Just Thinking...

[Andrew O'Neill]

I still find it odd that Kodak pulled all its b/w paper from the market. I really did like their polymax fine art papers. Would it really have hurt them to have kept a fibre and an RC version of at least one type of b/w paper? The recent survey they are conducting on film/digital usage just got me thinking and hoping that maybe they are thinking that they made a big mistake by backing a bit out of the traditional market. Well, that's probably me being overly optomistic.

[Brian Ellis]

If it wasn't profitable to produce an entire line of different papers it's hard to see how producing only one type would help matters. They'd presumably have pretty much the same overhead/fixed costs to run the factory as they had before but the costs would be spread over fewer products and lower revenues. I'd be surprised if they're rethinking their decision, Kodak may not even own the factory and equipment any more and even if they do still own it, getting it out of mothballs and up and running again might be costly.

[Marko]

I'd be more inclined to think that if they are rethinking anything it might only be further production of film.

[Dick Hilker]

Those of us who continue to shoot with film and print digitally will probably provide sufficient volume to make the production of film at least marginally profitable for Kodak and Fuji, but I sense optical printing's relegation to niche status before very long.

Except for a diminshing number of sentimental purists, the numerous advantages of digital printing and the popularity of the internet as a distribution channel for images have pretty much transformed prints painstakingly crafted in a darkroom to the status of an historical curiosity.

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a good thing, but it is an "inconvenient truth" about the photographic industry.

[Nick_3536]

The film is likely produced for the movie industry. The rest of us are just rounding errors.

B&W paper had a fairly small market for the last 30? years. I guess they could have kept the RA-4 B&W paper but how many people use that either?

[MIke Sherck]

My feeling is that Kodak's dropping of paper is a very specific hint to the rest of us: as soon as they find a better place to put their money, film will follow. They stopped making paper when the necessity for new investment no longer guaranteed a certain level of income from its sale. We still have film only because no new investment in making film is required. When such an investment is needed, film will also probably be cut. A need for investment could be plant & machinery wearing out, a need to replace a material from a supplier, etc.

Economists tell us that this is natural and healthy for a capitalistic corporation, and in real life it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise: Kodak's managers would be foolish indeed to let the company go out of business because they insisted on selling a product but couldn't sell enough of it to pay their bills! On the other hand, it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once it's obvious that as an organization, Kodak has no incentive to continue producing the products I depend on, I'll switch my purchasing to vendors (i.e., Ilford,) who have indicated an interest in continuing to produce them.

My few boxes of film and paper won't make much difference to anyone, most likely. Still, the sort of "rational consumer" assumed by economists doesn't really exist (one of the reasons I ended up veering away from an economics degree: like all of the soft sciences, as soon as you start questioning the assumptions they don't want anything to do with you. Heretic!) I'm a human being and an emotional one at that. I support those folks who support me: the folks behind Ilford have invested their own skin in keeping film and paper products available and that pleases me on a very self-interested level. I'll happily use their products over those of Kodak.

Mike

[Alan Davenport]

My feeling is that Kodak's dropping of paper is a very specific hint to the rest of us: as soon as they find a better place to put their money, film will follow.

It sounds like you see this the same as I do. Publicly traded companies such as Kodak are not run by people with warm feelings toward the consumer; they are run by cold-hearted bean counters who spend all of their days analyzing the ROI for various schemes. When they tell the board it will make more money for the shareholders to drop film in favor of something else, the board will not consider the needs and desires of the consumers over the shareholders: they'll go with the highest ROI. They'll drop film, and the announcement will come later.

The consumer still photo market has already gone almost entirely digital. The movie industry is going digital. Soon there won't be any rounding errors left.

[Gordon Moat]

The photographic paper Kodak dropped was their B/W selections. They still make RA-4 process papers, including one that supposedly works better for B/W images.

It would help people to read up on the television and movie industries. Film is even used in many primetime television shows. The advantage is future proofing content for later emerging higher definition televisions. Read enough industry reports, and you will find the HD is a fast dead end now becoming consumer technology. Using 4k systems is quite expensive on many levels. While a few big names are pushing digital cinema, they are the minority.

Film still generates a healthy profit margin for Kodak. Consider that Dwaynes still processes around 1000 rolls per day of Kodachrome, which is a niche product, and even that small production generates profits for Kodak.

Rather than worry about doomsday, step back and look at some realities. Even today, long after the failure of AGFA Photo, one can still buy new rolls of APX100. If film production stopped tomorrow, you will have a few years to consider what to do next. Why trouble yourself speculating? Just use what is available today, find alternatives that you like using, then get out the cameras and use what you find.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Bruce Watson]

If film production stopped tomorrow, you will have a few years to consider what to do next. Why trouble yourself speculating? Just use what is available today, find alternatives that you like using, then get out the cameras and use what you find.

Exactly Gordon -- what's the point of worrying about this? If y'all really want to help the future of film, go out and shoot some film. Do your part to maintain demand for the product.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Rather than worry about doomsday, step back and look at some realities.

Who's worried about doomsday??