Time to stock up on Kodak

[Thomas Bertilsson]

"Better" is such a relative word...

'Better liked' would have been more appropriate. Or 'popular'.

It is an interesting article that Rudofeus linked to, though, and not a bad social study.

 

[PKM-25]

Buying Kodak film *is* buying Kodak stock, the only one that matters. With the thousands of dollars in HIE and Techpan I have in deep freeze, I feel like a shareholder, LOL!

But in any case, this is rough news, rough times for a lot of individuals and corporations. I have had a fairly good year, lived well within my means, so I can budget 4-5K to stock up on Ektar, Portra, TMax and Tri-X and put it in deep freeze.

By the way, I think Kodak can and should shrink the product line a bit more...do we really need or want Tri-X in 24 exposure rolls weighing them down when most of us use 36?

 

[Roger Cole]

By the way, I think Kodak can and should shrink the product line a bit more...do we really need or want Tri-X in 24 exposure rolls weighing them down when most of us use 36?

Just goes to show - the reason I bought a 100' roll of Arista Premium, aka Tri-X, was because I dislike 36 exposure loads. They're just too long. Before I finish one I want something else loaded in the camera. The 36 exposures preloaded are close enough in price it would make no sense to buy 100', but the 24s are almost as much as the 36s.

But I'd rather lose it in one length than both, of course.

Still, I don't think this would save any substantial amount of money. It only differs by how much film is wound on the spool and what is printed on it and the box.

 

[KarnyDoc]

If this is helpful, HC-110 was cloned quite a while ago. It's latest non-Kodak incarnation is LegacyPro's L-110. The only real difference is that the L-110 doesn't have the yellow color of the Kodak product.

Actually, almost all of the LegacyPro line of chemicals are Kodak clones. Thus, I would guess that they should be around for quite a while if Kodak does indeed go into bankruptcy. Check out Freestyle's web site for details.

Don't know about RA-4, sorry.

Why is it that to people, "bankruptcy=going out of business"?

If/when Kodak declares bankruptcy, it will be under Chapter 11, which allows a company to reorganize its debt. (Chapter 7 of the US Bankruptcy Code is for liquidation, i.e., when a company ceases operations and sells off its assets.)

In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, a company may choose to spin off or close specific operations or divisions, but these would have to be approved by the judge. It would be up to that judge to decide whether Kodak may spin off its film division (assuming the company does file for bankruptcy protection). However, the court would also have to allow a period of time for the debtor to find a buyer for those assets, operations, division(s), etc., which would draw out the process.

Dieter Zakas

 

[perkeleellinen]

No offense, you lost the passion and music is nothing more than something to fill in the background.

No offence taken

I wonder if I ever did have the passion - at least for recorded music. LPs were all there was once that's why I played them. I have some friends who are hi-fi enthusiasts and their equipment looks great. Aesthetics and functionality are stunning. I guess the sound is better, but it really doesn't move me that much. That was what I was trying to illuminate with photography; maybe the regular person can detect the difference but the trade off in time, effort and expense to get there is not worth the emotional outcome.

 

[Photo-gear]

Originally Posted by Silverhead
Actually, almost all of the LegacyPro line of chemicals are Kodak clones.

It might be true for the chemicals, but for films almost every user will agree that their 100 and 400 ISO films are from Fujifilm (Acros + Neopan).

Somehow the LegacyPro line seems to be a mix of some manufacturers.

 

[ricardo12458]

It's unfortunate that people accept digi images the way they are. I guess if the image is in color and reasonably sharp its OK. When Wal^%$ or Walgre&^% is backed up with a line of people waiting to use the kiosk to make their own snapshots, they come to my place and expect to do the same.

I don't use their kiosks. I use the <painfully slow> send-out service (dwaynesphoto/fujifilmusa). The prints are still optically printed.

The Smithsonian has reported that we (the people) have lost almost 20 years of documented history due to digital cameras. Over 95% of digi usere [sic] do not print the images and simply save them on the computer. With the rate of computer failure (pick any reason), and new incompatible hardware introductions, these images are lost forever. Got DOS? How about all the great programs etc. on your Windows 3.1 machine or W95 or W98 machine or Macintosh? Where is the old windows machine? No need to answer. Some folks have them, some not.

This was THE MAIN reason I switched back to film. I haven't had a problem since.

-R

 

[ntenny]

I wonder if I ever did have the passion - at least for recorded music. LPs were all there was once that's why I played them. I have some friends who are hi-fi enthusiasts and their equipment looks great. Aesthetics and functionality are stunning. I guess the sound is better, but it really doesn't move me that much.

There's a saying that I've seen some audiophiles accept, tongue-in-cheek, about themselves: they don't like music, they just like the sound it makes.

Me, I'm the other way. I'm about as passionate about music as anyone gets, but I basically don't give a crap about the minutiae of sound reproduction. Lately I've been listening to a lot of blues and oldtime country from before World War II, originally sourced from scratchy old 78s or Edison cylinders, with the kind of sonic limitations that make audiophiles tear their hair out in horror. But still, you know, the music is *there*.

That was what I was trying to illuminate with photography; maybe the regular person can detect the difference but the trade off in time, effort and expense to get there is not worth the emotional outcome.

Maybe. On the other hand, I remember an article in LensWork a few years ago with some anecdotal evidence that many "civilian" observers don't notice the difference between a silver-gelatin print and a platinum print! If distinctions that drastic are tuned out, I have a hard time believing that very many people pick up on things like the format-based differences in tonal gradation.

If you show a photograph to a non-photographer, they almost always react to the subject, not the photograph itself. What that suggests to me is that people will react to differences that affect the appearance of the subject---white balance in color photos, depth of field, focus at a relatively coarse level, large-scale composition. Interestingly, these are the same characteristics that are called out in the OKCupid survey.

But the stuff a lot of us obsess over in our prints---the little place in the sky where the gradation doesn't look smooth, the difference between Zone X and "blown out"? People don't notice that; not the typical viewers of vernacular photography. I'm pretty cavalier about what I'll tolerate in a photo, but I'm forever catching hell from my family for holding back on photos of my son; I end up saying "But his hair is out of focus and there's no shadow detail!", and they're saying "But it's a cute picture of him!", so I post it anyway and worry that all the photographers are sitting in front of their computers saying "well, *there's* a guy who doesn't know how to take a picture!"

Anyway, I digress, I suppose. Obviously I do buy certain arguments for shooting film preferentially, because I, y'know, *do* it. For me the big two reasons are (1) permanence and (2) it's fun. But I think we long ago passed the threshold where the differences in image quality between film and consumer digital became unimportant to most viewers. To get back on topic, that being the case, I certainly can't fault Kodak for wanting to follow the mass of casual photographers into digital-land.

-NT

 

[lxdude]

But the stuff a lot of us obsess over in our prints---the little place in the sky where the gradation doesn't look smooth, the difference between Zone X and "blown out"? People don't notice that; not the typical viewers of vernacular photography. I'm pretty cavalier about what I'll tolerate in a photo, but I'm forever catching hell from my family for holding back on photos of my son; I end up saying "But his hair is out of focus and there's no shadow detail!", and they're saying "But it's a cute picture of him!", so I post it anyway and worry that all the photographers are sitting in front of their computers saying "well, *there's* a guy who doesn't know how to take a picture!"

-NT

A very important point.

Many years ago, a friend borrowed a 35mm SLR from me to take some pictures of friends. One picture was made looking down at a child who was smiling up at the camera, a beatific expression on his face. It was noticeably out of focus. He was upset about it and showed it to me, lamenting that he'd messed up the best shot of the whole bunch. My initial reaction was "Yeah, it would have been such a great shot"; then it dawned on me, it still was a great shot, just not as great as it could have been. I told my friend he should definitely include it with the other prints he was going to give to his friends, and I was sure the kid's mom would love it anyway. Which she did.

I've been thinking about the camera phone shots my neighbors take of their kids, and how the phones enable them to get shots they wouldn't otherwise, because the size and utility of the phones means they always are carrying them. The image quality is adequate for them when taking pictures in casual situations. Sometimes it even works for them as in one partly backlit shot where lens flare over the whole image created a soft, somewhat dreamy look in a shot of their 3-year-old daughter with flowers in her hair.
Mom does have her 40D for when she wants higher quality pictures.

Most people in the film P&S days were satisfied with the results the local lab gave them; they were looking at facial expressions and how people looked.

The technical really is secondary to the content, IMO.

 

[hpulley]

Funny thing is these days rather than looking for perfection, people are looking for imperfections. They're adding light leaks and scratches to digital photographs, making them look old and filmy. Even film is popularly 'lomo' with expired film, cameras with light leaks and plastic lenses for dreamy looking shots. It is a reaction to the cold extra-reality of many digital pictures and while I try to fix the light leaks in my cameras I certainly find that for me personally, a film shot optically printed has more depth and warmth than a digital photo. It feels closer to the moment, closer to reality.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...a film shot optically printed has more depth and warmth than a digital photo. It feels closer to the moment, closer to reality.

Interesting point.

I've often wondered if, by the wave of a majic wand, the situation had been reversed. If the last 180 or so years had been imaged digitally, and then this new-fangled medium of film had only just burst onto the scene, would we be reacting the exact same way - but in reverse?

Ken

 

[tomalophicon]

Interesting point.

I've often wondered if, by the wave of a majic wand, the situation had been reversed. If the last 180 or so years had been imaged digitally, and then this new-fangled medium of film had only just burst onto the scene, would we be reacting the exact same way - but in reverse?

Ken

Dude, there were no computers back then......!!!

 

[hpulley]

Interesting point.

I've often wondered if, by the wave of a majic wand, the situation had been reversed. If the last 180 or so years had been imaged digitally, and then this new-fangled medium of film had only just burst onto the scene, would we be reacting the exact same way - but in reverse?

Ken

Personally, I don't think so. I think the warmth is from the analog nature of it, not just my rose coloured glasses but since I am the one who might be wearing them, it is hard to tell.

Same goes for tube amp and solid state. I was borrowing a lovely old tube amp and had to return it. The solid state Fender I bought is a nice amp but the sound isn't as nice, especially when pushed. Analog pushes the envelope ('degrades' even) gracefully while digital clips both in music and photography. Clipped music and clipped highlights just don't sound and look as good IMO.

 

[JerryWo]

My wife and I go on nice vacations every year or so. A "Washington Post" article once opined, "..the best thing you can spend your money on is the accumulation of memories." and so we create rather elaborately crafted scrapbooks after our vacations. We often take 2,500 photos or more, and accumulate various maps, ticket stubs, journal entries, etc. in the creation of one of these books (it usually takes two books). I have a good color printer, and can knock out beautifully rotated, cropped, and edited color photos culled from the large number we take. We took a recent, short, vacation to Berlin and I shot a few rolls of B&W. They're beautiful (FP4 at EI 50 in Perceptol) and will look nice, woven in with all the digital prints we also took, but I gotta tell ya...Our last scrapbook (Italy 2010) had 454 color photos of various sizes on 13" x 14" pages.

It was an enormous amount of work....and if I were trying to do it all in a darkroom, I'd be in there for 6 months. "No, I'm sorry Jerry can't go on his next vacation, he isn't done with the scrapbook from the last vacation...."

I love B&W, I love the artistic flair that it brings to a scene and I love the sense of accomplishment in mastering a small portion of this old-fashioned technology. Good-bye Kodak - it was nice knowing ya. I hope enough companies stay in this B&W scene to sustain this wonderful hobby - that's what will probably happen, the supply will eventually equal the demand.

Jerry Wolczanski
Warrenton, VA
Rollei TLR
Voigtlanders
Canon G-III QL
Olympus Stylus
Nikon Ftn
oh Yeah...
Pentax DSLR
Epson Stylus Photo 1400 printer
Durst F30 enlarger
Durst M600

Wet prints, dry prints
Rodinal or ink cartridges
film or memory cards
Inkjet paper or fiber-based resin coated VC

I love it all.

 

[JerryWo]

Cruzingoose, I'm a ham operator and build a lot of my own gear. In one of the e-mail groups I belong to, there is currently a fair debate raging over solid state vs. tube audio amplifiers. The tube folks describe the sound of tube amplifiers as "warm" or "liquid" which drives the solid state folks nuts. How do you describe, in technical terms, a "warm" sound? I think Hpulley might have it right. I can tell you this: I've scratch-built tube amateur radio receivers from regen's to double conversion superhetrodynes - The tube sets sound better; morse code signals sound "brassier". But, it always is tough getting rid of some of the 60Hz hum (my ears are sensitive). Plus, having been nipped by my share of 250 Volt DC supplies - working with 12 VDC is infinitely safer!

Back to photography - digitally captured images surpassed film in 35mm and medium format a long time ago in terms of resolution. But there IS something missing in digital - it's all the darn dust and scratches! We visited the famous "Museum of the Kennedy's" in Berlin and they had a fabulous collection of old B&W prints. President Kennedy was revered by the Germans ("Ich bin ein Berliner"). It was rather interesting to see all these old (and famous) prints with all the traditional B&W flaws (dust, various dots, bits of fabric) that I strive to banish from the darkroom - not terribly successfully I might add. I was going to invest in some re-touching stuff, but after that exhibit, I figured, the heck with it.

Whether you liked the Kennedy's or not - the collection of Kennedy-era prints was worth the modest price of admission.

Looking at all those old photos also changed my opinion about grain; it's not nearly so bad and, in some of the photos really adds character to the photo - maybe that's the "feel" you speak of?
Jerry W
Warrenton, VA

 

[Roger Cole]

Hpulley, you hit the nail square on the head!!!!! This is what I was trying to describe! Like tube type radios and amplifiers, film has a great warmth that just can not be acomplished digitally. An image captured digitally could possibly equal or perhaps surpass film in accuracy, color and sharpness, but it does not have the right "feel", something seems to be missing, the personal touch perhaps?

Nice work Jerry. One of the real advantages of digicams is the ability to take and hold a great number of images. But your's are not lost to a hard disk. Printed and bound, they are turned into history for anyone to look back on and enjoy.

I love film but I doubt this is true. I'd bet (a small amount, not a large amount) that given several top quality prints of comparable size, mixed subject matter, different types of lighting etc. that very few people, even very few photographers, would be able to identify which were done all digitally and which optically (from a suitable viewing distance - I'm not talking about being so close you can see the surface difference in the papers.)

I don't really care which is "better" and I certainly am not in love with dust and other defects that are easy to remove digitally but not optically. What I really love about analog photography, especially black and white, is the process. I simple enjoy shooting film, getting in the darkroom away from my computer and getting my hands wet with an art that still has some craft to it.

That's why I do it. The image and any differences, real or imagined, is not the driving factor in my choice of analog versus digital.

 

[octofish]

Cruzingoose, I'm a ham operator and build a lot of my own gear. In one of the e-mail groups I belong to, there is currently a fair debate raging over solid state vs. tube audio amplifiers. The tube folks describe the sound of tube amplifiers as "warm" or "liquid" which drives the solid state folks nuts. How do you describe, in technical terms, a "warm" sound?

Getting a bit OT here, but worth saying. Ask people who play guitar about amps and there is basically no debate. There is simply no comparison. The distortion characteristics are completely different. You can get software to model tube distortion, which can get close, but it's always never quite right. This is the same thing that is happening now with hipstamatic etc. It gets it sort of similar on the surface, but the complexities never come across. Somehow the modelling is always like a cookie cutter stamp that is always the same, different to the dynamic nature of a true analog process.

I think it's basically down to this. When things are 100% accurate, no distortion or noise, you cant tell the difference. Digital is better at getting that number up close to 100%. But it will never ever get there. And the non-linear characteristics in film (or tubes) are more pleasurable for whatever reason. They are more complex maybe. So if you recognise the inevitability of distortion/non-linearity (or find those aspects of what you are doing interesting), analog tends to be of interest.

That said, digital non-linearity is interesting too, just in a different way. If you like really really harsh unpleasantness for instance.

I find the tone of tubes to be subjectively like the glass they are made from. Kinda liquid. Likewise film and emulsion. Smooth and liquid. There is probably no physical connection, but that's how it feels. In the case of sound, I've heard theories that it has to do with the nature of the harmonics introduced by distortion. Tubes are even order, solid state is odd order (noteworthily solid state amps are still analog, not digital), and this is somehow more/less aesthetically pleasing. Not sure how that relates to film. Probably doesn't.

 

[perkeleellinen]

My wife talks about this idea of warm sound when trying to describe how a real piano differs from a digital version. She once asked me why I wanted a darkroom at home when I could have a new digi camera or scanner and do the same effects easier on a computer. I replied that she should try recording her piano playing, feed it into a pc and then edit the music to make it more accurate to the score. She never asked again but if she did I think I'll wonder out loud why sculptors don't employ CAD/CAM technology and ditch those chisels.

 

[georg16nik]

My wife talks about this idea of warm sound when trying to describe how a real piano differs from a digital version. She once asked me why I wanted a darkroom at home when I could have a new digi camera or scanner and do the same effects easier on a computer. I replied that she should try recording her piano playing, feed it into a pc and then edit the music to make it more accurate to the score. She never asked again but if she did I think I'll wonder out loud why sculptors don't employ CAD/CAM technology and ditch those chisels.

Indeed!
did You guys stock up with Kodak stuff?
I consider, ordering some stuff, to remind myself how that things "smells"

And, btw:
A warm sound is a Fender strat type-o-guitar cranked through tube rectified, 6v6 driven power stage, class A amp, alnico magnet, all paper speaker.
The solid state Fender amps are the joke of the century.
The cyber twin is the shame of the century.

 

[Roger Cole]

Digiprints are none of this. No grain, (just noise), when enlarged, turns into square blocks with jagged edges, bold, oversaturated color and artificially enhanced sharpness making the image harsh, needs complicated and expensive methods of display, print and edit, and finally, no future. Once the computer dies there gone forever, even optical media is NOT archival. Try reading the CDs you made back ten years ago.

The folks that print the images have a better chance of archiving their memories.

But they don't have to be over-enlarged, they don't have to be oversaturated, they don't have to be sharpened at all much less oversharpened. They can just as easily be printed or displayed small enough to show no pixelation and apparently very smooth tonality, can be blurred as easily as sharpened, de-saturaed as easily as over saturated.

These things are in vogue, but they are not inherent in digital.

In fact one of the things I miss in analog color right now is the inability (unless there's a darkroom technique I'm not aware of, which there may be) to produce an image with less than what is promoted now as neutral saturation. I missed out on some Agfa Portrait 160 on the 'bay because I wouldn't bid over $10 per roll for outdated 120. Today's neutral films like Portra would have been saturated some time ago, and today's saturated ones vary from vivid to downright garish depending on the film, subject and light. Sometimes that's good but what if I want pastel saturation for a dreamy looking portrait or soft focus landscape? I don't know of a way to do it a totally analog workflow today, whereas it's very easy digitally or with hybrid methods.

I don't know of a Photoshop plugin that mimics the swirly bokeh of a Petzval but it may exist and, if it doesn't, someone will make it. I'm sure it won't quite be the real thing but it would be closer than I can get without buying one of the now high priced antiques.

This may sound like I'm promoting digital but I'm not. My point is just that in terms of the final image it can do what film can, for most purposes and almost all viewers anyway and, in some cases, more, and just about always more easily. Trying to promote film for some superiority of the image is a dead end, outside certain very specialized cases. Film and analog methods are fun and rewarding because of the process, because they have an element of craft to them, precisely because they almost always are more trouble and usually take more skill and care. (Of course neither tool will make up for a lack of vision or composition.) Those are the important differences.

 

[MaximusM3]

Indeed!
did You guys stock up with Kodak stuff?
I consider, ordering some stuff, to remind myself how that things "smells"

And, btw:
A warm sound is a Fender strat type-o-guitar cranked through tube rectified, 6v6 driven power stage, class A amp, alnico magnet, all paper speaker.
The solid state Fender amps are the joke of the century.
The cyber twin is the shame of the century.

I did..200 more rolls of Tri-X, some TMY and TMX..and I still play my '53 Tele through a 1964 Deluxe Reverb

 

[j-dogg]

Going to raid the fridge at the camera store today, they have a couple bricks of Tmax 400 36exp.

A little FYI and I don't know if this is a Kodak issue or a supplier issue but they have film on backorder for the past 3 months now. I've been trying to get some Portra 400, 800 and some E100VS and told them if they ordered me a couple bricks I'd come pick them up on day of delivery and gladly pay for them and I haven't heard anything.

I'm going to guess a supplier issue since they haven't gotten any green stuff yet, but one can only hope.

Every time I come in I get the same story.

 

[georg16nik]

Max, now we are talking
I plan to order as much as space in the fridge allows.
apart from that, mine its hand made strat type hardtail, solid 2psc spruce body, 1 piece maple rev. headstock, 3 s. coils, reverse bridge pckup, the amp is Fender champ 6v6, 12" speaked, 50's.
I used to hand made guitars for about 15 years, it was fun.

 

[Plate Voltage]

With respect to Kodachrome, I used to be a heavy Kodachrome user until I went back to school in 2005. Between 2005 and 2009 when I was in college, my film use dropped off almost completely because I had no money and no time. Unfortunately, it probably means I contributed in a small way to Kodachrome's discontinuation.

I finally go the student debt situation under control just over a year ago and got back into photography just as Kodachrome processing was winding down so I moved over to various E6 films. I've been trying to stock up on Kodak film for several weeks now because I go on vacation on Friday but every time one of the stores I go to gets an order in, they've either sold out quickly or been near sold out. The result is that I've been getting a few rolls of Kodak film here and there but not in the quantity I've been hoping for. However, the big upside to this is that Kodak's products are moving and sales are being made which is far better than the alternative of film languishing on shelves or in refrigerators slowly going stale.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I did..200 more rolls of Tri-X, some TMY and TMX..and I still play my '53 Tele through a 1964 Deluxe Reverb

So you're the one that bought it all...