BobYIL
Well-known
The Tri-X is a feasible product to invest on for it can be regarded as lucrative production for a small establishment, not for a conglomerate running with excessive overhead. Reasons:
- Last year Ilford was offering the HP5+ twin-packs for as low as $5.00 and triple-packs recently for $9.79 (Freestyle); meaning despite of the rising silver prices and shrinking demand they are able to make some profit by offering a 36-exposure roll for less than $4.00 retail.
- Small quantities seem to be not much issue for small companies: Adox even in the ‘70s was a minor manufacturer with a very limited range of B&W films and still surviving today more or less with the same products. (Even a 20ASA CMS20 has survived, think about how many rolls sold in 2011!! Why concern about the fate of the Tri-X!)
- As far as film is concerned, our income level/buying power has never been so convenient during the last half-century as it is today. In 1977 a 36-exp. Tri-X was $1.35 and the HP5 was $1.19, whereas the Summicron 35 was $208 and the Summilux 35 was $262 (and the black M4 was $749.50
). Taking into account that the Summilux 35 then was costing as much as 200 rolls of Tri-X, you be the judge. (For long years many of us had to use 100’ rolls to spare cost)
- Finally, the new owner do not need to employ an R&D team to improve the Tri-X for the great majority of the users are happy with the present quality of the ISO400 films. (Meaning least overhead...)
Film is not anymore for the masses.. So what? The automatic watches too are not for the masses. Why do some people still buy the fountain pens or vinyl records? Is art also for everyone? Some things are irreplaceable; spending four hours in the kitchen to prepare a splendid dinner may not be for everyone too.
Regards,
Bob
- Last year Ilford was offering the HP5+ twin-packs for as low as $5.00 and triple-packs recently for $9.79 (Freestyle); meaning despite of the rising silver prices and shrinking demand they are able to make some profit by offering a 36-exposure roll for less than $4.00 retail.
- Small quantities seem to be not much issue for small companies: Adox even in the ‘70s was a minor manufacturer with a very limited range of B&W films and still surviving today more or less with the same products. (Even a 20ASA CMS20 has survived, think about how many rolls sold in 2011!! Why concern about the fate of the Tri-X!)
- As far as film is concerned, our income level/buying power has never been so convenient during the last half-century as it is today. In 1977 a 36-exp. Tri-X was $1.35 and the HP5 was $1.19, whereas the Summicron 35 was $208 and the Summilux 35 was $262 (and the black M4 was $749.50
). Taking into account that the Summilux 35 then was costing as much as 200 rolls of Tri-X, you be the judge. (For long years many of us had to use 100’ rolls to spare cost) - Finally, the new owner do not need to employ an R&D team to improve the Tri-X for the great majority of the users are happy with the present quality of the ISO400 films. (Meaning least overhead...)
Film is not anymore for the masses.. So what? The automatic watches too are not for the masses. Why do some people still buy the fountain pens or vinyl records? Is art also for everyone? Some things are irreplaceable; spending four hours in the kitchen to prepare a splendid dinner may not be for everyone too.
Regards,
Bob
kzphoto
Well-known
As long as I can get kodak color film in 35 and 120, I'll pay my fair share.
Michael I.
Well-known
this is a positive scenario I'd love to happen.
On the other hand there's AGFA who still sells whats left in stock through another company but no new APX (unless I am missing something)
On the other hand there's AGFA who still sells whats left in stock through another company but no new APX (unless I am missing something)
tomalophicon
Well-known
No but Agfa sells lots of other film.
Turtle
Veteran
Unfortunately it would seem we will just have to wait and see. In the meantime it makes sense for people to try a few rolls of other 400 films and establish a 'back up plan.'
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Agfa is actually a even more complex case - it was split into pictorial photography and technical film divisions before even being on the rocks. The latter still exists and isn't going bad (and many of their tech films have found their way into the consumer market through intermediaries), the former failed, but many divisions were split off or bought out - one of them is selling the left-overs and marketing the trade mark, another is operating the latest of the former Agfa coating plants (which, among non-photographic products, is doing re-runs of Agfa black and white paper and is currently tuning up for producing APX 400 and 100 again).
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Really!? that would be good news! Any reference on the interwebs to this? I'd like to read!
Freakscene
Obscure member
PICHA
Established
I was a fan of APX400 but the actual Tri-X in D76 1+1 is far better, it's the best 400 I ever used and I wish it will be availaible for a long time more.
Eric T
Well-known
There are several small manufacturers of black and white film. These companies will likely make film for many years to come for this niche market. But what will happen to color film when the big players (Kodak, Fuji) stop making it? Will any small company start making color film?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Agfa Gevaert still is making colour film for aerial and archival purposes. And the archival side of cine will stay film for long (we haven't found a satisfactory digital archiving medium for half a century - there still is a growing market for digital to film document transfer). So something out of the debris of Kodak will continue making at least cine internegative film. Nor will the bulk of cinemas in rural India and China be able to afford digitalizing that soon, so there is a continuing demand for print film for at least another decade.
Given that some colour production lines will carry on, I'd expect somebody to contract them for photographic film even if Kodak and Fuji should get out of marketing their own. But other than black and white (which has much smaller economies of scale and a more clear USP so that I'd expect it to last as long as artists crayons or oil paint) colour film probably will not manage to survive after it has been displaced out of its last bulk applications, unless it is somehow subsidized as a cultural achievement...
SuperUJ
Well-known
Time to buy Kodak film, the operation
Time to buy Kodak film, the operation
Look at where the Impossible Project is today. We, film shooters and movie producers, should do the same and pool our money to buy the film division of the company when it becomes available. In accordance with the financial statements of Kodak, the film business has been the only profit making segment of Kodak in the last couple of years. $500 apiece from a million photographers in the pool, we are talking about half a billion dollars. If it works out over time, dividend from the co-op may be enough to get each of us a Summicron in return.
Based on my unscientific market research (talking to the sale guy in B&H), film sale of all supplier combined has been steady in the last year or so. The demand of film cameras from China has been high (judging by the price surge of some classic cameras in the last two years). If the Chinese film market is going to evolve like in Japan, the future of film is very bright. Last but not the least, many movie directors still prefer films over digital ... it is still called "film" after all.
So, I think its time to buy Kodak!
John
Time to buy Kodak film, the operation
Look at where the Impossible Project is today. We, film shooters and movie producers, should do the same and pool our money to buy the film division of the company when it becomes available. In accordance with the financial statements of Kodak, the film business has been the only profit making segment of Kodak in the last couple of years. $500 apiece from a million photographers in the pool, we are talking about half a billion dollars. If it works out over time, dividend from the co-op may be enough to get each of us a Summicron in return.
Based on my unscientific market research (talking to the sale guy in B&H), film sale of all supplier combined has been steady in the last year or so. The demand of film cameras from China has been high (judging by the price surge of some classic cameras in the last two years). If the Chinese film market is going to evolve like in Japan, the future of film is very bright. Last but not the least, many movie directors still prefer films over digital ... it is still called "film" after all.
So, I think its time to buy Kodak!
John
dave lackey
Veteran
So, why waste time on the keyboard? Buy it already and go out and shoot it!:angel: I just ordered 20 rolls of Arista Premium 400 for my next documentary and will be ordering 20 rolls of Portra 400 for the second documentary. In between, I am will order a lot more chrome!
haempe
Well-known
Bob, I'm sorry, but this makes no sense.
ADOX died in the seventies, and Fotoimpex reintroduced this mark after expiring of the trademark protection. They sell different relableded (at the moment: efke) films under the ADOX brand. I don't know who makes cms20, but Adox assemble only.
This is not so easy as it sounds.
Downscaling the production from mass to niche with economical sucess is very difficult. Also transfer the production is.
A example is Adox with their try of reintroducing APX400.
They have all the knowledge and recipts but have real problems to produce (or let produce) the stuff.
If the production of TX at Kodak is stoped (what god or who ever may prevent) it will be nearly impossible to rebuild a film with the same behavour at other place with other machines by another company ...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
OK let's do it. But should we buy Kodak, or just the rights to make Tri-X?
Do we want the Kodak name? What about a couple of other films? Does anyone think T-Max is worth saving? I'm undecided about that. I kind of like Ilford Delta. What about Plus-X, recently discontinued? Say, what about bringing back Panatomic-X? It was said at the time that Kodak destroyed the technical information on Panatomic-X, as if they never wanted anyone to make it again.
Anyone want to continue the color emulsions? Portra 160? Ektachrome?
Anyone know how to actually get this going? Let's continue the discussion . . .
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Adox never died - Dupont shifted its focus to print industry and X-ray products, and sold the Adox production line to Efke. The brand reverted to the original owner family - that is the only thing that got revived, the film itself never was reintroduced...
haempe
Well-known
This is correct, but splitting trademark and product is a bit like dying...
Eric T
Well-known
I don't have very deep pockets but I could join a large group of people interested in buying the film side of Kodak.
Jamie123
Veteran
Last time I checked they were still producing a ****ty product and selling it at exorbitant prices.
I know that they're not legally allowed to use the same chemical processes that Polaroid did and kudos to them for their effort. However, that still doesn't negate the fact that Polaroid made better films back in the 70s than TIP does today. If that's what we can expect from Kodak then I might just aswell shoot myself.
Neare
Well-known
There are already a number of colour films being produced by smaller manufacturers. Also now if Kodak closes production, fuji will likely stay around. One of the big players had to drop out for the industry to survive, it was inevitable.