Kodak ceasing production of all film - FALSE ALARM

BlackXlist, I want to apologize to you for being hard on you about this, I'm sure you have learned from it just like the rest of us.

So let's keep things in perspective, especially the the fact this went viral real quick.....as people are scouring the Internet in trying to find out how the bidding is going for their patent portfolio...not good.

Maybe I wil go out and try to find a photo that I can title in the irony of today's events....I'll call it "Patently False".
 
Roger Hicks said:
It's very nearly as expensive to move a film coating line as to build a new one (source: Ilford, who've done it), and besides, there is (or was) no shortage of coating lines in the world: I think Polaroid had 13.

And it IS high tech, as you'd know if you'd ever seen a modern coating line: they've changed a lot in 80 years. Coating speeds are now measured in metres per second for mother rolls, with multiple layers of ultra-thin emulsion being added simultaneously.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Does the production of say Tri-X require huge orders to run as batch to be feasible? Not at all according to a contractor who was telling that the min. order should be around $14K. (Even 100 members here can place a common order of this size to share.)

Is the production of the Tri-X is feasible? This is the real question to be answered... From the retail price point of view users are not complaining about $5 a roll.. From the cost point of view, how they offer Arista for about $2 less? That means there exists a substantial profit margin... From overhead point of view, as long as the management is kept small and dedicated it can run, but not with the mentality of the Champagne Charlies now on the steering wheel.

And for the moving costs? Why move? Who would pay for the antiquated buildings of Rochester Kodak anything over the land cost? Buy the line with the building..

America needs a film producer as it still is a major market for film and this market can "feed" a local film manufacturer better than any other market does for any other brand of film manufacturer.

Kodak will live.. what it needs a takeover by some enthusiastic, dedicated management/owners away from the general considerations of corporate USA. Such examples are many, even I myself represent one making a turnover of only $30M controlling 41% of the domestic US market while being successful in the international too.
 
Gumby said:
Some people seem to take internet photography forums WAY too seriously.
Click to expand...

While that may be true, I don't see any mass hysteria on this thread. Just a few pissed off people because:

a. They make a living shooting film and every untrue rumor about the demise of film costs "x" number of film users and hastens the day that film will either be more expensive, less available or even impractical. I don't make a living yet on film photography, but I spend enough time to have a full-time job at it just building a body of work, and I for one, do not like negative and untrue posts about the demise of film. Serious business to me and many others.

or,

b. They are very passionate about film and do not like to see false alarms published for the same reasons as "a" above.

Either way, there are a significant number of people on this forum alone who should have been shown a bit of respect with accurate news reporting or at the very least, the post should have stated that the OP received some information and wanted to see if it were true...not a bold statement of fact that Kodak was ceasing all film production! What a complete waste of time for all of us...and I will curtail anymore discussion myself because I have a lot more important things to do.:angel:

Unsubscribe me.....
 
Hi Dave,

I did't read all of this thread, but my impression is that the OP received an actual email from a goofball in Kodak tech support indicating that all film production had ceased. He posted this to the forum. It was not my impression that the OP thought this was "news" in the sense of the NY Times, he just wanted others' opinion about it.

If it "went viral" is that the OP's fault?

I myself find it interesting that a goofball in Kodak tech support would make such a statement in the first place. If it was a simple "mistake", then it surely reflects the lack of concern and care that Kodak has for its film business.

Randy
 
My local store says BW400CN is no longer available

My local store says BW400CN is no longer available

A couple of weeks ago, I stopped into our local photo supply store to purchase BW400CN film. The staff there said they hadn't had any for some time now and that Kodak was no longer making it.

Today, after I read through this thread, I called the store to see if they had any updated news about this. They still have no BW400CN. However, they've not heard anything official from Kodak.
 
Bob Michaels said:
This is simply another example of today's mass market journalism primary concern about being first with the news rather than actually being correct.

We tolerate major TV networks calling a US presidential election incorrectly. We ought to be able to tolerate some anonymous internet poster.

I would be curious to see how many assigned real significance to the posting. Would everyone who believed him please contact me about some special financial opportunities to earn a guaranteed 12% annual return with no risk.
Click to expand...

Where can I mail a check? Sounds so good that it must be true!
 
I am finding it harder to locate BW400CN in the Roanoke area, but that seems more of a problem with former suppliers dropping film altogether. But I'll keep looking, because it is such a great film to use when testing out the repairs on a camera, what with not needing filters to bring out it's tonality and contrast. If it looks flat, then that camera/lens isn't worth anymore film run through/behind it.

PF
 
BobYIL said:
Does the production of say Tri-X require huge orders to run as batch to be feasible? Not at all according to a contractor who was telling that the min. order should be around $14K. (Even 100 members here can place a common order of this size to share.)
. . .
Click to expand...

How familiar is your 'contractor' with running modern fllm lines?

And conversion (from mother rolls to 35mm)? And perforation? And packaging...

And... um... Land can be worth more than the return you'd get from running coating lines on it. Ask Sterling (late of Bombay).

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Who in this case are 'they'?

Perez, yes. But he's a salesman and knows very little about anything. Plenty of other Kodak people REALLY believe in film -- and I'd bet that they (and film) will be there after Perez has gone.

Kodak's biggest ever mistake was appointing salesmen -- Fisher, Carp, Perez -- instead of people who actually knew the business. Of course it's a counterfactual conditional, but I believe that the rot set in when they didn't appoint Carl Kohrt in 2000.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes Perez. You can waffle all you like about him being a salesman and not knowing anything about film. But you have ignored the fact that a.) he was appointed for his sales and money making abilities by people who were precisely interested in those abilities. b.) He is still there after making those statements about film being dead which means he still has the support of the people who hired him and c.) he is running the company and not someone who is interested in keeping film alive. He sees the future elsewhere. God knows where but not in film according to the chief executive of kodak.
 
tog said:
Yes Perez. You can waffle all you like about him being a salesman and not knowing anything about film. But you have ignored the fact that a.) he was appointed for his sales and money making abilities by people who were precisely interested in those abilities. b.) He is still there after making those statements about film being dead which means he still has the support of the people who hired him and c.) he is running the company and not someone who is interested in keeping film alive. He sees the future elsewhere. God knows where but not in film according to the chief executive of kodak.
Click to expand...



Well, I know some people at Kodak, and presumably you know others.

And, it has to be said, Carl might have made a mess of it. The travelling salesmen certainly did. My pick has the advantage that he didn't demonstrably screw up.

As a general rule, I'd back engineers against salesmen and professional managers; cf Honda. Of course I could be wrong. But the ones who went for the salesmen demonstrably were wrong. The people who hired the salesmen were speculators. How much Galbraith have you read?

Chers,

R.
 
BobYIL said:
Does the production of say Tri-X require huge orders to run as batch to be feasible? Not at all according to a contractor who was telling that the min. order should be around $14K. (Even 100 members here can place a common order of this size to share.)
Click to expand...

That would be the minimum order to have some of Kodak's Tri-X sheet film stock cut to a custom size - a tiny fraction of the volume you'd have to order to get a custom casting.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The people who hired the salesmen were speculators.
Click to expand...

I think that's the problem -- many large corporations are being run by "salesmen", not experts in the product/service they provide. You and Gailbraith may have a valid opinion but many boards of trustees aren't of hte same mindset.

I get the impression that they have redefined "strategic thinking" and that definition inlcudes words like "short-term", "just enough to get me a promotion/bonus", "whatever it takes to look good on paper", and the like. Very sad.
 
Paul Simon "Momma Don't Take My Kodachrome Away!"

Paul Simon "Momma Don't Take My Kodachrome Away!"

While I was reading this thread, I turned on Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). The broadcast was a recent Paul Simon concert, and he was just launching into "Kodachrome" ... you know, the one with the chorus that goes...."Momma, don't take my Kodachrome ......"

How very eery....So is Momma actually Kodak???

The concert was Paul Simon Live at Webster Hall New York
 
I really should know better than to even type this, but as there are clearly still some people struggling with comprehension or the reasons I posted in the first place I'll attempt to be utterly clear.

I contacted Kodak 4 times over a period of over a week.

The only person from Kodak who got back to me sent me the original message, which I posted up in full, in both quote and screenshot form, in order to be as transparent as possible because I had just received an email stating that production on "Kodak film" had been stopped" by a Kodak representative.

I wasn't trying to "break the news" or score some points, and if I was, I certainly wouldn't have chosen RFF as the place to do so, I would obviously have gone to a news site or a photo blog rather than a somewhat specialized forum on which I am a (albeit fairly new) poster.

Somebody else posted it to Reddit.

I answered some queries about my post to try and clarify things such as UK phone numbers etc.

When I was able to speak to somebody on the phone at Kodak I queried very specifically, and a number of times, about the film production, and was given further, false information by a Kodak Representative. (that all film production had ceased at the beginning of the year).

I did not hear a rumour from a random source and rush to "get the news out", I finally got a response directly from a representative of a company who's products I use and rely upon, that stated (in the first instance) and confirmed (in the second) the story that they had told me.

There is no element of running with half a story to get a sensationalist piece of news out, and I was entirely transparent with the information all the way through the discussion.

I'm aware that people are very sensitive about the future of film. So am I, that's exactly why I had contacted the company 4 times in an attempt to get a response.

As far as showing respect goes, it is precisely because I have a great deal of respect for RFF that I posted the information in the first place, because it would have huge implications for a lot of us (myself included).

I am beyond happy that Roger was able to get an answer (and a swift one too) from his contacts at Kodak, and that the answer was the opposite of the one that Kodak had given me.
I am a user of Kodak products, and the fact that at least some of them will continue to be available is fantastic news, and I intend to use them for as long as I possibly can.

In terms of my anonymity, this is a name I have used across the web for a number of years, it's easy to find myself and my work with it, there are a number of reasons why it isn't my birthname, but it is an easily identifiable one.

Finally I want to say a quick thanks to Roger for help clearing up the issue so quickly, and with the best possible answer,
and to KM-25, and those that I received PMs from
 
I'm inpressed thet you actually got a response from Kodak. I'm on my third email trying to get a response on one of hteir products.

The discussion has been interesting. Thanks!
 
Roger was the person who actually managed to get accurate information (and good news) from Kodak on this issue.

It's obvious that there are issues within Kodak, and everyone has their own take on why, I don't think any connection between users and a company is ever "worthless" in fact I personally think Kodak should be cultivating exactly that at the moment, so that they know what the people who are actually buying and using their products want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom