KM-25
Well-known
This is what most folks fail to understand, Kodak would not have discontinued these other products like Plus-X, HIE, TP and Kodachrome if they showed promise for selling in smaller scales. Films like Ektar, Tmax, Tri-X all sell in sufficient enough quantities now that if the scale slide a lot more, than they will still be able to pull a profit.
The other films that are now gone were selling very little, you just can't run any company like that, the late Efke is proof of that.
As far as price increases on still film products, that is going to be a fact of life from here on out from every company, including Ilford, so get used to it.
Gumby
Veteran
Why is that so difficult to understand? (rhetorical question)
loquax ludens
Well-known
On the contrary, they can. Kodak currently leases its former Colorado 72" coating facility that it sold to Carestream (Onex) whenever they want to produce wide rolls of color RA4 paper. The same sort of arrangements can be made for the building 38 coating facility.
loquax ludens
Well-known
I think Kodak would have discontinued those films anyway, regardless of their potential to sell at smaller scales. One problem is that Kodak doesn't have a way to produce small lots of any of its films. The building 38 coating facility isn't designed for small coating runs. Another problem was that Kodak wasn't profitable for a lot of reasons, mostly unrelated to film sales, and so eliminating the slower moving or more costly to produce films and the people who knew how to make them was a necessary cost-cutting exercise for a moribund company. A smaller company with tighter focus, less overhead, and the ability to produce smaller master rolls might not have had to cut back so drastically.
Efke sold plenty of product. The problem was profitability, not slow sales. They couldn't make enough profit to sustain them at the prices they were able to charge for the film.
Smaller scale coating facilities could make it possible to reintroduce some old emulsions. If smaller master rolls could be produced, the product could be produced at a lower capital cost, and could be sold in a reasonable time frame with less spoilage.
Of course, an emulsion for which there is truly lack of demand or for which processing is too complex and costly at a reduced level of demand could not be profitably revived. There would never be enough demand for Tech Pan to revive it. Kodachrome emulsion and processing chemicals are too complex and too costly to be profitable again unless demand is high, and that isn't going to happen.
But there is a small but steady market for infrared film. Infrared films are more costly to produce and they have poor keeping quality, but HIE could work as a niche product if it could be produced in smaller batches. I'm not sure about Plus-X, as there are too many similar films, but I bet Super XX would sell, even at a high price.
sanmich
Veteran
I have no idea if this is good or bad.
First scenario: Kodak is keeping its film production and since it cannot adapt to the small scale of film demand, all kodak films are stopped when the Titanic sinks.
The alternative of selling seems better.
Second scenario: a company buys part of Kodak for their patent or whatever may interest them, and stops film production soon after they get what they want. The alternative of Kodak trying to adapt looks better.
I don't know really....
First scenario: Kodak is keeping its film production and since it cannot adapt to the small scale of film demand, all kodak films are stopped when the Titanic sinks.
The alternative of selling seems better.
Second scenario: a company buys part of Kodak for their patent or whatever may interest them, and stops film production soon after they get what they want. The alternative of Kodak trying to adapt looks better.
I don't know really....
John Bragg
Well-known
Just keep using as much as you can afford to. demand supports supply.
mani
Well-known
What he said.