Kodak sells Gelatin Business

[notraces]

I read this today:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/22/4140829/kodak-agrees-to-sell-gelatin-business.html

I don't think this bodes well for Kodak film production. Time will tell.

 

[Trius]

Also in this article "The Rochester, N.Y., company also announced that Laura Quatela will become co-president on Jan. 1." Not sure if that's significant, but co-presidents doesn't sound healthy to me.

Here's the story in the local paper.

 

[ThangNguyen]

Hi,
I am not quite understand why a food company want to buy a film manufacture? Do I miss anything here

 

[Phantomas]

Hi,
I am not quite understand why a food company want to buy a film manufacture? Do I miss anything here

Because they are selling gelatine business - used in food and film base manufacture, among other things.

 

[Rob-F]

This sounds bad. How do you make film without gelatin?

 

[sevo]

This sounds bad. How do you make film without gelatin?

You can't. But Gelatin can be bought - there is no need to make it in house. I am not aware of any film manufacturer other than Kodak who had its own gelatin factory in recent times.

 

[paulfitz76]

Geroge is spinning. He went into the gelatin business including owning the cows to control the quality as a result of a huge spot problem. duPont and 3M purhcased gelatin and it was always a problem because food grade gelatin is basically trash grade to the photo business. Way too many impurities.

Sad day today, but when you put a lawyer in charge of the company, instead of an innovator, you're done. They just don't have the entrepreneurial spirit this company needs to be able to right the ship.

The recent realignment will make it easier to attract a buyer, but who knows who that will be.

The handwriting was on the wall. Any company that celebrates the destruction of its own property rather than celebrating dramatically new product launches is doomed in today's I already forgot what you told me 30 seconds ago because I'm already focused on the next coolest thing in front of me, and why did you make me say that. I already forgot what I was looking at that made me forget.

In shorter words for the twitter mentality

kodak tldr

 

[sevo]

Geroge is spinning. He went into the gelatin business including owning the cows to control the quality as a result of a huge spot problem. duPont and 3M purhcased gelatin and it was always a problem because food grade gelatin is basically trash grade to the photo business. Way too many impurities.

There was a time when controlling gelatin impurities, supposedly by feeding the cattle mustard leaves and sourcing them from particular regions, was part of the sensitizing process. But these days, they'll probably use purified gelatin and mix with their own additives .

 

[j j]

You can't.

You can use plastic.

 

[menthel]

Mmm, cow jelly.

 

[Sparrow]

You can use plastic.

... vegetarian film eh? tasteless in my opinion

 

[sevo]

You can use plastic.

In theory. They actually seem to have made some progress there in the nineties, when some special line films used synthetic substrates, but digital killed all research up that avenue, and they never had anything with film speed and sensitivity.

 

[Turtle]

So if Kodak vanishes along with its film products, am I right in thinking we are essentially left with:

Ilford
Foma
Efke

?? It would seem absurd for the only profitable part of the company - film production - to go under and disappear because the rest of their business was a mess, but I hope my sinking feeling is wrong here. The loss of Tri X would be a huge deal for me. I only switched 12 months ago or so from Neopan 400 in 120. It would leave Delta 400 or HP5+ - two films I don't get along too well with.

Was Ilford making positive noises about 'keeping film alive' at this point or is it just my imagination? Has there been any news from anyone about keeping the film part going?

 

[sevo]

So if Kodak vanishes along with its film products, am I right in thinking we are essentially left with:

Ilford
Foma
Efke

Well, and then there is Fuji (but they've been axing their portfolio as well).

Plus Agfa Gevaert (Agfa technical films of Belgium), Filmotec (former Orwo), Inoviscoat (former Agfa) - all of them do various technical films sometimes marketed for photographic purposes by Maco/Rollei Film, Adox/Fotoimpex etc. Arguably no mainstream players right now, and not selling to consumers under their own brand. But if Kodak should simply evaporate leaving a $130 million market unattended someone will certainly attempt to jump in...

One or two Chinese makers still seem to be active, too.

 

[Highway 61]

A today's glance at Fuji's global website displays no black and white films, only C41 and E6 ones.

 

[Sparrow]

A today's glance at Fuji's global website displays no black and white films, only C41 and E6 ones.

http://www2.fujifilm.co.uk/professional/professional-photography/film-blackwhite.html

 

[sevo]

A today's glance at Fuji's global website displays no black and white films, only C41 and E6 ones.

Well, for whatever reason, the "Fujifilm Global" site is made by Fujifilm US - the least film friendly of Fujifilm's regional distributors. Fujifilm Europe has Acros as a current product, Fujifilm Japan and UK additionally have 400 CN (of course it is debatable whether that qualifies as b&w film).

 

[filmfan]

... vegetarian film eh? tasteless in my opinion

HAHA. You win, sir.

...The loss of Tri X would be a huge deal for me... It would leave Delta 400 or HP5+ - two films I don't get along too well with...

With all due respect, how can you get along with Tri-X and not get along with HP5+ ? HP5+ is very similar to Tri-X and I have been using both of these films interchangeably for the past 3 years with no problems...

 

[Turtle]

The two films are really quite different. I find HP5+ has a much straighter curve with less mid-tone separation. I far prefer the look of TriX at normal speeds and this has been borne out by using an awful lot of both. In fact, I had used Hp5+ exclusively and as soon as I started using TriX it was 'eureka.' I had not previously tried TriX because so many people said they were the same to all intents and purposes.... so imagine my surprise when I suddenly got the negs I had been looking for right off the bat. It was since then that I discovered plenty of people feel the same way as I do.

i daresay I will be able to get HP5+ to work just fine for me by trying lots of exposure and development combos, but I would rather not do so when TriX works for me perfectly with DDX and Xtol without a second thought.

Maybe I am fussy and maybe you are not? That's not a judgement either way for either of us. Maybe I am silly and you are sensible, but I can only go based on my judgement and I am not in the habit of making things hard for myself. I just want things to look right.

With all due respect, how can you get along with Tri-X and not get along with HP5+ ? HP5+ is very similar to Tri-X and I have been using both of these films interchangeably for the past 3 years with no problems...

 

[Roger Hicks]

HP5+ is very similar to Tri-X and I have been using both of these films interchangeably for the past 3 years with no problems...

Both, yes. Interchangeably, no. They are detectably different in tonality.

Cheers,

E.