More Kodak discontinuations

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but in the 80s we used to shoot 20-40 sheets of 8x10 for a nice shot all the time. Some of the catalog houses probably 1,875 sheets in month. Some cruncher looks and sees the sales are at 1% of their historic high and says give it up, it is hard not to see it that way....

[David Luttmann]

I switched to Ilford for all my B&W. I garee....Kodak is a slow motion trainwreck!

[Sal Santamaura]

I bet it will taper off soon and then X boxes will sit there for a half a year.

I've been watching this situation for a while now, wondering when the latest delivery would be the final delivery.

B&H has been showing around 175 boxes of 8x10 320TXP in stock at each peak, which then gets drawn down at a fairly steady rate, frequently being replenished back to that level when approximately 60 boxes remain a month or so later. Most recently, it bottomed out at 0 boxes and was "out of stock" for many weeks. This time it's flying out the door much faster.

Unless Kodak still has some finished 8x10 stock in the pipeline (not just a master roll), I don't think the 85 boxes still at B&H will last half a month, much less half a year, now that the discontinuation is public knowledge.

[Brian C. Miller]

While the gist of what you are saying is true, this specific claim is overstated. There are auction houses and high end retailers in New York City that still shoot a lot of E6 8x10 at least on a daily basis.

E6, but not B&W. B&W in 8x10 has become such a niche that if there was one high-volume B&W studio in the US using Kodak, KB Canham would never have a problem filling that special order, ever. It would be, "who wants to piggyback with the Super Silver Studio order this month?" Thus, I don't see an overstatement, as Kodak is only offering 8x10 B&W as a special order.

4x5 B&W isn't in "danger." A couple of weeks ago I bought a 50 sheet box of TMax 400, no problem. I'm sure that I could go downtown and buy another 50 sheet box. But Kodak 8x10 B&W? Hmmm...

[Drew Wiley]

I look at it completely differently - if you're already making the sheet film stock, why
piss off the top of the food chain and further damage your already crippled reputation?
What we're talking about here is packaging and warehousing, not actual film manufacture. It's analogous to dropping fifty-sheet boxes - an inconvenience that doesn't earn any brownie points right when they should be looking for as much customer loyalty as possible. If a film has to be dropped outright to streamline their
production expenses, I understand that. But every sheet of 8x10 is worth four of
4X5, and someone like me might drop both if I can't get both. No, I'm not a big consumer (waster) of film. I need to somehow justify the cost. But for everyone of me
getting the cold shoulder, there's a dozen folks in the domino effect who will discouraged from experimenting with 8x10 if the film supply gets unbearably flaky. And
if I get only smaller color film, I'll inevitably be making smaller color prints. It unwinds
in several directions, and the next thing you know, processing options for E6 and C41
will become scarcer, accelerating the whole mess. No different than the other kinds of
businesses I'm in - I see competitors making panic decisions during hard times which
inconvenience their remaining customers, and this in turn becomes the straw which
ends up breaking the camel's back. By itself, 8X10 film sales might not amt to a lot of
dollars one way or the other, but Kodak has quite a history at this point of holding out
a carrot with some exciting new product or service, then whacking you with a stick
soon afterwards. Word gets around.

[Frank Petronio]

If they moved to an internet sales only model and cut out the middle-men perhaps they could sell a wider variety and quantities. It's not like the shops have big clear film coolers to show it all off like the olden days of 2004.... But I suspect they will ride their business model down to the end.

[Allen in Montreal]

Drew,

This is my situation exactly.

Kodak first messed around with the 5x7 supply in Canada. Kodak in the US would say one thing on the phone and the CDN distributor would tell me to piss off regardless of what head office said. So I moved to HP5. If I am going to go through the grief of learning HP5 inside out for 5x7, might as well make it for 8x10 too. I have not bought yellow in 5x7 or 8x10 for a long while, there are about 90 sheets of 8x10 HP5 in my fridge right now.

I still buy yellow for 4x5, 120 and 35mm, but I do buy Ilford in those formats too.

My next concern is chemistry.

I use 95% Kodak chemistry.

I have found myself stocking up and keep a full case of: X-tol, Tmax RS, Dektol, D-76, Hypo Clear and Fixer at any give time.

As much as HP5 is a fine film, Kodak makes better chemistry (imho).

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Well, Helcio, there you go! Why is the demand for Kodak so low? Either the photographers are using Ilford, or else they've stocked up to the gills with a special order. Or maybe they're using x-ray film for 50 cents a sheet. Kodak is in business to make money, and requiring a special order is cheaper for Kodak than distributing through normal channels.

Money talks, and Kodak follows the money. When their film is 50% higher than the other brands, what will the majority of photographers purchase? The cheaper brand that's good enough, of course.

There aren't any high-volume users of 8x10 anymore, anywhere. How do I know? A special order is $15,000. At nearly $8 per sheet, that's 1,875 sheets. There are 52 weeks in the year, five working days per week, so 260 days. 1,875 sheets divided by 260 days comes to a tad over seven sheets per day.

Seven sheets per day. Nobody is using that much film. Not. One. Single. Person.

There isn't even a large enough group to do that, beyond the initial special order that went into a bunch of freezers. That's the level of film consumption for 8x10. My usage is a box or two a year, and I buy what's on the shelf locally because I can't store anything.

So there you go. It's all about volume.

Ouch! It's hard to read this....so harder because it's real.

I can remember a photographer in São Paulo, in the 80's, using 50 sheets of TX4x5" on a single subject...

[John Kasaian]

I've still got some old yeller in the freezer but i haven't shot any 8x10 Kodak in probably two years.
I can't afford it.
Ilford, Orwo and Foma get my biz.
I haven't used any Kodak papers in that time either, the eastern europeans supply all my paper now.
I still use some Kodak chemicals, but IMHO l can easily find replacements--its no biggie.

I wonder when Kodak will pull the plug on 5x7 film as well? 5x7 Tri-X is still available, right?

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak is only offering 8x10 B&W as a special order.

4x5 B&W isn't in "danger."...

I wouldn't be so sure. One shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. Kodak's continued existence as a corporate entity is far from probable. All the discontinuations (this round and earlier ones) seem like a well-planned winding down of the business.

While I've filled a freezer with lots of 5x7 and 100 sheets of 8x10 320TXP, that's mostly because the emulsion's characteristic curve is such a good match to the thousands of 8x10 Azo sheets I stockpiled years ago. Also, the retouchable back coating completely eliminates any concern about Newton's rings when contact printing.

Going forward, Ilford will be my main supplier. FP4 Plus is a fine film; I'm standardizing on it for 4x5, 5x7 and whole plate. Others might like Delta 100 better. Counting on Kodak to be around a year from now, still supplying TMY-2 or any other film, is placing one's eggs in a very shaky basket.