• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

While Ilford Soars, (Just released)

I think part of the problem is that Kodak has killed off their unique products. I loved plus-x, although the price hikes made it kind of ridiculous towards the end of production. I loved elite-chrome too. Axing that seems kind of stupid considering Fuji axed their cheap slide films around the same time.
 

Don't blame the companies who make the film, blame your self and your friends for not buying enough. Everyone wants Ilford to come out with a replacement for IR820 but Simon has stated on several occasions that he doubts that would happen....there is a reason for that, it is called ROI and economies of scale...

I'm sure that if you take the time to adapt to FP4 you might find it works well for you. As for Kodak nixing unique products, at this point in time, all film is unique somewhat, TMY in 4x5 being very much so....
 
Kodak didn't "kill off" films just to spite people. Believe me, if they could, I bet they would be running every film emulsion they ever came up with in every size it was ever offered. But they are a commercial business and they have to make a profit! So no more Techpan, no more Kodachrome, no more Plus-X, and goodbye to the entire E-6 production.

Instead of movie makers shooting on Plus-X, they are shooting on digital. Flat out fact, not enough love for black & white. Instead of chromes, the commercial shooters are using digital. And just because Techpan gave the abjectly awsome enlargements, stuff is stitched and filled, and nobody cares. The populace is happy with an inkjet print.

And of course Kodachrome was twice as expensive as any E-6.

Once upon a time, consumer production was 95% of Kodak's output. Now movie film is 95% of Kodak's output. And all of the numbers are dropping. If all of the members on the forum got together and bought $1000 of Kodak film a month, it wouldn't be enough to sustain anything. I have no idea what will happen next year. When Fuji diversified, it kept everything under its operational umbrella. When Kodak diversified, it spun off or sold off, and the profit no longer went to Kodak. If Kodak had bought Apple, Apple would be dead. If Kodak had bought Google, Google would be dead. They have a lead touch. Actually, they don't. Lead has value.
 

FP4+ and Plus-X are a lot more similar than they are different. I have negatives made for the same series of prints, made on both Plus-X and FP4+, and every time I look at my prints, I just cannot tell whether it was PX or FP4 negatives.

The lesson is to use what suits you, and if something is discontinued, you find something else that works. You adapt. The most critical aspect is, after all, to make beautiful photographs, and truth be told, what film you use is probably not going to matter that much, as long as you're willing to learn how to use it. I do understand the infrared film conundrum, though. That's a pickle, for sure, but as always supply is intrinsically linked to demand, and if we don't buy enough of it, the supply will diminish. Accept it and move on. There is very little else that can be done. Do it for the arts! Do it for photography. Stay positive and make good art.
 
PKM-25 said:
Don't blame the companies who make the film, blame your self and your friends for not buying enough.
Click to expand...

This is analogous to making the observation that horsemanship is a dying art, then attending a rodeo and blaming its demise on the participants for not riding horses often enough.

While it's possible the observation may be true, common sense should tell us that if it is, it's definitely NOT the fault of those participating riders. I mean jeez, they're just about the only ones left whose butts are still in the saddles, right?

If for some reason one has a need to assign blame for the worldwide drop in film usage, APUG and its small army of film enthusiasts is probably that last place one should come to point that particular finger.

Ken
 
Ya, I don't buy the blame falling on the customers shoulders. And this is from someone who had not traditionally shot a lot of kodak. Ignoring my recent discovery, then hoarding of efke emulsions, I have traditionally been an ilford man. The funny thing is that it is not that I thought kodak was crap or more expensive. I think I just felt that ilford just spoke to me more as a bw enthusiast. Its not that is did not shoot any kodak, I shot Kodachrome - at times like a madman. I always thought that even back in the day (70s - 80s) that kodak really did not care about black and white film. Now maybe my then twenty year old ego was better manipulated by ilford's marketing, but to me, b&w felt peripheral to kodak even then. I took their pursuing of APS, Disk, and picture CD (etc) all as it getting distracted from their core values. I don't fully blame them, as I understand that they were in different position than a company like Ilford. Ilford always was pretty small and a specialty company compared to a mainstream company such Kodak. It is a lot harder to change the direction of a big ship. But like a lot of you I remember shaking my head at some decisions kodak made back then that I am still shaking head them. (And I still don't exactly know what I would have done if I was CEO.)
 
Kodak didn't "kill off" films just to spite people. Believe me, if they could, I bet they would be running every film emulsion they ever came up with in every size it was ever offered.
Click to expand...

No, they would not. Kodak killed off films to convince the investor community they were serious about digital. They HAD to do an about face from the "make money on film and get the hell out of everything else" mantra from the early to mid 1990's - that was the thinking that spun off Easman Chemical and dumped Sterling Drug. They HAD to show that digital was the future. That's why there was a "Kodak Digital" sign in Times Sqaure NYC for years. Mainly to convince Wall St and Kodak itself that they were now a "digital" company - even if they didn't know just what that meant.

If you've ever worked at a mid to large size "Corporate America" company, you've no doubt sat in a conference room in these kind of meetings and you know how it goes. The word comes down from the top and what was GOLD yesterday is S^*T today!
 
BTW, +1 for ILFORD! Good for them!

We are just about in a post-Kodak world. Stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Kodak for they will take care of themselves. Perez's work is just about done.

It's the guys like Ilford that are bringing to the table that which we want. Patronize them. Don't forget the others like Foma and Adox.
 
I don't mean to sound like current film users are to blame, more along the lines of your friends and their friends who went digital. Of course in Kodak's case there is the item of showing off to shareholders, I suspected that when Kodachrome went, but that is a bigger picture failure that has many sides to it, not just still film use's decline...

If all of the sudden film use shot up 500% in one quarter then kept on going, that would make any film maker, even RIP Efke take another look despite rising raw material costs. But this has not happened and will not happen, so film makers, including our beloved Ilford, keep film around that sells.

People also keep clamoring for Ilford black and white in 220, Pan-F in 4x5 and larger, but Ilford is not exactly tripping over them selves to introduce it. Ask Simon why and you might have a better understanding in how not only do we not get everything we ask for but why other companies who despite not really wanting to for PR reasons, have to discontinue varieties of films in various formats and exposure capacities.

[moderated]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have had just about enough for this jerk insulting me. Is this what this forum is about? Is this what I subscribed for? Is this how this forum treats members? Have I ever insulted ANYONE?

I am beyond outraged at this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Um, he has? Last I saw from Simon he was surprised at the interest in IR and said they could "easily" make it if the market was there, but doubted that it was. He then said he'd look into it. I haven't heard anything else since. There was a thread here were several of us were saying we'd buy such a film. though granted the users here who said that won't be nearly enough.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
Well then buy Kodak film!! Remember Kodak is an American business and supporting American business helps the American economy.
Click to expand...

I wish I could, but they stopped making ANY E6 film. The Portras I buy from time to time won't help much. If there would still be E100G, yes, that would be something.

Greetz
Chris
 
I wonder if part of the problem is that Kodak's coating machinery was built to serve 1990's level of demand for film. Now that this demand has all but vanished, the overhead costs in starting a production run small enough for today's demand is terribly large. Would I be correct to guess that Kodak won't build a smaller machine with less overhead because the cost will never be recovered?

Fotokemika was able to hang in there until the coating machine broke recently, and then it was curtains for their photo products. Several other coating companies folded or up and left the market when the consumer photo and medical x-ray market went away.

Ilford went through a painful restructuring process some years ago and was able to emerge alive and competitive. Is Ilford's coating machinery smaller and more economical for small runs than Kodak's?
 

Absolutely correct. That's why Kodak had to discontinue all of their E6 production. All of their emusions would have to be reformulated for the smaller machine, and there just isn't the demand for that. Fuji discontinued their ISO 400 120 film because new Japanese regulations dictated using differen chemicals, and they couldn't recoup the expense.

Arctic amateur said:
Ilford went through a painful restructuring process some years ago and was able to emerge alive and competitive. Is Ilford's coating machinery smaller and more economical for small runs than Kodak's?
Click to expand...

Much smaller.
 
Ok, we've moderated two posts in this thread. In general, we don't like to edit individual posts and don't do it often, but in the interest of keeping discussion going about the relevant piece of news here, that seems to be a lesser intervention than deleting the thread and starting over. I would recommend that all parties dial back the rhetoric, avoid personal attacks, but also to avoid "Kodak bashing" and stick to the facts please.
 
Arctic amateur said:
Is Ilford's coating machinery smaller and more economical for small runs than Kodak's?
Click to expand...

Simon made a thread here about Ilford's coating machine, it was quite informative but I can't find it now. The gist was that it was not only small but also very flexible.
 
perkeleellinen said:
Simon made a thread here about Ilford's coating machine, it was quite informative but I can't find it now. The gist was that it was not only small but also very flexible.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by small. When I did the tour of the Ilford factory one of the lasting impressions was the sheer size of their coating machine. In UK terms it's big enough to fill a large and long street. Their research coating machine is too big to fit in my house, and that's not small. But of course Kodak's machine may have been planetary in comparison…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register