Kodak ceasing production of all film - FALSE ALARM

[BlackXList]

I think (I hope) there's definitely room for BW400CN and XP2 Super, because the results I get from the films are a world apart.

Sadly I suspect I'll have to go back to trying to get something useable out of XP2 Super, which I've never managed to my satisfaction before. I suspect shooting it at below box speed will get me to a more acceptable results (if not, then I'm going to end up shooting cheap C41 colour and desaturating, which will be most unsatisfactory)

(and for the last time, it wasn't the same source 4 times, this was the fourth source, and the only one who bothered to reply)

[Phil_F_NM]

This thread is a soup sandwich. There have been a few who have offered good information regarding the original post. There have also been a few who have just been downright nasty.
We all know that Kodak film is still around so now it's come down to a lot of snarky personal attacks.
Can't it just die?

Phil Forrest

[Gumby]

... or maybe Luis just has poor written communication skills.

[BobYIL]

My! In just half a day over 170 messages?! Kodak has died already in this forum while turning out films at the Rochester plant .

Why would a beloved, highly regarded, reasonably priced well-selling product would die?! Chrysler was bankrupt too and twice, but still going strong.. Leitz following the 70's lived through up and downs until it was divided into "portions" in 1986, the family probably has lost the great majority of their shares.. Captains change, vessels keep on cruising.. Such a great product having a sound customer basis all over the world, having almost no competition will attract many enthusiastic buyers, like Truesense bought a far more complex part of the same company.

Does a production bring money? This is the question.. Some Kodak films "bring" money more than any other similar product be it the HP5 or the Neopan do for example.. And the prospective future owners know it better than we do..

[sevo]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Why would a beloved, highly regarded, reasonably priced well-selling product would die?!

Assuming that it is indeed selling well enough relative to the scale it is produced at (where I have my doubts when it comes to colour film - and BW400CN might be running off a colour line):

Sometimes because someone in management or the investors believes that a bit more profit could be squeezed out of producing something else. Or because someone in management or the investors disembowels the company for the immediate profit they can make out of selling its real estate and tools. Occasionally they'll even kill a profitable company just to make off with its pensioners fund or cash reserves. YMMV - but the list of survivable companies killed for no good reason is no smaller than that of the ailing companies trundling along at a loss.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by tog

I wish kodak would do us all a favour and hurry up and die. I've had my fill of stories about the demise of their products and don't use them anymore. So basically I couldn't give a monkeys if they stop producing film products. They made it blatantly obvious they see no future in film so why people continue to support them I have no idea.

We support them because they make good products. Just because one nobody on a photo forum is pissed at them doesn't mean the photographers here are going to do what you want. No matter how much you stamp your feet and pout.

[migtex]

Roger, thank you for saving the day!



It will die one day, so, be prepared...

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by sevo

Assuming that it is indeed selling well enough relative to the scale it is produced at (where I have my doubts when it comes to colour film - and BW400CN might be running off a colour line):

Sometimes because someone in management or the investors believes that a bit more profit could be squeezed out of producing something else. Or because someone in management or the investors disembowels the company for the immediate profit they can make out of selling its real estate and tools. Occasionally they'll even kill a profitable company just to make off with its pensioners fund or cash reserves. YMMV - but the list of survivable companies killed for no good reason is no smaller than that of the ailing companies trundling along at a loss.

One of the last large manufacturers in my city, Robert Shaw Co, who made thermostats for cars and homes and had been here for almost as long as Kodak was purchased by a group of investors, shut down and all the assets sold for a substantial profit. Robert Shaw was the leader in a growing market for their products. This unfortunately is the new way of doing business.

[.... _]

Contrary to what my post might suggest I personally would love any film producer to survive. But in Kodaks case we have seen paper production cease. It's beloved kodachome cease, other positive films cease, many black and white films cease, digital sensor section sold off, a chief exec who sees no future in film and kodak sink into bankruptcy protection. This isn't something that has just cropped up. Its something that has been happening for years and management has failed to stop the rot.

The problem kodak has is its large corporate mentality. It's too big for its film plant to survive in todays market. It can't downsize its site and plant the way it is now. IMO it needs to build a new film based plant totally seperate from its existing site of the right scale for it to be economically viable. But it isn't doing that and that means its going to fail in the film based stakes.
Yes the remaining film products are very good but they have no future under the current management strategy (if you can call it that). Therefore I'm not going to support it when I could support those companies who have a greater committment to keeping film alive such as fuji and ilford and the smaller companies such as the re-introduced agfa(adox) etc.
Being harsh on kodak is about their attitude and not their products.
Just my opinion, nothing more. You can interpret it how you like.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by tog

Therefore I'm not going to support it when I could support those companies who have a greater committment to keeping film alive such as fuji and ilford and the smaller companies such as the re-introduced agfa(adox) etc.

Fuji's been discontinuing films left and right so I'm not sure that they're really that commited to keeping film alive.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Fuji's been discontinuing films left and right so I'm not sure that they're really that commited to keeping film alive.

Well they have a range of positive and negative films. Yes they have been cutting back on some lines as have all film companies but they are still designing and making new film cameras. I think that shows a lot more committment than some. i.e. while there is a viable market they will be in it. I think there is a viable black and white paper market in the US. Why did kodak stop B+W paper production.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by tog

Well they have a range of positive and negative films. Yes they have been cutting back on some lines as have all film companies but they are still designing and making new film cameras. I think that shows a lot more committment than some. i.e. while there is a viable market they will be in it. I think there is a viable black and white paper market in the US. Why did kodak stop B+W paper production.

Right, and they are still selling the pa-45 film holders, after discontinuing all 4x5 instant film. Fuji is great.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by tog

Well they have a range of positive and negative films. Yes they have been cutting back on some lines as have all film companies but they are still designing and making new film cameras. I think that shows a lot more committment than some. i.e. while there is a viable market they will be in it. I think there is a viable black and white paper market in the US. Why did kodak stop B+W paper production.

They've just recently discontinued several of their film cameras and they haven't introduced any new ones in a while. The BessaIII/GF670 was only a limited production run, too. While they haven't discontinued all slide films, they have been cutting back a lot and I suspect this trend is going to continue. Also, they haven't improved any of their emulsions in years whereas Kodak's new Portra films are a great improvement over their predecessors. And they also introduced Ektar.
The difference between Fuji and Kodak is not the commitment they have to film, it's that Fuji is doing ok as a company while Kodak isn't. I actually think that the employees at Kodak probably care more about film than those at Fuji simply because that's the thing that defines Kodak.

[MartinP]

Originally Posted by tog

Well they have a range of positive and negative films. Yes they have been cutting back on some lines as have all film companies but they are still designing and making new film cameras. I think that shows a lot more committment than some. i.e. while there is a viable market they will be in it. I think there is a viable black and white paper market in the US. Why did kodak stop B+W paper production.

Not correct. Ilford have been increasing their range of products, and even making bizarre sizes on request, for years. There is a reason why they are the world leader in their field.

About the Kodak paper . . . the mass-market paper would have been Polycontrast. In the lab where I worked at the time (as b+w printer) we did a "blind tasting" of papers with some customers, purely on looking at prints of the same neg, and Polycontrast was consistently behind Ilford and Agfa (this was more than 20 years ago). They chose not to keep the product up with the quality of the competition, with the obvious result.

EDIT: I happily use Portra, so please don't think I'm bashing Kodak film division

[Photo_Smith]

Originally Posted by tog

It can't downsize its site and plant the way it is now. IMO it needs to build a new film based plant totally seperate from its existing site of the right scale for it to be economically viable. But it isn't doing that and that means its going to fail in the film based stakes.

I'm not sure that's true. In the last 10 years Kodak has downsized worldwide it's film production drastically It now only has two coating halls (both next to each other), as far as I can see it has downsized pretty effectively.
Having the base production near the coating plant makes sense, they now outsource all confection of film to their Mexico operation.
They have made great strides in adapting the coatings to make smaller runs, and production is about as efficient as it can get.
Hard to see how moving anything else will gain them anything but costs.

We may think that upper management may be steering the corporate boat toward the ice burg but that has nothing to do with the film division and their efficiency or their attempts to match supply with demand.

We can only hope the film division will be spun off, I'm sure the world biggest producer of film can survive without the boat anchor of the rest of the company.

[paulfish4570]

well, wal-mart has not sold kodak films for about a year now. the walgreens i use for c-41 processing/scanning has not re-stocked kodak or walgreens house brand (box says made in japan) c-41 film in months. the same for the cvs chain. the closest cvs store has a few rolls of tri-x left at near expiration date, and the boxes are very dusty (i may buy them up today). wolf/ritz do not sell film any more. this leaves a single photo store in a metropolitan area of 1 million people that offers a variety of c-41 and other color and black and white films. i imagine it is the same in most usa metro areas. kodak will have to make some sharp moves to stay alive in what is becoming a boutique business for customers like us. cinema? scientific? surely digital is making inroads there. tough business is getting tougher. i hope the kodak film division survives and thrives.

how about you other film shooters from the usa? is it one hobbyist/pro photo store per 1 million people across the country? i sure hope not ...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Photo_Smith

. . . We can only hope the film division will be spun off, I'm sure the world biggest producer of film can survive without the boat anchor of the rest of the company.

Not just the boat anchor. Also the millstone(s), anvils, concrete overshoes...

Cheers,

R.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

... the closest cvs store has a few rolls of tri-x left at near expiration date, and the boxes are very dusty (i may buy them up today)...

Ask the manager to discount them for you. That's what I did and I got a great deal. The manager said he would be happy to have that rack space available again for something that actually sells. I went back to my local Walgreens a few months later and that rack space was filled with disposable cameras -- film cameras. Ha ha ha.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by DominikDUK

Maybe the employee got canned or will be soon and this is his revenge kill Kodak by spreading false rumours. False rumours can kill a stock company very fast and easy.

Dominik

Ch. 11 means Kodak works for creditors, not shareholders.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Not just the boat anchor. Also the millstone(s), anvils, concrete overshoes...

... or albatross.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by MartinP

Not correct. Ilford have been increasing their range of products, and even making bizarre sizes on request, for years. There is a reason why they are the world leader in their field.

About the Kodak paper . . . the mass-market paper would have been Polycontrast. In the lab where I worked at the time (as b+w printer) we did a "blind tasting" of papers with some customers, purely on looking at prints of the same neg, and Polycontrast was consistently behind Ilford and Agfa (this was more than 20 years ago). They chose not to keep the product up with the quality of the competition, with the obvious result.

EDIT: I happily use Portra, so please don't think I'm bashing Kodak film division

yes Ilford have been making an effort. But they acquired Kentmere and many of the Kentmere products were dropped which we were promised wouldn't happen. Apparently due to EU regulations.
Ilford dropped G4 Ilfobrom paper and others but that doesn't surprise me as most people use VC paper these days.

[thegman]

I think internet shopping has a lot to do with this, I'm in London, I can walk to several pro processing/film shops and buy new film in fridges, it's all very professional and pleasant. The fact is though, it's more convenient to order online, there is a bigger, cheaper range.

Retail operations are going to have a very hard time in all fields selling predictable consumables like this, you don't have to select films personally any more than you have to select blank DVDs personally. It's not like clothes etc. which need to be tried on and so forth.

Garry

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

well, wal-mart has not sold kodak films for about a year now. the walgreens i use for c-41 processing/scanning has not re-stocked kodak or walgreens house brand (box says made in japan) c-41 film in months. the same for the cvs chain. the closest cvs store has a few rolls of tri-x left at near expiration date, and the boxes are very dusty (i may buy them up today). wolf/ritz do not sell film any more. this leaves a single photo store in a metropolitan area of 1 million people that offers a variety of c-41 and other color and black and white films. i imagine it is the same in most usa metro areas. kodak will have to make some sharp moves to stay alive in what is becoming a boutique business for customers like us. cinema? scientific? surely digital is making inroads there. tough business is getting tougher. i hope the kodak film division survives and thrives.

how about you other film shooters from the usa? is it one hobbyist/pro photo store per 1 million people across the country? i sure hope not ...