Discontinued??????

[payasam]

"If they want out of film photography, just do it for crying out loud. This death by inches is excruciating."

The bottom line is that Eastman Kodak is a business, and businesses tend to care only for the bottom line.

 

[sevo]

Nothing on that list is "about to be discontinued" - those entries I can find official information on have been discontinued years ago! The last Microdol-X data sheet stating that it is discontinued dates back to 2003.

And given the nature of many entries on that list, most quite obviously weren't done in by marketing in a heinous conspiracy to destroy film and analog - they were abandoned when altered workplace or shipping safety regulations restricted their production, transport or sale. What's more, several products on the list have not vanished, but were replaced by safer formulations, or the process they were used in has been changed to make do without them.

The only true loss was Microdol-X, the more so as most other classic fine grain developers have vanished as well - but they have been on a decline for a long time, as the ancient trade-off between grain and acutance has almost vanished with modern low-grain films and high-acutance developers.

 

[Keith]

I was suprised when Kodak stopped supplying it's Australian outlets with HC110 ... if you want the stuff here now you have to import it!

When they stop supplying Tri-X ... we'll know they're over it! 😛

 

[Jerevan]

The official pdf file from Kodak

The official pdf file from Kodak

Here, have a read:

http://www.dr5.com/B_W and E_6 Chemical Discontinuances PCN110209_AO.pdf

It was this pdf the OP on APUG referred to... while leaving out a bit of information here and there. And not stating from where he got this information, and being a general *sshole about it.

 

[Rayt]

Do I understand correctly from the dr5 pdf there will be no more one gallon packets of D76? I am surprised they don't sell enough of D76?!??

 

[Lilserenity]

No, D-76 1 gallon replenisher is disappearing but not the normal 1 gallon (3.8L) pack.

The first column in that PDF itemises what is discontinued and the right column where appropriate the replacement product.

Seems like so many people are not reading what the document says but lurching straight down into the document and assuming everything in the file is discontinued stuff....

 

[Jerevan]

No, there are two columns with discontinued products on the left and suggested replacements, if any, on the righthand side. So 1 gallon D76 is still there.

EDIT: Lilserenity was faster at typing... And yes, the list needs to be read carefully.

 

[sepiareverb]

Their numerous "No Suggested Replacement" says it all. Not interested in Chemical Photography anymore.

 

[kully]

Not interested in chemical photography? Have you tried the new version of TMAX-400? Or Ektar 100?

Businesses are not knitting clubs, they sell what they do to make money and only keep loss-making lines going when there is money sloshing arpund.

Don't think there is much slosh atm.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Kodak stated clearly back in 2006, I think it was, that their focus was on digital technology. Which is reasonable, because if they are going to survive at all (and there is a lot of doubt about that), it will be with digital. I think they are just running out the clock with film and chemistry.

 

[TWoK]

They also stated this year when the discontinued Kodakchrome that they were committed to film. They also said that film sales had leveled out and they planned to keep making film for the foreseeable future. People that can't deal with the slow death of film better start shooting digital now because we are at least a few years into the death scene of film. I still love it and will keep shooting it, but I've accepted reality.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I don't see any major problems with those discontinuations. Some are just from changing to metric size packets. How many portrait studios are still using retouching solution on their 4x5 B&W negatives?

People moaned and groaned when DuPont pulled out of the market, and again when Ansco/GAF products went bye-bye. We still have plenty of choices. The Rangefinder Magazine (a trade magazine for wedding and portrait studios) no longer has ads for companies selling replacement dark slides or rebuilding sheet film holders with new light traps and hinges. You can still buy sheet film holders though.

When I first got into photography the hot new film developer was UFG followed by Acufine and then Diafine. Kodak then introduced HC-110 and all the newspaper darkrooms seemed to use it. We still have plenty of choices, yet everytime I've andered off chasing the latest wonder soup or magic film I always seem to end up back using D-76 1:1 for my Tri-X.

 

[Trius]

Mike, that just doesn't make sense. They could simply drop the price of their film with their own name on it without the conceit of selling it through Freestyle for less and take the profit margin for themselves. There is no logical reason I can think of for them to do what they are doing other than they are dumping existing film stock and thought they could do it without anyone finding out.

Wrong. I posted about the rebranding earlier, you can do a search.

 

[sevo]

Their numerous "No Suggested Replacement" says it all. Not interested in Chemical Photography anymore.

Well, go though the list, then.

A couple (toners, reducers, inverters, stab, hardener) will have been discontinued for regulatory reasons - they contain poisons like selenium, prussic acid or allergens like formaldehyde, and have been cancelled by many makers.

A couple of others are bulk-size raw chemicals, where Kodak cannot be competitive with chemistry dealers - photography is hardly dead if you have to buy your thio or glacial from the chemistry dealer in town rather than having it shipped from Rochester.

Then there are some processes which are not used any more. Nobody starts or replenishes big tank compensating developer any more - that was a technology used for low grade bulk consumer development, and that is positively gone. There is no market left for film in applications cheaper and more ugly than digital.

"Royalprint" was a activate-and-stabilize semi-dry rapid RC processor used in copier applications, by rural photo stores to eliminate water from their dwindling back room b&w printing business, and by press labs for rush printing. Photographers hated it, as the prints were fading or blackening within weeks. Scanners and laser copiers/printers had already pretty much killed it before the first digital cameras appeared. I guess if there had not been some military or governmental long term contract that stuff would have been discontinued and forgotten by the mid nineties at the very latest.

Selectol-Soft has been obsoleted by Kodak cancelling the matching paper.

That leaves Retouching Fluid and Microdol-X as the only items (maybe) actively killed by Kodak.

 

[degruyl]

yet everytime I've andered off chasing the latest wonder soup or magic film I always seem to end up back using D-76 1:1 for my Tri-X.

Which is why they are getting rid of D-76 R. It is only useful for lab development as far as I can tell.

I will miss microdol, but I I will survive that one.

I think the actual loss is farmer's reducer and hypo clear going to 5 gallon packets only. (starting the switch to Ilford, next week).

I am slightly worried about film. Not at all about chemicals. Very worried, long term, about paper.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I used to replenish D-76 in a line of 1 gallon tanks for sheet film hangers, and on occasion I'd slosh a couple of reels of 35 or 120 through it when I had to knock out some fast 5x7's for the local paper.

Look up the formulas for D-76 and D-76R. The R just contains a bit more of two chemicals I think, and it would be easy enough to make your own R, either from scratch or by adding them to a bottle of stock.

 

[degruyl]

Look up the formulas for D-76 and D-76R.

Most of the chemistry is just convenience of having someone else mix and buy it. The formulas are more or less known, so it is almost always possible to mix it yourself. If you care to.

At least for standard developers. I don't know about microdol, xtol, or tmax. I could check when I get home, though.

I, and many of you, have plenty of information to make a usable B&W darkroom with nothing more than hardware store chemicals. If they still had chemicals in hardware stores, that is. But you can order them either from lab suppliers or from freestyle. Many, even from B&H. (OK, you might have to pick those up at the store, but they have many).

The problem, as I see it, is that I don't know how to make film or how to make modern paper. Fuji is actually committed to film, as is Ilford. I am not worried, for the next ten years or so. If they survive the current crunch.

This is a different business model, in which large production is not really a good option. A smaller organization would certainly be able to support itself on film production, and possibly make money. Paper, though... So many people scan and print digitally.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

How practical, though, is small scale production of 35mm film? There must be economies of scale at work there.

 

[venchka]

It would be nice of Kodak to publish the formulas of discontinued patented developers. Microdol-X heading the list. There's no point in being stingy and selfish once a product has been laid to rest.

Earl, can you pass that along to someone who might care in the Big Yellow & Red Box?

 

[degruyl]

How practical, though, is small scale production of 35mm film? There must be economies of scale at work there.

I bet it is more practical than you think. It has been done for several decades for many different films. I don't know what the run time is, but I suspect that each production line is running several different emulsions in time share type batches.

I don't have the answers, but I suspect some people in Croatia might.