Some Kodak changes...

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2011

tomalophicon said:
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."

Shrug. I don't think 2011 figures are available yet, certainly not entire year figures since the year isn't over. That's the most recent data, AFAIK.

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2011

I don't know - I can see "if you like Kodak buy it" but there's always the "don't get too used to because it will be gone next week" thought too.

In color I do like and use Kodak and will continue until it's gone. There's just nothing from Fuji that I'm aware of that's like Ektar 100, and nothing quite as good as the new Portras. I would use more E100G and E100VS but the demise of Ilfochrome even before I could get back into it leaves that less appealing than it would be otherwise. Besides, I don't think E100VS is available in sheets anymore anyway meaning for 4x5 I'd be using Velvia when I wanted amped up saturation.

I also recall PE saying that Ektar did not freeze well but maybe that was only the older version.

tomalophicon · Dec 14, 2011

I don't really see the issue.
It doesn't take too long in my experience to get used to using another film; I reckon use what you like while you can and accept and adapt to whatever changes occur in the future.
I'm using Kodak and Fuji films, and Ilford and Foma papers and chemicals. I use what I like and see no point siding with a brand based on something other than how you feel about the actual product.

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2011

I think the reasoning is that the shrinking analog market has more players than it can keep afloat and it'd be better to have, say, two doing well than several struggling. But maybe you're right and it's best to let the market sort out the survivors and hope they aren't too bruised and bloodied by then to continue in business. But I admit I don't much trust "the market" - it's ruthlessly efficient but, like fire, is a capricious servant and a cruel master.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 14, 2011

Roger Cole said:
But I admit I don't much trust "the market" - it's ruthlessly efficient but, like fire, is a capricious servant and a cruel master.

Keenly observed and most eloquently phrased...

Ken

thuggins · Dec 14, 2011

Here we have the typical doom and gloom predictions any time any company discontinues a film. We are looking at some fairly obscure products here. Does any really think that a single person who used to shoot 8x10 gave it up in favor of a digital PoS (Is that the right abbreviation?)?

Several years ago I asked my local lab if their E6 volume had dropped off. Their response was, "No, E6 has always been niche with devoted followers. No one who shoots E6 is going to give it up for digital." About a year ago I asked the same question and this time the response was, "Yes, some professionals have gone to the new negative films to get more leeway in the printing."

One way or the other, it is still film.

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2011

Ektar 100 and TXP are not obscure by any stretch of the imagination. 8x10 is one of the least used of the standard formats, granted, especially in color where the running costs are so high.

tomalophicon · Dec 14, 2011

My dad gave up E6 for digital. Among many others, I'm sure.
3 of the 4 photolabs in my town have closed in the last 5 years. The fourth doesn't do E6.

Michael W · Dec 14, 2011

I use Kodak & Ilford.
I also use Fuji, Agfa, Ferrania, Foma, Forte, Konica, Lucky, Polaroid, Era & Scotch.

tomalophicon · Dec 14, 2011

Michael W said:
I use Kodak & Ilford.
I also use Fuji, Agfa, Ferrania, Foma, Forte, Konica, Lucky, Polaroid, Era & Scotch.

You should also try 3M!

canuhead · Dec 14, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
...We need competition in this world of film, and the more manufacturers there are, the better it is.

Exactly. If it boiled down to one player, I honestly would be very concerned that the need to be innovative would be tossed with the bathwater.

I'll be using Kodak's b/w products (and Acros tbh) until the day they kill them all in a scorched earth move and only then will I turn to other products. I don't choose film based on a company's shortsightedness or worry about 'learning' a new film. I never really thought going from Brand X to Brand Y was all that difficult in the grand scheme of things.

lxdude · Dec 15, 2011

tomalophicon said:
You should also try 3M!

He said Scotch!

tomalophicon · Dec 15, 2011

lxdude said:
He said Scotch!

Are they the same thing?

lxdude · Dec 15, 2011

Yup. Scotch is a 3M brand. Though come to think of it, they might have been called 3M at some time and Scotch at another, or they might have been applied to different products. Though it seems like I saw film called 3M Scotch, but I'm not sure. I never liked Scotch.

Irish whiskey for me.

Rudeofus · Dec 15, 2011

If you look carefully at the discontinuation notice, you'll notice three things:

Plus X is going away. This may be bad for all those who loved that film, my condolences to them. Likewise I express my condolences to all 2 or 3 remaining bulk loaders who can't get TMAX 100 in 100ft. rolls any more.
A number of roll films are no longer available in single packs but only in 5 packs. In the age of mail ordering and thinned out availability in brick and mortar stores, I prefer 5 packs anyway. I would like 10 or 20 packs even more if they were cheaper per film roll.
A bunch of 8x10 film is special order only from now on. Remember Ilford's once a year "we cut to your size" offer and I can already see what will happen with Kodak's large format offers, as long as either Kodak or some savvy business person starts collecting many small orders and combines them into a special order volume (plus a profit).

So all together, the only real loss seems to be PlusX, everything else will end up only as inconvenience or slightly higher cost. Nothing to cheer about but no reason for panic either.

CGW · Dec 15, 2011

Nothing to cheer about but no reason for panic either.

Kodak's reps aren't offering much comfort when they gush about sales figures but not volume. Volume matters and that's the worry.

Michael W · Dec 15, 2011

tomalophicon said:
Are they the same thing?

Yeah, Scotch film was a 3M brand although I did hear it may have been made by Ferrania. Still have some in the freezer.

lxdude · Dec 15, 2011

American Scotch film from Italy. A little roll of identity crisis inside every box.

kb3lms · Dec 15, 2011

IMHO, Kodak has a track record of pulling out of markets just before they do well, or do well again. 8mm video is an excellent example. Kodak got in early, didn't see film-like profits and then bailed out. About a year later every video camera maker was selling 8mm video like hotcakes. Verbatim and Sterling Drug would be further examples. There are many more, I am sure.

When people (as in general public) find out five or 10 years from now that they don't have any real pictures on paper and the baby pictures are long gone because of a corrupted memory card, fouled hard drive or the latest incarnation of Windows BS and Facebook has finally gone into the dark corners of the Wayback Machine where it truly belongs, things in the market may very well change. Most people's PCs don't work and they couldn't print a picture if they could actually figure out how to do it - and most can't. A generation of our history is disappearing into the bit-bucket. Kodak ought to market that.

We need an Open Source Color Film project and APUG is just the place for it.

Tim Gray · Dec 15, 2011

canuhead said:
I'll be using Kodak's b/w products (and Acros tbh) until the day they kill them all in a scorched earth move and only then will I turn to other products. I don't choose film based on a company's shortsightedness or worry about 'learning' a new film. I never really thought going from Brand X to Brand Y was all that difficult in the grand scheme of things.

Exactly. I love what TMY-2 and TMZ can do, so why would I stop using them while they are still available?

Then again, I started shooting film about 5-6 years ago, with the thinking that I was going to shoot it and enjoy it while it was still here to be enjoyed. And as long as I can continue to do that, it's great. I'll figure out the transition to Ilford, or in a worse case scenario, back to digital for everything, when the time comes.

Sal Santamaura · Dec 15, 2011

Rudeofus said:
...A bunch of 8x10 film is special order only from now on. Remember Ilford's once a year "we cut to your size" offer and I can already see what will happen with Kodak's large format offers, as long as either Kodak or some savvy business person starts collecting many small orders and combines them into a special order volume (plus a profit)...So...will end up only as inconvenience...

Your conclusion about Kodak 8x10 320TXP simply being less convenient to obtain is incorrect.

Ilford, in its annual special sizes program, will supply any listed item regardless of how few boxes are ordered. Kodak, selling through retailers, will only cut and package non-stock sizes if a minimum quantity is ordered. Using TMAX 400 as an example, Canham has managed to complete only one 8x10 special order nearly 11 months ago, with a second attempt falling short in October

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilmstatus.html.

This despite his minimum number of boxes being 218, fewer than the B&H minimum of 245 boxes

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...MY_8_x_10.html.

Although B&H asks "only" $73.50 per box, compared to Canham's $77.00, it has not to my knowledge sold anyone the minimum quantity since 8x10 TMAX 400 became a special order item. Note that these are 10-sheet boxes.

Regardless of film size, Kodak requires an approximately $18,000 purchase for special orders. Ilford will deliver a single unique-size box of film even if it sells for $50 and only one is ordered. The likelihood of anyone being able to put together an 8x10 320TXP group order in the future is slight. I think this community will need to rely on Ilford for first-tier-quality 8x10 black and white film going forward. FP4 Plus is a fine film and performs similarly to 320TXP in many ways.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 15, 2011

kb3lms said:
A generation of our history is disappearing into the bit-bucket. Kodak ought to market that.

They can't. Kodak also disappeared into the bit-bucket...

Ken

michaelbsc · Dec 15, 2011

Ken Nadvornick said:
They can't. Kodak also disappeared into the bit-bucket...

Ken

Yeah, but the ink will be cheap.

h.v. · Dec 15, 2011

kb3lms said:
IMHO, Kodak has a track record of pulling out of markets just before they do well, or do well again. 8mm video is an excellent example. Kodak got in early, didn't see film-like profits and then bailed out. About a year later every video camera maker was selling 8mm video like hotcakes. Verbatim and Sterling Drug would be further examples. There are many more, I am sure.

When people (as in general public) find out five or 10 years from now that they don't have any real pictures on paper and the baby pictures are long gone because of a corrupted memory card, fouled hard drive or the latest incarnation of Windows BS and Facebook has finally gone into the dark corners of the Wayback Machine where it truly belongs, things in the market may very well change. Most people's PCs don't work and they couldn't print a picture if they could actually figure out how to do it - and most can't. A generation of our history is disappearing into the bit-bucket. Kodak ought to market that.

We need an Open Source Color Film project and APUG is just the place for it.

This isn't 1999. The world is now in a different place. I think most people realize they are no longer getting prints done, and they're doing it by their own choice. Aside from the scrapbooking niche, most people aren't putting together physical photo albums anymore. If people do get prints, it's usually just a few things so that they can have it in a frame and on display. But now with digital picture frames, I predict that will become less popular as well. Most people are perfectly fine sharing photos over Facebook or Flickr photo albums. Besides, archiving your photos on a website, in my opinion, is a safer bet than keeping it on your personal hard drive. I've never heard of someone loosing their Facebook pictures because one of Facebook's drives died. Now with cloud computing, it seems even less likely.

So with that, I wouldn't count on a resurgence in film because people realize they don't have prints. You can always make prints from digital and most film nowadays isn't even printed, it's scanned. Digital archiving is only going to get safer and more secure in the future.

PKM-25 · Dec 16, 2011

Film: Just use it, make photographs with it and try to show people good work, get the word out that it still rocks, can be souped in your kitchen sink. Word of mouth and stellar visual examples of why people should use film are what is going to keep it around, not a big marketing campaign from Kodak or Ilford.

When I was a kid, it was the photographs I saw being made on film that made me want to use it, not an ad from the company that made it....

Some Kodak changes...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency