Some Kodak changes...

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yeah, but the ink will be cheap.

Most stuff displayed on folding banquet tables at front yard estate sales usually is.



Ken

 

[Rudeofus]

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

I checked the lin?s you supplied: apparenty fewer than 80 boxes of TMAX 400 in 8x10" size were preordered in that time frame. The total amount people were willing to pay for this was about 6000$. Sorry, but I can't blame Kodak or any of their partners for not shipping a product which is so rarely used, especially in a common format like 8x10. These links also show that minimum order quantities were reached for quite a few films and at quite unusual sizes.

So what's most likely going to happen? Either people will order some other film which is similar and available (TMAX 100, Delta 400, ...) or in one or two years all TMAX 400 stock in 8x10 which people hoard in freezers will be used up and folks will complete a new order. Unless Kodak goes under there is no reason why they shouldn't coat TMAX 400 in a few years, it's a popular film stock in smaller sizes.

I envision a business plan where someone buys a load of 8x10 or larger and cuts it down to various sizes (4x5, 5x7, ....) and sells them in smaller quantities at a hefty markup.

 

[jp498]

There were about 300 boxes of tmy2 8x10 ordered; not 80, but it's still not much for a year's supply for the industry.

 

[MDR]

Of course Kodak is to blame I love their products but their management sucks or has the economic knowledge of an amoeba a soon as an item becomes special order or really hard to get people will turn to the easier available product in this case probably Ilford Hp5+, or as old German Austrian saying goes aus den Augen aus den Sinn (approx translation: out of view, out of mind). Since I am not using TMY in 8x10 I have to ask was Tmax only available trough Canham if that is the case than Kodak hasn't really given a thought about 75% of the worlds photographers (living outside the US) and is a 100% responsible for the downturn in it's LF Film sales. If on the other hand TMAX 400 was available worlwide trough worldwide distributors than the blames lies with the photographers and Kodak 50/50. h.v. the digital archiving won't get better in the future because the company producing the stuff don't want it to last longer, that's a fact and the companies openly admit it at least to archivists and the UNESCO.

Dominik

 

[CGW]

Of course Kodak is to blame I love their products but their management sucks or has the economic knowledge of an amoeba a soon as an item becomes special order or really hard to get people will turn to the easier available product in this case probably Ilford Hp5+, or as old German Austrian saying goes aus den Augen aus den Sinn (approx translation: out of view, out of mind). Since I am not using TMY in 8x10 I have to ask was Tmax only available trough Canham if that is the case than Kodak hasn't really given a thought about 75% of the worlds photographers (living outside the US) and is a 100% responsible for the downturn in it's LF Film sales. If on the other hand TMAX 400 was available worlwide trough worldwide distributors than the blames lies with the photographers and Kodak 50/50. h.v. the digital archiving won't get better in the future because the company producing the stuff don't want it to last longer, that's a fact and the companies openly admit it at least to archivists and the UNESCO.

Dominik

What about demand? Where's that gone? Kodak won't make product that doesn't sell. Where's the mystery in that? Kodak isn't talking much about production just sales. FYI they're not the same.

 

[MDR]

CGW take a look at my first paragraph if I have a monopoly I can do things like special order etc.. but if I am a one of a dozen fishs in a pond I have to be visible and I have to promote myself in order to be in demand. Kodak LF products were neither visible nor available thus lowering the demand for said products. Ilford and other manufacturers are much more proactive than Kodak and are being noticed especially by newcomers. Demand is created trough visibility and promotion and that's a marketing fact.

I don't blame Kodak's for reducing their product line it's the correct decision but they are not innocent in their downfall (see above paragraph) and they still have the big corporation mindset well they aren't anymore.

Dominik

 

[CGW]

CGW take a look at my first paragraph if I have a monopoly I can do things like special order etc.. but if I am a one of a dozen fishs in a pond I have to be visible and I have to promote myself in order to be in demand. Kodak LF products were neither visible nor available thus lowering the demand for said products. Ilford and other manufacturers are much more proactive than Kodak and are being noticed especially by newcomers. Demand is created trough visibility and promotion and that's a marketing fact.

I don't blame Kodak's for reducing their product line it's the correct decision but they are not innocent in their downfall (see above paragraph) and they still have the big corporation mindset well they aren't anymore.

Dominik

Ever occur to you that fewer and fewer people are bothering with LF and/or that just possibly Kodak can't economically supply that dwindling demand?

 

[MDR]

CGW it did occur to me and as I said I agree with their decision to cut the filmsize from their program. But film sales wouldn't have dwindled that fast if Kodak would have been more proactive in promoting their products while in fact they have a CEO who openly states film is dead. I congratulate Kodak on bringing out new motion picture film, but cutting Ektar from their LF program sends the wrong message even if it is the right decision. I lay blame where blame is due on the CEO and the marketing dept. Kodak is and always has been a great company with superb products and stupid CEOs and marketing.

Dominik

 

[CGW]

CGW it did occur to me and as I said I agree with their decision to cut the filmsize from their program. But film sales wouldn't have dwindled that fast if Kodak would have been more proactive in promoting their products while in fact they have a CEO who openly states film is dead. I congratulate Kodak on bringing out new motion picture film, but cutting Ektar from their LF program sends the wrong message even if it is the right decision. I lay blame where blame is due on the CEO and the marketing dept. Kodak is and always has been a great company with superb products and stupid CEOs and marketing.

Dominik

Lack of promotion is a soothing fiction that alone can't possibly explain the decline in film use. It's not selling. Deal with it. It's not the 1990s. Sad but true.

 

[MDR]

Remind me who invented digital photography and couldn't market it ? Kodak's history is a history of bad advertising and promotion and I am dealing with it by saying it's the right decision to cut products that don't sell. Film isn't dead yet and I thank god every day that it's still around and I very much doubt that it will make a come back.

Dominik

 

[PKM-25]

Kodak LF products were neither visible nor available thus lowering the demand for said products. Ilford and other manufacturers are much more proactive than Kodak and are being noticed especially by newcomers. Demand is created trough visibility and promotion and that's a marketing fact.

Huh, last time I looked at the list of available product at both B&H and Freestyle, Kodak's offerings were visible in great detail, price, reviews, etc. That is what photographers do who take their craft seriously, they check to see what is available, not wait for some ad with John Sexton using TMY in PDN to hit their door step.

Large format, especially 8x10, is a very niche format, I doubt marketing accounts for any more than 10% of total sales, even considering new comers, who would also take the investigative route over the "Gimmie Slick Marketing" route as well in finding out what is out there.

 

[Rudeofus]

There were about 300 boxes of tmy2 8x10 ordered; not 80, but it's still not much for a year's supply for the industry.

Canham states here, that at least 218 boxes must be preordered for a Kodak to start a run. They did not, however, and the page here states, that they were 140 boxes short, which means that 78 preorders were placed. That's where my number 80 came from. Your 300 number comes from adding the 218 boxes they ordered in January with the 78 boxes they did not order in October.

Either way: Kodak is still a huge company and I can understand why they didn't bother with 80 boxes of TMY 8x10.

Ever occur to you that fewer and fewer people are bothering with LF and/or that just possibly Kodak can't economically supply that dwindling demand?

While a lot of commercial setups probably went the digital route during the last 10 years, I see quite a few amateurs taking advantage of the fire sale prices for used LF equipment. I personally know a few hobbyists who use LF cameras, for whom such equipment would have completely out of reach 20 years ago.

Kodak's history is a history of bad advertising and promotion and I am dealing with it by saying it's the right decision to cut products that don't sell.

Please don't ignore that Kodak heavily marketed their new Portra line of films and created quite some hype in the analog crowd - even I who swore to never touch color negative film ever again bought dozens of film rolls based on the glowing reviews I read here and elsewhere.

 

[MDR]

Please ignore my ignorance about Kodaks US marketing but in Germany and Austria their pro products aren't really promoted all that much especially their LF products. Ilfords B/W products are omnipresent, but try to get Tri-X and it will be a lot harder. I don't know how the situation is in Asia never forget two third of the worlds population live there. PKM as you said they check whats available and Kodak pro B/W film is much harder to get than Ilford Film in Europe. I also believe that the biggest resurgence of LF photography is in China and again I don't know how many Chinese LF shooters use Kodak as opposed to Fuji. I hate for Kodak to cut their products but I'd rather have them survive with a smaller portofolio than go under.

Dominik

 

[CGW]

Canham states here, that at least 218 boxes must be preordered for a Kodak to start a run. They did not, however, and the page here states, that they were 140 boxes short, which means that 78 preorders were placed. That's where my number 80 came from. Your 300 number comes from adding the 218 boxes they ordered in January with the 78 boxes they did not order in October.

Either way: Kodak is still a huge company and I can understand why they didn't bother with 80 boxes of TMY 8x10.


While a lot of commercial setups probably went the digital route during the last 10 years, I see quite a few amateurs taking advantage of the fire sale prices for used LF equipment. I personally know a few hobbyists who use LF cameras, for whom such equipment would have completely out of reach 20 years ago.


Please don't ignore that Kodak heavily marketed their new Portra line of films and created quite some hype in the analog crowd - even I who swore to never touch color negative film ever again bought dozens of film rolls based on the glowing reviews I read here and elsewhere.

Don't know how big the writing on the wall has to be to catch people's attention aside from the order shortfalls about LF's prospects.

Amateur/hobbyist demand isn't close now to what pro demand was for any film material a decade ago. Amateurs could get decent E6 service back then simply because so many pros shot transparency.

Response to the new Portras was borderline hysterical because it reversed the impression of a flatlining Kodak. The ad "campaign" itself was pretty limp but thanks to the huge archipelago of blogs and boards, news and reviews went viral at no cost to Kodak. It's really nice film but Kodak didn't break the bank convincing us.

 

[jp498]

Canham states here, that at least 218 boxes must be preordered for a Kodak to start a run. They did not, however, and the page here states, that they were 140 boxes short, which means that 78 preorders were placed. That's where my number 80 came from. Your 300 number comes from adding the 218 boxes they ordered in January with the 78 boxes they did not order in October.

Either way: Kodak is still a huge company and I can understand why they didn't bother with 80 boxes of TMY 8x10.

My 300 number was a little off. It's from an April 23 2011 facebook post by canham with a photo showing 332 boxes of tmy 8x10.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...554102800.43558.131324393576850&type=1&ref=nf

Still not much for a world supply of a popular B&W film for a year. (as the October order hadn't proceeded)

 

[h.v.]

h.v. the digital archiving won't get better in the future because the company producing the stuff don't want it to last longer, that's a fact and the companies openly admit it at least to archivists and the UNESCO.

Dominik

What are you talking about? Are you talking about Kodak's digital archiving? I'm not. I'm talking about every form of digital archiving, which includes dozens of companies. If digital archiving wasn't going to be getting any better, then how come it is improved even from just a few years ago? Also, keep in mind that not all forms of digital archiving require you to buy something (aside from a computer, of course) which renders your point that companies don't want it to last longer moot. They aren't going to profit from people buying more of a product because they already offer their stuff for free or for a low cost. I'm talking about online archiving, through Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, Zenfolio, Myspace, etc. As for things you actually buy, hard drives (both internal and external) are getting more sophisticated and powerful by the year. With solid state hard drives dropping in price and thus gaining popularity, there will be less worry of hard drives becoming unusable because of the lack of moving parts.

 

[tomalophicon]

What's all this lame talk about digital got to do with APUG?
Keep it real fellers!

 

[markbarendt]

The ad "campaign" itself was pretty limp but thanks to the huge archipelago of blogs and boards, news and reviews went viral at no cost to Kodak. It's really nice film but Kodak didn't break the bank convincing us.

Marketing is changing, the old guard of TV and magazine ads being able to drive a market to a product are over, just like the days of my youth when three networks provided virtually all the content on TV and National Geographic and Life inspired many of us to pick up cameras and use film.

I'm mot saying that Kodak or Fuji, et al, are doing enough, just that the marketing we expect to see may not be the best use of resources.

 

[MDR]

h.v. I am talking digital archiving as a whole btw the more powerful a harddrive is the more likely it is to fail. Facebook and Co is not even ten years old and the content of the profiles constantly changes (constantly rewritten). Germany has a huge Archive for it's digital documents and guess what they save it on microfilm. The best long term digital storage devise is the rosetta stone that nobody uses because nobody can afford it, the second best is magnetic tape (max 30 years that's not long term for an archivist) never believe the propaganda from the digital companies. The best affordable storage devise is Film yes good old Film nothing beats it for economy and and long term stability (under the right conditions). Germany and other countries store it in old mines under ideal conditions and expect it to survive the next 200 - 500 years (that's long term). This market is also unfortunately for Kodak pretty much in Agfa's and Fuji's hand.

Dominik

 

[Rudeofus]

My 300 number was a little off. It's from an April 23 2011 facebook post by canham with a photo showing 332 boxes of tmy 8x10.

So basically this is the shipment of the preorders which were completed until January 2011. Instead of the minimum order quantity of 218 boxes 332 were preordered, it looks like a lot of these boxes went straight into the freezer and haven't been used up yet, hence there was not nearly as much demand in October.

 

[Rudeofus]

Please ignore my ignorance about Kodaks US marketing but in Germany and Austria their pro products aren't really promoted all that much especially their LF products.

As Mark Barendt already mentioned, (successful) marketing has changed in the last 10 years. I wouldn't know of any marketing campaigns in photographic magazines because I don't read any of them. I did, however, notice the enthusiasm so many spread in all kinds of forum I cared about. Some may call it viral marketing, chances are there also was some astroturfing involved, we'll never know. It worked with me, though. Although Fuji is mostly absent from US and European forums, their introduction of Provia 400X was quite a success story. Again, I wouldn't even know about this great film if it wasn't for enthusiastic reports here on APUG.

Don't know how big the writing on the wall has to be to catch people's attention aside from the order shortfalls about LF's prospects.

Since LF cameras can be self made by skilled hobbyists I would even go as far as predicting that LF is going to be the last analog format around should that technology ever dwindle down into obscurity. Few to no people will be able to fix my RZ67, much less my EOS 3 in 30 years, but there will still be lots of people who can fold a bellows, adapt a lens, grind some glass and make a film holder out of wood.

CGW, you were very upset when I (there was a url link here which no longer exists) your constant "Analog is dying" postings but you really begin to sound like a single tune band by now. Nobody would have considered Cassandra prophetic had she announced the downfall of Troy as long as you have announced the imminent demise of slide film, LF photography, Kodak, and analog photography in general.

Amateur/hobbyist demand isn't close now to what pro demand was for any film material a decade ago. Amateurs could get decent E6 service back then simply because so many pros shot transparency.

So what? The pro transition to D was completed many years ago yet LF film stock is still offered. I would be very surprised if LF film sales showed a strong decline during the last 3 years. And since you bring up E6 *again*: spend half the effort you put into "slide film is dying" postings into the learning of E6 home processing and you'll never look back at E6 labs anymore.

 

[h.v.]

h.v. I am talking digital archiving as a whole btw the more powerful a harddrive is the more likely it is to fail. Facebook and Co is not even ten years old and the content of the profiles constantly changes (constantly rewritten). Germany has a huge Archive for it's digital documents and guess what they save it on microfilm. The best long term digital storage devise is the rosetta stone that nobody uses because nobody can afford it, the second best is magnetic tape (max 30 years that's not long term for an archivist) never believe the propaganda from the digital companies. The best affordable storage devise is Film yes good old Film nothing beats it for economy and and long term stability (under the right conditions). Germany and other countries store it in old mines under ideal conditions and expect it to survive the next 200 - 500 years (that's long term). This market is also unfortunately for Kodak pretty much in Agfa's and Fuji's hand.

Dominik

Look, I don't really want to much further with this as this is getting to be too much of digital vs. film. All I wanted to say was that the world is different now, and 90% of people (in developed nations, anyways) seem to be rather content with digital file sharing and archiving, with little being printed.

I agree that film is a great archival format that has been proven to last over a century if properly maintained. Not to mention, in 100 years, a film negative can be copied again so that worries of the negative fading are rendered moot.

But what I am saying is most people have moved on from that. Digital archiving is not to the level of film archiving, but it isn't half bad if you remove your hard film bias and it's clearly working for most people. How is a hard drive that is powerful enough to withstand time and some environmental conditions more likely to fail with time and environmental conditions? That doesn't make sense.

You are right, Facebook isn't very old. But neither was film in the 19th century, and look how far it's gotten! Facebook may bite the dust, but there will always be another company to take its place (like how Facebook was there when Myspace tanked in popularity). People's treasured memories don't just disappear from Facebook due to a hard drive at Facebook failing (and like I said, with cloud and solid state HD, this is less of a worry). The only way they would disappear is if Facebook ceased to exist, but there would likely be sufficient notice and an alternative website.

Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. I've made my point, and if you disagree, that's fine, no point clogging a Kodak thread with any digital vs. film.

 

[MDR]

H.v. okay let's agree to disagree and end this discussion. I for one hope that Kodak as company will survive the next century as a film based company and that we can use their products well into the 22nd century.

Dominik

 

[CGW]

As Mark Barendt already mentioned, (successful) marketing has changed in the last 10 years. I wouldn't know of any marketing campaigns in photographic magazines because I don't read any of them. I did, however, notice the enthusiasm so many spread in all kinds of forum I cared about. Some may call it viral marketing, chances are there also was some astroturfing involved, we'll never know. It worked with me, though. Although Fuji is mostly absent from US and European forums, their introduction of Provia 400X was quite a success story. Again, I wouldn't even know about this great film if it wasn't for enthusiastic reports here on APUG.

Since LF cameras can be self made by skilled hobbyists I would even go as far as predicting that LF is going to be the last analog format around should that technology ever dwindle down into obscurity. Few to no people will be able to fix my RZ67, much less my EOS 3 in 30 years, but there will still be lots of people who can fold a bellows, adapt a lens, grind some glass and make a film holder out of wood.

CGW, you were very upset when I (there was a url link here which no longer exists) your constant "Analog is dying" postings but you really begin to sound like a single tune band by now. Nobody would have considered Cassandra prophetic had she announced the downfall of Troy as long as you have announced the imminent demise of slide film, LF photography, Kodak, and analog photography in general.

So what? The pro transition to D was completed many years ago yet LF film stock is still offered. I would be very surprised if LF film sales showed a strong decline during the last 3 years. And since you bring up E6 *again*: spend half the effort you put into "slide film is dying" postings into the learning of E6 home processing and you'll never look back at E6 labs anymore.

There are practical limits to the survivalist approach to film use, the most obvious being chemistry for small batch E6 and possibly C-41 in the not too distant future. B&W still has simplicity going for it. Nothing in the current situation pleases me at all but outright denial of reality is troubling and a bit misleading.

 

[ChipMcD]

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

I don't know if it would be an acceptable substitute, but I have started using Eastman Double X, which is a black and white movie film rated at ISO 250 for daylight. You have to buy 400 ft @ ca. $140 and spool it onto a core for your bulk loader, but it's not too much trouble. I like the way the film looks. I haven't used Plus X or TMax 100 for years. Double X looks more like Tri X from the 70s as I remember it. It's nowhere near as fine grained as TMax 100. There's a web page with development times: Dead Link Removed. If you're willing to buy 400 ft, rather than a short end, just order direct from Kodak. It'll be interesting to see how much longer they manufacture this.

Here's an example:


Untitled by AmSteinsgraben, on Flickr