Why Fujifilm Thrived as Kodak Collapsed

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Helge. I found Astia 100F to be the best color balanced film ever and used it in 8X10 for making master dupes of other chromes for printing purposes. Velvia has its niche, but is of such a high contrast level that it's less versatile than Provia. I've shot every generation of Provia sheet film, but it's annoying to work with because it's on dimensionally unstable triacetate base. But recent versions of Ektachrome sheet film are on far superior PET base; and their current E100 is more neutral than either Provia of Velvia, but not equal to Astia in that respect, which in its last generation was itself on excellent PET base. Triacetate shrinks and won't maintain registration with contrast masks for very long.

And I'd argue that Kodak Ektar is the best balanced color neg film ever - not perfect by any means, but the closest thing ever to chrome film results from a CN film. That's mostly what I've been printing from the past two months. But one has to understand the importance of filtering it for color temp balance at the time of the shot. Once the handwriting was on the wall concerning the extinction of Cibachrome, I started shooting Portra 160VS, which was a nice stepping stone into Ektar 100 once it came out. Right now I'm RA4 printing on Fujiflex Supergloss, an amazing product.

Yesterday I did my first Acros II test prints, to compare with the original version, which I often used. Similar except for a little steeper toe (an improvement), and a little less blue sensitivity (another improvement). Expensive! - (not an improvement). And still realistically a 50 speed film for me if the scene is quite contrasty. I also recently thawed out the last box of 4X5 original Acros I had on hand. End of an era. It was great to have it in Quickload holders for backpacking purposes, which were more reliable than Kodak's Readyload sleeves. But at my age now (73), anything resembling a long backpack trip is more likely to involve roll-film backs on the 4X5, or an outright Fuji 6X9 RF camera.

I still have a slide projector, but nobody offers slide mounting anymore, even though E6 processing in this area is available clear up to 8X10. Sliding mounting would have to be done by hand. That was a long time ago - Kodachrome slide shows, old pre-E6 Agfachrome 50. Once I got into actual color darkroom printing, I soon transitioned into strictly 4X5 chromes for a decade, then added 4X5 black and white, then 8x10 of both. But what the heck - I'm taking a walk with the Nikon and color film in it tomorrow or the next day. Too windy this week for anything other than handheld work! Might take the Fuji RF with TMY400 in it too. But it'a all fun and rewarding.

 

[halfaman]

They still make the greatest slide ever. Provia and Velvia is the pinnacle of chrome.

For me it was Provia 400X, at least in 6x6 or 6x7. The finest grain ever in a ISO 400 film I haver ever seen, tamed contrast and neutral to cool tones typical of classic Provia. Perfect!

 

[fs999]

"CMS 20 II ISO 20 An Agfa-Gevaert ortho micro film converted by ADOX offering very high resolution, needing special developer to tame contrast for normal pictures."

They say that also in the datasheet : Spectral Sensivity : orthopanchromatic (not orthochromatic). They say the same thing from the CHS 100 II...

Other sources say it is Agfa-Gevaert Copex HDP (High Definition Pan), branded as EPM Imagelink HD.

 

[Agulliver]

'Nobody thought Kodak made good cameras'

There is some truth in this. Around 20 years ago I was looking for a decent digital camera for work, and it turned out that the best value, good performing bridge camera with a really good lens was a Kodak. It had a sensor based on the ones they'd been developing for the pro market, a Schneider lens with near insane zoom range, took SD cards and for it's time was a really good performing camera. Lasted a good decade and in fact ended up being stolen rather than failing. But would even I, someone knowledgeable about photography, have considered a Kodak camera before checking specs and reviews? Nope, I was really surprised. Because to me, like most of the public, Kodak cameras were those awful disc things in the 80s, Instamatic 126 devices, box Brownies and so on. Good at what they did, simple photography for the masses, but not actually good cameras with full features and creative control. One of Kodak's mistakes was effectively inventing the digital camera but then being late to the game of actually bringing digital cameras to the market....when Canon, Fuji, Olympus and new names to photography such as Sony and Samsung had already got there. More recently there had been the whole APS thing with film that cost more to buy and process, and the related Kodak branded cameras that generally disappointed.

So the perception was and to some extent remains that Kodak aren't a serious name for cameras. Even though there were times when they did make really good cameras. Kodak piled several fortunes into APS, but then so did Fuji. Kodak failed to grasp the digital migration. The Kodak name on unspectacular but easy to use digital cameras would have worked, I suspect., circa 2000. Instead they came in 2003 with bridge cameras that were actually very good, and well priced, but nobody bought them.....

 

[foc]

The real answer to Kodak's woes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

They still make the greatest slide ever. Provia and Velvia is the pinnacle of chrome.
Ektachrome is fine, but is insanely expensive outside US and doesn’t always compare favorably with Provia.
The remaining C41film is markedly better than Kodaks similarly priced.
Acros is fantastic for night shoots and has a unique tonality.

Unfortunately, Velvia 50 is no longer made in large format. Velvia 100 isn't sold in America because it contains a banned chemical. Not sure if it's sold elswheres.

 

[Helge]

Unfortunately, Velvia 50 is no longer made in large format. Velvia 100 isn't sold in America because it contains a banned chemical. Not sure if it's sold elswheres.

Not saying it wouldn’t be great in LF (it was) but a 50 film for LF, with the slow lenses and demand in sharpness, in this day and age, is harder to use in a way that makes sense. You quickly run into shutter times where motion blur is an issue.
In the studio, sure. But for daylight shooting? Perhaps not so much.

Velvia 100 is available in the rest of the world.

 

[koraks]

You quickly run into shutter times where motion blur is an issue.
In the studio, sure. But for daylight shooting? Perhaps not so much.

You tell that to the masses of landscape photogs who used to shoot Velvia 50 all day, every day.

Pick any book with "fine art" color landscape photography from the 1990s through to about 2005 and odds are its contents were shot on Velvia 50 in 4x5 or even 8x10.


If course, in this day and age, it doesn't make (commercial) sense to shoot Velvia 50 in the first place, regardless if format. The things it is/was most suited for are the exact things where digital reigns supreme for several (very good) reasons.

In the studio, sure

If course it worked in the studio - light is light. But Velvia50 really shone as a landscape film and was most likely conceived with primarily that purpose in mind.

 

[faberryman]

You tell that to the masses of landscape photogs who used to shoot Velvia 50 all day, every day.

In the immortal words of PE concerning Velvia:

"Make a garbage dump look like a flower bed through the magic of chemistry (or as one person put it "chicanery".)! It seems that customers want brilliant color, not accurate color."

All for just $33.99 for a 36 exposure roll. A five-pack of 120 is $69.95. Get it while you can.

 

[MCB18]

I do appreciate the fact this goes into far more detail than “Kodak didn’t adopt digital, so they failed”. But I find that the analysis of what Kodak is today to be lacking. I understand that the primary focus of the channel is Asia specific, but if you are going to make a comparison video, you should… well, fully compare the companies.

There was nothing in there about Kodak being the only supplier of motion film, which is (for now, at least) a pretty stable market. Smaller movie productions often use film on shorter projects because it is still vastly cheaper compared to renting digital cameras of the same quality, even with development and scanning. And, although it is a smaller market, folks like me buy motion picture film directly from them for stills use, as do other companies like silbersalz, Ultrafine, and FPP.

Some industries also use technology that has been developed by Kodak from making film for other applications. Similar to Fuji, and hybrid film bees is being used in other industries, Kodak Estar is used in many industries for its optical clarity, as well as its incredibly tight tolerances in thickness. One easily found example is flexible PCBs. If you have a flexible PCB that was made in the US, an unfortunately eroding market due to China, chances are it uses Estar as the base. Kodak is also (slowly) expanding into the drug market, because they have a good understanding of how emulsion and suspension solutions work.

Another overlooked aspect to Kodak is the small areas of industry where imagery needs to be of the highest possible quality, something which digital cannot even compete with in larger formats. Areal imaging still uses a good amount of film simply because it is incredibly versatile, and the film can have more resolution at higher altitudes, meaning less exposures in the same area, and less time for the plane to fly around. You can still order Aerocolor IV new, and at larger sizes, the minimum order size is pretty small. Kanerasore, when is Santacolor 100 4x5 coming out?

And of course, IMAX. It is rarely used, as it is definitely more expensive than digital. By a lot. But it absolutely blows digital away in terms of quality. Yes, technically you’re not getting the full 18K raw captures due to digital intermediate steps and CGI. But you still get a massive image, with tomes of detail. Compared to digital IMAX, film still slams it out of the park in terms of picture quality. I have a fully CGI cell from Interstellar, and I cannot actually capture all the detail in it with my Nikon 55 macro lens. It’s incredible.

Unfortunately, the closest 15/70 showing of Oppenheimer is in Indianapolis, so I won’t be able to experience this incredible film on IMAX, but one day I do plan to go watch an actual 15/70 film, as people have said it is an incredible experience.

In conclusion: I think this is an excellent video, and it explains a lot about why Kodak failed, and why it wasn’t just that Kodak refused to embrace digital. However, a bit more explanation into what Kodak is doing now, more akin to what was done with Fuji, would have been much appreciated. As well as that, I think claiming Kodak failed is a bit misleading. They have not failed. They are still a somewhat successful company, they just aren’t nearly as big as they used to be. Saying Kodak failed is similar to saying Nintendo failed, simply because they don’t make card games anymore. Clearly Nintendo hasn’t failed, they just moved onto a new industry.

Anyway, sorry for long post, I had a lot of thoughts on this.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

..."CMS 20 II ISO 20 An Agfa-Gevaert ortho micro film converted by ADOX offering very high resolution, needing special developer to tame contrast for normal pictures."

They say that also in the datasheet : Spectral Sensivity : orthopanchromatic (not orthochromatic). They say the same thing from the CHS 100 II...

Other sources say it is Agfa-Gevaert Copex HDP (High Definition Pan), branded as EPM Imagelink HD.

The ortho vs. orthopan discussion, while perhaps interesting to some, is not why I included that quote. Rather, it was to point out that ADOX is sourcing CMS 20 II microfilm stock from Agfa. The EPM Imagelink HD page

https://www.epminc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EPM_IMAGELINK_HD_Microfilm_Technical_Data_Sheet_June_2015.pdf

displays a spectral sensitivity curve matching the one ADOX put on its CMS 20 II data sheet, so I take that as confirmation. Whether Copex HDP will remain in production is another question. We'll see what happens.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Velvia was a difficult film to reproduce, and not in fact used much by people who were serious printmakers. It was nice for giving a boost to especially low-contrast scenes. Publishers also hated working with it, though drum scanners improved the odds. Only about 5% of my own large format work was done using Velvia; most of it was on Provia or Ektachrome. Those were Cibachrome days, which had high contrast issues of its own. Throw in Velvia, and you might well need a .90 density contrast mask - three extra stops added to an already slow-exposure medium! Nowadays people just sucker punch whatever they shoot with promiscuous PS over-saturation anyway.

What Velvia did do well if one understood it was to beautifully resolve certain hues of green and purple which other chrome films struggled with. When it came to sages and more neutral gray-greens etc, old Ektachrome 64 was way better. But it couldn't reproduce more pure "Spring greens" very well at all. So no color film is really a silver bullet for every situation. Astia was by far the best for accurate lab repro applications; and Fuji CDU duping films were essentially just tungsten-balanced Astia,

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another orthopan film was the recently discontinued Ekfe 25. The only remaining general-photography Orthopan product is Fuji Acros II. Interestingly, it's finished by Harman in the UK. I don't know where it's actually coated - whether bulk master rolls of coated film are being sent there from Japan, or just the chemical formula. More likely, the former option; but I really don't know.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do appreciate the fact this goes into far more detail than “Kodak didn’t adopt digital, so they failed”. But I find that the analysis of what Kodak is today to be lacking. I understand that the primary focus of the channel is Asia specific, but if you are going to make a comparison video, you should… well, fully compare the companies.

There was nothing in there about Kodak being the only supplier of motion film, which is (for now, at least) a pretty stable market. Smaller movie productions often use film on shorter projects because it is still vastly cheaper compared to renting digital cameras of the same quality, even with development and scanning. And, although it is a smaller market, folks like me buy motion picture film directly from them for stills use, as do other companies like silbersalz, Ultrafine, and FPP.

Some industries also use technology that has been developed by Kodak from making film for other applications. Similar to Fuji, and hybrid film bees is being used in other industries, Kodak Estar is used in many industries for its optical clarity, as well as its incredibly tight tolerances in thickness. One easily found example is flexible PCBs. If you have a flexible PCB that was made in the US, an unfortunately eroding market due to China, chances are it uses Estar as the base. Kodak is also (slowly) expanding into the drug market, because they have a good understanding of how emulsion and suspension solutions work.

Another overlooked aspect to Kodak is the small areas of industry where imagery needs to be of the highest possible quality, something which digital cannot even compete with in larger formats. Areal imaging still uses a good amount of film simply because it is incredibly versatile, and the film can have more resolution at higher altitudes, meaning less exposures in the same area, and less time for the plane to fly around. You can still order Aerocolor IV new, and at larger sizes, the minimum order size is pretty small. Kanerasore, when is Santacolor 100 4x5 coming out?

And of course, IMAX. It is rarely used, as it is definitely more expensive than digital. By a lot. But it absolutely blows digital away in terms of quality. Yes, technically you’re not getting the full 18K raw captures due to digital intermediate steps and CGI. But you still get a massive image, with tomes of detail. Compared to digital IMAX, film still slams it out of the park in terms of picture quality. I have a fully CGI cell from Interstellar, and I cannot actually capture all the detail in it with my Nikon 55 macro lens. It’s incredible.

Unfortunately, the closest 15/70 showing of Oppenheimer is in Indianapolis, so I won’t be able to experience this incredible film on IMAX, but one day I do plan to go watch an actual 15/70 film, as people have said it is an incredible experience.

In conclusion: I think this is an excellent video, and it explains a lot about why Kodak failed, and why it wasn’t just that Kodak refused to embrace digital. However, a bit more explanation into what Kodak is doing now, more akin to what was done with Fuji, would have been much appreciated. As well as that, I think claiming Kodak failed is a bit misleading. They have not failed. They are still a somewhat successful company, they just aren’t nearly as big as they used to be. Saying Kodak failed is similar to saying Nintendo failed, simply because they don’t make card games anymore. Clearly Nintendo hasn’t failed, they just moved onto a new industry.

Anyway, sorry for long post, I had a lot of thoughts on this.

The OP said the video was Fuji centric.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some might argue that Kodak got into digital too early. They spent huge sums of money, and got photo labs deep into debt as well as mandatory expensive service contracts, and then pulled out the rug from under them when other companies began providing similar options at far more competitive pricing due to rapid advances in the underlying technology. Consumer digital cameras were something else entirely - just the little guy in the bar room brawl, not the heavyweight. For example, many of their expensive Creo scanners are still in use; but I have no idea who services them.

 

[MCB18]

The OP said the video was Fuji centric.

I am aware of that, but for a video like this, you really should discuss where both companies are now, even if it’s just a 5 minute blurb about how Kodak has found some success with motion picture films, and is attempting to diversify now. And again, I still think the fact they say Kodak “didn't survive” is a bit misleading.

 

[warden]

I still think the fact they say Kodak “didn't survive” is a bit misleading.

+1. They are active and hiring, while making film products of uncompromising quality.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1. They are active and hiring, while making film products of uncompromising quality.

But they could have been healthier or even avoided bankruptcy if they had listened to their employees, for example me.

 

[Helge]

You tell that to the masses of landscape photogs who used to shoot Velvia 50 all day, every day.

Pick any book with "fine art" color landscape photography from the 1990s through to about 2005 and odds are its contents were shot on Velvia 50 in 4x5 or even 8x10.


If course, in this day and age, it doesn't make (commercial) sense to shoot Velvia 50 in the first place, regardless if format. The things it is/was most suited for are the exact things where digital reigns supreme for several (very good) reasons.


If course it worked in the studio - light is light. But Velvia50 really shone as a landscape film and was most likely conceived with primarily that purpose in mind.

If you want reasonable DoF for closeups in landscape, the trees and grass will move noticeably with the necessary shutter speeds.
You might be able to live with that. Especially if you have no other option.
Trouble is, people think that what digital provides is better or as good. Especially with stitching multiple digital shots.

Even pros scan their 8x10 sheets on an Epson and call it a day, so how would they know?

Most of the Velvia 50 shot was on MF and 135.
LF is only strictly necessary when you want a wall sized mural. And even then, a lot of great commercial street level ads and giant in-store posters has been shot on 6x6.

The extra speed provided by Provia and Ektachrome is crucial if light is interesting/not ideal and you want to stop down a lot and there is vegetation, birds, humans, cars, even fast clouds in the frame.

 

[warden]

But they could have been healthier or even avoided bankruptcy if they had listened to their employees, for example me.

I’m sure they got plenty of great and also plenty of terrible ideas from their employees. I’m glad they’re still around and apparently growing.

 

[Helge]

But they could have been healthier or even avoided bankruptcy if they had listened to their employees, for example me.

It’s seems to be a general unavoidable sickness of well established companies.

And even when you try to do a “rebel” breakout group that plays startup and revolutionize from inside, that is also quickly assimilated and killed.

Think of Xerox PARC, the 80-84 Mac group at Apple, Ken Kutaragis PlayStation group etc.

There were several very valiant attempts at doing “something” at Kodak but they fizzled out when it came to the will to fail a couple of times with a first iteration product and keep pressing on.

A newborn baby will always fall short, when it’s expected to perform the same as a mature product very quickly.

The Kodak Instant film for instance should have been saved at all cost.
If they had really wanted to, Kodak could have buried Polaroid.
Their product was better and Polaroid really had no case.
Instead the case was allowed to drag on with a biased partisan judge, allowed to sour people on the brand and through flimflam and negligence on Kodak’s part it came to cost Kodak a tremendous amount of money and loss of goodwill.

Now Fuji profits on the exact same basic technology in Kodaks home market. And has done so for decades. While “Polaroid” is on European hands.

 

[Steven Lee]

I haven't watched the video, but looking at the comments I see people missing the point. The reason Fujifilm succeeded is because they realized that digital was a value-destroying innovation. In 2023 the world spends far less money on imaging than it did in 1990. Which means that the overall imaging market (digital or film - does not matter) is now too small to support a company the size of Kodak in the 90s. [1]

Fujifilm has ventured out of imaging into healthcare, perfume, chemicals, software, even logistics. Meanwhile, Kodak got stuck in the imaging space fucking around with printing, web photo sharing, and other image-related upstarts. Today their best performing former division (Kodak Chemicals) is 10x size of Eastman Kodak. The reason? They left the imaging market.

There's no money in images.

[1] In 1995-96 Kodak was doing $200-250MM of profit per quarter. That's about $450M in today's dollars, so close to $2Bn in profit per year. Go and see how much imaging divisions of Nikon, Canon, or Sony make, even combined.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was on the opposite end of things, being a professional buyer with excellent connections and serious purchasing clout. In those instances a CEO came to us and sat down with a notebook, and said, "I want to hear all your problems; tell us what we can do better," I knew it was a winning company we wanted to do serious business with. But when a CEO showed up with his nose turned up, and all his assistants cowering, or didn't bother to turn up at all, I knew it was time to scratch them off our list. Lots of great companies went sour in the 90's and early 2000's due to plug-in top management who knew nothing about the nuts and bolts of the corporations they were supposed to lead, and otherwise despised the little people who actually did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It’s seems to be a general unavoidable sickness of well established companies.

And even when you try to do a “rebel” breakout group that plays startup and revolutionize from inside, that is also quickly assimilated and killed.

Think of Xerox PARC, the 80-84 Mac group at Apple, Ken Kutaragis PlayStation group etc.

There were several very valiant attempts at doing “something” at Kodak but they fizzled out when it came to the will to fail a couple of times with a first iteration product and keep pressing on.

A newborn baby will always fall short, when it’s expected to perform the same as a mature product very quickly.

The Kodak Instant film for instance should have been saved at all cost.
If they had really wanted to, Kodak could have buried Polaroid.
Their product was better and Polaroid really had no case.
Instead the case was allowed to drag on with a biased partisan judge, allowed to sour people on the brand and through flimflam and negligence on Kodak’s part it came to cost Kodak a tremendous amount of money and loss of goodwill.

Now Fuji profits on the exact same basic technology in Kodaks home market. And has done so for decades. While “Polaroid” is on European hands.

They lost a big law suit to Polaroid. The courts buried them. Although originally Kodak turned down Land's request to do the manufacturing for his product.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I’m sure they got plenty of great and also plenty of terrible ideas from their employees. I’m glad they’re still around and apparently growing.

I only provided good ideas, my department, my division and higher immediately agreed with me.