Kodak discontinues all but 4x5 TMAX films

[Sal Santamaura]

After reading this thread

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/84768-kodak-tmax-8x10-400-100-discontinued.html

I phoned Kodak and confirmed it. TMAX 100 and TMAX 400 are discontinued as stock items in 5x7 and 8x10. Only 4x5 TMAX will continue to be available.

320TXP remains a stock item in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

[Daniel Stone]

wtf?!!!!!

-Dan

[BetterSense]

As I said on APUG, I would have imagined that TMY would be the last B&W film Kodak would discontinue. It's their flagship IMO and TXP isn't even available in 35mm or 220 anymore. I guess it just goes to show that there's no accounting for the bizarre logic waves emanating from the Kodak managment.

[Dave Aharonian]

Well that sucks!!!! I'm shocked at the loss of TMY, but I also know I haven't bought any lately due to the cost...

[cdholden]

They're only getting rid of it as a stock item. As long as they still have a SKU # for it, it will still be available by special order. This has already been discussed. Why is anyone surprised?

Chris

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds nuts. There goes the last reasonably straight-line film on the market for 8X10?
And there goes my ability to make 8x10 color separations too??? Ouch!

[Drew Wiley]

If this foolishness stays true, and batch orders have to be pooled, might as well up
the sheet count in the boxes too.

[John Bowen]

Thanks for the heads-up. Just placed an order for 8x10 TMY

[mikebarger]

Glad I didn't break down and buy an 8x10. That bug has been biting hard.

[Jan Pedersen]

Thanks for the heads-up. Just placed an order for 8x10 TMY

So did i but not as large as i would have liked. Fortunately i am pretty well stocked with TMY. Time to be a little selective shooting this film.

[Drew Wiley]

I cleaned out Freestyle. Badger is out. B&H still shows it.

[tgtaylor]

It's probably a marketing tactic to sell all the old stock at once without having to discount it.

[Bob McCarthy]

I hope this is not a trend, at B&H there are quite a few "out of stocks", just not Kodak.

Ilford (B&W) and Fuji (color), last men standing??

At least they're quality companies.

bob

[Tobias Key]

I think this could actually be a marketing ploy. They backtracked on the new Portra 400 not being available in 8x10 after people complained. Perhaps the threat of discontinuing a film is a good way of selling the remnants of an aging batch in short order. It could also be a good way of reminding people that if you don't actually shoot film it will go, pressing the faithful to shoot more.

[SW Rick]

I think this could actually be a marketing ploy. They backtracked on the new Portra 400 not being available in 8x10 after people complained. Perhaps the threat of discontinuing a film is a good way of selling the remnants of an aging batch in short order. It could also be a good way of reminding people that if you don't actually shoot film it will go, pressing the faithful to shoot more.

I don't think that's how they work- much more to the point is this interview with their CEO, who seems to be on a mission to get rid of old-fogey things like film and replace it with the flow of paper through inkjets (not the first time i've heard this about him):

http://j.mp/aNBRNf

[Drew Wiley]

Hard to know what Kodak is thinking, if they are thinking at all. They pretty much shot themselves in the foot with the overpriced small packaging, so probably needed to shoot themselves in the other foot to balance things out. A lot of the time in mfg the marketing monkeys who call the shots don't have a clue what the actual products are.
An even more sad state of affairs in publicly traded companies is that the CEOs have a distinct financial incentive to ruin the company, or are seemingly the most
incompetent person in the whole organization. Sounds like a stereotype, but I've met
just too many of these guys myself.

[Tobias Key]

I don't think that's how they work- much more to the point is this interview with their CEO, who seems to be on a mission to get rid of old-fogey things like film and replace it with the flow of paper through inkjets (not the first time i've heard this about him):

http://j.mp/aNBRNf

Bear in mind that a CEO will say what he thinks stockholders want to hear, and they want to know about strong growth in new markets, and at the end of the day film is not going to be a growth driver, but that's not the same as saying that film will not be a profitable and prestigious niche. I think this is just a shift to Kodak making niche formats to order, and knowing that before they've started making the film they've sold every sheet. I don't print any orders until I know they've been paid for so I don't see how this differs from the working practices of many photographers working today.

[mdm]

Their strategy is petty obvious. What they have is a premium product, no longer a comodity. It no longer makes sense to maintain a large inventory. Since the people who really want it will pay whatever they ask and jump all sorts of hoops to get it, they will. If you are happy with ilford and other films, change and dont look back. If you are not, well then, you're the suckker thats gunna pay. Business, probably good business too. Top photographers will continue to make their best work on Kodak products, if that is what they know.

At the moment I refuse to pay the premium, even though I would love to be using TMY and would love to try out TXP. If you have thousands invested in cameras and lenses and you use less than 200 sheets a year, what is a few dollars on film anyway. Just toe the line with Canham and pay up.

[IanG]

Kodak have a major marketing issue.

I stopped using all Tmax films 3 years ago because of poor or total non availability, I used Tmax 100 & 400 from their release.

However I don't live in the us/UK/EU and on my travels Tmax has been non existent on dealers shelves for over 3 years. Kodak's marketing of anything other than consumer C41 35mm is very poor.

On the other hand Ilford and surprisingly Foma are every where, now I was after 120 film and Tmax 120 was nowhere so 5x4 or larger is long gone.

If Kodak can't sell 10x8 world wide then the markets to small in the US.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

If you have thousands invested in cameras and lenses and you use less than 200 sheets a year, what is a few dollars on film anyway. Just toe the line with Canham and pay up.

Well said!

[rguinter]

I bought a separate film refrigerator almost 2-decades ago when I first started shooting MF and LF in order to stockpile my favorite films. It didn't take too many complaints from my old-lady about film in the refrigerator to make that choice. And I've never looked back.

Recently I outgrew it and bought a larger refrigerator and a separate freezer. When I want to stockpile favorite films I buy several hundred sheets, seal it up with a kitchen food sealer, and stash it in the freezer. When a box gets opened it then moves to the refrigerator until used up.

Regarding TMY... I've used a few rolls in MF but I don't really need the speed so I never stocked up with it. Not a favorite. But I do have quite a bit of Adox 25 which has become a fav.

That's my solution to the constant demise of films.

Bob G.

[Sirius Glass]

I have two freezers that I use to keep film. One on the West Coast and one on the East coast. When I heard that Ultracolor 400 was being discontinued in 120, I bought every roll I could find in Los Angeles to keep them from the hoarders. Recently I bought 25 boxes of Portra VC 160 4x5 also to keep them from the hoarders. If I had more money available I would have bought more.

I recommend that you buy up a discontinued film, that you like, for yourself and deny the hoarders an opportunity to take it all.

Steve

[Brian C. Miller]

Sirius, I absolutely agree with you. When Kodak cancelled 4x5 HIE, I bought up all the boxes in Seattle. I had to deny the hoarders their victory!

[Drew Wiley]

I got all my film out of the kitchen refrig and that made the wife happy. But from time to time I have to share some of my big darkroom freezer space with a frozen
turkey or big bag of shrimp! Worthwhile trade I guess.

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, I absolutely agree with you. When Kodak cancelled 4x5 HIE, I bought up all the boxes in Seattle. I had to deny the hoarders their victory!

Now that one I really screwed up! I went to Samys and they had an unopened box of 24 rolls of HIE 135 that they told me was the last box on the West Coast. I had not shot HIE before and so I only bought two rolls. They asked me several times if I only wanted two rolls. [I am on a first name basis at two Samys locations.] Like, what if I did not like it. Samys later told me that the other 22 rolls were sold in less that an hour and a half! Now if they had had HIE 120 I would have at least bought that too. [I only started LF again this summer.]

[jnantz]

ssdd


They're only getting rid of it as a stock item. As long as they still have a SKU # for it, it will still be available by special order. This has already been discussed. Why is anyone surprised?

Chris

exactly ...

[goamules]

I have two freezers that I use to keep film... When I heard that Ultracolor 400 was being discontinued in 120, I bought every roll I could find in Los Angeles to keep them from the hoarders...

I recommend that you buy up a discontinued film, that you like, for yourself and deny the hoarders an opportunity to take it all.

Steve

So by hoarding it, you are preventing hoarding? Seems a little...well, I don't get that, but

I'm wondering if somehow Kodak misread the market because there wasn't a constant flow of people buying these films? I'm not thinking about this too hard, but if they saw as steady flow of buying, would things be better? Or is that what people do already, except for when a type goes obsolete?

[John Bowen]

Only in America......

So on Monday evening President O announces he is going to reduce my Social Security taxes for 2011. Talk about a Free Lunch! On Wednesday, I spent the entire tax savings, and more, on 8x10 TMY. The President wanted me to stimulate the US economy and I did. :-) At least TMY is made in the USA. It is made in the USA, isn't it?

I also need some new tires for my truck. I would like to buy some "made in the USA" tires. Are any tires made here anymore?

[Drew Wiley]

Garrett - in some ways it's a downward spiral once a mfg draws backwards. Folks like me consume film much more conservatively once the price goes up and availability declines. Plus I'll hoard if I have to, meaning less frequent orders. But as
I already mentioned, without specific inside information, there might not be any logic to this kind of discontinuance at all. Kodak is simply too big for its britches, and one or two products get about as much respect as a gnat; and significant losses in a completely different division might result in cutbacks in even profitable depts. And in the current economy, there's a lot of kneejerk panic maneuvers going on. If you had to deal with corporations as much as I do, there isn't a whole lot of mystery why this country and certain others are such a mess. A lot of big public traded companies are being terriby run. The stockholders demand instant magic, so the
CEOs are under a lot of pressure to perform smoke-and-mirrors tricks, and once that stops working, they figure out ways to grab their Golden Parachute and bail.
They don't give a damn about our hobbies or niche professions. In an instance like
film, a smaller company dedicated to a single product category would probably do a much better job, if they could capitalize the R&D in the first place.

[Sirius Glass]

So by hoarding it, you are preventing hoarding? Seems a little...well, I don't get that, but

I'm wondering if somehow Kodak misread the market because there wasn't a constant flow of people buying these films? I'm not thinking about this too hard, but if they saw as steady flow of buying, would things be better? Or is that what people do already, except for when a type goes obsolete?

No, no, no! I am a film aficionado, not a hoarder! I am keeping the film from the hoarders!

Kodak looks at how long it takes to sell a master roll. If the film starts becoming out dated before it is sold, a big red flag is raised. The only way to keep loosing LF [and other film sizes] is to buy and shoot more film.

[sanchi heuser]

Now that one I really screwed up! I went to Samys and they had an unopened box of 24 rolls of HIE 135 that they told me was the last box on the West Coast. I had not shot HIE before and so I only bought two rolls. They asked me several times if I only wanted two rolls. [I am on a first name basis at two Samys locations.] Like, what if I did not like it. Samys later told me that the other 22 rolls were sold in less that an hour and a half! Now if they had had HIE 120 I would have at least bought that too. [I only started LF again this summer.]


Hi Sirius,

maybe the efke IR 820 AURA could be an alternative for the HIE ?
http://www.macodirect.de/efke-aura-p-1794.html?language=en

The film is made without the usual 'anti-halo layer'.
It's also available in 135.
http://www.macodirect.de/efke-aura-c-1_6_55_477.html


Andi

PS: outside the european union there is no 19% VAT to pay,
but import taxes .

[Sirius Glass]

IR 820 AURA does not go out to the longer wavelengths like HIE did. So while it is IR film, it is not the same. Thanks, though.

Steve

[sanchi heuser]

Hi Steve,

ah OK, I assumed you were interested in the halo effects.
I just read in the data sheets that HIE is/was sensitive up to 900 nanometers.
Edit: sorry I meant the other direction to 700-720 nanometers.
Andi

[Fragomeni]

I am officially depressed. I just heard about this tonight and immediately ran home to confirm it. What are the starving artists to do (ME!)!? I don't have the money to buy a shipping container of the film and keep it on deep freeze! I literally have no idea what to do...well, can anyone out there teach me how to make my own film? Glass plates? Thats clearly where things are headed... might as well start learning now and be ahead of the unfortunate demise of film.

[Ben Syverson]

I literally have no idea what to do...well, can anyone out there teach me how to make my own film?
Um, buy Ilford? It's cheaper than TMAX, after all. Plus it comes in 25 sheet boxes.

[Fragomeni]

Um, buy Ilford? It's cheaper than TMAX, after all. Plus it comes in 25 sheet boxes.

Yea, clearly an option. I'll probably end up doing that. Plus the 25 sheet count is quite nice compared to Kodak's stingy 10. I was thinking more long term though. How long do you really think sheet film (especially in large sizes) will be available? Its not exactly something we can count on anymore...

[tgtaylor]

This thread spurred me to order a box of TMax 100 (I have a couple hundred sheets of Fuji Acros but ran out of TMax 100 last week) and Tri-X Pan - I never shot Tri-X before so what the hell...it's going to be cool to try it and maybe I'll get some HC110 and other developers to see what Tri-X can deliver.

Sounds like fun to me!

Happy Holidays,

Thomas

[Ben Syverson]

I agree that it's depressing, though... It's never good when an option is taken away from us.

Luckily the advantages of T-grain emulsion are much more important in small formats than LF...

[Frank Petronio]

It's probably a hoax or an ill-timed communication that came out before they announce the film in different packaging. There is plenty of demand for 8x10 TMax.

The general APUG population is a little too highly-strung, I'm sure a bunch of old farts who shoot seven or eight sheets a year wrecked their Depends over it.

[Bob McCarthy]

Let's hope your right Frank, TMY-2 is a wonderful film. Won't be the first time the community over-reacts, but nevertheless there are shortages everywhere.

Bob

[Peter Gomena]

Hmm. I have a whole plate back for my WP camera, as well as a 5x7 and a 4x5 reducing back. As film for larger formats disappears, I can just move down a size. It's kind of like being painted into a corner.

Once film, and especially b&w film, disappeared from the professional market, we were in for a bumpy ride. The digits rule, and we're now a niche market. I don't see how complaining will help, so I'll just buy - and freeze - film as I can afford it. Thank heaven for Ilford/Harman. Buy film and use it!

Peter Gomena

[Brian C. Miller]

I also need some new tires for my truck. I would like to buy some "made in the USA" tires. Are any tires made here anymore?

Yes, there is one brand of tires made in the USA: Cooper tires.

[dsphotog]

Bummer... Loss of competition in the market typically leads to higher prices.

[Rayt]

HP5+ isn't a bad second choice for me.

[John Bowen]

Yes, there is one brand of tires made in the USA: Cooper tires.

Thank you Brian

[imagedowser]

Fragomeni, check out Lightfarm, Denise is teaching emulsion making for paper, glass plate and film this summer. Then you can say your work is totally hand made, start to finish..... a lot of folks have found out they can make beer at home far better than Bud or Molson.... Emulsions are about as hard, cooking is cooking...just follow the directions, thanks to Denise, Mark Osterman and others....

[cdholden]

Fragomeni, check out Lightfarm, Denise is teaching emulsion making for paper, glass plate and film this summer. Then you can say your work is totally hand made, start to finish..... a lot of folks have found out they can make beer at home far better than Bud or Molson.... Emulsions are about as hard, cooking is cooking...just follow the directions, thanks to Denise, Mark Osterman and others....

Don't forget collodion.

[SamReeves]

LOL, you suck Kodak. Time to buy some Arista!

[evan clarke]

An analyst at MSN chose 10 companies, based on technical financial information and social/marketing trends, who won't make it through 2011. One of them was Kodak. Sounds to me like they may have no more plans for coating and are maximizing master rolls. I chose HP5 as my film for 8x10 and 11x14 and have been pretty happy. It'll kill me if 4x5 TMY goes away..EC

[Bob McCarthy]

Kodak is in a tough spot. Its primary markets are collapsing on all sides. They can not bridge to the new technology on a scale to replace their industrial base.

It will go bankrupt, it will however seed new enterprises that will be without the burden of the past. investors, pensions, workers, management etc will all take a hair cut.

But if there is a viable business there, it will reawaken in a slimmer, more capable form.

aka Ilford

Good technology rarely goes away, new owners will acquire and operate it free of the burden of the past.

Capitalist, 101

bob

[Drew Wiley]

Evan - that anaylyst at MSN was probably working behing the counter at Starbucks the week before. Pretty much junk news they use for filler than any web geek can dig up. The overall market for film is obviously still pretty large, but there are so many
choices in sheet film at the moment, with all our individual preferences, that it is going
to get difficult to pool together an order for any one specific film in a specific size. Only time will tell what Kodak is really thinking, if they're thinking at all.

[Drew Wiley]

Capitalism 101 in the real world : Company bankrupts, CEO walks away with a multi
million dollar Golden Parachute, company sells land and buildings, skilled workers laid off and on food stamps to supplement minimum wage job selling made in China digital cameras at Wal-Mart. CEO get hired by another corporation and ruins it too. Wish someone would buy off Kodak's film division and run it seriously, but it probably ain't
going to happen.

[Bob McCarthy]

In a few high profile cases that may be true, but most of the time everyone gets trashed. I do agree we will turn society into a barbell, ie. highly educated, highly paid technocrats, managers on one end and a workforce that has to go toe to toe with workers from an overpopulated, polluting, no standards, often with a government who has no concideration for the common man, on the other end.

Unless we start thinking about fairness in trade relationships and the real cost of moving labor offshore.

I don't believe for a second Kodak is a poorly run company, the current management is holding a rear guard action against the inevitable. Going through the motion of trying to save what they can, which honestly is futile.


bob

[cdholden]

As I recall, Kodak was able to negotiate a 20% share of Lucky Film in China in exchange for providing them with it's emulsion and coating technology. I am curious to know how the profit and loss of their 20% share of Lucky compares with their own film division numbers.

[Daniel Stone]

is there any way that 8x10 TMY can be now a "special order" item, say through Canham or another deal?

$15k isn't all that bad(well, when you have 50-100 people together buying in bulk, not a 1-person deal), and if everyone who participates just buys a larger amount 1 or 2x a year, rather than say 1 box a month, it could definitely work, and we could possibly get 25sht boxes ;).

-Dan

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - as a professional buyer I deal with privately held mfg corporations as much as possible. That doesn't mean they're necessarily small - some are quite large. But it does mean that if sales merely exceed expenses, a profit is made and they remain in
business. With publicly held mfg you've got to look like you're making money even if
you're not, and its relatively difficult to hold to long term goals. To inflate the value of
the stock, you try to increase you're apparent footprint, or fluff your fur like a cat.
The more divisions and holdings the better it looks on paper, even if it increases the
degree of risk and makes the individual depts difficult to sensibly manage. Plus there
seems to be a lot of bad blood at Kodak for some time now. A morale issue. Too bad
they didn't just stick to the basics, but unfortunately, that's not how you impress
potential stock buyers. Like the rest of you, I'll just pack away enough film in the
freezer to last a few years and see what transpires in the meantime. But a cardinal
rule in long-term business models is to stick to your guns. Nothing scares end users
away from brand loyalty as much as unpredictability and unreliability. And unpredictability is the one thing Kodak seems to do best at the moment.

[evan clarke]

Evan - that anaylyst at MSN was probably working behing the counter at Starbucks the week before. Pretty much junk news they use for filler than any web geek can dig up. The overall market for film is obviously still pretty large, but there are so many
choices in sheet film at the moment, with all our individual preferences, that it is going
to get difficult to pool together an order for any one specific film in a specific size. Only time will tell what Kodak is really thinking, if they're thinking at all.

I agree with that, stock analyst/stock boy, but I don't think it's the film thing that will sink Kodak, rather crappy marketing/financial strategies. At some point they seem to have decided to kill the cow instead of nurture and milk it. I just bought 3 boxes each of 4x5 TMY and Trix in response to these posts and will start stuffing the freezer from this point on!:) ..Evan

[Oren Grad]

As I recall, Kodak was able to negotiate a 20% share of Lucky Film in China in exchange for providing them with it's emulsion and coating technology. I am curious to know how the profit and loss of their 20% share of Lucky compares with their own film division numbers.

The Lucky arrangement fizzled out, same story as everywhere else:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071113/kodak-china-lucky-film.htm

[Frank Petronio]

There are still 7500 workers here in Rochester doing something.... while the overhead of having such a large facility must be outrageous, they still have a lot of patents and intellectual property to profit from.

I imagine that ultimately the film manufacturing might exist as an independent company, even with declining market there is still a lot to sell.

[evan clarke]

As I recall, Kodak was able to negotiate a 20% share of Lucky Film in China in exchange for providing them with it's emulsion and coating technology. I am curious to know how the profit and loss of their 20% share of Lucky compares with their own film division numbers.

I think read that they already divested themselves of their Lucky share..EC

"In 2003, Eastman Kodak and China Lucky Film signed a 20 year co-operation agreement. In the agreement, contributed US$45 million in cash and provided an emulsion making line for color products for a 20 per cent stake in Lucky Film. Kodak also provided US$54.5 million and technical support to assist Lucky in upgrading its existing triacetate film base production and coating lines.[1]

In 2007, Kodak retracted from the deal, citing the growth of digital cameras in the Chinese market, having hoped that market would remain with film in the short term."

Warning, this is from Wikipedia..EC

[Brian C. Miller]

I just looked at the news for Kodak. Its shares have ballooned!

Motley Fool: Eastman Kodak Popped: What You Need to Know (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/09/eastman-kodak-popped-what-you-need-to-know.aspx)

Rumor mill has it that there's a takeover afoot. Who knows? But, gee, I'd hate to think that all of this is because Kodak makes film a special order item...

[Drew Wiley]

Short term ups and down in the stock value won't do much to help us as practical
photographers. But if Kodak was looking for serious outside corporate investors, one
thing they would do is drastically cut short-term overhead and reduce existing inventories. A smart company is one which protects their existing market base before
they go galavanting off into unexplored territory, which is exactly the opposite of what
Kodak has done. They've not only managed to disgruntle traditional film and paper
customers, but tech customers too. Ask folks about how well they backed up Creo
scanner warranties! But this is a turbulent era for a lot of companies, and I hope that
once the dust settles a bit, they will have a more predictable game plan. My predicament is that I've got several toes into the water of dye transfer printing, which
is a lot tricker than either general black-and-white or color printing, and requires a
variety of very specific products to pull off, most of them being already discontinued.
Just means I have to keep in my freezer a complementary quantity of each. But this
is my "hobby" color medium. And I don't know the future of Ilfochrome either. Type
C Fuji Crystal Archive paper will probably be available for some time and become my primary income color medium. With either Ilfochrome or Type C I can use FP4 for masking. With DT one needs a straighter line film ideally, both for masks and separations. Not the end of the world yet; just one more challenge.

[Alan Butcher]

Time for another round of film tests and picking a new 8x10 film.

[Robert Budding]

I have two freezers that I use to keep film. One on the West Coast and one on the East coast. When I heard that Ultracolor 400 was being discontinued in 120, I bought every roll I could find in Los Angeles to keep them from the hoarders. Recently I bought 25 boxes of Portra VC 160 4x5 also to keep them from the hoarders. If I had more money available I would have bought more.

I recommend that you buy up a discontinued film, that you like, for yourself and deny the hoarders an opportunity to take it all.

Steve

Huh? You're hoarding film to keep it away from hoarders? Perhaps you have a treatable condition . . .

[mikebarger]

Frank, how much 8x10 film is sold annually?

Brian, there are several manufacturers building tires in the US. I know these companies build tires in the US besides little Cooper, Bridgestone/Firestone, Goodyear/Kelly Springfield/Dunlop, Continental, Uniroyal, Yokohama.

I've been out of the tire business for a couple years, but the above all make a quality product.

Thanks


Mike

[Sirius Glass]

Huh? You're hoarding film to keep it away from hoarders? Perhaps you have a treatable condition . . .

No. I am not a hoarder. The others are hoarders! ;)

[Curt]

Is it hoarding to stock up big in a case of short supply? I say buy the entire lot and the company too. I've moved on from Kodak to Ilford primarily so to Kodak, Ho, Ho, HO.

[cdholden]

No. I am not a hoarder. The others are hoarders! ;)

Before you can get help, you need to overcome your denial.

[Ben Syverson]

No. I am not a hoarder. The others are hoarders! ;)
How much film are we talking about? 10 or 20 boxes is not hoarding.

[Brian C. Miller]

Before you can get help, you need to overcome your denial.

I don't think that you are going to overcome him denying you film. ;) You are just going to have to go ninja stealth mode, get past the defense systems, ignore the false freezers with the old film boxes filled with frozen semi-fossilized fruit cake, don't step on the cat's tail, and figure out the hidden doors hiding the true freezers full of film.

You know, like Indiana Jones, but in search of Kodak yellow!

[jeroldharter]

So does anyone have a source where they can buy 8x10 TMY now?

I was just in Freestyle in Hollywood and bought their last 8 boxes. On the web it looks backordered. Canham does not have 8x10 posted on their film section.

[John Kasaian]

I'm surprised by all of this. Well, no, not really.
I still have a 50 sheet box of TMY-1 in the deep freeze and a big box of AZO plus a (small) portion of a brick of 120 Verichrome Pan. When that is gone Kodak Yellow will no longer part of my cast of photo characters. Thats sad.
But the lot of the good people at Kodak who'll loose thier jobs is far sadder.
Between Ilford and Arista I've got all my 8x10 bases covered (and very nicely, thank you!) But I hope Kodak employees can be provided jobs elsewhere. All the Kodak tech reps I've talked with over the years were really decent folks & deserve better.

[John Kasaian]

Badger Graphic still lists 8x10 TPX as "in stock" as a a few nano-seconds ago:)

[mhanc]

is there any way that 8x10 TMY can be now a "special order" item, say through Canham or another deal?

Unfortunately, I don't think the current Kodak special order "system" is viable.

I was in on an e100vs 8x10 special order last summer order which ended up well short of the minimum necessary for Kodak to do a run. I have seen many other Kodak special orders come to nothing as well. I can't really remember a Kodak special order working out other than maybe a 5x7 TX.

Also about a month or so ago I inquired about Kodak special order LF film through the Canham Cameras website and to date have heard nothing back. Perhaps understandable... perhaps not.

So, just thinking out loud... If Kodak wants to serve this market then they need to do the special order accumulation themselves.

I would imagine that it would be quite easy for Kodak to directly take orders via website from dealers and individuals and then manufacture when the amount meets their criteria. I think this would actually increase demand and the amount of Kodak LF film that gets manufactured -- how may special orders have really gotten done using the current "system" of internet forums and small dealers?

By way of example, Ilford has been able to successfully run a special order LF business by owning the order accumulation process. Although it happens only once per year, customers have clarity and certainty about their orders -- as does Ilford!!

Maybe this business is too small for Kodak to care about. After all, would anyone serious about running a film business really outsource their marketing, sales and distribution to a very small company [not primarily engaged in film sales] and then sit back and wait for the orders to roll in?

All I can say is, "Damnit Greg, if your not even going to try, I'm just going to stop."

[theBDT]

Film is a niche within photography.

Large format is a niche within film.

8x10, arguably, is niche (compared with 4x5 anyway).

8x10 TMY2, then, is a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within a niche. I'm sorry, but more than two niches in a row, and you've no right to complain when your product gets discontinued. :P

[bobwysiwyg]

Yes, we need to distinguish between lament and complain. We may lament the passing of some photographic product, but little comes of complaining. To the corporate producers, it's all in the numbers. If the numbers say it is no longer profitable.. guess what? To continue to produce something that is not profitable makes them charitable and very few publicly owned corporations are charities.

[ljsegil]

Although we were unable to get the necessary number of orders for the attempted run of 8x10 E100VS from Kodak earlier this year (and I'm ready to try again if others are interested), we were successful in getting a special run of 5x7 Kodak Portra 160NC, so it can be done. I would think that there are enough interested buyers for such a purchase of 8x10 TMY2.
Larry

[Jan Pedersen]

I would hope that there are going to be future special orders of the TMY2 in 8x10 but i do see a problem in the short term.
Many of this forums 8x10 shooters including myself stocked up this week after the announcement and have now depleted inventories at most of the larger stores if not all.
Those who got an order in while there was film to be bought will not have a need to buy more in the forseable future. Let's hope there is enough demand to get a special run for those who did not have the means this week or just did not know until to late.

[Bob McCarthy]

Film is a niche within photography.

Large format is a niche within film.

8x10, arguably, is niche (compared with 4x5 anyway).

8x10 TMY2, then, is a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within a niche. I'm sorry, but more than two niches in a row, and you've no right to complain when your product gets discontinued. :P


Kinda true, but then price has to part of the equation. We will pay up in the future.

Niches with indespensible utility usually have high relative prices.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

I was gifted a box of 8x10 Berger this past year. Finally getting around to burning some and damn it's nice film.

But so what, I can't rebuy to replace.

Medium format digital is getting good enough to replace 8x10 in more and more uses. It not that it will ever be equal, it's clearly not. But it has the impact of shrinking demand to the tipping point.

Film will never go away, just our choices will. We may be buying "Lucky" made TMax in the future. who knows!!

I just noticed, the Berger Film had roughly the same price on the box, but....

20 sheets vs. 10 sheets

bob

[BetterSense]

And yet, you can read many posts on these boards by people who switched away from Kodak films because they are relatively expensive. The relationship between supply, demand, and price is an interlocked one, and increasing price can lead to decreasing demand which can can quickly feedback. I do think that there is room for film prices to increase, but we might lose a lot of films before the supply dries up enough to support substantial price increases.

[Bob McCarthy]

Kodak is the perfect example of old industry fighting for survival. Steel and others went through first.

Big Factories mean big overhead ($$$$), mean a significant component of the price is recovery of the cost of a massively underutilized asset (the factory). They can't write it down w/o banging the bottom line and the market can't absorb higher costs.

Products "should" be priced accoring to demand for the product

except

when it doesn't provide an adequate margin, a place where I suspect Kodak is.

Solution, = write down assets to realistic value (often this has to be done by bankrupsy), and aggressively re-enter the market.

Better pain now, get it over, than destroying one of the worlds great brands.

aka, Ilford

bob

[ic-racer]

Film is a niche within photography.

Large format is a niche within film.

8x10, arguably, is niche (compared with 4x5 anyway).

8x10 TMY2, then, is a niche, within a niche, within a niche, within a niche. I'm sorry, but more than two niches in a row, and you've no right to complain when your product gets discontinued. :P

Actually Film Photography is Film Photography, not a niche of computer graphics.

Sheet film and roll film are the two major players in film, I would consider neither a niche.

Of sheet film, 8x10 is probably second in popularity to 4x5.

[theBDT]

Actually Film Photography is Film Photography, not a niche of computer graphics.

Actually, I said film is a niche within photography; I never said anything about computer graphics at all. And it IS a niche: it may fill an *indispensable* professional niche, but it's a niche nonetheless. Compare it against digital SLRs, point-and-shoots, and (God help you) cell phone cameras, and it becomes obvious that film is a niche within the wider practice of photography today, 2010.

But feel free to continue to load my argument up with things I never said, so you can argue semantics against statements I never made...

[Oren Grad]

By way of example, Ilford has been able to successfully run a special order LF business by owning the order accumulation process. Although it happens only once per year, customers have clarity and certainty about their orders -- as does Ilford!!

Maybe this business is too small for Kodak to care about. After all, would anyone serious about running a film business really outsource their marketing, sales and distribution to a very small company [not primarily engaged in film sales] and then sit back and wait for the orders to roll in?

Actually, under the annual special cut program Harman does not take orders directly from users - they accumulate the orders through a small group of dealers who have agreed to participate. This group varies somewhat from year to year but is identified in an announcement at the beginning of each order period.

Having an established order period does help get the message out and avoid confusion. But the reason users have been able to count on getting their orders filled is that Harman has committed to filling orders in any of the listed sizes, whether or not they meet the usual required minimum.

It wasn't that way at the start. On the second go-round the system was on the verge of failing when not enough orders were coming in. Simon Galley posted an announcement to that effect on APUG, which spurred vigorous discussion. In the end, the Harman directors decided to commit to filling all orders under the program regardless of volume in any given size, to demonstrate their commitment to this market.

There are no guarantees as to how long they'll be able to keep doing this. Obviously if market conditions deteriorate to a point where they need to watch every last penny *and* if they lose serious money on the special cuts, they may need to terminate the program.

[Bob McCarthy]

I see where Kodak has been removed from the S&P 500, this morning I believe

bob

[bobwysiwyg]

Yes, being moved to the S&P Midcap 400 along with the likes of the New York Times.

[Bob McCarthy]

Thats the sign of the times

Both are being smacked by digital technologies. Both are likely survivors but greatly diminished from their former glory. BTW, I do get the NYTimes and WSG digitally now.

lately, I've been reading a number of magazines with my ipad. At least I can take it into the "library" with me.

bob

[Richard M. Coda]

Thats the sign of the times

Both are being smacked by digital technologies. Both are likely survivors but greatly diminished from their former glory. BTW, I do get the NYTimes and WSG digitally now.

lately, I've been reading a number of magazines with my ipad. At least I can take it into the "library" with me.

bob

Finally, the "paperless office" we have been promised for over a decade! ;) I remember when Acrobat came out and they said it would make paper obsolete. Then PDF became THE pre-press standard. I remember the discussions with my clients... I said " but salespeople are NOT going to take their laptop into the bathroom with them" (talking about sales sheets and marketing materials)...

Now, they do.

[Drew Wiley]

By disgruntling their black and white film users, Kodak also risks a backlash on color
sheet film too, where at the moment they seem to have a near monopoly on color neg
sheets. That's scary. But I partially disagree that digital is to blame. Kodak is trying to
attract stock investors, so is pushing the new digital theme heavily, but this is an arena where they face far more competition than in film and traditional paper. And they're way behind the pack in the inkjet and ink paper business. In fact, even they admit they have only 5% of the inkjet printing market. They may have a number of
commercial and r&d opportunities, but severing your traditional base and wandering off
into a completely new bar fight sounds risky to me. At least, I won't invest in them.
The problem facing CEO's in publicly traded companies is a lot like the baloney facing prospective politicians. You have to tell people what they want to hear, and then try
to figure out how to make it work afterwards. But on a more practical note, there are
probably some boxes of 8X10 left in the distribution centers, but once these backorders arrive at the dealers, that might be the last of it for awhile. If T-Max per se
survives, it should be possible to make a special cut. But maybe something better will
come along in the meantime from someone else more sincerely interested in our business.

[Ben Syverson]

Someone will always be making B&W film... Color is another story.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - steel collapsed in this country because there was a deliberate policy decision to
outsource it and even send all our scrap overseas. In the end it just meant paying
high shipping prices and severe environmental impact for an often inferior product. The whole mess at our end was controlled by only about a dozen commodity traders who had their own interest at heart rather than long-term consquences to American businesses. Just a couple years ago I was sitting at a negotiating table with one of them, a distinct wheeler-dealer type who had a lot of corporate clout then, but has since lost his job as all this backfired. Kodak has lost its shirt on consumer electronics
and hobby digital, and has lost its financial momentum by so heavily subsidizing this
one segment of its business where it can't realistically compete. Film sales, though
diminishing with respect to "total market share" were still profitable; but this has been
cannibalized for the sake of speculative growth. I can see Kodak collapsing into a much
smaller corporation specializing as an r&d subcontractor and supplier for industrial and
high-end digital applications only, but that might mean the end to a generation of
film chemists and gelatin supplies and so forth which will impact all of us in the long run.

[Curt]

I would hope that there are going to be future special orders of the TMY2 in 8x10 but i do see a problem in the short term.
Many of this forums 8x10 shooters including myself stocked up this week after the announcement and have now depleted inventories at most of the larger stores if not all.
Those who got an order in while there was film to be bought will not have a need to buy more in the foreseeable future. Let's hope there is enough demand to get a special run for those who did not have the means this week or just did not know until to late.

This is the right time to put in a special order for 8x10 and 5x7, strike while it's in the minds of the people. I did a quick search and it's no where to be found.

Curt

[Curt]

The last film standing will be X Ray film; both for dental and medical in those millions of offices and small clinics around the world that aren't digital.

[ljsegil]

This is the right time to put in a special order for 8x10 and 5x7, strike while it's in the minds of the people. I did a quick search and it's no where to be found.

Curt

Glazerscamera.com
LJS

[Bob McCarthy]

Drew, i was a young finance exec with USSteel in the 70's, saw it all coming, got paid a huge bonus based on recommending shuttering an operation rather than reinvest. When I realized the human impact it soured me on the company.

Went to work for JnJ and had a blast. Was so proud when we did the right thing in Tylenol #1. Eventually left to seek my fame and fortune in investment industry(DLJ). And finally as a technology company CEO. Not bragging but sharing the perspective I shoot from.

I could chat about this stuff forever, but the value in EK may be the patents. They spent a mountain of money over the past 20+ years trying to reinvent themselves. Not enough vision at the top to pick a course. They just took a shot at everything and were not very successful at much from what I can see.

I just want the TMY-2 technology to survive in some form that I can buy at a reasonable price.

Fuji is/was following the same path for a while. Not sure if they've done as well or better than EK. While EK was spending time and $$, Fuji made a major play for Color film and did great.

Im not sure it will matter in the end, they're all gonna be smaller.

bob

[John Kasaian]

I wonder if Fuji will make 8x10 Acros available in the US?

[John Kasaian]

Come to think of it, I recall reading somewhere that Harmon Technologies dosen't own the land thier film factory sits on and that the lease is coming up soon. I hope I'm mistaken, but can anyone verify this?

[Frank Petronio]

Pre-film border phase - and before they cleaned it all up. Still papers left on the desks after 20 years....

[Oren Grad]

Come to think of it, I recall reading somewhere that Harmon Technologies dosen't own the land thier film factory sits on and that the lease is coming up soon. I hope I'm mistaken, but can anyone verify this?

AFAIK it's somewhere in the range of 15-20 years from now.

[Bruce Watson]

Someone will always be making B&W film...

That might be true, but none of those that follow will likely be able to equal Kodak's amazing quality control, nor their R&D efforts. Without Kodak, the best we can hope for is stagnation.

The bottom line here isn't that Kodak is deserting the part of LF above 5x4, it's that the part of LF above 5x4 deserted Kodak. If the 10x8 crowd isn't buying the film, then Kodak *should* reduce it to special order status. It's the only thing that makes sense for them.

But it would be nice if they'd do better at facilitating the special orders like Harman/Ilford does.

[Frank Petronio]

Well maybe the story isn't the BS I thought it was... but regardless, Kodak Tri-X in 8x10 and 5x7 is still better than anything else offered by the competitors so far.

If you want to keep a great film around, maybe you should buy it instead of saving a few bucks some spotty discount brand.

[Drew Wiley]

When Ilford got in trouble, I put FP4 and Ilfochrome in the freezer. I'm using up the last
of it now. By splitting off the color from the black-and-white divisions and selling each to folks genuinely interested in a specific niche, they resurrected both. Now I'm packing in TM400 and TM100 8x10 sheets. My 8x10 Fuji Astia and ACROS unfortunately are almost gone. When something of quality disappears, a vacuum arises
and someone eventually fill its. That's certainly been the case with high-quality printing
papers and large-format films. Someone will probably be in the film game long after the
current generation of digital products has all been sent to the recyling bins. Just another annoyance. Favorite films and papers have been disappearing from time to time as long as I've been shooting, but new ones manage to come around.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Harmon Technologies dosen't own the land thier film factory sits on and that the lease is coming up soon...


AFAIK it's somewhere in the range of 15-20 years from now.It's 5 years down and 15 to go. I verified directly with the HARMAN Managing Director that it was a 20-year lease before starting my Ebony SV Wholeplate project, which depended (at that time) on Ilford's special-size film program or cutting down 8x10.

ADOX PAN 400 will likely provide an additional option some time next year. Mirko has posted that only 25 25-sheet boxes will be required for any given sheet film size to be practical.

[Sal Santamaura]

...If you want to keep a great film around, maybe you should buy it instead of saving a few bucks some spotty discount brand.And it's worth noting that, despite Frank's lobbing of grenades at Ilford around the Internet, Ilford films are neither "spotty" nor "discount." They're first-tier quality and fairly priced.

I anticipate similar quality and pricing from ADOX when its ADOX PAN 400 is introduced.

[Brian C. Miller]

I was just searching the news again, and I found a post about Kodak discontinuing Plux-X for 16mm and 35mm (link (http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2010/12/10/131957821/video-premiere-the-low-anthem-ghost-woman-blues)). A petition to bring it back got over 40,000 signatures. How many emails have LFes generated to Kodak? 10? 20?

[Frank Petronio]

Nah after several bad batches of Ilford I'll never buy it again, I'll shoot anything else.

[Walter Jakubowski]

Kodak stock rose 11% on Thursday fueled on some sort of speculation. The Rochester news media mentioned rumors that Kodak might be selling it's Film business. A sad but possibly realistic possibility considering that the top core of Kodak management are ex-HP managers. They maybe want to sell it while it's still profitable. Kodak had no comment. Gulp!

[theBDT]

TMY2 has always been so much more expensive, I never bothered to try it when I learned film. Then again, most of my lenses come from the 20th century, so I've always felt my glass can't quite reach the 21st century film limits, anyway.

I've been very happy with the "discount" Arista EDU 100 ISO film. I learned 4x5 on that and HP5+; never once did I try Kodak for black-and-white large format. Maybe my negs aren't as sharp as they'd be with TMY2, but I love the look, the grain, the tones, etc. (And HP5+ is still quite sharp.)

It's the sunset era for film as a technology, but not as an art. Expensive, cutting-edge technologies in film quite frankly SHOULD be the first things on the cutting block; Kodak charges a premium for the kind of sharp, clear results you get from TMY2, yet basically they're competing with digital there. Arista EDU (aka Foma) is the opposite end: they use outdated technology and happily sell it for what it's worth. Digital Hasselblad backs are running rings around TMY2; in the meantime my silly friends are spending hundreds of dollars on grain simulation software to get that "vintage" grainy look I get naturally with my "discount" film.

Film is no longer the arena for the best mankind has to offer in terms of tone and sharpness.

Let that sink in for a second.

Film is still a very strong statement for a kind of "look," and if you use medium format or better you can go toe-to-toe with any "professional" digital system of ANY format costing less than $40,000. So, to an artist, there is still a lot of life left in film. To a technician, film hasn't been interesting for at least a few years now.

I don't anticipate film to go anyway in my lifetime (I'm 34). I can see clearly, however, that it is no longer the "bleeding edge" of photographic technology. This is simply a fact. Since I consider my photography to be more of an art than a science, and since I value the "look" of grain beyond its technical qualities, I am very happy with film. But I fully expect the "technology" of film to become irrelevant: trying too hard to be "perfect" is trying to beat digital at digital's own game. Films designed to do just that are destined for the dustbin of history.

[Ben Syverson]

Film is no longer the arena for the best mankind has to offer in terms of tone and sharpness.
Haven't shot much 8x10, have you BDT?

[evan clarke]

I've used just about every inkjet photo paper made since 1998 and compared to real photographs, inkjet sucks...EC



TMY2 has always been so much more expensive, I never bothered to try it when I learned film. Then again, most of my lenses come from the 20th century, so I've always felt my glass can't quite reach the 21st century film limits, anyway.

I've been very happy with the "discount" Arista EDU 100 ISO film. I learned 4x5 on that and HP5+; never once did I try Kodak for black-and-white large format. Maybe my negs aren't as sharp as they'd be with TMY2, but I love the look, the grain, the tones, etc. (And HP5+ is still quite sharp.)

It's the sunset era for film as a technology, but not as an art. Expensive, cutting-edge technologies in film quite frankly SHOULD be the first things on the cutting block; Kodak charges a premium for the kind of sharp, clear results you get from TMY2, yet basically they're competing with digital there. Arista EDU (aka Foma) is the opposite end: they use outdated technology and happily sell it for what it's worth. Digital Hasselblad backs are running rings around TMY2; in the meantime my silly friends are spending hundreds of dollars on grain simulation software to get that "vintage" grainy look I get naturally with my "discount" film.

Film is no longer the arena for the best mankind has to offer in terms of tone and sharpness.

Let that sink in for a second.

Film is still a very strong statement for a kind of "look," and if you use medium format or better you can go toe-to-toe with any "professional" digital system of ANY format costing less than $40,000. So, to an artist, there is still a lot of life left in film. To a technician, film hasn't been interesting for at least a few years now.

I don't anticipate film to go anyway in my lifetime (I'm 34). I can see clearly, however, that it is no longer the "bleeding edge" of photographic technology. This is simply a fact. Since I consider my photography to be more of an art than a science, and since I value the "look" of grain beyond its technical qualities, I am very happy with film. But I fully expect the "technology" of film to become irrelevant: trying too hard to be "perfect" is trying to beat digital at digital's own game. Films designed to do just that are destined for the dustbin of history.

[Drew Wiley]

BDT evidently doesn't even shoot 4x5. Heck, I can get grainless 16x20 prints from an
old-style EU film with a 12-stop range in medium format. My 8X10 is in another galaxy
by comparison. No amount of money in digital will give that kind of quality, or even close.

[Richard M. Coda]

BDT evidently doesn't even shoot 4x5. Heck, I can get grainless 16x20 prints from an
old-style EU film with a 12-stop range in medium format. My 8X10 is in another galaxy
by comparison. No amount of money in digital will give that kind of quality, or even close.

BINGO!

[theBDT]

Drew Wiley evidently doesn't have very good reading comprehension:


I learned 4x5 on that and HP5+; never once did I try Kodak for black-and-white large format. Maybe my negs aren't as sharp as they'd be with TMY2, but I love the look, the grain, the tones, etc.


...that "vintage" grainy look I get naturally with my "discount" film.


I'm sure 8x10 is still the undisputed standard for ne plus ultra high-resolution photography. It must be so, otherwise why would we have so many of these threads talking about all the new 8x10 films Kodak is releasing?

[Bob McCarthy]

Drew Wiley evidently doesn't have very good reading comprehension:






I'm sure 8x10 is still the undisputed standard for ne plus ultra high-resolution photography. It must be so, otherwise why would we have so many of these threads talking about all the new 8x10 films Kodak is releasing?

I have to agree with the responders. It's not exactly that digital is overcoming film in some meaningful qualitative way. Resolution at any significant print size is a benefit of film, broad dynamic range is on the film side too. All negative films are greatly superior to digital from mid tone to highlight.

But, the final straw that woops digital is the tonality, nothing comes close to film.

Digital wins because it's more economic, once past the high cost of entry, a pro commercial photographer can shoot willy nilly and gets two major advantages. First he can show the show the client the shot in real time and move faster. This plus the cost benefit of no cost per each additional shot is a winning combination for the commercial shooter.

The other is, while resolutionnqith digital is inferior, the appearance of grain in smooth non-textured areas is superior, but then this applies to 35mm and roll film.

When the commercial boys moved over, the fine art guys had to shoulder the load and we're a small frugal community.

Film will always be with us, just not as many choices.

Bob

[Drew Wiley]

??????????

[theBDT]

I've been baited into arguing a position I don't really advocate. I'm sorry.

8x10 is awesome. 8x10, when shot with the right lens, at the right aperture, on the right tripod, etc. I'm sure in some obscure technical sense is still higher resolution than all but the most experimental, not-yet-available-commercially digital sensors.

From a practical, real-world, using-it-for-something point of view, even a humble large format digital scanning back can produce a more workflow USEFUL file: it's immediately available, and its resolution, clarity, etc. is essentially unchanged no matter how many times you copy or process it. Any theoretical advantage an 8x10 frame would have gets eaten up by all the other advantages.

Which is WHY so much of the world is moving to digital. I may not be the most eloquent person to point this out, but it's the reality.

I love film. As an artist, I don't care how efficient my workflow is. I also just finished taking night classes at the local Junior College. Some 20-somethings are in that class. They are starting to fall in love with film, too. Guess what? It's not for its convenience, nor for its perceived technical "superiority" . . . not one bit.

[theBDT]

Bob McCarthy didn't understand I was being sarcastic, and so thought it was ironic that I made a comment about another poster's reading comprehension?

I don't understand the blank post either. Obviously, what Bob McCarthy THOUGHT was self-evident in repeating what I said, wasn't...

[Drew Wiley]

BDT - you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. On the other hand, I print
8x10 in color as well as black-and-white. This is not really the best thread for the digital vs optical debate, because there are numerous pros and cons. But you are plainly going to get singed to a crisp unless you have done your homework, which
evidently you have not. But I have no interest in another such argument. Let's just
put side-by-side 30x40 prints on the wall.

[theBDT]

I didn't really want to launch into an optical versus digital debate, which is why I apologized for allowing myself to be bated by certain posters. I love large format film; if I could afford it, I'd have an 8x10-capable darkroom (I have a 4x5 capable Omega D2 setup right now). I think 8x10 contact prints are a wonder to behold.

I also don't really feel the need to overmuch find "evidence" for my point of view; free market capitalism has already spoken for me. I have conceded that, in some technical sense, 8x10 is likely still technically superior to digital. My whole point, essentially, is that for most of the world, a 50 megapixel Hassy back spitting out pixels is "good enough" quality for what most people used to use 8x10 film for. By the time the 8x10 is developed, the digital shooter has downloaded, processed, and printed his work.

All of which is entirely irrelevant to ART and EXPRESSION. I am, and always have been, talking about the demise of 8x10 emulsions from the "we consume images as a business, we don't consume art" photography point-of-view. Photography as a consumable, not as art, is what DRIVES technology like TMY2. And that big-money "consumable" side of photography is switching to digital in droves...

...which suits me just fine, as it leaves the secondary market awash in quality equipment for starving artists like myself to snag. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Better for who? There's a firehouse across the Bay which has had the same light bulb on the porch for a hundred years. The filament and bulb were so solid that
unless you deliberately whacked the thing, it just never burns out. Of course, the
mfg didn't sell any replacement bulbs so went out of business. Thereafter everyone
else realized they had to make inferior bulbs if they were going to keep selling them. I don't know how many photographers can actually afford a 40K back that will
lose 80% of its resale value in less than five years, and probably be incompatable
with any existing software in ten. A few folks can. And not long ago, the price of
black-and-white paper was based mainly on how much silver and gelatin etc you
coated it with. Now they can sell a plain piece of sized paper with no silver at all for
even more than color enlargment paper costs. Inks are also very very lucrative.
But there's obviously a lot of competition too. I admire good work in any medium,
and the nature of workflow is a personal preference. But aside from premium
techniques like Ciba or DT, I can make a very high quality color C-print for about
twenty bucks. I can't even get an 8X10 scanned for anything like that! And in fact,
it's probably faster to do than making the corrections in PS. For some types of workflow digital is obviously more practical, but for really high-end work, it just
isn't on the horizon for most of us yet, and maybe never will be.

[Two23]

I think you guys are being way too hard on Kodak. They have no money and everything in their line has to pull its weight. I think they'd like to keep as many of their flagship products as they can, but they can't subsidize it any more. Let's take a look at what's happened. Ten years ago, the average Walmart supercenter had about 32 feet of film (pegboard, shelving sections.) Kodak got about 70% of the sales from that. They also were doing the film processing in the 1 hr. dept, the processing of the overnight film, and had new digital kiosks (Kodak Picture Maker) too. Kodak also had about half a dozen little point & shoot cameras at Walmarts also. That was just 8-10 years ago. Now, Walmarts only have about half of a 4-ft. section of film and it's Fuji only. The film processors are gone. The send out processing is Fuji TruColor (my old employer,) and the Kodak Picture Makers were replaced last year by HP machines. Kodak now only sells four digital point & shoot cameras, two computer/photo printers, about 5 skus of photo paper, a small video recorder, and four digital photo frames in Walmarts. That's a helluva loss! The point & shoot cameras market is rapidly being erroded by cell phones. Kodak does not have the luxury of making products that aren't very profitable at the moment. If they can run batches from time to time and make it work, that is the smart thing for them to do.


Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

Hard on Kodak? Any mfg who gets in bed with a chain like Walmart has better than
a 50/50 chance of getting reamed. Everyone except CEO's and marketing monkeys
has known this for quite awhile. Speaking of lightbulbs, a single massive run of El
Cheapo light bulbs to Home Depot nearly bankrupted GE's entire light bulb division.
I could cite instance after instance. You have to buy the business from these kinds of
companies, and they'll turn you out in a heartbeat. Meanwhile all your formerly loyal customers have thrown you out for whoring the business. That was just a dumb move. But this kind of thing is tempting to mfg because it looks big on a press release and briefly brings in a spike of capital from naive investors, and maybe a fat quarterly bonus for the bigshots too. But it's tantamount to corporate suicide in the long run. Just how much sympathy would a CEO with exactly zero exposure to
film mfg and marketing have for film at Kodak? Reminds me of a major American
equipment mfg I deal with which is losing nearly all its former customers by now
outsourcing its products. No surprise, the CEO came from a potato chip co.

[jp]

TMY2 has always been so much more expensive, I never bothered to try it when I learned film.

Film is no longer the arena for the best mankind has to offer in terms of tone and sharpness.Let that sink in for a second.


TMY2 has been pretty much the same price as the other kodak films in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Over at bh, tmy2 is <10% more than tri-x, and cheaper than ilford for 35mm. For 4x5, it's more expensive, but not much more. For 8x10 though, I agree TMY2 has been a premium cost item unfortunately.

I'm not after the best tone and sharpness technology mankind has to offer. I'm after the best film for my hard earned money.

I thus use tmy2 for 4x5 and smaller for 90% of my film photos. I'd like to use it for 8x10, but the packaging and resulting cost structure has been it's own deterrent.

[Sirius Glass]

How much film are we talking about? 10 or 20 boxes is not hoarding.

25 boxes of 10 sheet => 250 sheets of 4x5. Not exactly cornering the market.

By your definition, I am not hoarding. :D

[theBDT]

TMY2 has been pretty much the same price as the other kodak films in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

I should have been more clear, I guess. I avoid Kodak films in general, because of their expense. I have been known to make an exception for TriX...


Over at bh, tmy2 is <10% more than tri-x, and cheaper than ilford for 35mm. For 4x5, it's more expensive, but not much more.

BH lists 25 sheets of HP5+ at $25, or $1/sheet.
BH lists 50 sheets of TMY2 at $72, or $1.44/sheet.
Over 100 sheets, that's $44 more!

Use Freestyle's Arista brand, and your dollar can stretch even further: $16 for a box of 25 sheets, ISO 400! $13 for 25 for ISO 100 film! With those kinds of savings, it takes a WHOLE LOT of impressive extra quality before I'd pay for more expensive film. And I might add, I was able to eek an "A" grade out of an advanced Large Format class entirely on Arista EDU Ultra 100 + Rodinal.

I like art. I'm pro-art. Whatever works for your process, it's your process. Just because I prefer Jockey boxer briefs, I have no business getting upset in a forum because you like Fruit-of-the-Loom tighty whities. However you make your art, it's the best way to do it for you. MY art really has no use for TMY2; I'm sure it's a great film, but I'm very happy with what I've got already.

[Allen in Montreal]

I loved Kodak, I grew up on them.

I gave up on them. They gave me no choice.

Ilford will put film in my hand one box at a time.
At a certain point you have to support the people who are trying to stay in the game.
Kodak is not trying to stay in the sheet film game.

I never really liked HP5, but I am learning to make it work and like it more and more with each box I run through.

Kodak has been poorly run for many years now by dumb ass MBAs with no experience on the turf, that is why they have no money.

The future is white boys,
and the future is British.

Support the last player who still wants to be in the sheet film game!

[vinny]

There's no other 400 asa film out there with better reciprocity characteristics, not even close. If you actually shoot 8x10, you know how much that aids in getting sharp negs.

[theBDT]

There's no other 400 asa film out there with better reciprocity characteristics, not even close. If you actually shoot 8x10, you know how much that aids in getting sharp negs.

I've shot HP5+ as time exposure; the reciprocity adjustment is indeed greater than for TMY2, but it isn't out-of-control.

I was shooting 4x5 still lifes under dim lamps. What is it about 8x10, exactly, that requires long exposures more often than other formats? Please educate me...

[bsimison]

What is it about 8x10, exactly, that requires long exposures more often than other formats? Please educate me...

ƒ/64 vs. ƒ/32

[Vlad Soare]

I was shooting 4x5 still lifes under dim lamps. What is it about 8x10, exactly, that requires long exposures more often than other formats? Please educate me..
Longer lenses, which require smaller apertures for decent depth of field. ;)
Also, with certain subjects, like portraits or still lifes, the need for bellow extension compensation can arise more often than with smaller cameras.

[John Bowen]

Kodak is still coating the film, we will just have to get used to participating in group purchases for 8x10 or 5x7. The ULF folks have been dependent on group purchases for many years now.

Having a SINGLE point of organization like Canham should greatly help facilitate these groups. We can expect to pay more, but such is life for 21st century 8x10 photographers.

As I've said in the past, the only thing worse than paying top $ for film is not being able to purchase the film at all.... :(

[Brian Ellis]

Kodak Comparative Revenues For The 9 Months Ended September 30 (from SEC Form 10Q)

Consumer Digital Imaging Group
2010
$2,008

2009
$1,407

Revenues up 43%

Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group

2010
$1,328

2009
$1,668

Revenues Down 20%

If you were the Kodak CEO and saw these numbers as well as comparative numbers similar to this for roughly the last decade, which group would you be expanding and which group would you be reducing?

I don't post these numbers to suggest that film is dead or even dying but just to point out that there are good reasons from Kodak's standpoint to be cutting back in areas where sales are trending down in the interest of expanding the areas where sales are increasing.

[jeroldharter]

Kodak is still coating the film, we will just have to get used to participating in group purchases for 8x10 or 5x7. The ULF folks have been dependent on group purchases for many years now.

Having a SINGLE point of organization like Canham should greatly help facilitate these groups. We can expect to pay more, but such is life for 21st century 8x10 photographers.

As I've said in the past, the only thing worse than paying top $ for film is not being able to purchase the film at all.... :(

As far as I know, group orders of 8x10 TMY do not exist. I would keep using it if I could buy it. But as it stands, TMY 8x10 is extinct. I ordered some HP5 for testing to be on the safe side. Does anyone have a source for ordering 8x10 TMY?

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - Kodak has only one serious competitor respectively in color and b&W film. In consumer digital and electronics they face a horde of very formidable competition; and trying to buy their way into this latter market is in fact what got them so deeply into the hole to begin with. Yes, one category is going to grow more; but if you largely give up a sure source of income to gamble on another, that's really stupid. To diversify one's assets doesn't mean to throw away the one piece of the pie which is already yours.

[John Bowen]

Canham is the place to go. Keep in mind, there is likely 8x10 TMY still in the pipeline. I doubt they would start a special order until all that is gone. Just because every retailer is out of stock, doesn't mean the wholesalers/Kodak are also out of stock. Give it a couple weeks.

Canham's website says if you want it, ask for it. If enough folks want it, they will post a special order. If everyone switches to a different film, it will die.

[Bob McCarthy]

I doubt Kodak thinks about sheet film, when the movie film business is under attack from digital also. What they do in sheet film is likely more a nuisance than profit center.

Bob

[Drew Wiley]

A good corporation remembers what put them on the map in the first place. To adapt to changing conditions doesn't mean you piss off everyone who previously
supported you and go galavanting off twenty other unexplored directions. Everytime I see this pattern of behavior it's a company headed into trouble, and so far I've been correct 100% of the time. The volume of sheet film might be small, but look
what kind of people use it! Yeah, we're a bunch or fussy cranks, but to a real extent
LF has built the reputation of photography as an art. We aren't the kind of people
one would want bad-mouthing an imaging concern, or branding them as flaky.
Sometimes you need to take of your existing customers before placing all your eggs
in an unknown basket. Of course film and paper sales have dropped - what's left
for volume users to buy? How many of us would have supported TMax in the last
year if they hadn't made it a nuisance with 10-sheet boxes? Next week I meet with
a CEO of a mfg company doing really well. He's a really bright guy who came from inside the specific industry he's managing, and it's a company which knows where it started, who kept it going all along, and what it wants to be. They take care of their
past as well as prospective customers. Makes all the difference in the world.

[Thalmees]

Kodak has been poorly run for many years now by dumb ass MBAs with no experience on the turf, that is why they have no money.
The future is white boys,
and the future is British.

Support the last player who still wants to be in the sheet film game!

Support the last players who still want to be in the sheet film game.

[Brian C. Miller]

A good corporation remembers what put them on the map in the first place.

Nokia started out as a lumber company.


The volume of sheet film might be small, but look what kind of people use it!

personality != paycheck && personality != volumeFilmSales

The only way to get Kodak up and going again is to popularize film. What a statement, eh? Film has to be mod and hip and "in" and cool and flash and groovy, not just retro. Film was a behemoth because there was no other competition for making an image, other than drawing or painting or sculpure. Now there is a competitor to film, and it is one which is simply "good enough."

A Canon EOS-1V is $1700, and an EOS-1Ds Mark III is $6,000.
A Nikon F6 is $2400, and a D3x is $7,500.
Top of the line vs. top of the line. Are any of the digital cameras really three times better than their film counterparts? I don't think so, but one sells and the other doesn't. This is reality. The digital bandwagon is the place for the hoi polloi to be, regardless if it makes sense or not. Blinking lights attract people's attention, and corporations will move according to where the money is.

Fine art photography is supported by consumer photography, which is supported by motion picture photography. 8x10 use is like a gnat on a bull. I am happy that Kodak is simply making sheet film. I would not be suprised if they abandoned the market entirely. After all, they dropped B&W paper right after building new factories for it! These are the people who are supposed to cater to us?

Kodak is the only one supplying us with color film in 8x10. They are the only game on the planet. Now they have just one emulsion available for 8x10. Yes, that sucks, but that is what we have. They will cut an order for the mere price of $15,000. Cough up $15,000 and you can monopolize TMY. At B&H's listed price that's 283 10-sheet boxes, 28,300 sheets of film. Mark it up and sell it.

Now, there are 283 photographers world wide that will use 10 sheets a year, right?

[John Bowen]

How many of us would have supported TMax in the last
year if they hadn't made it a nuisance with 10-sheet boxes?

I never found the 10 sheet boxes to be a nuisance. IMHO the, "I'm swithching to brand X because of the 10 sheet boxes" was just code for, "$250 a Box, no way I'm paying that!"

Maybe if you shot 2,000 sheets a year, the boxes would be a PITA, but what "artist" isn't willing to endure a little pain in the name of art?

[Allen in Montreal]

Drew,

I hate to sound like a broken record, but...

You are DEAD right on this one! Again.

It seems everyone in NA has abandoned customer service in the race for another extra buck NOW! Like the fool in the movie clip, show me the money!!

Customer service will always win out in the specialty markets.
Sheet film is not toilet paper at Wal-Mart. It is a specialty market and Kodak just does not see the value in it. Ilford does! But as the example you quote, Ilford was bought out and run from the bottom up.
As you say, some thought and street level knowledge is a must!

Mr. Canham contacted me about a group buy on 5x7 TMAX, I just don't know that I want to support this company any longer. Given their long list of past mistakes.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - Kodak has only one serious competitor respectively in color and b&W film. In consumer digital and electronics they face a horde of very formidable competition; and trying to buy their way into this latter market is in fact what got them so deeply into the hole to begin with. Yes, one category is going to grow more; but if you largely give up a sure source of income to gamble on another, that's really stupid. To diversify one's assets doesn't mean to throw away the one piece of the pie which is already yours.

Drew - Net profits earned by the Consumer Digital Imaging Group for the nine month period ending September 30 of this year were $82 million which is an increase of 192% from the same period in 2009. So I wouldn't say that digital has exactly gotten them in a hole or if it did they're certainly coming out of it nicely.

Net profits from the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group were $20 million and that's down 57% for the same period last year, which is a continuation of a pretty consistent decline for roughly the last decade. Kodak's total revenues from all sources today are about half of what they were as recently as about five years ago, attributable almost solely to the decline in revenues from the FP and E Group.

When revenues and profits from a particular market keep declining Kodak doesn't really have a lot of choice. At some point they have to start getting out of that market and into something with a better future, which is what they've done with some success at least based on these numbers. It isn't a matter of "one category is going to grow more." It's a matter of one category declining every year while the other is growing. I'm not saying that Kodak should get out of film entirely, I certainly hope they never do that. I'm just saying that gradually dropping products that contribute less and less in the way of revenues and profits every year - such as the 8x10 film that started this thread - to concentrate on growth areas makes sense, at least to me.

[Curt]

Since I started to use Ilford FP-4 and found it to be excellent so why should I get on a list and wait for a group order to buy 10 sheet boxes of a high priced film when I can order what I need in all sizes from 35mm to 8X10 from several different suppliers?

Ilford even supplies 11X14 in HP-5; a film that's free of defects from a solid company. Last week I was looking for two 4X5 negatives that I needed to make new prints from. I searched through boxes and boxes of filed negatives but never found them.

Yesterday I was going to scan some 120 images; low and behold there they were, the two negatives that I was looking for, they were made on Ilford Pan F 50 and not sheet film. All this time I had the prints on the wall and thought they were enlarged from 4X5.

Eastman Kodak is heading straight into the digital market and leaving film behind, it's no secret as they have said all along. It won't take long for them to join other companies like Polaroid and become just names in our memories. It took a while for me to get it but now I see that my friend in the photo business is called Ilford.

Curt

[edp]

They will cut an order for the mere price of $15,000. Cough up $15,000 and you can monopolize TMY. At B&H's listed price that's 283 10-sheet boxes, 28,300 sheets of film. Mark it up and sell it.

Now, there are 283 photographers world wide that will use 10 sheets a year, right?

283x10 = 2,830 sheets. Not 28,300.

[Tobias Key]

The thing that really irks me is that it's probably never been cheaper or easier to shoot LF film. I think that LF makes a lot of sense for the serious amateur who shoots landscape or anything else that is driven by quality rather than number of frames shot. After all a Hasselblad MFDSLR probably requires a five figure investment. If I was CEO of Kodak I would have marketed a Kodak branded 5x4" camera (like a rebadged shen hao) and included a lens, some film, and free developing for a year. I bet you could do that for less than the cost of a 5d MkII and standard zoom lens. Kodak's motto used to be "you push the button, we do the rest" I wish they could remember that and evangelize the benefits of film. There are plenty of hobbyists who lust after Medium format digital but can't afford it. Why doesn't Kodak make it easy for these people to try LF film?

[mikebarger]

And how big would that market be? 100's of thousands or 100's?

[Tobias Key]

And how big would that market be? 100's of thousands or 100's?

Haven't got a clue, but if I was a multinational company selling film, I would at least make it easy for newbies to get started. The average view camera would bite off you hand at the prospect of a firm order for even 100 cameras, there is no real issue with anything but having the courage to market the product and see what happens. Bear in mind there is a whole generation of people who think that film actually look like the hipstamatic app. In reality, it's not that hard to put together an 80mp equivalent system for 1/3 price of a high end (20ish mp) DSLR system, but I've never seen this marketed by a film company because they seem to have forgotten that at one time they sold the film, the camera, the lens and the lab work. Kodak could vertically integrate their sheet film operations for chump change in corporate terms.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - you somewhat miss the point. Kodak is a big ship which has paid dearly to
turn another direction. Whether it can move fast enough to avoid an iceberg is anyone's guess at this point. The degree of decline in their film and paper sales is to
a certain extent a self-fulfilling prophecy on their part. They made it happen by
neglecting it. And it isn't just large format film they've left in the wake. The biggest lab owner in this area went out of business because so much of his overhead was tied up in digital equipment and service contracts from Kodak. Just when he needed them most, they flaked on him. Time and time again, they've tinkered around with something, made a big publicity splash, and the moment a grasshopper jumped on the path, they ran away screaming. They obviously aren't doing this to be mean to anyone. They just have so many conflicting directions that they can't seem to do full justice to any of them. I'm certainly not going to protest by boycotting their film. I hope to keep shooting not only TMax, but 8X10 color tranny and neg film from them too, because it's good stuff and does what I need. And I'd be perfectly happy to participate in a future pooled order of special cut 8x10. But I'm always looking over my shoulder too, and routinely experiment with options, because they have been
so unpredictable for some time now.

[Drew Wiley]

Curt - FP4 and HP5 are beautiful films, but quite different from TMY. For one thing,
to get on the straight line of FP4, it's realistically an ASA 50 film, or thereabouts.
HP5 has even more toe and is distinctly grainier. I gotten lots of wonderful 8x10 shots with these. But in a high contrast scenario, I can't retain good midtone separation along with shadow and highlight separation without resorting to supplementary unsharp masking. Merely reducing development doesn't have the same effect. With TMY this is an easy problem. We lost Super-XX some time back, but much more recently, we lost both Forte 200 (Bergger 200) and Foma 200 (Arista 200). That makes TMY the last cat standing with the luxury of a fairly straight line,
at least of those films with a speed convenient for 8x10 use. And its relatively fine
grain makes it realistic as a high speed film for 4x50 too.

[Drew Wiley]

John - now to you - I figure I'll ration my shots of 8x10 TMY pretty carefully, and at
that rate 10-sheet boxes will last me awhile. But just try making color separations and masks this way! Not only do the emulsions have to be very consistent from
batch to batch, or months worth of painstaking recalibration may be required, but
an entire 10-sheet box might be required to print a single color image. And right now, TMax films are the best thing still around for this kind of work. That's a whole different league of expense. I can't just go willy-nilly grab any other black-and-white
film which would produce a decent black-and-white print. It's hundreds of times more complicated. Am I crazy. Probably. But these things won't be mistaken for
inkjets either!

[ic-racer]

Typical US company with no passion for the product. What I don't understand is that since they are tossing their international heritage as a film company to make more money, they don't get into the toilet paper or catsup industry. Those are some big money makers.


LAST YEAR'S QUARTER: Kimberly-Clark [makers of Kleenex and Huggies Daipers] reported profit of $407 million

[BetterSense]

Haven't got a clue, but if I was a multinational company selling film, I would at least make it easy for newbies to get started

That would require Kodak to do something different than it has always done. It would require them to adapt to a changing market. It would require them to show flexibility and it would require them to actually work to market their products when they have always had a collossal demand cash-cow that they could just sit back and milk. Basically, you make a very important observation that Kodak isn't even trying. Everything from their website to the 10-sheet boxes and now their discontinuation of their best film shows that they haven't got a clue, the only reason they stayed in business for decades was the aformentioned cash cow coupled with their economies of scale made them a pseudo-monopoly. And I do love TMY; I think it's the best. I will use it as long as as I can then switch to HP5 without too much trouble.

[Two23]

Typical US company with no passion for the product. What I don't understand is that since they are tossing their international heritage as a film company to make more money, .

If they don't start making SOME money, and quickly, they will be completely out of business. As for them not having a passion for the product, you could not be more wrong. The market has changed and Kodak must change with it. If anything a case could be made they stayed with film much too long. They have to put their limited resources where it will give them the most return. If you want to blame anyone, why not blame all the commercial photographers who quit shooting the film and started shooting medium format digital?


Kent in SD

[mikebarger]

How many people really want to get into LF for every day snaps?

I'm guessing these same conversations went on with memorex and other recording tape manufacturers years ago...do we continue to make 10 inch reels of tape for our loyal customers that know the difference between big tape and cassettes? After all that small tape can't begin to hold all the tonality of the big reels. Those little tapes are a joke.

There are still a few of us consumers using reel to reel units (10 or 7 inch), but the market just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Now people are using something called MP3 to record music??

Don't they know that tape gives a truly better sound? If memorex would just push reel to reel tape, just advertise, give some away free, then everything would be OK. What's the matter with that company? Don't they value loyal customers, can't they see a big market that no one's going after?

Anything look familiar here? :)

[Robert A. Zeichner]

How many people really want to get into LF for every day snaps?

I'm guessing these same conversations went on with memorex and other recording tape manufacturers years ago...do we continue to make 10 inch reels of tape for our loyal customers that know the difference between big tape and cassettes? After all that small tape can't begin to hold all the tonality of the big reels. Those little tapes are a joke.

There are still a few of us consumers using reel to reel units (10 or 7 inch), but the market just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Now people are using something called MP3 to record music??

Don't they know that tape gives a truly better sound? If memorex would just push reel to reel tape, just advertise, give some away free, then everything would be OK. What's the matter with that company? Don't they value loyal customers, can't they see a big market that no one's going after?

Anything look familiar here? :)

Interesting analogy! So big is that market, that for weeks now, I haven't had a single bite on an old Revox A77 recorder with a dozen unopened 10" reels of Quantegy 499 Grand Master tape I just happen to have been trying to sell.

In a way, I'm amazed any film from any manufacturer is still available, given the present state of the economy and the shrinking demand. If the market were as big as some of us would like to think it is, there would be no trouble finding some enterprising individual(s) who would jump at the chance to order the master roll's worth of TMY and TMX in whatever size(s) we could want. Nobody wants to end up with an inventory that big that has an expiration date and/or needs refrigeration without a guarantee that it will get bought up in short order. In my view, we should all be thankful that traditional materials are available to the degree they are. I personally try to keep two or three years worth of film and paper in my two freezers so I don't suffer the "shock" of someday discovering I can no longer get the materials I prefer. As I use it up, I buy some more and that isn't hoarding either; it's establishing a personal inventory level and maintaining it.

[Allen in Montreal]

John,

What a great deal for Kodak!!

Pay in advance. Pay extra high premiums. Wait for ever. make people believe you such a great Corp citizen for making the special run.

Such is not be the way for the 8x10.
Pick up the phone, call local retailer, order 1 (or as many as you wish) 25 sheet boxes of HP5. A few days later, said white box is in your fridge.

Somebody has decided that the profit margin on sheet film is too low to bother and custom order, prepaid at much higher profit margins will the only way to get it in the future.

Or buy white.

Yes, I am mighty pissed with Old Yellow on many fronts.
Time to call it like it is and stop making excuses.

Pro fotogs in my family:

My Grandfather, used Kodak ( a cop and part time shooter for the local paper)
My Dad, used Kodak (a newspaper staffer)
My Uncle, used Kodak (a film maker and photog)
My cousin, used Kodak (he is currently still a staff fotog at a daily newspaper, as I am)
I used Kodak. Until the last year or so.

Not much Old Yellow history in that family. :)

But it is time to call it like is.





Kodak is still coating the film, we will just have to get used to participating in group purchases for 8x10 or 5x7. The ULF folks have been dependent on group purchases for many years now.

Having a SINGLE point of organization like Canham should greatly help facilitate these groups. We can expect to pay more, but such is life for 21st century 8x10 photographers.

As I've said in the past, the only thing worse than paying top $ for film is not being able to purchase the film at all.... :(

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - you somewhat miss the point. Kodak is a big ship which has paid dearly to
turn another direction. Whether it can move fast enough to avoid an iceberg is anyone's guess at this point. The degree of decline in their film and paper sales is to
a certain extent a self-fulfilling prophecy on their part. They made it happen by
neglecting it. And it isn't just large format film they've left in the wake. The biggest lab owner in this area went out of business because so much of his overhead was tied up in digital equipment and service contracts from Kodak. Just when he needed them most, they flaked on him. Time and time again, they've tinkered around with something, made a big publicity splash, and the moment a grasshopper jumped on the path, they ran away screaming. They obviously aren't doing this to be mean to anyone. They just have so many conflicting directions that they can't seem to do full justice to any of them. I'm certainly not going to protest by boycotting their film. I hope to keep shooting not only TMax, but 8X10 color tranny and neg film from them too, because it's good stuff and does what I need. And I'd be perfectly happy to participate in a future pooled order of special cut 8x10. But I'm always looking over my shoulder too, and routinely experiment with options, because they have been
so unpredictable for some time now.

I'm not sure what point I missed. I'm just providing facts relating to Kodak's revenues and profits, which show that film isn't doing well and digital is, and saying it's not surprising given those numbers that Kodak periodically drops some films.

Kodak didn't "make it happen by neglecting it." You surely don't believe that. It happened because digital came along and it had a lot of advantages for many former film users so they stopped buying film cameras and bought digital cameras. You don't seriously think that Kodak could have prevented that from happening if they had just ignored digital and kept pushing film do you?

[Bob McCarthy]

I read some of this perhaps with a different perspective.

Kodak is a corporation that has the capability to do significant analysis and forecast.

They are not going to shutter a profitable line, they might spin it off if it's not performing to corporate goals but that's not the case here. Companies just dont shut down something that is making money. In a small product like this, recovering variable cost can be enough to leave it in the line.

So they are likely loosing money on 8x10, and with there higher prices, it implies cost are more than the market can bear and likely, volume has dried up and overhead can not be recovered.

That implies the number of industry sku's has to collapse. I don' t think film will ever go away entirely, but choices will.

I for one would hope the latest variant of tmax would be the survivor.

Bob

[theBDT]

That implies the number of industry sku's has to collapse. I don' t think film will ever go away entirely, but choices will.

This. Also, this is inevitable. It's kind of silly to wring hands and whine overmuch.

Or, as one of my favorite internet graphics says:

"Looks like you've come down with a case of being a little bitch.
I'm prescribing you a strong dose of man the f**k up!"

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kodak, and others like them, need to review their go to market strategy in a declining market. They could eek out a few more percentage points of margin by cutting out the middle man and selling all film products direct to the end consumer. Even if they used a fulfillment company to handle the orders they would still make more per box of film and it would allow them to batch orders for special runs.

I was manager of National Accounts for a large international company for many years and due to declining margins we determined that we needed to control more of our distribution (and destiny) so we ramped up the national account programs and sold direct to large volume clients. Our margins greatly improved and the overall market share increased as well. Sure, some of our weaker distributors were pissed but they ended up doing very well on the deal as well since they were paid a delivery fee and they had little cost of sale associated with the accounts (they also were able to sell add on products to a larger account base which was actually more profitable for them).

Kodak, Ilford, Adox and many others could easily sell via direct marketing to the end clients (us) and have greater profitability. Sure, retailers would not be happy but film is really not a big part of their business anyway (except for perhaps companies like Freestyle).

My guess is that Kodak is cleaning up the film business as best they can so it can be sold off. This may not be a bad thing for those of us who still use film as the buyer would have a serious committment to film and a desire to see the new business be profitable. The worst thing for those of us who use Kodak film products would be if they decided no buyer was out there and just shut it down.

I have not used Kodak products for many years (Ilford is my brand of choice) but of the products I have used I would hate to see them go. The new TMAX 400 is a great film and one that I was begining to use a little of and of course Tri-X is wonderful. Kodak is a great company, I hope it survives and doesn't go the way Polaroid did, but time will tell.

[Ben Syverson]

"Looks like you've come down with a case of being a little bitch.
I'm prescribing you a strong dose of man the f**k up!"
Easy to say when the film being discontinued isn't one you shoot.

Trust me, it stings a little more when it's your favorite film.

[mikebarger]

Sting or not, about all you can do is move on to something else. It's has happened to everyone at sometime, and it will happen again.

Think of it as an opportunity to sharpen your testing skills.

[Vlad Soare]

My guess is that Kodak is cleaning up the film business as best they can so it can be sold off. This may not be a bad thing for those of us who still use film as the buyer would have a serious commitment to film and a desire to see the new business be profitable.
I hope you're right, but recent history has shown us otherwise. In many cases factories get bought by speculators who fire all employees, demolish the buildings, sell the machines as scrap iron, then use the land for more profitable deals, like building a bunch of office buildings for rent.
Let's hope this won't happen.

[bob carnie]

These questions have probably been answered many times but here goes anyways.

1. What are the proper methods of storing film in Freezers?
2. What life expectancy would one expect if one properly stores.?
3. Would higher ISO film be more suspect to problems than lower ISO?

I believe we are coming to a point that this may be the only option for photographers still using film. I have been talking with a couple of my clients about this and at some point we will bite the bullet and invest in enough film for the future.

[al olson]

Since Kodak is restricting film availability to fewer lines, this is an opportunity for some of the niche players to step up and fill in the voids.

ILFORD, ARE YOU READING THIS THREAD?

How about offering sheet films in Delta 400 and SFX?

[Allen in Montreal]

Al,

As much as I am livid with Kodak, I can't see Ilford expanding the line, unless....
They make one run a year and are very open and honest that one run will be made and we should stock up.

I think if Kodak had gone that route they could have looked the "hero" instead of something else.

Dear Loyal Kodak Customer...
due to reduced demand we are now forced to produce XXX emulsion once per year and advise our faithful Kodak supports to stock one yrs supply accordingly, blah blah!
Everybody loves everybody.......


Instead they end up with dog poop on their cheeks!





Since Kodak is restricting film availability to fewer lines, this is an opportunity for some of the niche players to step up and fill in the voids.

ILFORD, ARE YOU READING THIS THREAD?

How about offering sheet films in Delta 400 and SFX?

[John Bowen]

I used Kodak. Until the last year or so.

Allen,

Since you moved on a year or so ago, what skin do you have in this game? TMY is my favorite (read only) film in 5x7, 8x10 and 7x17. It may be a good deal for Kodak, but I'm the consumer here. If it's not also a good deal for me; well, no one is holding a gun to my head.

Am I happy about Kodak's decision? No.
Did Kodak's decision catch me unprepared? No.
Will I abandon a wonderful product because a product that doesn't meet my needs would save me a few bucks? No.
Given the current economic mess, am I happy to be supporting American jobs? You bet!

I'll keep purchasing TMY just as long as they keep making it available, even if it means a little extra cost and a little more planning on my part then so be it. If I wanted to abandon TMY, I'd have already done it

As always, YMMV

[John Bowen]

These questions have probably been answered many times but here goes anyways.

1. What are the proper methods of storing film in Freezers?
2. What life expectancy would one expect if one properly stores.?
3. Would higher ISO film be more suspect to problems than lower ISO?

I believe we are coming to a point that this may be the only option for photographers still using film. I have been talking with a couple of my clients about this and at some point we will bite the bullet and invest in enough film for the future.

Bob,

I can only speak for Kodak B&W films, but the packaging they deliver goes straight into the frost free freezer. The poly wrappers they put on 120/220 and the sealed bags they package LF film in work fine. I'd package them in Zip Lock bags if I were storing in a freezer that required occasional defrosting.

Life expectancy will depend on your demands. Michael Smith is still shooting Super-XX that expired in 1996. He has stated that the Chicago negatives he made in 2009 were among his best. Yes, FB+F is higher than fresh film, but he just prints through it. Even with the increased fog, I'm not sure his FB+F is any higher than a fresh 35mm negative.

It is my understanding that fast films wlll deteriorate quicker than slow films. It is also my understanding, that gamma rays impact film. I'm not sure there is anything you can do to reduce the impact of gamma rays on film. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone here will set me straight.

[bobwysiwyg]

"Protection from gamma rays can be obtained using a sheet of iron that is a 1/2 inch thick. This kind of shielding will block only 50% of 1 million electron volts of gamma rays. We can also protect ourselves from gamma rays with 4 inches of water. Lead provides the most protection from gamma rays. A 1/4 of an inch lead absorbs all the gamma ray exposure."

Not terribly convenient as film storage options in conjunction with a freezer though.

[Sal Santamaura]

...1. What are the proper methods of storing film in Freezers?
2. What life expectancy would one expect if one properly stores.?
3. Would higher ISO film be more suspect to problems than lower ISO?
...Proper method for storing film in a freezer is to condition it to moderately low humidity, then enclose it in a vapor-seal envelope. If you purchase Kodak standard stock sheet film, Kodak has already done those two things for you. However, when we received our special order of whole plate TMY-2 a few years ago, Kodak had put the film in static-charged black plastic bags (that looked like they were closed with a soldering iron) and stuck those bags in unlined, two-part carboard boxes which shed dust all over the bags. It wasn't pretty. I'd advise anyone thinking of placing Kodak special orders to obtain assurance in advance that what they receive will be packaged like Kodak's standard sheet film products or can be returned for a full refund. By the way, you don't need to wait for Canham, just cough up the $15,000 or so to a Kodak dealer and they'll place the order for you. :)

Life expectency will vary depending on film speed/type and your environment. Higher speed films definitely deteriorate more quickly due to ambient radiation. That includes cosmic rays and any local source of radiation. Had your place tested for its level of radon gas lately? Very low speed films, e.g. ISO 25, should last a long, long time regardless. This has been confirmed anecdotally by Michael Kadillak for Efke 25 and several persons who stockpiled APX 25.

If someone wants to do a special order of higher speed film for long-term storage, I'd suggest they rent space here:

http://www.undergroundvaults.com/index.php/offerings/secure-storage-facilities/refrigerated-storage/

Substantial volume of earth is the way to attentuate cosmic rays sufficiently so fog buildup is avoided. I've been afraid to ask the price, however. :)


...I can only speak for Kodak B&W films, but the packaging they deliver goes straight into the frost free freezer. The poly wrappers they put on 120/220 and the sealed bags they package LF film in work fine...

To repeat, I'd get assurances in writing (with a money-back guarantee) before assuming this will apply to any future special orders from Kodak. The permeable packaging in which our whole plate film was delivered was not, in my opinion, suitable for long-term freezer placement.

[Frank Petronio]

then use the land for more profitable deals, like building a bunch of office buildings for rent.

Hahaha in Rochester?

[ic-racer]

The market has changed and Kodak must change with it.

Maybe. I actually don't know. Anyone know the production/sales figures for B&W 8x10 sheetfilm for the last 10 years? Hard for me to picture 8x10 B&W sheetfilm users leaving film for the computer graphic/iPhone/megapixel/inkjet thing.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - I'll try to explain just a couple of points. You make the assumption that the
folks calling the shots are reading figures on every little product and making realistic assessments about each of them. Not necessarily. Big corporations like Kokak make all kinds of kneejerk decision because they just don't have the time to think through all the individual consequences. Marketing and inventory managers are given their marching orders and told to reduce the budget so many percent across the board - NOW. They're morale is already sunken, and they have nothing to gain by trying to correct the official opinion. The second point is that departmental overheads are almost routinely skewed to favor the prediction the big boss made in the first place. As long as the bottom line works out, it's legal. After that, it's easy to manipulate things the way you want them to look. "Market share", for example, is
a misnomer which is routinely falsified by major manufacturers, precisely because
that's how the bigshots are contracted to receive significant bonuses. But there's not
a lot that we can do in this particular instance except to support what Kodak is doing
right. How this all will pan out as the economy imporoves I have no idea. I wouldn't be at all suprised if in my lifetime a true electronic substitue for film gets invented. This would have the potential for making obsolete not only color film as we know it, but also every digital back and capture device in the current form. But someone will still be shooting an antique view camera, even if they have to make the film themself!

[theBDT]

Easy to say when the film being discontinued isn't one you shoot.

Trust me, it stings a little more when it's your favorite film.

My favorite film was digital; switching to film was a very difficult, expensive, arduous thing for me. In the end, I am happy with the results, and feel it is worth it. But I've been using Photoshop with digital photography for over ten years. I have only been working in film for maaaaaaaaybe three.

I still barely have an idea what my favorite film even is; in 100 speed I love the price and the vintage-esque grain of Arista Edu Ultra 100 (which is also available in a wide array of formats). For 400 I like HP5+, but Tri-X is also quite nifty. I've really been getting into color negative film lately; I love Ektar, and this weekend shot a couple of 120 rolls of the new Portra 400; if the new Portra 400 is as awesome as I think it will be, I'll likely use it exclusively for my 4x5 color work. If, for some reason, Portra gets discontinued, well I'll be upset but it's not the end of the world; as far as I'm concerned, color negative film is essentially a massive, high-dynamic-range "RAW" file that needs a scanner to be opened. I always tweak my colors in Photoshop anyway (I print B&W optically; I simply have neither the resources nor the knowledge to print color optically).

The whole reason I'm giving you this bit of background on me is, I hope you can maybe now see things a bit from my point of view. To someone who came from all-auto modes on a dSLR, to running a 4x5 view cam w/ separate light meters, individual sheets of film, film development, etc. you all sound very inflexible. Photography is a science, true, but it is also an art. Artists are supposed to be inventive and creative. If a part of your process becomes unavailable, then you need to find new ways of expressing yourself. To treat TMY2 with SUCH hallowed whispers, SUCH loud laments of goodbye, is to imply that it's a magic bullet. Just as no special lens, emulsion, or developer turns any of us into vastly different photographers, merely by virtue of switching to that product, merely losing a particular product will not vastly lessen any of us as photographers; any of us who are half-decent photographers, anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

BDT - ever get nose to nose with a Salvador Dali painting, an actual one? Now let's
suppose someone came along and told him he couldn't get fine squirrel-hair or whatever little paint brushes anymore, but could only get brooms to paint with.
Would he be happy?

[cdholden]

If a part of your process becomes unavailable, then you need to find new ways of expressing yourself. To treat TMY2 with SUCH hallowed whispers, SUCH loud laments of goodbye, is to imply that it's a magic bullet. Just as no special lens, emulsion, or developer turns any of us into vastly different photographers, merely by virtue of switching to that product, merely losing a particular product will not vastly lessen any of us as photographers; any of us who are half-decent photographers, anyway.

Well said.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - I'll try to explain just a couple of points. You make the assumption that the
folks calling the shots are reading figures on every little product and making realistic assessments about each of them. Not necessarily. Big corporations like Kokak make all kinds of kneejerk decision because they just don't have the time to think through all the individual consequences. Marketing and inventory managers are given their marching orders and told to reduce the budget so many percent across the board - NOW. They're morale is already sunken, and they have nothing to gain by trying to correct the official opinion. The second point is that departmental overheads are almost routinely skewed to favor the prediction the big boss made in the first place. As long as the bottom line works out, it's legal. After that, it's easy to manipulate things the way you want them to look. "Market share", for example, is
a misnomer which is routinely falsified by major manufacturers, precisely because
that's how the bigshots are contracted to receive significant bonuses. But there's not
a lot that we can do in this particular instance except to support what Kodak is doing
right. How this all will pan out as the economy imporoves I have no idea. I wouldn't be at all suprised if in my lifetime a true electronic substitue for film gets invented. This would have the potential for making obsolete not only color film as we know it, but also every digital back and capture device in the current form. But someone will still be shooting an antique view camera, even if they have to make the film themself!

This is all very interesting stuff but has nothing to do with anything I said. I didn't talk about overhead, I didn't talk about how "big shots" make decisions or get bonsues. I have no idea why you're addressing all of this to me or what it has to do with anything.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - I'll try to explain just a couple of points. You make the assumption that the
folks calling the shots are reading figures on every little product and making realistic assessments about each of them. Not necessarily. Big corporations like Kokak make all kinds of kneejerk decision because they just don't have the time to think through all the individual consequences. Marketing and inventory managers are given their marching orders and told to reduce the budget so many percent across the board - NOW. They're morale is already sunken, and they have nothing to gain by trying to correct the official opinion. The second point is that departmental overheads are almost routinely skewed to favor the prediction the big boss made in the first place. As long as the bottom line works out, it's legal. After that, it's easy to manipulate things the way you want them to look. "Market share", for example, is
a misnomer which is routinely falsified by major manufacturers, precisely because
that's how the bigshots are contracted to receive significant bonuses. But there's not
a lot that we can do in this particular instance except to support what Kodak is doing
right. How this all will pan out as the economy imporoves I have no idea. I wouldn't be at all suprised if in my lifetime a true electronic substitue for film gets invented. This would have the potential for making obsolete not only color film as we know it, but also every digital back and capture device in the current form. But someone will still be shooting an antique view camera, even if they have to make the film themself!

As I said before, I made only two points. One was purely factual - I provided financial data from Kodak's SEC filings that show Kodak's revenues and profits from digital operations growing and its revenues and profits from film operations declining. And the other was an opinion that given that situation, nobody should be surprised when Kodak periodically stops producing particular films. That's all. I have no idea what all of your anecdotal ramblings about big bosses and bonuses and employee morale or any of this other stuff has anything to do with those two points.

[John Bowen]

No, TMY is not a magic bullet. I'm sure when it disappears, I'll find something else. It's just that I would prefer to spend my time making photographs not testing film/developer combinations.

I've shot nothing but TMY in LF and ULF for 5+ years. Because I purchased all of my 5x7 and 7x17 from J&C, all that film is from the same master roll.

It can take years to fully understand your materials. I for one, have found a set of materials that works well for me. I'd prefer to continue using those materials.

And while I'm sure "any half-decent" photographer can switch materials and not skip a beat, I aspire to be better than "half-decent." I'm not there yet, but I firmly believe switching materials will do nothing to further my goal.

[Allen in Montreal]

John,

I have plenty of skin in the fight.

I want to use it so bad! I have used it all my life.
But they make it so &^% hard to get!

I have never succeeded in getting any 5x7 or 8x10 film in Montreal after several tries.
I have picked up 5x7 and 8x10 TXP or TMY where I can when I am States side.

Like a bad divorce, I try to go back every once in a while only to find a new hoop to have to jump through (or premium to pay).

I want to shoot TXP (old style txp in a perfect world) to print and TMX to scan, but Kodak just makes it close to impossible at every corner. As I said, I don't love HP5, but 'Yeller is pushing me there.

(my last stash of Agfa Insignia and a few Portriga)





Allen,

Since you moved on a year or so ago, what skin do you have in this game? TMY is my favorite (read only)...........

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - all I was suggesting is that what you consider "factual" might not be as factual as you think. You seem to be pretty naive about how big corporations actually work, both on this thread and on the tax thread.

[Merg Ross]

There are a lot of good thoughts expressed in this thread, along with hints of anger.

Anyone who has used film and silver paper for a very long time has seen materials come and go. If one is solely doing personal work it is easier to tolerate the changes. However, if your livlihood depends on commercial photography, as mine once did, a change in materials is most often not welcome.

For many years, every box in my darkroom was yellow. Pan-X, Plus-X, Tri-x, and Ektachrome sheet film. Most were 100 sheet boxes, the Kodabromide papers were 250 sheet boxes. My chemical boxes were also yellow. The professional support from Kodak was excellent as was the quality control.

That was the old Kodak. When they came late to the digital party, they ignored the very strong base they had built over many decades, supported primarily by professional photographers. There had always been alternatives to using Kodak, but they were the overwhelming choice among professionals.

As Kodak discontinued products, their former supporters used the alternatives. Some vowed to never buy another Kodak product. The demise of all but 4x5 TMAX is just one more step toward their exit from the film market.

So, one can buy and freeze film and paper, or purchase available products. The latter is my approach now that I am not a commercial photographer. Papers and films come and go, but I can make a print today that rivals my prints of twenty or more years ago. The materials may be different, but by no means inferior. And, while on the subject of stockpiling materials, why would I want my prints to look exactly the same over a twenty year period? I like the challenge and the change.

Of course this is dependent on materials always being available; I believe that will be the case for many more years, but not from Kodak.

[John Bowen]

John,

I have plenty of skin in the fight.

I want to use it so bad! I have used it all my life.
But they make it so &^% hard to get!

Allen,

My apologies. I know I can't get it in Richmond, VA., but B&H gets very fresh film here in 2 days. Is it that much harder to get shipped to Canada?

[Allen in Montreal]

Allen,

My apologies. I know I can't get it in Richmond, VA., but B&H gets very fresh film here in 2 days. Is it that much harder to get shipped to Canada?

Thank you, but no need to apologize John. At the end of all this ranting, I hope some new ideas that are more manageable for all come to fruition.

The CDN Kodak distributor is a complete %$$.

They started to ask for a 500 sheet min order going back almost 2 years I would guess. I started to try and put together a group buy for 5x7 TXP together here on LF and gave up when Ilford would send me one 25 sht box at a time. I don't mind stocking a few boxes, but 500 sheets! And now it is even worse.

B+H has only recently brought in reasonable shipping fees to Canada. Most shops won't ship or charge a small fortune to ship north. B+H made a deal with our Fed tax dept to withhold the CDN sales tax in exchange for fast track lower cost shipping.

There are times where I feel like I live in the third world, not just north of the 45th.

[Brian C. Miller]

There are times where I feel like I live in the third world, not just north of the 45th.

Montreal and Los Angeles have about the same population. Maybe Kodak never updated their shipping options, and the film is being brought in by dogsled or canoe! 500 sheets would be about one load, right?

[Drew Wiley]

One thing which has not been brought up at all so far is the factor of film profit margin. Kodak already has the coating machines and other infrastructure in place to
make a fairly consistent profit margin on film. Sheet film requires a different base
than small format film, but by limiting the options and standardizing on a minimum
number of bases for both color and black and white film, they should be able to optimize profits in that category too. Consumer digital, on the other hand, has been
a staggeringly steep hill to climb, and they have had to sell their blood to get traction. If you amortize their investment over a decade or so, their profit margin in
this in probably far into the negative. Brief blips don't tell the whole story. And in is
common practice for publicly-held corps to play creative shell games with their number in order to justify key decisions or acquisitions to existing or potential stockholders. Fortunately, their medical and commercial digital division seems to be
doing OK. But you sell film over and over, but a digital device only once per camera,
which someone is making; so this is all a big gamble, especially if someone else
comes up with a significantly better form of digital capture which Kodak doesn't
control the patent on.

[Allen in Montreal]

Montreal and Los Angeles have about the same population. Maybe Kodak never updated their shipping options, and the film is being brought in by dogsled or canoe! 500 sheets would be about one load, right?

:) :)
Mid winter, rivers deeply frozen, 500 should not be an issue.
Late season, thinning ice, maybe 250 per run!

[John Bowen]

Brian - all I was suggesting is that what you consider "factual" might not be as factual as you think. You seem to be pretty naive about how big corporations actually work, both on this thread and on the tax thread.

Drew,

You have no idea who Brian Ellis is, do you? If you did, you would know just who is "naive." :rolleyes:

[Allen in Montreal]

One thing which has not been brought up at all so far is the factor of film profit margin. Kodak already has the coating machines and other infrastructure in place to make a fairly consistent profit margin on film............

Actually, in one of my bitter rants I did bring this up.
This move puts Kodak in a higher profit margin and ZERO liability position on future runs. Everything will be at a premium and pre paid. With no delivery guarantee.
They make a run when they slow and have a high margin.

This is a good deal for Kodak if no one jumps ship!
They are rolling the dice.

History shows they roll poorly.


As Merg says,

It was once a very well run company and customer service was impeccable.
Once was.....

[Ben Syverson]

The whole reason I'm giving you this bit of background on me is, I hope you can maybe now see things a bit from my point of view. To someone who came from all-auto modes on a dSLR, to running a 4x5 view cam w/ separate light meters, individual sheets of film, film development, etc. you all sound very inflexible. Photography is a science, true, but it is also an art. Artists are supposed to be inventive and creative. If a part of your process becomes unavailable, then you need to find new ways of expressing yourself. To treat TMY2 with SUCH hallowed whispers, SUCH loud laments of goodbye, is to imply that it's a magic bullet. Just as no special lens, emulsion, or developer turns any of us into vastly different photographers, merely by virtue of switching to that product, merely losing a particular product will not vastly lessen any of us as photographers; any of us who are half-decent photographers, anyway.
While I didn't shoot TMAX, it's a shame whenever one of our options is taken away. Yet every time a film is discontinued, we get a thread full of veteran and amateur photographers alike saying "quit being a bitch." Wow, what tough, masochistic dudes. Why not just self-flagelate and save the cost of film?

The film most at danger of disappearing completely is C41 in 8x10 or larger sheets. Will it be the end of the world (or my practice)? No. Will I reserve the right to complain bitterly? Yes. I'll switch to 4x5 for a few years, and if that disappears, we will have lost large format color entirely. To say I should just adapt because hey, I'm a super creative artist is sort of missing the point. Let's try discontinuing oil paint because of health concerns and see how the painters feel about switching to acrylic.

There's being flexible, and there's being a doormat. "Man up?" Give me a break. There's nothing manly about taking it lying down and not talking back.

[engl]

I'm amazed by the lack of faith put in Kodak by some (far from all!) posters in this thread. Kodak have more experience than right about anyone in the film industry, they have divisions dedicated to figuring out how to make/keep something profitable, they have 20000 employees so I'm sure there will be a fair number of passionate photographers walking the corridors where decisions like this are made. Just please consider that perhaps they know what they are doing.

Nothing wrong about complaining over the loss of these films, or discussing the possible reasons and consequences. Telling Kodak how to run their company, without any real experience or insight into the current state of the film production industry, just seems arrogant though.

Personally, I think Kodak are doomed to make many unpopular decisions. Users of their products are expecting to keep using film developed for a market that no longer exists. Steps in the production of any product might have been dependent on other products, and film is no longer a mass-consumed item. Products might not have been directly very profitable at all, if they were part of a business strategy to build relations with professionals or build brand image. On top of this, they probably have a couple of thousand employees too many, considering how their old primary market has shrunk to a fraction of where it was 10 years ago.

Of course, I don't know if that is what the situation is like at Kodak, but at least I'm not going to pretend like I do :)

[Michael Kadillak]

Kodak comes out with TMY-2 and makes it available in 5x7 and 8x10. From recommendations of photographers I know and trust, I try it, buying 500 sheets of each. Now I can't get it.

It was bad enough that the 8x10 was in so many boxes it causes storage problems and even more space problems when traveling. Now I can't get it at all without $15,000 up front for an order.

Kodak continues to shoot themselves in the foot. Kodak Azo was one nice paper and the company never took a loss on making it per Company Reps. So... they discontinue it. They were the only company in the world making a contact speed silver chloride paper and those working for the company knew many of the fine photographers who used this product ONLY, for all their work. So what does The Yellow Peril do? Discontinues it completely.

It make a profit. Just not enough of a profit for the corporate bean counters.

TMY-2 is the latest and greatest from Kodak. Introduced, made in sizes and sold and many of us tried it. Very nice stuff... so they discontinue it in those sizes.

Ilford isn't perfect but they do have products I will be using once again.

Great.

Now you can finally stop complaining about Kodak because they now are one step from doing the dirt dance.

that said we should all start saying our weekly prayers that Ilford can pass on the record increase in silver prices and maintain sufficient volume to continue to carry on somewhat unopposed. It is turning into a one horse show and that is not good for folks that like variety at the horse show.

[Merg Ross]

that said we should all start saying our weekly prayers that Ilford can pass on the record increase in silver prices and maintain sufficient volume to continue to carry on somewhat unopposed.

Michael, perhaps not a record increase in silver prices. That happened in 1980 when silver increased from about $11.00 an ounce to $50.00 an ounce over several months' time. It dropped back very soon after, but the film and paper manufacturers used the event to dramitcally increase prices. To my knowledge, the prices for film and paper never decreased after 1980. I remember the sticker shock at the time.

I also had your thought of the recent increases in the price of silver. I'm not sure that it will have a dramatic impact on the purchases by our silver aficionados; only time will tell.

[theBDT]

...veteran and amateur photographers alike saying "quit being a bitch." Wow, what tough, masochistic dudes. Why not just self-flagelate and save the cost of film?

There's nothing masochistic about facing reality with a clear head, prepared to handle the realities and actualities of being a film-based visual artist in the 21st century. Quite the opposite: film is a shrinking market and no one knows where the freefall will stop; it's those who lament film and coddle themselves artistically that set themselves up for disappointment and frustration.


To say I should just adapt because hey, I'm a super creative artist is sort of missing the point.

Or, you're just missing everyone else's point. People tend to do that when they whine and feel sorry for themselves.


There's being flexible, and there's being a doormat.

This is a free market economy. No one owes you anything. You're not a doormat, however you apparently expect Kodak to continue being one for its 8x10 customers.


"Man up?" Give me a break. There's nothing manly about taking it lying down and not talking back.

There's nothing manly about whining and ringing your hands over something:

You have no control over
You don't have full information behind-the-scenes about
You are not even owed to begin with


I don't mind a few posts along the lines of "aw, shucks, that sucks" and "guess I'll have to find a new film, bummer" and "oh God time to test new film, thanks a lot Kodak."

We don't just get those. We get long diatribes, people who apparently place more stock in Kodak's activities, and Kodak's alleged betrayal of photographers, than they would in politics, religion, or just about anything else. We get paragraph after paragraph of conjecture, people pulling up barely-relevant data on profit margins, other people refuting said data, arm-chair CEOs who could run Kodak so much better IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD LISTEN! And in the midst of all this Sturm und Drang is a huge, heaping serving of whining, navel gazing, and self pity.

I have seen exactly ONE thoughtful, insightful, interesting, non-whiny post about the end of TMY2 8x10 in this thread; I had no idea TMY2 had such excellent reciprocity characteristics, nor did I realize how important that was to 8x10 shooters. So yes, this one aspect presents a true hardship to Kodak B&W 8x10 consumers.

But all this other crap... debates about Kodak "betraying" people, as if people had some sort of intimate, one-on-one relationship with a group of engineers, chemists, and marketers from Kodak... Endless rehashing of digital-versus-film debates, to the point where certain posters actively go looking to pick a fight for the sake of fighting... People going on and on about the minutiae of their process, acting as though Kodak had taken their first born, instead of just their favorite film.

All this and more happens every single time Kodak pulls a product, changes a product, whatever. I won't even bother to get into the fallout over them combining Portra 400VC and NC into one single Portra 400... suffice it to say, people's lives were ruined, budding Ansel Adams were cut off in the prime of their careers, and Kodak is worse than if Hitler and Osama Bin Laden put together...

[Ben Syverson]

None of that applies to me...

[Robert Skeoch]

Please remember, I'm in Canada.

With the mad panic to get remaining stock I figured I better stock up for my store. I wouldn't want my loyal customers to go without. So I ordered stock of T-max 100 in 5x7; Tmax 400 in 8x10 and Tri-X in 5x7. I had some in stock already.

All three films were "In-stock" at the distributor and will ship this week.

I've emailed the distributor to find out what the levels are like, but it's 9am and a huge storm outside, so haven't heard back yet.

-Rob from Bigcameraworkshops.com

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, perhaps not a record increase in silver prices. That happened in 1980 when silver increased from about $11.00 an ounce to $50.00 an ounce over several months' time. It dropped back very soon after, but the film and paper manufacturers used the event to dramitcally increase prices. To my knowledge, the prices for film and paper never decreased after 1980. I remember the sticker shock at the time.

I also had your thought of the recent increases in the price of silver. I'm not sure that it will have a dramatic impact on the purchases by our silver aficionados; only time will tell.

I did not plot the silver commodity data back to the 1980's but your point is very valid. Was that when the Hunt Brothers got smoked trying to manipulate this market?

In the same vein I also am concerned about the general capability of economic vibrancy sufficient to allow photographers that may have a day job to find the financial resources to continue to participate in photography. Consolidating markets with dominant players along with increasing costs drop many along the way that simply find it over challenging to continue. The European VAT tax has been considerable onerous in that regard. A few years back a box of film was double the price in Europe relative to the price stateside.

The only bright side is that new companies with improved infrastructure are likely to come into this market.

[Fred L]

Rob, can you also get Tri X in 8x10 ?

[Robert Skeoch]

Good Morning Fred.
No the distributor never carried it. I can only get Tri-X in 5x7.
-rob

[sanking]

I must honestly confess that the fact that films and papers are being discontinued bothers me much less than it used to. For one thing, I have almost totally liberated myself from the paper issue with my carbon transfer printing because I already make the raw ingredients, the tissue, and I size art papers. The materials I use, gelatin, pigment, and art papers are in abundance, and will continue to be so for a long time into the future.

As for film, I continue to prefer film to digital in most instances, but not always, and increasingly the quality of digital is good enough for the print sizes I do. Digital is still quite expensive compared to film for equivalent image quality, unless you use it in a business, which is another matter. But I don't think it will be all that long before 150+ MP digital will be available for $5K or less.

So all in all I have come to the conclusion that it is better to go with the flow and enjoy the new creative possibilities, which I can combine with my traditional printing process, rather than agonize about the loss of film, and I became indifferent to the loss of silver papers long, long ago.

Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

Brian - all I was suggesting is that what you consider "factual" might not be as factual as you think. You seem to be pretty naive about how big corporations actually work, both on this thread and on the tax thread.

By "factual" I meant the financial statements Kodak filed with the SEC to which I referred. Are you suggesting that those statements are fraudulent or just plain inaccurate or what? Because they certainly purport to represent the financial condition and results of operation of Kodak for the period indicated. So I consider them factual in that sense. But if you have evidence indicating that they're fraudulent or even just plain inaccurate you shouldn't be talking about it here, you should be explaining it to the SEC.

I'm sorry if I've come across as being naive in this thread and in the tax thread. I spent most of my career as a tax attorney and represented many Fortune 500 corporations and others of similar size in federal tax matters and complex business transactions, both in the U.S. and in foreign countries. So I thought I knew a fair amount about federal tax laws and how "big corporations" actually work. But perhaps your education and occupational background are such that you know more about those things than I do and so I seem naive to you.

We've gotten very far afield from the topic of the thread so I'll stop. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - all I was suggesting is that unless you're an insider on a specific line of business it is difficult to read between the lines. I am not an insider in the film arena. But in the kind of mfg corporations I do deal with, I sometimes laugh my head off at how deceptive stocks and profit reports are in public corporations. There are all kinds of legal ways they skew things legally to justify a mgt position and fool folks way bigger than you or I. They can look like lions on paper and be bankrupt a few months later, or merely be positioning themselves to pull the rug out in other ways. Now I'm
not suggesting Kodak is doing this, and they've been somewhat transparent to investors about losing money as went further and further into digital. But at this point,
the idea of burning bridges behind them, and having a certain dogma to defend about
their new direction, would seem to be a temptation to gloss things over a bit. At least
it would be enough to prevent me from investing in them or even trusting them much
as a future supplier. The "old Kodak" with strong customer service disappeared well
before this current econmic woes in this country or even the big waves of the digital
tsunami. I could tell simply from the collapsing morale of people who worked there.
I make my living reading those kinds of signals and related ones, and they are generally
symptomatic of a bad attitude at the top.

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - you must be doing wonderful things with carbon, but right now silver papers
seem to be better than ever, at least projection papers in variable contrast. They're
simply stunning compared to what they once were. If film dried up tomorrow I'd still
have a stack of images to print the rest of my life; but it wouldn't be fun to stop shooting, and I have no interest in an expensive digital system. But digital "as we currently recognize it" will probably be obsolete before film is, and something more
practical and affordable will arise in its plalce. So we gotta have fun with what we currently have - can't wait around!

[bigdog]

... digital "as we currently recognize it" will probably be obsolete ... and something more practical and affordable will arise in its plalce. ...

Argh. Don't say that. I was just about to buy a dslr ... :eek:

[Vlad Soare]

Sandy, what you're saying makes perfect sense if the only thing you're after is the final image. You know what you want to get, and you're able to get it with any technology available, be it glass plates, film, or electronic gadgets. That's great.
However, I'm not only after the final image. I spend my money on film, paper, chemicals and LF gear, and spend my spare time in the darkroom, not only because I want to make a certain print, but because I love the process itself. It's not just about getting to my destination. It's about the journey, too. I shoot film not because I get better results than with digital gear, or because I can't afford a digital setup, but because I love shooting film for its own sake. When I look at a print, I feel good remembering how hard I worked for it, I feel good knowing that it was made by me, not by a computer. I don't make a living off photography. I'm only doing it for fun. The whole process makes me feel good. The digital process makes me sick, because I spent my entire day at work in front of a computer, so in my spare time computers are the last thing in the world I want to see or touch.
Even if someone invented a one-billion megapixel 8x10" digital camera and sold it for five bucks, I couldn't care less about it. If all films disappear, then I will either start coating glass plates, or give up photography altogether. No matter how good and cheap digital cameras might become, digital photography will never, ever, be a hobby of mine.

[sanking]

Sandy, what you're saying makes perfect sense if the only thing you're after is the final image. You know what you want to get, and you're able to get it with any technology available, be it glass plates, film, or electronic gadgets. That's great.
However, I'm not only after the final image. I spend my money on film, paper, chemicals and LF gear, and spend my spare time in the darkroom, not only because I want to make a certain print, but because I love the process itself. It's not just about getting to my destination. It's about the journey, too. I shoot film not because I get better results than with digital gear, or because I can't afford a digital setup, but because I love shooting film for its own sake. When I look at a print, I feel good remembering how hard I worked for it, I feel good knowing that it was made by me, not by a computer. I don't make a living off photography. I'm only doing it for fun. The whole process makes me feel good. The digital process makes me sick, because I spent my entire day at work in front of a computer, so in my spare time computers are the last thing in the world I want to see or touch.
Even if someone invented a one-billion megapixel 8x10" digital camera and sold it for five bucks, I couldn't care less about it. If all films disappear, then I will either start coating glass plates, or give up photography altogether. No matter how good and cheap digital cameras might become, digital photography will never, ever, be a hobby of mine.

It would be absurd to suggest that the only thing I am after is the final image. I spend over 80% of my time making materials for a 19th century process that is not practiced at my level by more than a dozen people in the entire world, if that. And I enjoy every aspect of film, from exposure in the field to development to scanning. And believe me, I do all of this primarily for fun. Yes, I make some money from print sales and from workshops but basically my printing is a high level hobby, not a business.

It is a mistake to assume that because my path to the final image is different from yours that I don't care about the journey. In fact, I am absolutely certain that I enjoy my journey as much as you enjoy yours. There was a time when I too spent most of my day behind a computer preparing reports and writing evaluations, strategic reports, etc. At that time I had no interest in coming home and doing more digital work. But that time has gone and I now very much enjoy the process of preparing my digital files, printing digital negatives, and making carbon transfer prints from them. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind but that overall quality of my work is much better than before I got involved with digital.

But basically my personal creativity is more important than an ideology of film versus digital, and if film were to disappear I would miss it, and that part of the journey, but it would not interfere with my ability to do creative work.

Sandy

[Vaughn]

...But digital "as we currently recognize it" will probably be obsolete before film is, and something more practical and affordable will arise in its plalce. So we gotta have fun with what we currently have - can't wait around!

This is what I tried to tell our university art dept when the "Should our Photo Area go all digital?" discussion. In a digital world, digital photo, as we know and love it, is/will be a short lived "art form". I see it as morphing into full-on multimedia work (image/sound/performance/3D/direct sensory stimulation/whatever) on a variety of platforms and methods of presentation. Spraying inks onto paper will be soooo yesterday! :D

So I told them that if we wanted to be a cutting edge art dept, what we needed was a whole new Area, called Digital Art. Of course, no one listened to me -- actually not true, the Dept Chairperson listened and made it clear that staff should not make noises (voice opinions).

Vaughn

PS...Vlad -- if you like process, you should give carbon a go! Anyone who is doing carbons (or other alt processes) are all about process and its results. I also will be sticking to film, as I enjoy that part of the process (and the results I get with it) too much to be interested in a hybrid workflow at this time.

If all sheet film disappeared, I have a backlog of negatives to print that would probably keep me busy for years -- enough time to perfect making my own dry plates. All I ask is for that time to wait another five years -- then my kids will be out of the house, my wife will be my ex-wife (that happens officially tomorrow), and I'll have all the time in the world (except I'll be 61 yrs old, so perhaps another 20 years of print making left in me!)

[Drew Wiley]

Sadly, I had to choose between color carbon and dye transfer. The latter can more
readily be broken down into discrete stages which dovetail better with my schedule.
And it's a passing window of opportunity. Maybe after retirement I can justify carbon.
Nothing is totally immune from collapses in the supply chain. Even with carbon transfer
you need certain support materials and specific types of gelatin, or else have to relearn certain steps. But this might be the last chance to acquire enough components
to pull off DT, and I'm having a lot of trouble finding the time to do it, but wanted
something more challenging than simple color enlargement on C-paper. Maybe two or
three years of actual DT before my stock of critical film is gone. Need to use up the
Ciba paper I have frozen too - another beautiful medium which "might" disappear.

[Vlad Soare]

Sandy, I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh or patronizing. That wasn't my intention. I'm sure each of us enjoys his way of making images, and I know that carbon printing is something absolutely special.


PS...Vlad -- if you like process, you should give carbon a go! Anyone who is doing carbons (or other alt processes) are all about process and its results.
I'd love that, and in fact it has been on my to-do list for some time. I drool every time I see an announcement about carbon printing workshops on the forum, but since they're all in the US they're out of my reach, at least for the time being. :(

[Curt]

I agree with Vaughn, I've shot a lot more than I have ever printed, a good lesson for those who toss out negatives, they take so little room so why not keep them.

Why would gelatin disappear? I use Knox from the grocery store right now, the kind that makes J E L L O.

What's needed for Carbon: a negative that's the size of the final print; gelatin; a pigment; sugar; ammonium dichromate or potassium dichromate; paper or aluminum sheet for final print; vellum or old film to be reused for tissue base; water and a light source which could be the Sun, black light tubes, halogen bulb with a high UV output, tanning lamp, NuArc unit or like type.

What if film disappears, all of it, what to do? Scan old negatives and make digital negatives, get a digital back for a camera and make new images and print digital negatives, use X Ray film. That list reaches way into the future, beyond my lifetime.

It may be a one hundred and fifty year round trip though photographic history but it does give at least one way to make a beautiful print in our modern world. While it takes work to gain the basics it's well worth the effort. This process is on the other end of the spectrum from "you push the button, we do the rest" philosophy.

[Ron Marshall]

Ilford still has the film I like so I will use it once again and let Kodak go wherever their 'leadership' leads them, playing the flute as they step over the precipice into that last long descent.

Some will be fine, as they have hefty parachutes.

[sanking]

Well put, Curt. As a carbon transfer printer I feel totally liberated from concerns about whether materials will be available in the future. Can anyone foresee a time in the near future when gelatin, pigment, sugar and some type of paper or plastic support would not be available? If that happens in my lifetime it will probably mean that we have been put back into the dark ages by a nuclear holocaust, at which point we probably won't be discussing these things on the internet!!

Sandy King

[Drew Wiley]

More likely, a hundred years from now artists will be living in caves again to survive
either a nuclear winter or otherwise tainted atmosphere, and using burnt sticks to
scrawl images on cave walls of the animals that used to live on the surface of the earth. Cell phones will hang around the necks of their children with a hole drilled
through, along with necklace bones made from cannibalistic meals. Cockroaches entering the cave will be deemed messengers from the gods outside.

[Drew Wiley]

Let me elaborate a bit more, now that I just pulled my film from the washer ... In
a hundred years, a "scanner" will be someone in the cave eyeing you as their next
meal, and "digital" will be anyone with more than three fingers left. "Film" will be
something slimy which grows on moist cave walls.

[Vlad Soare]

As a carbon transfer printer I feel totally liberated from concerns about whether materials will be available in the future. Can anyone foresee a time in the near future when gelatin, pigment, sugar and some type of paper or plastic support would not be available?
That's just half of the story. You still need a negative. And while you may not be too unhappy to get it digitally if need be (OK, you won't like it as much as film, but you'll accept it anyway), other people may.
Personally, I would rather give up photography altogether than make digital negatives, though I don't think it will ever come to that - film will still be with us for some time, and then I'll learn how to coat glass plates. :)

[Vaughn]

Without going thru 22 pages to see if someone mentioned it, but since Kodak is still making TMax films for 4x5, it might be possible to special order special runs for larger sizes. Just thinking. (or perhaps Kodak has stopped production all together of TMax and are just planning on cutting it all up into tiny 4x5 to sell until it their stock runs out.)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Rob, how many boxes of TMY-2 8x10 do you have? John and I will probably do a group order... John?

[sanking]

That's just half of the story. You still need a negative. And while you may not be too unhappy to get it digitally if need be (OK, you won't like it as much as film, but you'll accept it anyway), other people may.
Personally, I would rather give up photography altogether than make digital negatives, though I don't think it will ever come to that - film will still be with us for some time, and then I'll learn how to coat glass plates. :)

Well, Vlad, you are free to do whatever you like. But I personally see film and digital as tools and I will use whichever works best to achieve a specific objective. I don't put up ideological barriers between tools.

Sandy

[Marko]

Personally, I would rather give up photography altogether than make digital negatives

That's evolution at work right there: those who can, adapt. Those who can't (or won't), go away.

It worked pretty well for the mammals, so far... :D

[Armin Seeholzer]

Well, Vlad, you are free to do whatever you like. But I personally see film and digital as tools and I will use whichever works best to achieve a specific objective. I don't put up ideological barriers between tools.

Sandy

Very well sayed I agree at 100% with Sandy on this one!!!

And yes maybe the LF Film sailes are stable now, but at a much lower level then 15 years ago, bevor many of the comercial studio's went digital!
The pro studio's used most LF films not the amateur and semi amateur LF part time hobby photographer!!!

This are the facts, Armin

[Roger Thoms]

That's just half of the story. You still need a negative. And while you may not be too unhappy to get it digitally if need be (OK, you won't like it as much as film, but you'll accept it anyway), other people may.
Personally, I would rather give up photography altogether than make digital negatives, though I don't think it will ever come to that - film will still be with us for some time, and then I'll learn how to coat glass plates. :)

Vlad, I'm seeing some very nice work done with digital negs both in platinum and polymer plate. I also know that some carbon printers are using digital negatives. What is the problem with a digital neg? I was actually considering learning to make digital negatives for polymer plate.

Roger

[Vlad Soare]

What is the problem with a digital neg?
Roger, there's no problem with digital negs. My problem (and I'm stressing that the problem is mine, not theirs) is that for me, photography is a means of getting away from computers. For me, using a computer would defeat the very purpose of my involvement in photography. I'm fed up with computers.
By all means, learn to make digital negs. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying that. One can get outstanding results with them, probably even better than with film. Personally, I don't give a damn about results unless I also get to derive a bit of pleasure from the process itself (OK, I'm sure one could get as much pleasure from digital imaging as I'm getting from film processing). I don't know how to explain this better. It's something I feel. It's not an ideological barrier. It's a very real feeling that I can't control (and in fact, I see no reason why I should try to control it). I like shooting film and will continue to do it as long as there's film on the market.


But I personally see film and digital as tools and I will use whichever works best to achieve a specific objective.
OK, but what if my personal objective is to relax by doing something I really like, while staying away from computers as much as possible?

Anyway, this is starting to turn into a digital versus film debate, and that wasn't my intention. Like you say, they're just tools, and anyone is free to choose the tool that serves him/her best. So let's drop the subject.

[sanking]

OK, but what if my personal objective is to relax by doing something I really like, while staying away from computers as much as possible?

Nothing at all wrong with that. At one point in my life, when I was much younger and in great physical shape, I spent a lot of time carrying my large format cameras deep into the mountains on hikes of up to 10 miles in one direction. Making negatives at that time was more an excuse to enjoy the beauty of nature far away from civilization. Now I am much older with arthritic knees and I can not do that anymore. But I do have the memories.

I am not criticizing your choices. You make yours, I get to make mine.

Sandy

[ic-racer]

At one point in my life, when I was much younger and in great physical shape,

Likewise here also. Now that I am older I feel my body getting destroyed by being forced using a computer at work. Poor posutre, tendoninitis, neck pain, isotonic immobility, eye strain etc. If not for the possibiliy of fresh air, ambulation and outdoor photography, I think I'd just collapse right here in front of the computer :D

[Brian Ellis]

"Brian has been using this logic for quite a while, but has never shown the break down in film sales between 35mm/medium/large format, so the data is not valid as an indicator of large format film sales."

I don't know what "logic" you're talking about or how you think I've used it. I haven't shown the break-down of Kodak's film sales by format because Kodak doesn't make that information public as far as I know. And the reason I provided information about Kodak's sales in this thread wasn't to make any point about LF film sales. It was to show why I didn't think anyone should be surprised when Kodak discontinues some films every now and then.

If you believe LF film sales have bucked the trend of film sales generally and are increasing or stabilizing that's o.k. with me, I'm not going to argue with you. However, I'm not sure this thread, which was started to inform us that Kodak is discontinuing four different LF films, is the ideal place in which to advance your cause.

[Tobias Key]

"Brian has been using this logic for quite a while, but has never shown the break down in film sales between 35mm/medium/large format, so the data is not valid as an indicator of large format film sales."

It's only worth breaking down the different formats of film sales, if one format can survive independent of the others. I would suggest that cine film, 35mm still film, 120 film, and LF film are interdependent on each other, and sheet film especially is dependent on smaller, more popular formats. Do people on this forum really think that if 35mm and 120 sales collapsed past the point they are at now that sheet film could survive independently? I would guess that even if LF sales doubled whilst other formats plummeted sheet film would still die, pulled down by the others.

[Brian C. Miller]

From New York Times, Oct. 9, 2007, "Film Drop-Off Sites Fade Against Digital Cameras (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/business/09film.html?ref=business)"

Over the last four years, the sale of film has been dropping at a rate of 25 to 30 percent each year. In 2006, 204 million rolls were sold, a quarter of the 800 million sold at the peak in 1999. “It’s pretty alarming,” said Bing Liem, senior vice president of sales for the imaging division of Fujifilm USA.

So 25% drop per year:
2006 = 204 million rolls of 35mm Fuji film
2007 = 153
2008 = 115
2009 = 86
2010 = 65

Thread from Dec 2001: 8x10 Velvia and Astia discontinued (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5764)

I'm happy that I can still get sheet film. I think that Kodak has held in there far longer than Fuji. I hope they keep hanging in there. Taping down a roll of 35mm onto a holder stinks.

[Roger Thoms]

Roger, there's no problem with digital negs. My problem (and I'm stressing that the problem is mine, not theirs) is that for me, photography is a means of getting away from computers. For me, using a computer would defeat the very purpose of my involvement in photography. I'm fed up with computers.
By all means, learn to make digital negs. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from trying that. One can get outstanding results with them, probably even better than with film. Personally, I don't give a damn about results unless I also get to derive a bit of pleasure from the process itself (OK, I'm sure one could get as much pleasure from digital imaging as I'm getting from film processing). I don't know how to explain this better. It's something I feel. It's not an ideological barrier. It's a very real feeling that I can't control (and in fact, I see no reason why I should try to control it). I like shooting film and will continue to do it as long as there's film on the market.


OK, but what if my personal objective is to relax by doing something I really like, while staying away from computers as much as possible?

Anyway, this is starting to turn into a digital versus film debate, and that wasn't my intention. Like you say, they're just tools, and anyone is free to choose the tool that serves him/her best. So let's drop the subject.

Vlad, thanks for the reply and now I understand.

Roger

[Andrew O'Neill]

I love film. I love it's look. Recently I taught myself how to make digital negatives for alt processes (mainly carbon). Now I have the option of working with a film negative or a digital negative. Digital gave me another option. If film goes and I'm sure it won't in my life time, I'll make dry plates. It's all so exiting!

[Allen in Montreal]

Andrew,

I admire your excitement.
I admire Sandy's ability to only care about the end result.

I am completely enthralled with the entire process. I love my time in the darkroom.
16 years ago when I built my current darkroom I ran speaker wire through the walls to allow decent sound in the darkroom.

Today, a few things have changed, the darkroom has its own iPod and docking station.
I changed enlargers (thanks to IC Racer). Well, I guess that is really about all that has changed.
I still love the smell of fixer on my on my finger tips, I still love pulling a print from the trays into "white light" to see if I got it right.

For better or worse,
the darkroom is a very special part of the process for me.
I hope I can maintain one until the day I can no longer stand straight in one.


I love film. I love it's look. Recently I taught myself how to make digital negatives for alt processes (mainly carbon). Now I have the option of working with a film negative or a digital negative. Digital gave me another option. If film goes and I'm sure it won't in my life time, I'll make dry plates. It's all so exiting!

[Brian C. Miller]

I hope I can maintain one until the day I can no longer stand straight in one.

If you can stand up enough to hang on a pair of crutches, you'll be good to go. I did that for a while when my back was really bad, and I couldn't stand on my own at all. But as long as I could be on crutches, I was in front of the enlarger.

[Andrew O'Neill]

For better or worse,
the darkroom is a very special part of the process for me.
I hope I can maintain one until the day I can no longer stand straight in one.

I feel exactly the same way!

[sanking]

Andrew,

I admire your excitement.
I admire Sandy's ability to only care about the end result.



:mad:

That is not at all what I said, and it is far from the way I feel about my work.

Sandy

[Bob McCarthy]

Maybe they will use this as a means of distribution

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/list/Black__White_Film/T-MAX/parentCategoryID.40677500/categoryID.40678300

One can only hope. It may cut out the middleman but would prove a better margin.. If they could maintain B&H pricing, I would be estatic.

Bob

[Bob McCarthy]

A banner on the web site could generate some bucks for the web site (LF).

Bob

[archer]

I spend 5hrs, every night, in my darkroom and like Allan, I love the smell of fixer, the sound of water running, the soft glow of the safelights and even when just cleaning or filing or loading film holders and all the rest associated with film photography, I never tire of my sanctuary or lose the passion for what it represents.
Denise Libby

[John Bowen]

I am completely enthralled with the entire process. I love my time in the darkroom.
16 years ago when I built my current darkroom I ran speaker wire through the walls to allow decent sound in the darkroom.

Today, a few things have changed, the darkroom has its own iPod and docking station.
I changed enlargers (thanks to IC Racer). Well, I guess that is really about all that has changed.
I still love the smell of fixer on my on my finger tips, I still love pulling a print from the trays into "white light" to see if I got it right.

For better or worse,
the darkroom is a very special part of the process for me.
I hope I can maintain one until the day I can no longer stand straight in one.

Ditto

I consider my darkroom to be my personal shrink. It's therapeutic.

[Bob McCarthy]

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/ContentTheme/pbPage.affiliate_program_info?linkName=Affiliate+Program

This was to go with the second post ( a few posts previous) about LF site could be paid a commission from Kodak.

Bob

[bob carnie]

Ok Denise and Allen should have their heads examined.

I too spend lots of time in the darkroom, I hate the smell of fixer and dammit Allan, where some gloves that stuff is bad for the skin.
The sound of running water makes me want to take a leak, as I have been known to down a pint of beer or two in the darkroom.

got to admit though, nothing better than a full set of trays, couple of negs in the enlarger and Robin Trower cranked up to keep my time.
The darkroom will always be part of my life, has been since 73 , I hope that I can make it another 40 years and print silver , carbon , gum and who no's what in my darkroom.
I was lucky to have found this profession and cannot imagine what I would do without a wet darkroom, lots here have moved away to the lightroom, but I must say its a lot more fun making wet prints than ink prints.. only my personal opinion but there is history in my darkroom and every tray, lens , enlarger has its history and is used.


I spend 5hrs, every night, in my darkroom and like Allan, I love the smell of fixer, the sound of water running, the soft glow of the safelights and even when just cleaning or filing or loading film holders and all the rest associated with film photography, I never tire of my sanctuary or lose the passion for what it represents.
Denise Libby

[Robert Skeoch]

Hi Andrew, It wont be much of a group order. I have two boxes of 10 sheets in stock and ordered all the remaining stock in Canada, which is another five boxes but hasn't come in yet. So in total I have 70 sheets and the distributor is out of stock, and doesn't expect any more.

The film is T-max 400. It doesn't seem to say T-Max II anywhere on the box.

[Allen in Montreal]

Sandy,

I certainly did not mean to over simplify or mix your words. I am sorry if I have.
I was just trying to express how I admire those that are not "locked" into a process the way I am, by choice and love for the process.


Bob,
my kids think I need my head read too, but they know they will get some peace when they hear the water running, cause the old man will be out their hair for a few hours! :) :)




:mad:

That is not at all what I said, and it is far from the way I feel about my work.

Sandy

[Jan Pedersen]

The film is T-max 400. It doesn't seem to say T-Max II anywhere on the box.


Rob, If it is 10 sheet boxes it should be 99.9% sure that it is the TMY-2
The box will have a small red part of the label in the lower right hand side of the box.
The old TMY did not have any part of the label being red.

[dsphotog]

Decisions like this are intended to please stockholders.
A previous post in this lengthy thread mentioned Kodak stock prices were up.....
Sounds like a good time to sell Kodak stock, & buy Ilford!

[ic-racer]

I cleaned out Freestyle. Badger is out. B&H still shows it.

I ordered some from Freestyle right after I read this post. I went unfilled for a while, but is out in the truck for delivery now.

[Michael Kadillak]

I ordered some from Freestyle right after I read this post. I went unfilled for a while, but is out in the truck for delivery now.

No question there will be a delay in product reaching customers after the discontinuation announcement was made. I was able to get 20 boxes myself. But that is not going to solve this problem long term. That is why I have 30 more boxes coming via Keith. Spring is around the corner and I want to be ready in case it comes early.

[savantcreative]

I used to love the TMAX 3200 film. I haven't used it for years but still miss the grain :(

[James_Spain]

Sorry to hear bad news.

I like Kodak Tmax 3200 too. But it has never been available larger than 35mm for me anywhere?

[Brian C. Miller]

James, I found that TMY can be pushed quite a bit, but lower three or four zones start to really fall off. The film just needs a certain minimum amount of light. Ilford offers Delta 3200, which is available in 120.

[savantcreative]

Sorry to hear bad news.

I like Kodak Tmax 3200 too. But it has never been available larger than 35mm for me anywhere?

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being available in 120 format for a while.