More Kodak rationalisation

[tim atherton]

After they announced no more 50sht boxes of Tri-X (I think it was? I couldn't find the recent post on that) - which was mildly annoying, it looks like Kodak is doing more rationalisation of their film product line again. Lots of 35mm and 120 films will only be available in pro packs, not singly, and it looks like E100VS will only be in 10sht boxes in 4x5 and it appears not in 8x10 at all (that latter is a little hard to tell from what I read?)

Mind you, does anyone actually use E100VS in 8x10?

[Dave Parker]

I used to use E100VS in 8x10 quite a bit for fall color shots, it was a decent film for this type of work, but have not since I have sold my last 8x10 camera.

Dave

[Gordon Moat]

I heard a preview to this from a few sources several months ago. Seems that stores that stocked film were complaining a bit about sales of individual rolls, and waste (out dated - mostly). Just a guess, but I think this might actually help film stores.

Does anyone think smaller boxes of film will sell better? The cost per box is then lower, though I don't know how people will react to that. They could always change back in the event it doesn't seem to work. Regardless, Readyloads are still 20 shots to a box.

Maybe Fujifilm will follow this lead. They also do Quickloads at 20 per box. Anyway, look at how long it took before the old Tungsten transparency film stock was depleted, and then finally a slow release of the new Tungsten transparency film (which I still have not tried out yet).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[vinny]

Mind you, does anyone actually use E100VS in 8x10?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Only because i got an expired 50 sheet box for $22. It's nice stuff for some things but i still prefer velveeta.

[John Kasaian]

Tim,
What bizarre behavior! It reminds me of Pan American selling off it's most profitable routes in order to stay in business.
Do you have a link to Kodak's announcement?

[tim atherton]

I couldn't find a link on the Kodak site, but there's a blurry jpeg of the dealer letter here...:

http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=287

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I also use E100VS in 8X10- if they discontinue it, with 8X10 Velvetta being very hard to find, I won't be a happy camper...

[tim atherton]

I also use E100VS in 8X10- if they discontinue it, with 8X10 Velvetta being very hard to find, I won't be a happy camper...

they are discontinuing it in 8x10 in 10 sheet boxes (and 50sht boxes in 4x5 - leaving only 10 sht 4x5 boxes) - did/do they sell it in any other package size? If not, then it seems to be that it's gone in 8x10?

[JPlomley]

Micheal Fatalli will not be happy. He also uses E100VS in 8x10.

Shame about the loss of the 50 sheet pack. It will now be a PITA having to open fives boxes just to consolidate them into a more portable 50 sheet box. Hey, maybe I can sell my empty E100VS 50 sheet boxes for a nice profit.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Maybe Fujifilm will follow this lead. They also do Quickloads at 20 per box. Anyway, look at how long it took before the old Tungsten transparency film stock was depleted, and then finally a slow release of the new Tungsten transparency film (which I still have not tried out yet)...Don't waste your time trying out T64 -- see this thread for the details:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kqm5

Even though it's grainier and not available in READYLOAD packaging, I've switched to Kodak EPY. I'm not satisfied with 120 and must load 4x5 holders, but EPY's perfect color is worth it. Kodak might experience a small resurgence by virtue of Fuji's default.

[SamReeves]

It doesn't surprise me. The Kodak catalog continues to shrink down. :(

[John Kasaian]

In all fairness to Kodak, I've got to wonder if anyone in thier marketing division even shoots sheet film.

[Michael Kadillak]

In all fairness to Kodak, I've got to wonder if anyone in thier marketing division even shoots sheet film.

The answer is "yes" many times over. I can tell you that it is terribly difficult for these dedicated Kodak employees to read the myriad of posts from highly intellligent LF/ULF photographers that for some reason seem to need to speculate and "vent" with absolutely no facts or foundation to support these statements. I am at a loss to try to explain why?

There will be continued product consolidation in an industry that is desperately attempting to align itself for the future of analog. Two things you can do. First, get over it. All of the belly aching in the world will not solve the problem. All you do is bring others down to your narrow minded view of the world and we surely do not need that. Secondly regularly purchase as much of your favorite emulsion as you can.

Smile. We have it very good.

[Turner Reich]

Kodak stated another profit loss today.

[John Kasaian]

The answer is "yes" many times over. I can tell you that it is terribly difficult for these dedicated Kodak employees to read the myriad of posts from highly intellligent LF/ULF photographers that for some reason seem to need to speculate and "vent" with absolutely no facts or foundation to support these statements. I am at a loss to try to explain why?

There will be continued product consolidation in an industry that is desperately attempting to align itself for the future of analog. Two things you can do. First, get over it. All of the belly aching in the world will not solve the problem. All you do is bring others down to your narrow minded view of the world and we surely do not need that. Secondly regularly purchase as much of your favorite emulsion as you can.

Smile. We have it very good.

Yes, we do have it pretty good and and I agree that product consolidation is inevitable and when I break the seal on a beautiful yellow 50 sheet box of TXP or TMY I'll order another from Badger Graphic so there is always plenty of film in the deep freeze. Yes, I can expect film to continually rise in price (hopefully not too fast) but no one has yet to explain adequately what selling only 10 sheet boxes of B&W film is expected to accomplish? I can see that it would motivate more people to test drive the new TMY, which would be a good thing, but outside of that....?
When Kodak abandoned 25 sheet boxes, I felt that they had priced themselves outside my budget at the time. Eventually I bit the bullet and started buying 50 sheet boxes (and what was that change about? If it was to control the cost of packaging it worked well since Kodak and it's cross pond rival Ilford cost the same) mainly becasue TMY is such good stuff. Yes, I "got over" the loss of 25 sheet boxes---but what is the reason for 10 sheet boxes? If Kodak is trying to align it's self with the future of "analog" photography how exactly do 10 sheet boxes fit into the scheme? Cutting unprofitable products from the line up I understand. Selling less product per unit and making it more inconvenient and costly for the consumer in terms of increased packaging and shipping costs to boot is something I don't understand.

I like and use Kodak products, and the people at Kodak whom I've talked with have been just great. I want to see Kodak recover from it's hard times and show my support by shooting TXP and TMY and souping them in D-76, but I am concerned by seemingly absurd corporate behavior that I suspect is just as, if not more counter productive to Kodak's well being as being publicly vilified by a few vocal critics for removing unprofitable products from the catalog.

Pardon me if I am being dense, but I just don't comprehend this.

[Capocheny]

Tim,
What bizarre behavior! It reminds me of Pan American selling off it's most profitable routes in order to stay in business.
Do you have a link to Kodak's announcement?

LOL... sounds like they have the same philosophy as many governmental organizations!

Anyone want to buy a flat-head screw for $10 per piece? :)

Cheers

[Dave Henry]

Well said Michael. Let's all stop the bashing and whining. Write a letter to the company if you have a complaint. Nobody here can make those decisions.

[tim atherton]

Well said Michael. Let's all stop the bashing and whining. Write a letter to the company if you have a complaint. Nobody here can make those decisions.

ahh yes - let's not talk about it on a "dsicussion list"... maybe in case it's badd juju or something...?

Meanwhile, I wonder what the cost of those 10 sheet boxes of Tri-X etc is going to be? My guess is somewhat more than $28.00 or a so a box?

[Michael Kadillak]

Meanwhile, I wonder what the cost of those 10 sheet boxes of Tri-X etc is going to be? My guess is somewhat more than $28.00 or a so a box?

How about considering this alternative course of action?

We are patient until the industry posts a price for a 10 sheet box of Kodak sheet film.

In the short term we give Kodak a one time pass on this subject because they did in fact make a sizeable investment in R&D for B&W film that was a first in a very long time.

After the dust has settled we put together a consortium of sheet film users that would like an adjustment to this condition and we get Kodak to make the change.

I personally do not see a problem. I see opportunity.

Cheers!

[tim atherton]

How about considering this alternative course of action?

We are patient until the industry posts a price for a 10 sheet box of Kodak sheet film.

In the short term we give Kodak a one time pass on this subject because they did in fact make a sizeable investment in R&D for B&W film that was a first in a very long time.

After the dust has settled we put together a consortium of sheet film users that would like an adjustment to this condition and we get Kodak to make the change.

I personally do not see a problem. I see opportunity.

Cheers!

I'm not quite sure I understand the rationale? They are taking their existing products (i.e. Tri-X) and reducing the package size from 50 sheets to 10 sheets.

Based on their existing pricing model, their price per sheet of 10 sheet boxes is around 20% to 25% more than 50 sheet boxes. So the price of such existing may or may not increase by about that amount - my guess is it will.

In the meantime, price aside, it also make things more inconvenient for their customers. Schlepping 10 or 15 8x10 boxes of film around is much more of a pain in the ass than 2 or 3 50 sheet boxes - for example.

And the suggestion is that rather than complaining to Kodak now, we wait until all the changes have been made and completed and then try and initiate a change back?

That sounds even more pointless, surely? Why would such a consortium (I'm not exactly clear who that would be?) not act now? Tri-X users of the world unite...?

[Michael Kadillak]

I'm not quite sure I understand the rationale? They are taking their existing products (i.e. Tri-X) and reducing the package size from 50 sheets to 10 sheets.

Based on their existing pricing model, their price per sheet of 10 sheet boxes is around 20% to 25% more than 50 sheet boxes. So the price of such existing may or may not increase by about that amount - my guess is it will.

In the meantime, price aside, it also make things more inconvenient for their customers. Schlepping 10 or 15 8x10 boxes of film around is much more of a pain in the ass than 2 or 3 50 sheet boxes - for example.

And the suggestion is that rather than complaining to Kodak now, we wait until all the changes have been made and completed and then try and initiate a change back?

That sounds even more pointless, surely? Why would such a consortium (I'm not exactly clear who that would be?) not act now? Tri-X users of the world unite...?

With all due respect as a long term good guy Tim here is what I see.

Good bad or indifferent please accept the fact that Kodak has made a business decision on the number of sheets per box because it has been posted factually on their web site. I am not even going to go through the Kodak rational for doing so simply because at this juncture it is what it is.

This is a business decision and in business I have learned many times over the years that you are never going to get anywhere attempting to turn the horse around before it has left the barn. Once the horse is free of the wooden structure then it is about two variables - timing and presentation to get things changed.

I define my objective as a LF/ULF photographer as having high quality sheet film upon which to produce my negatives. While the packaging scenario is far less than optimal for us and 99% of the people that we interact with, I accept it because the packaging is secondary to film it contains. The price is what it is. I am going to pay the price because I need the film to attain my objective and the packaging is not that costly as Kodak buys in bulk. If the price bothers you there are always going to be more cost effective alternatives. My solution is likely to put 5 10 sheet packets inside a number of old 50 sheet boxes and get on down the road.

A quality thoughtful presentation of the case to change is also incredibly effective in illiciting the desired outcome. Reminds me of the old Bill Cosby story of the worlds best steak served on an upside down garbage can lid. No matter how hungry you are for steak, you are drawn back to the image of what the steak is sitting on. One timely thoughtful presentation to the correct Kodak representative is a thousand of times more effective than 100 independently generated e-mails. We can put together a campaign to change the packaging at some point in the not to distant future when the timing is right.

Cheers!

[steve simmons]

Scott Disabato, the Kodak product manager for film, is usually very receptive to input from consumers. He is the one who took the requests not to put the UV coating on the new T-Max 400 sheet film. He listened and worked in our behalf.

Scott is always at the View Camera conferences and almst certainly will be at foto3 this year. Come to the trade show, you do not have to buy a ticket and the trade show is free, and talk to him.

Bitching and pontificating probably won't accomplish much. Direct contact in a civil and professional manner just might.

steve simmons

[Joseph O'Neil]

My view is this on sheet film - purchases are likely one extreme or another. There are people who only buy a 10 or 25 sheet box and hardly go through it in a year, and then there's nuthouses like me who will burn up 200 or 300 sheets of 4x5 in a year and cannot stand the idea of all these little boxes.

I suppose then from a business perspective, the best two sizes to offer sheet film in is 10 or 100. :)

[Michael Kadillak]

Scott Disabato, the Kodak product manager for film, is usually very receptive to input from consumers. He is the one who took the requests not to put the UV coating on the new T-Max 400 sheet film. He listened and worked in our behalf.

Scott is always at the View Camera conferences and almst certainly will be at foto3 this year. Come to the trade show, you do not have to buy a ticket and the trade show is free, and talk to him.

Bitching and pontificating probably won't accomplish much. Direct contact in a civil and professional manner just might.

steve simmons

Very well said Steve. I see Foto3 as a major event that should be an over the top success that everyone should attend and encourage as many others to do so as well.

Cheers!

[steve simmons]

Thanks Michael.

If people are unable to attend foto3 and would like to send e-mails to me to pass along to my contacts at Kodak regarding this, or any other issue, please do so.

thanks

steve simmons
largformat@aol.com

[David A. Goldfarb]

I met Scott DiSabato at PMA last year and agree that he's a very helpful contact to have at Kodak, and is very much aware of our interests. He specifically mentioned the ULF special orders without any prompting as a positive development on the sheet film end of things.

[CG]

I'm guessing that for any mfr like Kodak, it costs to have 10 sheet and 25 sheet and 50 sheet and 100 sheet boxes all available, and that it will be better business for them to avoid having too many variations on the same thing.

I doubt they can any longer afford to cater to my every whim.

C

[Rory_5244]

I'm late to the party, but I'm crestfallen that my staple film in 8x10, E100VS, has been discontinued in the 8x10 format. Fuji Velvia 8x10 is really expensive by comparison. At least I've got 50 sheets of the original Velvia 50 in the freezer.

[Gene McCluney]

It would be nice if a compromise could be made, such as packing 5, 10sheet packs into a larger box to make 50 sheets, just like they have done for years packing 2, 25 sheet packs together for a 50, or 4, 25 sheet packs for a box of 100.

[venchka]

I suppose one could play the "Green Card", enviornmental awareness, not Fujifilm as a rival. Surely it is worse to have 5 10 sheet boxes to load with film, ship, store in a camera shop and ultimately dispose of. The 25 sheet boxes we have had for years seem odd for sure. Why not 24 or 26 sheets? Are there any single sheet holders out there?

I can't be at foto3. Steve, and all in attendance, please talk to Scott from Kodak. 10 sheet boxes of B&W film seem like the wrong idea for a number of reasons. Can you also make a pitch to return 135 Tri-X 400 in 100' rolls? Perhaps on a special order basis like some of the ULF film sizes?

[John Kasaian]

The last time I looked, Badger Graphic stocked 10 and 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 TXP. Thats a good thing, right? Someone who wants to test drive 8x10 TXP, or someone who dosen't shoot much 8x10 can buy those itty-bittys while addicts like me can get a decent 50 sheet fix :)

[Gene McCluney]

The last time I looked, Badger Graphic stocked 10 and 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 TXP. Thats a good thing, right? Someone who wants to test drive 8x10 TXP, or someone who dosen't shoot much 8x10 can buy those itty-bittys while addicts like me can get a decent 50 sheet fix :)


While there are probably a lot of dealers that still have stock of the 50 sheet boxes, it seems Kodak is trending towards only offering 10 sheet boxes in 8x10.

[Anthony Lewis]

I've never understood 10 sheet boxes at all - it is just too small. In Australia I can only get Kodak in 10 sheet boxes - for many years. So I buy directly from Badger in 50 sheet boxes at half the price. Does anyone in the world actually buy 10 sheet boxes? I don't see the point.

So if Kodak wants to consolidate wouldn't they drop the 10 sheet boxes and only sell the 50 sheet boxes? To me that would be more logical if they want savings, but only they can answer that.

[Sal Santamaura]

The last time I looked, Badger Graphic stocked 10 and 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 TXP...


...So I buy directly from Badger in 50 sheet boxes at half the price. Does anyone in the world actually buy 10 sheet boxes?...
As of today, Badger only lists 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 black and white Kodak sheet film:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=203

Apparently Jeff sold out of his existing 50-sheet stock. So, from this point forward, unless there's another retailer that still has older stock to sell, the only people in the world who will buy 10-sheet boxes of those three Kodak 8x10 films (TMX, TMY, TXP) are those who want to buy some. :)

Michael Kadillak has posted that the upcoming TMY special size offerings will be 25-sheet boxes, but the program won't include 8x10, which is a stock item in 10-sheet boxes.

[Rory_5244]

Looks like I may be downsizing to 4x5 by force. Good thing I didn't procrastinate about purchasing a 50 sheet box of TXP.

[Michael Kadillak]

Does anyone in the world actually buy 10 sheet boxes? I don't see the point.

So if Kodak wants to consolidate wouldn't they drop the 10 sheet boxes and only sell the 50 sheet boxes? To me that would be more logical if they want savings, but only they can answer that.

This subject continues to come up where many individuals want to play CEO and CFO with the domain of corporate photography with no experience or business perspective but as they want to see it. The reason that you do not see the point is because you are only looking at this subject as a photographer from your personal point of view which is but one small sliver of a very broad and dimensional subject.

Yes, the executives at Kodak studied this subject and determined that in order to grow this business they had to re-introduce themselves to an entire group of possible customers that are coming down the pike and sell them on using SHEET film as a viable alternative to their other choices of visual expression from an esthetic and technical perspective. Price point is a serious consideration for getting the attention of and actually growing an incremental market segment (people that have never purchased sheet film previously). Remember the extensive customer survey that Kodak was passing around a while back? Well they did this for a specific reason to understand the market, qualify the growth potential, differentiate themselves from their competition and set new realistic financial goals for the corporation and their shareholders. Bottom line is that Kodak is looking at this virtually as a brand new enterprise and they have to sell it from the bottom up. That is why they improved the emulsion and ran an add compaign. To take it personally because we are already at the top of this business segmentation is not fair to a company that is seriously trying to succeed for the long term. I try to continue to remind people that the objective is the film and the challenges facing all of us is to have access to it long term. That is where the buck stops for me.

Packaging costs virtually NOTHING in the bigger scheme of things. I don't know where this idea of phantom cost saving costs driving a corporate decision comes from.

If the number of sheets per box is causing you such angst, use your rights in a free market economy and purchase other film and go make some photographs.

I am not in any way shape or form saying that the current situation is anywhere near optimal because it is not. But I chose to look at the process pragmatically as a journey not a destination defined by what happened today. Once Kodak shows the growth they anticipate, things will improve. The only thing that matters is the print.

Cheers!