Kodak LF Film Availability

[Sal Santamaura]

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

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

You know Frank, that's pretty obnoxious. I've never had a defect in any Ilford product but, even if you have in an isolated case, sweeping condemnation of the company's QC isn't justifiable.

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

[Pawlowski6132]

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

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

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

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

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


seems simple (parens == interpretation)

[Frank Petronio]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sal Santamaura]

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

How did you contact Ilford? You've been open about your aversion to apug.org, but Simon Galley, one of Ilford's owners, has answered inquiries posted there, either in threads or via PM. I've also emailed him directly and he's always replied.

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

[Ben Syverson]

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

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

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

[bsimison]

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

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

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

[Frank Petronio]

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

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

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

[Pawlowski6132]

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

[Pawlowski6132]

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

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

[Frank Petronio]

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

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

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