kodak changes...

Nothing too new here, mostly changing single rolls over to pro-packs. 8X10 shooters may want to stock up while you can. Odd, I thought E100VS was going to be totally discontinued, this makes it some good news...

Thanks.

wow already discontinuing ektar in 8x10.

It seems only Portra and Ektachrome are left in Kodak 8x10. TMY is still listed on B&H's web site with a 245 box minimum order - and no quantity discount ... $18,000 / $7.35/sheet.

Freaked me out when it has Tri-X 120 discontinued - it is only the individual rolls discontinued, you just have to buy a 5-pack to get it.

Kevin Kehler said:

Freaked me out when it has Tri-X 120 discontinued - it is only the individual rolls discontinued, you just have to buy a 5-pack to get it.

Click to expand...

I still don't think that can be a good sign. Better keep the demand up for those pro packs.

-NT

So there will be no slower speed bulk Kodak 35mm B & W film available regularly any more (both T-Max and Plus-X gone) .

Nope, only special order only... :-(... saddest is TXP-320 and Ektar in 8x10 special order only. That sucks.

MattKing said:

So there will be no slower speed bulk Kodak 35mm B & W film available regularly any more (both T-Max and Plus-X gone) .

Click to expand...

I saw a bunch of discontinued Kodak items on a clearance list in my last package from freestyle. This answers my questions on why they were on the list. Bummer to see the changes but I buy at least 5 rolls of tri-x at a time anyway.

Derek Lofgreen said:

I saw a bunch of discontinued Kodak items on a clearance list in my last package from freestyle. This answers my questions on why they were on the list. Bummer to see the changes but I buy at least 5 rolls of tri-x at a time anyway.

Click to expand...

Freestyle also often busts up Pro Packs to sell individual rolls. They do this with Acros. Not sure if some agreement with Kodak prevents that.

Discontinuation of Tri-X in 120 is one thing I fear more than other film discontinuances.

Roger Cole said:

Discontinuation of Tri-X in 120 is one thing I fear more than other film discontinuances.

Click to expand...

This is my fear as well as it is my most used film (although FP4+ is a close second). I was very upset when 320 TXP was discontinued in 120 and 220; at least it is still available in sheets but for how long? That is the question I guess none of us have answers to.

I use 8X10 Ektar so this is a distinct bummer. I've already got a lot of money tied up in boxes of
8X10 TMX and TMY tucked in the freezer, not to mention other things like Ciba paper and DT film.
Portra has different color characteristics and isn't an ideal substitute. But Kodak is proabably nearing
panic mode, and let just hope Fuji will come to bat with something comparable.

According to the Kodak website, Tri-x is the world's best selling black and white film. Yet it can't produce a single 120 roll at a profit? It seems odd that Ilford can apparently sell a single roll of HP5 at a profit. Maybe Kodak should let Ilford run the Kodak marketing department.

It also seems to me that 120 Plus-X was first discontinued in single rolls not too long (a year or so?) before the plug was pulled on the entire product.

Dave

Dave in Kansas said:

According to the Kodak website, Tri-x is the world's best selling black and white film. Yet it can't produce a single 120 roll at a profit? It seems odd that Ilford can apparently sell a single roll of HP5 at a profit. Maybe Kodak should let Ilford run the Kodak marketing department.

It also seems to me that 120 Plus-X was first discontinued in single rolls not too long (a year or so?) before the plug was pulled on the entire product.

Dave

Click to expand...

Their film lines are profitable. This has been discussed on this board frequently in the past.
I read that Ilford were not profitable last year. Did they not sack 25 people or so at the start of this year?

Dear Tomalophicon,

You read wrong, profitable in 2010 and profitable in 2011.....

Although we are a private limited company our full audited accounts are always available via companies house in the UK if you wish to pay the small charge they make.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

Thanks Simon,
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Roger Cole said:

Freestyle also often busts up Pro Packs to sell individual rolls. They do this with Acros. Not sure if some agreement with Kodak prevents that.

Click to expand...

Freestyle might have such an agreement (although I doubt it). There is nothing to stop anyone from buying a bulk pack and selling it separately.

Dave in Kansas said:

Maybe Kodak should let Ilford run the Kodak marketing department.

Click to expand...

And the rest of the factory!


Steve.

The widely published November interview with Scott DiSabato from Kodak's pro film division was misread by many. He said sales($) were up but he didn't say the same for volume which isn't. Everyone here knows where Kodak's prices are going, right?

tomalophicon said:

Thanks Simon,
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Click to expand...

Some figures from someone who actually got the report are in these posts on the LFPF:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=814232&postcount=145

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=814358&postcount=147

It's encouraging that they are profitable, but scary in how small the figures are now.

In a fit of "support those who support you" I am starting to consider switching entirely to Ilford for black and white film myself. I already shoot Delta 3200, FP4+ and Pan F in 120, but I also shoot Tri-X in 120 and 35mm plus TMY-2 in 4x5. While grainier than TMY-2 I don't print that large so I could happily go to HP5+ in 4x5, maybe save only for low light where I might need better reciprocity failure characteristics. My real hold out is the Tri-X/Diafine combo in 35mm (and, more rarely, 120) and 35mm TMZ. HP5+ works fine in Diafine but gives me maybe 2/3s stop less effective speed, and that EI 1250 is often a sweet spot that allows me to shoot handheld without incurring the significantly larger grain of TMZ or Delta 3200. I find TMZ more pushable beyond 3200 and finer grained than Delta 3200 as well. I do shoot the later in 120 but not as often as TMZ in 35mm for the simple reason I don't have a medium format lens faster than f/3.5 so any handheld shooting in low light tends to be in 35mm.

It would be further encouragement if Ilford brought back Delta 400 in sheets.

I think that you should support what you like to use.

I'm happy I can still get Tri-X, although I'm sad to see some 8x10 go... as well as Ektar.

Kodak is obviously in big trouble, but if you love their products, continue to buy them. It may just be a drop in the ocean to them, but every little bit helps. We need competition in this world of film, and the more manufacturers there are, the better it is.

So they are dropping 8x10 Tri-x but keeping it in 5x7. Seems weird to me. But the cost of 8x10 is probably causing some people change formats or switch to a cheaper film.

This is exactly why i wont buy any Kodak film. Although I'm relatively new to film, I started out with Ilford about 10 years ago and since then I've seen one film after the other being dropped by Kodak. I really don't want to start liking any Kodak product, invest time and effort in learning to shoot it, just to have it dropped by poor economic decisions made by Kodak. It's their instability that has prompted my decision to stay away from them. If they start getting hinky about their chemicals, I'll source out something else.

About a year ago, I was stocking up on film from B&H and I noticed just how many more varieties and different exposure options there were in Kodak's roll film offerings alone. The first thing I thought was "Man, they need to trim that down, I bet they would save a bundle in packaging costs alone."

So the BS posted above about not using a Kodak film due to fear of it disappearing is kind of, well, lame. Kodak is doing exactly what I would do if I were faced with needing to streamline the company to stay afloat. I use Tri-X, TMAX-100-400 and Ektar 100 in both 35mm and 120, I keep it well stocked in my freezer. The biggest problem I see and from what I have gathered in talking to Kodak them selves, DiSabato included is that while there are still a fair amount of people who use film, most only use a little bit, dabble in it. So even with those numbers, it is still too costly for them to have 100 different film sizes and options out there when stuff becomes short or outdated and does not move as well as say, Tri-X in 36 exposure rolls.

So they have to do this and frankly I am surprised it has taken this long. I work with about 10 different Kodak and Ilford black and white films and I think even that is too much. Many pros I know who shoot black and white all the time shoot with maybe three varieties, tops, for consistency's sake. They master the medium and then get to work. They keep a good inventory of it, rotate stock but don't go bitching on a forum about losing something that is less mainstream.

Do I wish it were different? Sure, but there is not much we can do, that is what the digital junk show has done to not only the photography world, but the entirety of it all.

The people in the Film and Entertainment Group have had the proverbial gun to their backs for years, especially since Perez, they care deeply about the product and the customer, but there is only so much they can do. I think losing 8x10 Ektar sucks, but it must be hell-a-niche in the first place, so stock up. Sell a lens to order a few grand worth and then freeze it, do what you have to in order to protect at least *your* future with it.

We are in a permanent global recession, the animal will change locations and behaviors, but it will always be there, affecting someone, so this is the new reality. Film offerings are going to shrink, so make smart choices in what you want to use and get on with it.

The day I can no longer get the films I want to use, which have been chosen partially in consideration of potentially being around the longest, I will get out of photography all together.

If Kodak disappears, it will hurt the entire film industry, including Ilford.

Buy the film products you like, and encourage others to do the same.

Roger Cole said:

Some figures from someone who actually got the report are in these posts on the LFPF:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=814232&postcount=145

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=814358&postcount=147

It's encouraging that they are profitable, but scary in how small the figures are now.

In a fit of "support those who support you" I am starting to consider switching entirely to Ilford for black and white film myself. I already shoot Delta 3200, FP4+ and Pan F in 120, but I also shoot Tri-X in 120 and 35mm plus TMY-2 in 4x5. While grainier than TMY-2 I don't print that large so I could happily go to HP5+ in 4x5, maybe save only for low light where I might need better reciprocity failure characteristics. My real hold out is the Tri-X/Diafine combo in 35mm (and, more rarely, 120) and 35mm TMZ. HP5+ works fine in Diafine but gives me maybe 2/3s stop less effective speed, and that EI 1250 is often a sweet spot that allows me to shoot handheld without incurring the significantly larger grain of TMZ or Delta 3200. I find TMZ more pushable beyond 3200 and finer grained than Delta 3200 as well. I do shoot the later in 120 but not as often as TMZ in 35mm for the simple reason I don't have a medium format lens faster than f/3.5 so any handheld shooting in low light tends to be in 35mm.

It would be further encouragement if Ilford brought back Delta 400 in sheets.

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought it was still 2010 :munch:

"According to their latest publically available accounts they had revenue of £22.6m and profit after tax of £1.4m for calendar year 2010 (though made a loss in 2009). So they were profitable in 2010, but there is no data to allow the reader to split revenue between film sales and other lines."