Kodak LF Film Availability

[Pawlowski6132]

I listened to the 10/2/10 Inside Analog Photo podcast today. It was an interview with Scott DiSabato from Kodak. He mentioned that it was Kodak's intention to only sell film, 8x10 and larger on a group or special order basis. Had anyone else heard this from any other source before?

[BarryS]

I listened to the 10/2/10 Inside Analog Photo podcast today. It was an interview with Scott DiSabato from Kodak. He mentioned that it was Kodak's intention to only sell film, 8x10 and larger on a group or special order basis. Had anyone else heard this from any other source before?

Did he talk about *replacing* current regularly available products with special order sales? Are you sure it wasn't about adding special orders (a la Keith Canham)? Although it wouldn't surprise me at all, since I thought packaging film in 10 sheet boxes would put 8x10 film in a death spiral. The next step down from a 10 sheet box is a zero sheet box. Unless they start packaging it in individually wrapped single sheets--like cheese.

[mat4226]

I haven't heard anything regarding the availability of current 8x10 films, but perhaps this goes hand in hand with the current program being organized through Canham Camera (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html)?

I hope they don't pull off their current 8x10 films, it already feels like an eternity waiting a week or two for my TMY-2 to arrive. >__<


Unless they start packaging it in individually wrapped single sheets--like cheese.
0__0 Oh God no!

[Pawlowski6132]

That's exactly the type of stuff he was talking about. He even named Canaham as an example of the model they were moving towards. Frankly, he sounded like a big prick. Basically saying it will be on the buyers shoulders to get organized and come to Kodak on bended knee, hat in hand begging for this film.

[Pawlowski6132]

Listen here (http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/). Jump to the -10:00 mark.

[Brian C. Miller]

I just looked at Freestyle's web store, and they have a note about Kodak Tmax 100 8x10:
"Currently Out of Stock - Item overdue from vendor - Please call for more information. "

Hmmm.....

[Ben Syverson]

Well, I bulk ordered Portra 400NC earlier this month. It sounds like it's time to stock up on 160NC as well.

[John NYC]

Well, I bulk ordered Portra 400NC earlier this month. It sounds like it's time to stock up on 160NC as well.

Sounds like it is ALL on the chopping block in 8x10 and larger. I'm even more worried about E100G. Right now E100G is the ONLY E6 8x10 film from Kodak or Fuji that is available at Adorama or BH in New York.

I need to make some decisions about the 2-3 year project I am currently working on. I have used on this project (for color) E100G and 160NC (and have been trying Ektar, but so far don't like the colors as well as E100G). I feel like I either need to stock up on 10 boxes of E100G and 5 boxes of 160NC or resign myself to just using whatever is available as I go along. I still can't make up my mind if it is worth buying $1,500 of film right now or just playing it by ear and hoping I can do group buys of E100G later on after they've stopped selling it retail, as I believe they will (and soon probably!).

John

[BarryS]

I listened to that section of the podcast and there's nothing new as far as I can tell. DiSabato sounded pretty matter of fact and reasonable, but I thought the host was condescending at points. Eventually, 8x10 purchases won't support traditional retail sales channels, and they'll move towards special orders.

I have a radical idea. Kodak should stop expiration dating 8x10 and larger film. They should tell the 8x10+ULF community they're going to distribute cuts from a current master roll until it sells out regardless of manufacture date. As long as the film is refrigerated, it should be good for a long time. Even in a camera store under less than optimal conditions, a little color shift doesn't mean much these days. Under an undated stock system, the disincentives for producing and stocking 8x10 (and larger) film become much smaller.

[Ben Syverson]

Barry, that is a fantastic idea. I would gladly buy 10 year old film if it was stored properly and sold with a "born on" date.

I don't know what will happen in the future, but I'm buying a small reserve of 8x10 film just to be sure I have color materials in the short term.

[Brian C. Miller]

Listening to the podcast, Kodak would sell the film if people were buying it. Unfortunately, the volume for 8x10 is too low for the dealers to make a profit from it. The dealers have to stay in business, so they are not going to order a size that doesn't sell. So for $15,000, Kodak will cut what you want.

I don't think that the Kodak guy sounds like a jerk or anything, he's just being realistic and telling the audience the problems that are faced by the industry. At least we can get it from Kodak. Can we do that with Fuji? I don't think so.

The podcast mentions Lomography as being a gateway for photographers who had never previously used film. Now what we need is an equivalent for LF.

[Ben Syverson]

The podcast mentions Lomography as being a gateway for photographers who had never previously used film. Now what we need is an equivalent for LF.
I've been working in 3D CAD on a design for an injection-mold plastic 4x5 system. It has a Graflok back and interchangeable lenses. The hardest part is actually sourcing the lenses.

But if I could find a source for cheap lenses, the retail price would be somewhere around $80-120 for a starter kit. Fun for the Lomo kids, and even more fun for this crowd, as it would be the lightest 4x5 system ever created, by an incredibly huge margin. Much, much lighter than your DSLR.

[eoghan]

Listen to the complete podcast, I believe you will find he is only talking about PORTRA film not EXTAR or any of the other B&W or color films. This is how rumors start!

[Eric Leppanen]

Skip to 24:03. Scott DiSabato says:

"...I think some of the 8x10 and ULF sizes that we don't stock at all, we're going to be moving to more of that sort of strategy, either made to order or special orders."

(The italics above are mine.)

I did not hear anything indicating that an end-of-life announcement for current standard order 8x10 films was in the works (aside from the new Portra 400, of course).

If you still find the podcast a bit spooky, I'd suggest contacting Kodak before speculating too much (anybody visiting Kodak's PhotoPlus booth?).

As for spot shortages of 8x10 film, I think this is not unusual given that Kodak and Fuji are trying to run on tight inventories.

[BetterSense]

I may be wrong, but I don't think Ilford dates all of their products. This probably gives them a bit of flexibility in stocking that they need. Especially for B&W film, I would have no problem with a "born on" date in conjunction with pushed out "Best if used by" dates, or no expiry dates at all.

[Frank Petronio]

I get tired of all the Kodak conspiracy theories that imply that Kodak hates us and how it is clueless about its customers.

They are simply trying to stay in the film business, I don't see product discontinuations as being their fault as much as they are ours.

Use it or lose it.

And from a practical matter, even though I love 8x10, there ceased to be a commercial application for larger than 4x5 film at least a decade ago. It's all being used by artis... err, hobby photographers. In the days of catalogs, a studio would shoot thousands of sheets of it - now most of you guys shoot in the tens and hundreds annually.

I doubt undated film would fly given that people have an expectation of warranty and while film should last a good ten years or more in proper storage, it really isn't something I'd want to bank my "120-years of quality" reputation on. The last thing Kodak has is a good brand name and they aren't going to risk that.

Those slobs at Ilford might! Their quality control sucks anyway.

[Pawlowski6132]

Listen to the complete podcast, I believe you will find he is only talking about PORTRA film not EXTAR or any of the other B&W or color films. This is how rumors start!

Actually, he specifically mentions TXP and TMY2.

[Pawlowski6132]

[QUOTE=Frank Petronio;643003]I get tired of all the Kodak conspiracy theories that imply that Kodak hates us and how it is clueless about its customers.

They are simply trying to stay in the film business, I don't see product discontinuations as being their fault as much as they are ours.

Use it or lose it.

QUOTE]

Frank, I kinda see where you're coming from but, all signs would indicate that they are clueless about it's customers. Specifically, about the demand of LF film. I mean, this is manufacturing simple demand forceasting. Almost every manufacturing company has a sales or marketing team that can, by a few methods (historical run rate, order pipeline, etc.) generate a production schedule both short term and long.

Frankly (no pun intended), If Kodak can't pony up to put their neck out a bit and invest in inventory (which is why pre-orders are pay up front) they should consider spinning off their film business to Ilford. If the market is indeed shrinking, it sounds like it's time for some consolidation in the industry.

[Frank Petronio]

Well it's probably more a measure of profit margin, I mean is it worth bothering with? They probably make a good profit from 4x5 and while the big stuff still makes money, it probably looks pretty pitiful in comparison. What is going on behind the scenes is the guy you are trashing here is probably sweating it out and making the case to top brass that they still can serve the big film market -- if it was a totally beancounter-MBA driven decision they probably would have dropped 8x10 back in the 90s.

We don't know at what point they need to add workers to make up the larger film, if it's a couple of $80K/yr employees or some extra equipment or some other large expense required to keep the big film running on top of regular production, their decision could be at a tipping point.

We'll never know that far ahead of time.

But, unlike Fuji, at least we'll know when they make a decision. And unlike a lot of the alternative film brands, if you do get Kodak, at least you know it will be good film.

[ric_kb]

hmm ,,, he sounded fine to me -- as any good salesman should. It also sounded like a good deal and recommendation to many LFrs. Canham has already been given the nod and is doing a deal which you can buy into here:

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

Scott (kodak) gave us the outline of what it takes for him to deal..
--has to be existing film, (no special old catalog or new research film)
--coated on suitable "base" (meeting kodak's estimate for film size.)
--and bought in $15K blocks...
--they set the delivery schedule to meet their production needs...

//he estimated 67boxes in that order.. making ~224/box ... don't know which film this makes it...


seems simple (parens == interpretation)

[Sal Santamaura]

Nothing Scott DiSabato says in this interview indicates that existing 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 TMX, TMY-2 or 320TXP are discontinued as stock items.


...Those slobs at Ilford might! Their quality control sucks anyway.You know Frank, that's pretty obnoxious. I've never had a defect in any Ilford product but, even if you have in an isolated case, sweeping condemnation of the company's QC isn't justifiable.

In a previous Inside Analog Photo interview, DiSabato implied that 320TXP might have been discontinued in sheets when 120 was, but Kodak hadn't done so due to the outcry that would likely cause. Declining sales will, in my opinion, force Kodak to end 320TXP completely in the forseeable future. Will you stop shooting? Use Ilford film? Use film from one of the lower-tier manufacturers with ancient coating lines, soft emulsions and QC that can justifiably be questioned? I suspect your best option will be Ilford. I hope you are just as willing to post here if that happens as you have been to spread negativity.

[Pawlowski6132]

Well look, as an interested observer and hobbyist at best, I can only speak credibly from that point of view. However, if I was a professional and used Kodak film as an input to my final product, they wold be a supplier to me. Working for Whirlpool, I can tell you that if any of our suppliers tried to convince us that we needed to jump through these kind of hoops to get their raw material (into our process) we would tell them to go pound sand unless, they were the only game in town which, Kodak isn't. We rely on a predictable source of raw material and components and I can only assume that a professional photographer would have a similar view.



hmm ,,, he sounded fine to me -- as any good salesman
should. It also sounded like a good deal and recommendation to many LFrs. Canham has already been given the nod and is doing a deal which you can buy into here:

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

Scott (kodak) gave us the outline of what it takes for him to deal..
--has to be existing film, (no special old catalog or new research film)
--coated on suitable "base" (meeting kodak's estimate for film size.)
--and bought in $15K blocks...
--they set the delivery schedule to meet their production needs...

//he estimated 67boxes in that order.. making ~224/box ... don't know which film this makes it...


seems simple (parens == interpretation)

[Frank Petronio]

We rely on a predictable source of raw material and components and I can only assume that a professional photographer would have a similar view.


But that's just it, there is almost no professional market for film greater than 4x5 size so why would they be compelled to suffer to provide for a small, less profitable market? Outside of artists who use larger cameras for their stylistic quality, which turns into gallery sales or perhaps the odd ad campaign, I haven't seen anyone make any money from a larger camera in the last decade. And even in the 90s it was of very limited usefulness, once things were scanned it didn't matter anymore except for the largest, finest reproductions like museum archives, Swiss posters, and wrap-around packaging.

Say Kodak makes a $1 a roll on 35mm and they still sell 100 million rolls... versus what, a $1 a sheet times a million sheets of greater than 4x5 film? Should they really bother to maintain the packaging and cutting and staff for that? Listing, packaging, stocking, storing, distribution, tech support, those all have costs associated.

And for the record, I've had four separate incidents of Ilford HP5 being miscut or damaged on delivery, with no response from Ilford. That was from using about 1500 sheets, much of it ordered at the same time and unreturnable. I wanted to like Ilford, it seems like a good company and their film is less expensive than Kodak's. But over my career I've used Kodak film for a longer period and in greater quantity, indeed doing thousands of mass production catalog shots, and never once had a defect. So I'll stand by what I wrote.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I don't agree with Kodak lockstep, but I think this is a case where you're looking for the negatives when Kodak is really offering a practical solution to meeting our needs.

Personally, I think Kodak should exploit the Lomo-Impossible Project business model and make their film retro-cool again. That would take an investment but it would grow the market for them.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've had four separate incidents of Ilford HP5 being miscut or damaged on delivery, with no response from Ilford. That was from using about 1500 sheets, much of it ordered at the same time and unreturnable...How did you contact Ilford? You've been open about your aversion to apug.org, but Simon Galley, one of Ilford's owners, has answered inquiries posted there, either in threads or via PM. I've also emailed him directly and he's always replied.

If you purchased a large quantity of film mostly at one time and found defects, why was it not returnable? Ilford and its agents in the US are bound by warranty laws. The company has also seemed to be very responsive. Please explain where the process broke down.

[Ben Syverson]

Personally, I think Kodak should exploit the Lomo-Impossible Project business model and make their film retro-cool again. That would take an investment but it would grow the market for them.
This is exactly what they need to do. They need to have retro-themed displays in Urban Outfitters selling "pre-aged" film for $20 / pack. They should make mass-market 120 cameras and give them away with the film.

Then they could keep selling the fresh stuff to the ever-dwindling market of dorks like us.

[bsimison]

This is exactly what they need to do. They need to have retro-themed displays in Urban Outfitters selling "pre-aged" film for $20 / pack. They should make mass-market 120 cameras and give them away with the film.

Then they could keep selling the fresh stuff to the ever-dwindling market of dorks like us.

...and release a consumer/prosumer priced scanner to digitize it all.

[Frank Petronio]

I do think Kodak has a wonderful scanner technology they are sitting on, the idea of selling a superior scanner at cost to drive film sales is a great idea.

I talked to the rep, they offered to replace the film, but nothing more and I wasn't impressed with their level of contriteness, so I'm guilty of exaggerating to make a point.

I also started the whole "5x4" instead of "4x5" thing, and I once sold a stripped Technika without its covering as a "Lunar Module NASA version" for $18,439. I'm evil like that. So far I've been able to get away with it online.

[Pawlowski6132]

Well, we'll see eventually where this all ends up. I personally use Kodak exclusively; 320TXP for 4x5 (5%) and 8x10 (95%). But, if I have to start dealing with special advance group purchases, I'll prolly switch brands.

[Pawlowski6132]

Hmm. Really? Let me just throw this out there; per month, for any type 8x10 film, are there sales in the thousands or hundreds? Internationally. I just assumed it was in thousands.


But that's just it, there is almost no professional market for film greater than 4x5 size so why would they be compelled to suffer to provide for a small, less profitable market? Outside of artists who use larger cameras for their stylistic quality, which turns into gallery sales or perhaps the odd ad campaign, I haven't seen anyone make any money from a larger camera in the last decade. And even in the 90s it was of very limited usefulness, once things were scanned it didn't matter anymore except for the largest, finest reproductions like museum archives, Swiss posters, and wrap-around packaging.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't know what sales are but how much do you shoot? How many 8x10 shooters do you know?

Roughly speaking, if there are 600 active participants on this forum, and only 60 shoot 8x10, and this forum represents 10% of the large format users... that's 600 active 8x10 shooters. Of those, I bet some are duffers who only shoot 50 sheets a year, and not very many shoot more than 1000. Call it 100 sheets/year average x 600 shooters, or 60,000 sheets.

Now figure $1 per profit. That's only $60K. Even if I am off by a decimal point, how many Fortune 500 companies care about such small potatoes?

[Sal Santamaura]

...You know Frank, that's pretty obnoxious...


...I've had four separate incidents of Ilford HP5 being miscut or damaged on delivery, with no response from Ilford. That was from using about 1500 sheets, much of it ordered at the same time and unreturnable...


...I talked to the rep, they offered to replace the film, but nothing more and I wasn't impressed with their level of contriteness, so I'm guilty of exaggerating to make a point...So you've gone from "unreturnable" and "no response from Ilford" to "the rep...offered to replace the film" (same as Kodak offers in its warranty) but you think the rep should have been more contrite.

I'll stand by my initial characterization.

[Pawlowski6132]

I don't know what sales are but how much do you shoot? How many 8x10 shooters do you know?

Roughly speaking, if there are 600 active participants on this forum, and only 60 shoot 8x10, and this forum represents 10% of the large format users... that's 600 active 8x10 shooters. Of those, I bet some are duffers who only shoot 50 sheets a year, and not very many shoot more than 1000. Call it 100 sheets/year average x 600 shooters, or 60,000 sheets.

Now figure $1 per profit. That's only $60K. Even if I am off by a decimal point, how many Fortune 500 companies care about such small potatoes?

You're prolly not too far off. But, $1 profit on $5/sheet revenue is 20% margin! That's VERY good. By way of comparison, Grocery Stores average less than 3%.

:p

[Frank Petronio]

Well you can make a huge margin but your volume has to be there too in order for it to make sense as a business. If you had to process the ordering, communicate with the customers, package, and ship 6,000 ten-sheet boxes (60,000 sheets) how long would that take you? I bet that you'd be doing well to do 50 per day. That's two trained employees at say, $50K each minimal, which costs $100K. So there goes your $$$ pretty quickly... I don't have any idea what the actual numbers might be but if you figure it takes at least a couple of employees to handle the large format film business, ultimately the company has to look at the books and ask, "Why are we doing this?"

And remember, Kodak was built around making the world's film supply and the machines and process are on a huge scale, so scaling down is not always going to be cost-efficient. Once some giant machine wears out or fails, they are faced with a tipping point. At least the smaller companies can make small scale B&W but kiss color and the exotic stuff goodbye.

And Sal, yes I admit to lying, bullshit, and exaggeration. Guilty as charged.

Petronio 2012 donations accepted!

[Sal Santamaura]

...yes I admit to lying, bullshit, and exaggeration. Guilty as charged...I hope anyone new to LF and this forum who searches for information on film manufacturers bears that in mind when evaluating your opinions of same...

[Drew Wiley]

They aren't specially making 8x10 film, but simply cutting it from the same master roll as 4x5. Given that runs of TMY-2 seem to be reasonably frequent, it's simply a packaging issue. But the dilemma they've got to face is just like a tire store - if you
only carry tires for the very most popular make of auto, no one will bother with you anymore and you'll end up out of that business entirely. I can understand something like 12x20 or 4x10 being a special cut, but in the overall scheme of things, 8x10 ain't that rare.

[John NYC]

Skip to 24:03. Scott DiSabato says:

"...I think some of the 8x10 and ULF sizes that we don't stock at all, we're going to be moving to more of that sort of strategy, either made to order or special orders."

(The italics above are mine.)

I did not hear anything indicating that an end-of-life announcement for current standard order 8x10 films was in the works (aside from the new Portra 400, of course).

If you still find the podcast a bit spooky, I'd suggest contacting Kodak before speculating too much (anybody visiting Kodak's PhotoPlus booth?).

As for spot shortages of 8x10 film, I think this is not unusual given that Kodak and Fuji are trying to run on tight inventories.

When I wrote Kodak about my concern for E100G and told them I was working on a multi-year project, their advice was to buy the film I needed now because they could not promise about future availability that far in advance.

[Curt]

It appears that Kodak is planning one day at a time and working from moment to moment, with the trend away from film it's no wonder they have gotten off the ball with keeping the stores stocked and don't forget the state of the economy worldwide. One day we might wake up and find that Kodak has joined Polaroid.

[John NYC]

When I wrote Kodak about my concern for E100G and told them I was working on a multi-year project, their advice was to buy the film I needed now because they could not promise about future availability that far in advance.

Specifically, see my post here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=628812&postcount=66

[Eric Leppanen]

When I wrote Kodak about my concern for E100G and told them I was working on a multi-year project, their advice was to buy the film I needed now because they could not promise about future availability that far in advance.Given how both Kodak and Fuji are struggling to survive, I don't think it is realistic to hold them to three year time horizons. We don't know whether Kodak's reluctance to make such a commitment is due to reservations about the 8x10 format, or potential future changes in their product line.

Kodak is emphasizing color negative film material, not least because it leverages their motion picture film technology more effectively than transparency films. If Ron Mowrey's posts over at APUG are any indication of Kodak's thinking, chromes today are a clearly inferior technology versus the latest color negative emulsions, and Kodak may eventually cede what's left of the transparency film market to Fuji. The new Ektar is clearly positioned as a chrome replacement product. It is also cannibalizing demand from Portra 160VC.

As for the other emulsion you are interested in (Portra 160NC), Kodak just replaced both Portra 400 emulsions, and may have a similar iteration in mind for Portra 160. Who knows?

In my mind, the big question is whether careful inventory management by Kodak and Fuji will be sufficient to avoid all 8x10 emulsions becoming special order. Let's hope that it will! I won't begrudge the occasional inventory shortage in the meantime.

[Drew Wiley]

With all due respect to Ron Mowrey, color neg film ain't there yet, except perhaps
from a tonal range standpoint. Hue gamut no way. But I'm hedging my bets and
shooting both E100G and Ektar in 8x10.

[Ben Syverson]

Drew, that's interesting -- do you have any references that describe the disparity between the gamuts of C41 and E6 films?

It's been my observation that I'm able to capture many more rich colors on negative than slides, because slides will essentially start clipping color channels in very saturated colors. The same does not seem to happen with negatives...

[John NYC]

Given how both Kodak and Fuji are struggling to survive, I don't think it is realistic to hold them to three year time horizons. We don't know whether Kodak's reluctance to make such a commitment is due to reservations about the 8x10 format, or potential future changes in their product line.

...

As for the other emulsion you are interested in (Portra 160NC), Kodak just replaced both Portra 400 emulsions, and may have a similar iteration in mind for Portra 160. Who knows?


Second thing first... Portra 400 will not be available through retail channels in 8x10. The new Portra 400 is not yet listed as a special order item available on Canham's website. So, for now, any kind of Portra in 400 speed for 8x10 is gone, after remaining stock is sold. I personally don't care as I don't use this film, but I did buy one box to try just to see what it was about before it goes away.

Back to the idea about three year time horizons. I am not "holding them to three year time horizons" -- I told them my project was going to take three years and asked for their advice. Their advice was essentially to stock up now. Given their advice I am personally conflicted about what to do. I am not sure I want to spend $1,000 on E6 right now. So I might just wait until it becomes more dire.

I'm not sure how much you are involved in business planning, but a large business like Kodak should have at least a plan for 3 years into the future. I am not saying that they will stick to it, but they should have a plan. If their analysis and resulting plan was that, hey, this 8x10 looks like it is going to be very profitable and viable over the next three years, they would -- if they had any brains at all -- want to encourage me to continue to believe that the film will be available, not give me a vague answer about stocking up that might lead me to abandon the product for another approach or digital or what have you. My suspicion is that in the next couple years, you will see Kodak's large format E6 go away for RETAIL sales. When it does, I will refer to this post again. When it doesn't you can. I'm really, really hoping you are right.

John

[Frank Petronio]

They could kill off E6 and everybody would simply move to C41, sure they'd complain but lump it or don't do color at all.

That's why Edgar Praus's Refrema machines can do either ;-) When E6 is gone he'll just run two C41 lines (hopefully) or keep one for parts.

[Eric Leppanen]

I'm not sure how much you are involved in business planning, but a large business like Kodak should have at least a plan for 3 years into the future. I am not saying that they will stick to it, but they should have a plan. If their analysis and resulting plan was that, hey, this 8x10 looks like it is going to be very profitable and viable over the next three years, they would -- if they had any brains at all -- want to encourage me to continue to believe that the film will be available, not give me a vague answer about stocking up that might lead me to abandon the product for another approach or digital or what have you.Actually I spent most of my business career in product and business planning for high tech companies. Based on that experience, I don't find what Kodak is telling you to be unusual, inconsiderate or even unwise.

Just because Kodak is giving you a vague answer doesn't mean they don't have a plan. In my experience most companies have 5-year strategic plans that they work from, which include product roadmaps, competitive analysis, staffing requirements, revenue and P&L projections, etc. For Kodak to give you a fully open and honest answer regarding E6 over the next three years, they would have to disclose significant portions of their future product roadmap. I doubt very much Kodak or any other high tech or engineering company would disclose such information to a small retail customer, even if you offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The revenue your film purchases would provide would not justify risking proprietary future product information getting loose. Look at all those rumors sites (Nikon rumors, Leica rumors, etc.) floating future product information all over the internet, a significant portion of which is somewhat accurate. NDA's notwithstanding, a lot of leaks are occurring, and tracing leaked information to a source is extremely difficult.

And even the best-laid plans can be utterly destroyed by the vagaries of the marketplace. I don't think anybody can reliably project how rapidly the film market will continue deteriorating (still camera film revenue is tiny compared to motion picture film, and motion picture film has seen drastic sales reductions due to digital capture and projection). Against such a backdrop I doubt Kodak can have much confidence in any strategic plan that they adopt.

I'm not saying Kodak does not plan to eliminate all 8x10 products at some point. I'm not saying Kodak does not plan to eliminate all E6 products at some point. All I'm saying is: we don't know.

I do think Kodak is saying that, if you need certainty over the next three years, and stocking up on film in unacceptable, then you should pursue another solution. At least they are being honest enough to tell you that.

[John NYC]

I do think Kodak is saying that, if you need certainty over the next three years, and stocking up on film in unacceptable, then you should pursue another solution. At least they are being honest enough to tell you that.

Exactly. This is what they said. And I am not complaining... as you will see if you actually read my posts instead of putting your own emotion into it.

John

[mat4226]

Just a quick little add-on regarding the new Portra 400. I was at the Photo Plus Expo yesterday, and while in the midst of scoring free sample after free sample, I asked the Kodak rep their plans for sheet film versions of the new Portra. Looks like in the next two weeks they'll be dropping 4x5 and by January should have some form of the 8x10; unfortunately she wouldn't tell me if it was retail or special order (through Canham).

[Eric Leppanen]

Exactly. This is what they said. And I am not complaining... as you will see if you actually read my posts instead of putting your own emotion into it.

John???

You appeared to take issue with Kodak not having a 3-year plan, and failing to encourage you to stay with their 8x10 retail products assuming they believed in their long-term viability. I said that Kodak almost certainly has a plan, may or may not believe in long-term 8x10 retail viability, but will not publicly disclose their long-term product planning due to confidentiality concerns (as is the norm with most companies). What does emotion have to do with any of this? We just apparently disagree as to the appropriateness of Kodak's response.

I agree with you that Kodak E6 appears vulnerable since they have not updated any of those films in recent memory. And Portra 160NC may be superceded by a new Portra product that replaces both 160VC and NC (a la Portra 400). Uncertainty abounds here.

On the other hand, part of film's recent decline is due to the economy, not the transition to digital. As the economy improves, film demand might improve. Again, uncertainty abounds.

Frankly, I'm surprised that 8x10 retail availability has lasted as long as it has, so I'm more reluctant to predict its imminent demise than I once was.

I appreciate the impact all this has had on your project. One strategy would be to pick the films you prefer, and start stockpiling only after Kodak issues end-of-life notifications (at least Kodak has been consistent with this, unlike Fuji).

[John NYC]

You appeared to take issue with Kodak not having a 3-year plan, and failing to encourage you to stay with their 8x10 retail products assuming they believed in their long-term viability.


If you read my original post that I linked to from the other thread, I state that I commend Kodak for their forthrightness. What I am saying about business plans is that, in my opinion, it would be very out of the norm for a company this is planning on keeping a product as a going concern to tell someone to stock up. So, that is why I believe they are going to kill it soon. I believe that if their business model was still to include it in the near and mid-term, their response would have been more along the lines of "we have no plans currently to discontinue XYZ."


What does emotion have to do with any of this? We just apparently disagree as to the appropriateness of Kodak's response.


Apologies for the vagueness there, as it was late and I was tired. I should have used the words "your interpretation" I suppose instead of emotion... or "your reading of my emotions." I'm not at all upset with Kodak. I actually commended them, as I said. So, we don't actually disagree, but I think you think we do because of what you said.



I appreciate how frustrating all this must be regarding your project. Adorama still stocks 8x10 Fuji Provia, as does Calumet and Badger Graphic (as a disaster scenario you could even import it directly through Japan Exposures, see http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=25&products_id=99). Have you considered Provia as an option?


Unlike Kodak, I have little respect for Fuji as a company, but I did just buy some 8x10 Provia a couple days ago from Badger.

[Michael Kadillak]

All of this philosophical discussion is somewhat comical.

It is this simple.

If you prefer to shoot Kodak LF sheet film you are naturally short these materials.

Kodak is a manufacturer of LF sheet film and currently they have a reasonable offering of said sheet film available for sale at a number of re-sellers. Kodak is long sheet film.

Just like any financial market the shorts and longs need to get together to neutralize their opposite market positions.

Stop worrying about how long sheet film will be available and buy as much as possible as regular as possible. None of us can do anything about how Kodak (or any film manufacturer for that matter) manages their business so why even bring up the subject. Surely you have better things to do with your time?

If you are a nickel and dime film buyer and films supply get thin, you will be forced to lament your poor planning while those that have stocked up and have some supply elasticity continue to function perfectly. It comes down to priorities and doing what you have to do to make it happen. I have a 24 ft3 chest freezer loaded to the gills and am considering getting another one for the same purpose. I am supporting the business that I want to remain in business. Get it?

[Ron Marshall]

All of this philosophical discussion is somewhat comical.

It is this simple.

If you prefer to shoot Kodak LF sheet film you are naturally short these materials.

Kodak is a manufacturer of LF sheet film and currently they have a reasonable offering of said sheet film available for sale at a number of re-sellers. Kodak is long sheet film.

Just like any financial market the shorts and longs need to get together to neutralize their opposite market positions.

Stop worrying about how long sheet film will be available and buy as much as possible as regular as possible. None of us can do anything about how Kodak (or any film manufacturer for that matter) manages their business so why even bring up the subject. Surely you have better things to do with your time?

If you are a nickel and dime film buyer and films supply get thin, you will be forced to lament your poor planning while those that have stocked up and have some supply elasticity continue to function perfectly. It comes down to priorities and doing what you have to do to make it happen. I have a 24 ft3 chest freezer loaded to the gills and am considering getting another one for the same purpose. I am supporting the business that I want to remain in business. Get it?

After years of optimization, Kodak has upset my "Just in time" film purchase regime. Now I am forced to invest in additional cold storage, that will eat into my bottom line.

[John NYC]

If you are a nickel and dime film buyer and films supply get thin, you will be forced to lament your poor planning while those that have stocked up and have some supply elasticity continue to function perfectly. It comes down to priorities and doing what you have to do to make it happen. I have a 24 ft3 chest freezer loaded to the gills and am considering getting another one for the same purpose. I am supporting the business that I want to remain in business. Get it?

If you lived in a typical New York City apartment, you'd come to realize that buying two additional freezers (or even one) to store film is simply not an option.

[Pawlowski6132]

Excess inventory is waste.



All of this philosophical discussion is somewhat comical.

It is this simple.

If you prefer to shoot Kodak LF sheet film you are naturally short these materials.

Kodak is a manufacturer of LF sheet film and currently they have a reasonable offering of said sheet film available for sale at a number of re-sellers. Kodak is long sheet film.

Just like any financial market the shorts and longs need to get together to neutralize their opposite market positions.

Stop worrying about how long sheet film will be available and buy as much as possible as regular as possible. None of us can do anything about how Kodak (or any film manufacturer for that matter) manages their business so why even bring up the subject. Surely you have better things to do with your time?

If you are a nickel and dime film buyer and films supply get thin, you will be forced to lament your poor planning while those that have stocked up and have some supply elasticity continue to function perfectly. It comes down to priorities and doing what you have to do to make it happen. I have a 24 ft3 chest freezer loaded to the gills and am considering getting another one for the same purpose. I am supporting the business that I want to remain in business. Get it?

[Sirius Glass]

If you read my original post that I linked to from the other thread, I state that I commend Kodak for their forthrightness. What I am saying about business plans is that, in my opinion, it would be very out of the norm for a company this is planning on keeping a product as a going concern to tell someone to stock up. So, that is why I believe they are going to kill it soon. I believe that if their business model was still to include it in the near and mid-term, their response would have been more along the lines of "we have no plans currently to discontinue XYZ."

You are drawing invalid conclusions. No information is just that no information. You cannot draw conclusions from no information in either direction.

[Oren Grad]

Excess inventory is waste.

It's not "excess" and it's not "waste" if it solves a real problem that cannot be solved in any easier way.


After years of optimization, Kodak has upset my "Just in time" film purchase regime. Now I am forced to invest in additional cold storage, that will eat into my bottom line.

Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc. face the same problem in turn. Film production requires, among other things, various ingredients that are difficult to source quickly and in small quantities. Manufacturers must plan ahead to get these. And at current sales volumes they have to keep scarce working capital tied up in stocks that can sit for a good while before they are converted into saleable product and exchanged for customers' money.

[Sirius Glass]

Excess inventory is waste.

No, an other invalid conclusion. A large inventory is needed when the items are not continually available on short notice. It is called planning ahead. Some large format films are readily available and therefore a large inventory is necessary for some, even if not for you. Having a large inventory does not make someone bad. In all formats there are photographers who buy up as much of a discontinued film as they can. Each to their own.

[John NYC]

You are drawing invalid conclusions. No information is just that no information. You cannot draw conclusions from no information in either direction.

But I did get information. Kodak told me to buy the film I would need for my multiple-year project now:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=628812&postcount=66

[Oren Grad]

Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc. face the same problem in turn. Film production requires, among other things, various ingredients that are difficult to source quickly and in small quantities. Manufacturers must plan ahead to get these. And at current sales volumes they have to keep scarce working capital tied up in stocks that can sit for a good while before they are converted into saleable product and exchanged for customers' money.

And I should also have mentioned the more obvious aspect: if a manufacturer coats a master roll on polyester sheet film base, and it takes a year (or whatever) for there to be enough demand for that film in LF to use up the whole thing, that's also capital tied up in inventory. Anyway, we all have to make that calculation.

[John Kasaian]

I've yet to see dated Kodak 8x10 film on sale at a discount or otherwise. This makes me think Kodak has/had a good handle on it's production & inventory and therefore the business model being proposed dosen't look like any kind of improvement but more like a benevolent way of backing out of offering 8x10 sheet film (not that Kodak have been benevolent about downsizing it's product line in the past.)

[Sirius Glass]

No, an other invalid conclusion. A large inventory is needed when the items are not continually available on short notice. It is called planning ahead. Some large format films are readily available and therefore a large inventory is necessary for some, even if not for you. Having a large inventory does not make someone bad. In all formats there are photographers who buy up as much of a discontinued film as they can. Each to their own.

Kodak was telling you to be conservative and get the film now so that you do not have a possible problem later. This is good counsel. They did not give an indication about continuing or stopping its production.

[Pawlowski6132]

Nope. Inventory is wasteful. It ties up cash, takes up space, leads to obsolescence, etc. Period.

Now, if you feel you that your benefit out weights the cash being tied up, space being tied up, obsolescence, holding costs, etc. then go ahead.

But, it won't change the fact that inventory is wasteful. That's just a fact.

[Mark Stahlke]

It's not that simple. Inventory is what your customers buy. No inventory - no customers.

[Pawlowski6132]

Nope. Customers buy finished goods. Inventory is input to your production process. And read my last post about excess inventory. Excess is more than you can use in a couple days.

[Frank Petronio]

If only hot air produced film, we'd have a boatload.

[Michael Kadillak]

Nope. Customers buy finished goods. Inventory is input to your production process. And read my last post about excess inventory. Excess is more than you can use in a couple days.

Your statement was correct in 1980 when film was a common consumer staple stocked by every drug store and novelty shot across the globe. This is simply not the case any longer. Film is now a niche product (particularly with sheet film) that tosses your excess inventory conjecture out the window. But that said if you feel challenged by the conservative approach of hedging forward for whatever reason, you can buy a box or a roll at a time if that works for you.

Every month I run into more and more LF and ULF photographers that are stocking sheet film in frozen storage as a natural hedge against an uncertain future. I personally want to have an insurance policy if there is a change in the infrastructure in the business or the bottom falls out. If it does not at the very least I am assured of access to a consistent emulsion as Ansel recommended over 30 years ago.

[Eric Leppanen]

Every month I run into more and more LF and ULF photographers that are stocking sheet film in frozen storage as a natural hedge against an uncertain future.One of the assistant managers at Freestyle told me the same thing about a month ago, at least with regards to their 8x10 film sales. He said that 8x10 customers generally purchased film infrequently and in large quantities, to be frozen as a hedge against an uncertain future.

[tbeaman]

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1868284/kodak-releases-8x10-version-film

New Portra 400 to be released in 8x10.

Congrats! I'm sure the community had no small part in making that happen. Or they were just screwing with you. :D

[Oren Grad]

If only hot air produced film, we'd have a boatload.


http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1868284/kodak-releases-8x10-version-film

New Portra 400 to be released in 8x10.

Congrats! I'm sure the community had no small part in making that happen. Or they were just screwing with you. :D

...demonstrating the successful conversion of hot air into film! :)

[Drew Wiley]

With the Fed devaluing the dollar, things are going to get rough. Film and paper are
going to get even more expensive soon, and it might be a deal breaker for certain
items already in marginal demand.

[Ben Syverson]

I guess this means I have to stop bitching and moaning. :)

[Drew Wiley]

We just have to evolve or devolve or whatever, based on what's likely to remain avaiblable, or in my case, will fit in the freezer (not always a good idea, because better
films and papers "might" come along). Or we can envy the carbon printers who can
make prints using jello and BBQ ashes, and will no doubt soon learn how to make film too. I'm sometimes inconvenienced, but not worried. When a big vacuum on the market
develops it's just a matter of time till someone comes along and fills it. And if the economy collapses completely, we'll need all our old prints and boxes of outdated film to keep bonfires going on cold nights.

[John NYC]

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1868284/kodak-releases-8x10-version-film

New Portra 400 to be released in 8x10.

Congrats! I'm sure the community had no small part in making that happen. Or they were just screwing with you. :D

That is a beautiful thing to hear!

[John NYC]

...demonstrating the successful conversion of hot air into film! :)

If our hot air produced this, just think what Frank's snarky-ness will do for us... Kodachrome 8x10 revival? Resurgence of the original Polaroid in 8x10?

[Frank Petronio]

My powers have been underrated for some time ;-)

[John Bowen]

As it turns out, Scott was "givin' it to us straignt."

[Jim Fitzgerald]

We just have to evolve or devolve or whatever, based on what's likely to remain avaiblable, or in my case, will fit in the freezer (not always a good idea, because better
films and papers "might" come along). Or we can envy the carbon printers who can
make prints using jello and BBQ ashes, and will no doubt soon learn how to make film too. I'm sometimes inconvenienced, but not worried. When a big vacuum on the market
develops it's just a matter of time till someone comes along and fills it. And if the economy collapses completely, we'll need all our old prints and boxes of outdated film to keep bonfires going on cold nights.

Drew, I love it! Yes us carbon printer and our jello prints and squid black ink are ahead of the curve for guys stuck in the 1860"s. All I can say is I'm building a stash of x-ray film!!

Jim

[John Kasaian]

Adapting to the availability of materials was the stock-in-trade of our photographic ancestors. I don't think a heck of a lot has changed.

[spacegoose]

We'll have 8x10 paper negatives for a while :) Is it possible to shoot color paper negatives?

[Ben Syverson]

Is it possible to shoot color paper negatives?
As long as Ilfochrome is still available... Not a very convenient ISO, however...