News today from Kodak

[mbisc]

LOL, of course, I was just sticking to Kodak for the sake of the original post. It's subjective too, TMX has tighter grain but is a bit harder to tame in terms of contrast and tonal curve...but man is it worth taming! I use both but favor Tmax 100, especially in 4x5...🙂

Yeah, if I had to specify a wishlist, it would be TMax 100 in 135, 120 & 4x5, TMax RS developer in small and large bottles, and then some assortment of other liquid chemicals (stop, fix, wash aid & PhotoFlo)...

 

[Al Patterson]

I don't think wishing for this is the way to move film forward since in order to do that, tons of money would have to be spent in order to re-formulate it, coat it and print the packaging, etc.

There is no way the people at Building 38 at Kodak Park would risk it all in coating 54" x 5,000 feet of Panatomic-X when there is not the demand for it there once was, this is why we lost it, Techpan, HIE and Kodachrome, the economy of scale simply did not work, at all...

I would suggest mastering a superb film like Tmax 100 since it is easily on par with Panatomic-X in terms of resolution and since it is a black and white emulsion, can be tailored to meet the needs of any great photographer that knows how to master his or her materials.

We *really* need to stop wishing for what we don't have and instead, make amazing imagery with what we do have. I think to do otherwise is doing more harm than good in terms of getting potential new film users excited about trying film...

Common sense posting on an internet forum? You are correct about using what we have while we still have it. Might just pick up some Tmax instead of XP2 next time I need film.

 

[John Bragg]

It is not so long ago that we were waiting for news on the takeover of Ilford, and look how successful that turned out ! I wish the film division of Kodak similar success. Perhaps, as the bit that still shows a profit, it will be better off under the new management ? Time will tell, but for now I will keep on happily shooting Tri-X.

 

[Aristophanes]

Highly unusual deal suggesting issues with credible alternative buyers.

Pension plans don't normally operate businesses. They might get involved with corporate governance, but that's it. The position of any pension plan is to liquidate past acquisitions to fund pension solvency. Instead, this concept is to run a business capable of supplying pensions on top of overhead.

Basically 15,000 Kodak pensioners both current and future, need this to turn a profit or there is no pension. The pensioners are betting it all on one horse. Likely they had no other choice as creditors. Pensioners/employees are being offered a chance to buy in to the new scheme. I suspect if they do not, their pensions will get cashed out at pennies on the $ (pound), sort of a take it or leave it arrangement as last place creditors.

Interestingly, the technical knowledge inherent in the retiree corps is probably the sum of analog film knowledge, therefore an incalculable asset.

I wonder if the Rochester super-plant simply cannot be sold due to environmental legacy issues; it's a toxic asset. This arrangement relies on the capacity of that single plant to supply this new business.

 

[BlackXList]

Seeing as the production will stay with Kodak Rochester, and the distribution and sales will move over to KPF, I do hope that this won't just create another middle man stage with which to push prices up for the users as seems to be many organisation's modus operandi these days.

My cynicism aside, hopefully it'll turn out to be a positive step for Kodak, and help keep film easily accessible for many people.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Exactly. The only film I can think of that has 'come back from the dead' is Foma 200, which was suspended -- not discontinued -- because of the unavailability of a critical component. As soon as they got that synthesized again, the film came back.
[/I]..."

Cheers,
R.

You can add Fuji Velvia 50 to the 'Lazarus' list. I think it was deleted then re-instated.
Whispers at Fuji talk about possibly re-instating Astia, that would be a tougher nut but possible.
Some kodak products have been re-introduced after deletion sometimes under different names, the best known was VR200 which was re-instated for emerging markets about two years after original deletion.
Don't forget also the sterling work of impossible trying to breathe life into the Pola film corpse.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can add Fuji Velvia 50 to the 'Lazarus' list. I think it was deleted then re-instated.
Whispers at Fuji talk about possibly re-instating Astia, that would be a tougher nut but possible.
Some kodak products have been re-introduced after deletion sometimes under different names, the best known was VR200 which was re-instated for emerging markets about two years after original deletion.
Don't forget also the sterling work of impossible trying to breathe life into the Pola film corpse.

All very fair, and encouraging. I was thinking only of the ones that sprang immediately to (my not always comprehensively informed) mind. We all live in hope!

Cheers,

R.

 

[MartinP]

The sales and marketing (was there any for the last ten years?) can certainly do with a kick from the new owners.

On the supply side, I hope that there will not be an unfortunate accident at Building-38 as soon as the motion-picture contracts end - it is most likely a well insured facility.

Edit: Does that sound too cynical, hmmmm . . .

 

[Aristophanes]

Seeing as the production will stay with Kodak Rochester, and the distribution and sales will move over to KPF, I do hope that this won't just create another middle man stage with which to push prices up for the users as seems to be many organisation's modus operandi these days.

My cynicism aside, hopefully it'll turn out to be a positive step for Kodak, and help keep film easily accessible for many people.

My worry isn't for film production, though I suspect we'll see variety contract beyond what is currently available. There is over-production capacity.

No, the much bigger concern are profitable, accessible, consumer affordable labs with very reasonably priced scanning scanning. All the home developing in the world cannot keep industrial scale film production going without industrial scale developing.

Keep film going, support a lab.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My worry isn't for film production, though I suspect we'll see variety contract beyond what is currently available. There is over-production capacity.

No, the much bigger concern are profitable, accessible, consumer affordable labs with very reasonably priced scanning scanning. All the home developing in the world cannot keep industrial scale film production going without industrial scale developing.

Keep film going, support a lab.

Probably not, though "industrial scale developing" almost certainly matters less for B&W than for colour.

Cheers,
R.

 

[shadowfox]

No, the much bigger concern are profitable, accessible, consumer affordable labs with very reasonably priced scanning scanning. All the home developing in the world cannot keep industrial scale film production going without industrial scale developing.

Keep film going, support a lab.

But the fact is, there isn't enough work for a lab these days, otherwise they won't be closing down. In a typical (not, for example: New York) big city with 1 million+ residents, there may be enough film developing market to support one lab, if that.

I'd say home developing is the only thing left.

I actually envision people would start getting together for a "film developing party" especially with younger generation for whom instant communication makes it possible to organize virtually any social events.

 

[KM-25]

The sales and marketing (was there any for the last ten years?) can certainly do with a kick from the new owners.

Well if you mean a financial kick as in bigger budget, I would agree, because their hands have been tied for a number of years by upper management trying to make everything that is not film related more profitable. That means they have had very little budget to work with, there are limits to that...

As far as the comment about supporting consumer labs, that ship has sailed, at least in terms of what used to be the business model. Facebook and Instagram are all the rage for how the casual snapshooter now shares ( Throws away copyright ) fauxtographs to all their faux-friends to get that nice stack of gushing faux commentary.

The camera user who actually wants prints, regardless of it being from digital or film, is now very small compared to what it used to be....and it might be shrinking still, not good for all those community labs. The serious film shooter who wants prints or at least the ability to use a scan from film is already willing to send out his C41 / E6 film to a good lab out of state, I sure am.

Companies like Ilford, Fuji and Kodak need to somehow make it much more fun to send your film off for developing, some kind of lyrical storyline / method that plays into what it really means to use film....I see a *lot* of missed opportunity here that should not cost either the consumer or the labs a lot of extra dough...

A lot of older folks who either used to use film and now claim digital as the mother of all things living and beyond or still do, complain about what a pain it is to use film because they lost the ability for it to be 1990's easy. They also bitch about less film choice, everything you can think about really. When the reality is that we all need to be treating film use for what it is now, Alternative Process with a different possibility ahead for us, one that we can treat as being really special because it is.

Film has mucho uncharted visual and creative territory left, but it's not going to have a chance if we keep expecting what we used to get when we used to get it. Film use needs some visionaries to keep it in the spotlight....people of all ages are hungry for the framing of a visionary.

 

[Aristophanes]

Probably not, though "industrial scale developing" almost certainly matters less for B&W than for colour.

Cheers,
R.

All of the inputs make the subtrate and emulsions are shared at a commodity level. There is no distinction between black and white and colour, just materials.

If there is not enough demand to share those material costs around, prices will go up considerably for black and white if colour processing on a large scale disappears.

Home developing will, eventually, not be enough to sustain any part of this hobby affordably in roll film...not even close. Black and white currently exists, and has for years, as a sub-set niche product able to borrow off the larger economies of scale offered by all film production, just as roll film has existed on the back of motion picture film for the last 10 years.

Mail order labs with scanning will save roll film production. Home developing has no chance of that at all. Even Ilford now offers that service. That's how Kodak started and the whole clock needs to be turned back to that model, not the Mom and Pop or drive-through mini-lab.

 

[KM-25]

All of the inputs make the subtrate and emulsions are shared at a commodity level. There is no distinction between black and white and colour, just materials.

If there is not enough demand to share those material costs around, prices will go up considerably for black and white if colour processing on a large scale disappears.

Home developing will, eventually, not be enough to sustain any part of this hobby affordably in roll film...not even close. Black and white currently exists, and has for years, as a sub-set niche product able to borrow off the larger economies of scale offered by all film production, just as roll film has existed on the back of motion picture film for the last 10 years.

Mail order labs with scanning will save roll film production. Home developing has no chance of that at all. Even Ilford now offers that service. That's how Kodak started and the whole clock needs to be turned back to that model, not the Mom and Pop or drive-through mini-lab.

I am willing to bet that Simon Galley of Ilford would disagree with this, in fact I am confident he would. I'm pretty sure they don't share the same supplier of base material as Kodak which is essentially what you are implying here...

 

[Aristophanes]

I am willing to bet that Simon Galley of Ilford would disagree with this, in fact I am confident he would. I'm pretty sure they don't share the same supplier of base material as Kodak which is essentially what you are implying here...

They share many of the same raw materials and as in many industries the loss of purchasing power through secular decline affects all suppliers. Could be rare earth elements to pharma supplies. An industry based on salvage cameras and home darkrooms isn't going to assure creditors who deal in tonne volumes quarterly. If home darkroom sales and processing equipment is not growing and making a profit, no one making emulsions will either. Borrowed time without a stable economy of scale. Only labs and their volume can guarantee enough volume and all film types from motion picture to black and white are interconnected in the supply chain. If big chunks of that chain start leaving, the cost burden will fall to fewer and fewer players who themselves have limited room for efficiencies. Film is not the first product to have gone through this kind of rationalization. This is an industry built on volume to survive, and if mini-labs are going away because of digital, so too are the home darkroom crowds. the demand for home darkroom equipment is so low you cannot give it away on Craigslist sometimes. That hardly inspires confidence that black and white is immune due to basic market forces. If anything I'd hope for this UK-based Kodak to team with Ilford and leverage some effort to get labs and mass scanning equipment into a proper turnkey input/output structure. Relying on home processing and scanning as your customer base is not feasible.

 

[BlackXList]

I've thought this for a while, and I'm sure it won't happen, but I may as well put it out there.

The Kodak films that are readily available on the high street (in the UK) are Gold 200, Ultramax 400 and in one chain store the "Professional BW400CN".

I'm a big fan of BW400CN, and getting my negs back, I'm always impressed by the results, and I'm crediting the film with most of that.

When was the last time Gold and Ultramax got updated? you know exactly what you're getting, and as reliable as they are, (and I use and like both) they're hardly shining examples of what film is capable of in 2013, and they're not going to make people go "wow that's from film?"

Get Portra into the chain stores, at good prices, and people will be blown away by their results.

I like Gold, and I like Ultramax, but lets be honest, Portra is a much better product, and one which has so much latitude that it's going to make the majority of photographers, even family snappers really impressed with their results.

Get it in people's hands, affordable, not the comedy prices that the 5 pack rolls are going for, and it'll sell.

Kodak's success was originally making photography accessible to everyone, right now they have an incredible product (and the stuff coming out of the motion picture department is jawdropping) that makes BETTER photographs available to anyone with a film camera, and yet, they keep it inaccessible, through distribution and pricing.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I find the cheap Kodak films pretty good this is one that sells for £1

Not bad colours from cheap film, of course Portra is a great product at a very slightly higher price (I pay £5.49 at Mathers per roll) but it is a Pro product as is the excellent Ektar (£4.49 a roll).
If it's not selling at those prices (bottle of wine? gallon of Petrol?), then the problem lies elsewhere if you ask me; possibly with the diminishing lab eco-system and the minilabs moving to drylab.

I find great film like Portra and Ektar cheaper than ever, the reason it's not on the high st is film is no longer a mass medium and is rapidly becoming (if it isn't already) enthusiast material rather than the default for image creation.

 

[bwcolor]

Kodak's success was originally making photography accessible to everyone....

Yes, cellphones/social media... The cycle repeats once again, but without Kodak and without film.

 

[KM-25]

Yes, cellphones/social media... The cycle repeats once again, but without Kodak and without film.

Or Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc.....

 

[julio1fer]

I just hope that the new management team is able to keep producing TMX and Tri-X and selling film on the Web (maybe via Amazon); I need no more.

My worst nightmare: the brilliant management team gets the idea of launching a new film format...it's happened once or twice in the past to Great Yellow Father IIRC.