Let Kodak Know What You Think

[Frank Petronio]

Here's what they said:


Dear Frank,

Of course we want to hear from you and are sorry that you were unable to find our e-mail address on our website. I am doing some checking now into how we can make our contact information more accessible on the website.

In the interim, please let me know in what way we may be of assistance. We look forward to hearing from you.

And here is their email: Kodak Professional Traditional <kprotraditional@kodak.com>

My only word of advice is to be polite, articulate, and professional. And to the point. If you come off as a raving loon then your comments won't be taken seriously.

The discontinuation of 5x7 color neg and 8x10 Porta 400 prompted me to complain. It would be swell if they got a couple hundred more complaints about the same topic.

[Wade D]

My pet peeve is the loss of Plus-X in 4x5. I will ask them about it. Sure would like to have it back.

[Daniel Stone]

just sent my email asking for 8x10 and 5x7 sizes(5x7 by special order like the 160NC special orders)

hope to hear back soon.

Frank, thanks for posting the address!

cheers

-Dan

[Chris CS]

When did Kodak discontinue Portra 400nc in 8x10? ISO 400 makes more sense for 8x10 than it does 4x5, to me it's certainly more essential.

That's pretty upsetting news =\

[Chris CS]

Would be great if a couple of hundred people on here sent them an email and let Kodak know :) I just sent them this.

"Hi,

The discontinuation of Portra 400nc in 8x10 is a HUGE blow to photography as serious art. This film is essential to the practice of many artists and one now without replacement.

I do believe that there is currently a huge resurgence of interest in large format photography and for many new photographers an eventual transition to 8x10 is inevitable.

Large format photography in colour is not only increasingly common at universities, but in major museums and art galleries. The majority of which is shot on portra 160 or 400nc.

Besides this, I believe the Portra line offers Kodak priceless advertising and promotion thanks to artists such as Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Mitch Epstein, William Eggleston, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky and so on.

It is my opinion that cutting film at this time is a big mistake, and one I hope Kodak will reconsider."

[sun of sand]

kodak is polite, articulate and professional yet you cant find their email address
they still were in the response yet they are only now going to begin

checking into ways of making the information more accessible

it's just an email address, right?

why can't they say
you're right
we will get that fixed immediately
we are Kodak


if 350 letters going to change kodaks film production youd think the zillions of airtime minutes and columns and editorials speeches lectures courses campaigns laws blah blah blah denouncing it would have done something about violence

image is nothing thirst is everything obey your thirst -Sprite

[Frank Petronio]

I bet the reason they haven't published their direct contact info is because a lot of photographers are freaking nutjobs who send off 10,000 word Littmanesque rants about the discontinuation of some obscure stop bath formula from 1963. Wading through all their spam would consume a couple of jobs....

If 350 bonafide photographers wrote notes as clear and concise as Chris's then I think they would take notice.

[Daniel_Buck]

I wish that 8x10 tri-x was offered in 50-sheet boxes again. It's only offered in 10-sheet boxes now. Or at least, that's the way it was the last time I purchased tri-x. I've actually stopped using tri-x because of the annoyance of dealing with 10-sheet boxes.

Might sounds silly, but it was enough of annoyance for me to switch to another film. I'd switch back to tri-x if 50-sheet boxes were offered again, even though tri-x is more expensive than some other films.

[Oren Grad]

Don't send Kodak messages full of hot air about famous artists. If you want 8x10 color, tell them what Kodak 8x10 color product you buy, how you use it, why it's important to you and your work, and what its loss will mean to you.

Or whatever product you care about. Be specific about its impact on you.

[bvstaples]

Sent in my two centavos...I was very polite and professional, and even praised Kodak for not only making wonderful film(s) but for also considering the voice of the customer.

[feppe]

Don't send Kodak messages full of hot air about famous artists. If you want 8x10 color, tell them what Kodak 8x10 color product you buy, how you use it, why it's important to you and your work, and what its loss will mean to you.

Or whatever product you care about. Be specific about its impact on you.

I highlighted the only thing that matters when it comes to choosing which product lines to keep and kill. Everything else is irrelevant to them.

There is some value from big names promoting the Kodak brand, sure, but showing Kodak there's a real, sustainable demand for 8x10 is the only way to convince them to produce the sheets. Given they killed it already is a hint that they have already seen that there is no such demand, though, so custom bulk orders might be the only option if available.

[SAShruby]

I made a futile plea for Technical Pan in 4x5. If price per sheet on Ebay seems to hover around $3, they should know about it.

[feppe]

I made a futile plea for Technical Pan in 4x5. If price per sheet on Ebay seems to hover around $3, they should know about it.

Just because it sells for $3 on eBay doesn't mean it would sell at that price at financially sustainable quantities.

[Ken Lee]

I asked for TMY in 5x7, 50-sheet boxes.

I also mentioned that their b&w LF film prices compare unfavorably to other vendors.

[SAShruby]

Just because it sells for $3 on eBay doesn't mean it would sell at that price at financially sustainable quantities.

It will.

[Frank Petronio]

So it isn't impossible, we just need to band together to buy the stuff. And forums such as this one in particular would be the best way to organize a group buy.

Find thirty people who want to throw in $500 and you got your order. That's probably the volume of 8x10 Portra 400NC being shot per year on this forum right now.


Hi, Frank,

Unfortunately, the demand for 5x7 in color negative, as well as 8x10 in 400 specifically, have not been enough for us to offer these sizes on an ongoing basis. However, you might check with your dealer(s) of Kodak Professional products, like B&H Photo (800-947-9980) and Badger Graphics (ph. 920-766-9332), for them to work with their Kodak Professional Account Representative to see if they can put a special order together. The minimum order is generally about $15,000 worth of a particular product.

Please let us know if you have future questions on this or other of our Kodak Professional products.

Sincerely,

Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support

[Robert Fisher]

Frank, Canham already has a listing for group buys of Kodak film on his website. Jeff at Badger will duplicate the price.

FYI, a couple of weeks ago I had a difficult time finding enough buyers to fulfill Freestyle's mininum order for 250 sheets of cheap Efke 25 11x14 film but succeeded in the end.

[Frank Petronio]

Well yes... I am optimistic. But then all these fine cameras selling for peanuts languish in the For Sale section quite a while, it makes you wonder how many people who claim to shoot and are really just mucking around?

[Robert Fisher]

Frank, Freestyle/Efke require approx a $1,500 order for a special run - Kodak needs $15,000.

Kodak can go to Hades!

[Jan Pedersen]

Find thirty people who want to throw in $500 and you got your order. That's probably the volume of 8x10 Portra 400NC being shot per year on this forum right now.


There's still 8x10 400NC at the dealers so a group purchase would in my opinion be better if for the new emulsion.
I am in if we can get Badger to set it up.

[feppe]

It will.

Oh, my bad, I didn't know you work for Kodak.

[Brian C. Miller]

You guys do realize that Kodak may actually have a really low bar for producing a run of film in a specific size, right? I am guessing that the reason that they have discontinued 8x10 in 400 is that there was less than $15,000 sold last year. I don't think that $15,000 of product is an unreasonably high threshold. If there are fewer than 30 people in the world shooting $500 worth of it per year (50 lousy sheets), is it any wonder that the size has been discontinued?

I remember when Konica would produce runs of IR in 120. Oh, how we would anticipate the production run. Then Ilford started churning out IR 120, and Konica dropped its line. Kodak is the only company cutting color film in 8x10 at all, and the fact is that they will listen when money talks.

So pony up the money and start talking.

(And no, Kodak will never bring back TechPan. The equipment was scrapped. Yes, I do miss it, too.)

[Chris CS]

Don't send Kodak messages full of hot air about famous artists. If you want 8x10 color, tell them what Kodak 8x10 color product you buy, how you use it, why it's important to you and your work, and what its loss will mean to you.

Or whatever product you care about. Be specific about its impact on you.

Obviously everybody's gonna get the press-release-reply. At least a thought out letter might make it to a meeting. Most companies do care about what their customers think.

As far as 'hot air' goes, I said:

a) I need Portra 400nc to do the work I'm doing with my life. They're aware of why someone would need a faster film, especially with 8x10.

b) The artists I mentioned (and many others) need it. To me it would be a huge loss, just culturally if they couldn't work on film anymore.

c) Large format is defiantly gaining popularity. I'm suggesting it could be worth sticking it out, even if the numbers are slightly down right now.

d) I'd imagine at this time 400nc in 8x10 is almost exclusively used by photographers like those I mentioned. I do believe keeping that product around for them is great advertising for Kodak. Even if they're taking a slight loss. Which I doubt given the prices/sales volume.

My only hope is that Kodak 'recovers' from the vicious 'hot-air' attack they fell victim to. If not I fear they may discontinue the entire Portra line for spite alone.

Time to shoot some Portra. See ya later.

[SAShruby]

Oh, my bad, I didn't know you work for Kodak.

I don't need to work for Kodak. It's quite common knowledge that this film was the best Kodak ever made and it was best film ever made, and it was expensive even back in time. The demand for this film got hammered by production cost cheaper films, besides many other reasons.

You never know what Kodak can do in the future. If they hear there is a steady demand for the film, they'll make it. Hypotetically, if machines would be available, $15,000 order would be very easy to fulfill. I'd buy it for myself and stock up the freezer anytime.

And, on personal note, sarcasm won't get you anywhere either.

[John NYC]

So it isn't impossible, we just need to band together to buy the stuff. And forums such as this one in particular would be the best way to organize a group buy.

Find thirty people who want to throw in $500 and you got your order. That's probably the volume of 8x10 Portra 400NC being shot per year on this forum right now.

Maybe there should be a "group buy" forum section set up, to make it easier to organize (and for readers to find) when someone is trying to set one up?

John

[Ben Syverson]

John, that's a fantastic idea.

[feppe]

I don't need to work for Kodak. It's quite common knowledge that this film was the best Kodak ever made and it was best film ever made, and it was expensive even back in time. The demand for this film got hammered by production cost cheaper films, besides many other reasons.

You never know what Kodak can do in the future. If they hear there is a steady demand for the film, they'll make it. Hypotetically, if machines would be available, $15,000 order would be very easy to fulfill. I'd buy it for myself and stock up the freezer anytime.

And, on personal note, sarcasm won't get you anywhere either.

The fact that they dropped 8x10 speaks volumes about the business viability of the product, and the lack of steady demand for the film.

Just because something produces a profit doesn't mean doing it is a good business decision. Even if the machinery is available, it requires materials and man-hours to operate - ie. funds. And if those funds would a get higher return on investment (or economic value added if you want to get fancy) when put into, say, producing a new line of entry-level point and shoots, they will produce a new line of entry-level point and shoots.

Besides, a miniscule $15k run every year or so of a product where the engineers have moved to other projects complicates matters further - the machines might require extra maintenance due to lack of use, new calibration, the know-how might have been partly lost, and the engineers might be tied up on other tasks, causing disruption on other, perhaps more lucrative, projects. With this film it looks like it should be easy if all they have to do is custom-cut it, though.

On a personal note, neither do throw-away statements with no backing from basic business reasoning ;)

[Oren Grad]

Maybe there should be a "group buy" forum section set up, to make it easier to organize (and for readers to find) when someone is trying to set one up?

I third the motion. It's clear from following the message traffic here that sometimes these organizing efforts get lost in the blizzard of other threads and don't get seen by everyone who might be interested. A designated place would make it much easier to check for any open efforts and would reduce the chance that a potentially successful group buy will fail only for lack of awareness.

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe there should be a "group buy" forum section set up, to make it easier to organize (and for readers to find) when someone is trying to set one up?

John

Even better, everyone needs to shoot more film.

Steve

[SAShruby]

The fact that they dropped 8x10 speaks volumes about the business viability of the product, and the lack of steady demand for the film.

Just because something produces a profit doesn't mean doing it is a good business decision. Even if the machinery is available, it requires materials and man-hours to operate - ie. funds. And if those funds would a get higher return on investment (or economic value added if you want to get fancy) when put into, say, producing a new line of entry-level point and shoots, they will produce a new line of entry-level point and shoots.

Besides, a miniscule $15k run every year or so of a product where the engineers have moved to other projects complicates matters further - the machines might require extra maintenance due to lack of use, new calibration, the know-how might have been partly lost, and the engineers might be tied up on other tasks, causing disruption on other, perhaps more lucrative, projects. With this film it looks like it should be easy if all they have to do is custom-cut it, though.

On a personal note, neither do throw-away statements with no backing from basic business reasoning ;)

Rule number one in business is, if you make profit you run it until you can't. Portion of profits are invested in development of new products. However, this world is based on increased profit margins which most of the time goes against the quality of the next product. Also, businesses sometimes do make bad decisions and IMO, Kodak made one here.

I don't care what their cost is, it's their problem. Even their initial costs would be $500,000, they would still make money. This film stopped being profitable at time when they dropped it, but it doesn't mean it would be the same story today. Honestly, you know diddly squat about business.

I can make a statement with solid backing, I made my own conclusions about where the film business is. I`m not afraid to make a decision, while you`re trying to take no risk by making closing statement. It's so funny that there are many people with lot's of theories, but if it comes down to make decision, all they do is shitting their pants. Funny world.

Three years ago, there was a big gap in film business, especially for LF. Iflord filled it, they restructured into new company, and make film again. Kodak had a chance to sell their film business to investors but they asked too much. Bad for us. They really made some bad decisions over last 10 years. See http://quote.morningstar.com/Stock/s.aspx?t=EK (Select MAX option on graph to see where Kodak went)

Maybe they listened to you.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I still haven't gotten over the loss of their 4x5 IR. No one makes a film like theirs. How many of you would like to see a once-a-year run of that stuff? I know I would and would buys boxes of it.

[sun of sand]

I bet the reason they haven't published their direct contact info is because a lot of photographers are freaking nutjobs who send off 10,000 word Littmanesque rants about the discontinuation of some obscure stop bath formula from 1963. Wading through all their spam would consume a couple of jobs....

If 350 bonafide photographers wrote notes as clear and concise as Chris's then I think they would take notice.


I'd be more interested in the "nutjobs" desire for things that are now obselete as evidence pointing to where film photography still has potential
that might be more for the smaller company to fill in with niche products but really kodak could do the same if they wanted to

since kodak is only interested in and perhaps only equipped for the sale of massive amounts of everday photographic essentials
I think they'd know which products to keep and which to kill off

350 bonafide photographers?
Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Mitch Epstein, William Eggleston, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky and so on.
those types of guys would carry SOME weight
I'm sure they've heard from them

If they don't make it easy to contact them because of the ranting nuts
they must know the ranting nuts ideas dont help their business

I don't think you caan find 350 BONAFIDE photographers on LFF so theyd be worthless as well

"This film is essential to the practice"
If the practice itself is essential they wouldn't discontinue it
nobody discontinues soap

"I do believe that there is currently a huge resurgence of interest in large format photography and for many new photographers an eventual transition to 8x10 is inevitable"

that's not gonna work. I do believe? People believe in UFO's. Resurgence? I'm not sure kodak has the patience to keep losing money or not making enough of it to continue production based on a guys prediction of the &*#future^*# esp when digital is so apparent
Kodak would have to wait for this flush of LF bloom in 4x5 and then wait for SOME of those people to move to 8x10 and for only SOME of those people to choose color

"Large format photography in colour is not only increasingly common at universities, but in major museums and art galleries. The majority of which is shot on portra 160 or 400nc."

I'm sure they know if true as made to sound. I don't think they've been producing it hoping someone will like it and use it..they've been making it for the people they know will
Some of those people are probably dropping out.
They'd now have to wait on that LF bloom to make up for only the current losses they could count on before
what if they keep losing regulars?

"priceless advertising and promotion"
Kodak had nascar ..don't think it was a smashing success.
What are a few famous photographers going to do for their sales? majority of nascar watchers don't care
the people who do care about those artists
already do

"my opinion"
I'm sure they have opinions of their own backed up by current reality


I believe Kodak could still make ALL these products
satisfy the current user
the nutjobs desire for panatomic and azo
develop mo better products for the future participant

but they'd have to downsize
I don't think kings become princes ..they die off

[sun of sand]

Even their initial costs would be $500,000

not many are willing to spend even $10 to make $20
I'm not. I could sell stuff left and right on ebay and make a profit
but
im not doing that

theres gold in the ocean just waiting

[jnantz]

sorry to sound like a pessimist ;)

they want to know what we think ?

they declared film dead years ago ..
it seems that they are just waiting for
us to lose interest and move on, like the rest
of the world ...

[Rick Moore]

Maybe there should be a "group buy" forum section set up, to make it easier to organize (and for readers to find) when someone is trying to set one up?

John

I think it would be better to concentrate our efforts in one place. Keith Canham is already providing such a service, for no cost. He has quite a list of participating dealers and one deals directly with the dealers. All Keith provides is a clearing house of buying efforts in progress and the number of boxes/sheets for which a commitment has been made at the dealers.

However, Keith is handling this for Kodak film only at this time, so maybe an effort could be made for other brands here.



--
Rick

[SAShruby]

Response from Kodak...

Dear Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to let us know of your request to have us make Kodak Professional Technical Pan Film.

Unfortunately, sales of this niche product were very small when it was available and led to its discontinuance. We will not be reoffering this product, but hope that you are successful in using the Kodak Professional T-Max 100 Film for applications where Technical Pan Film had been used.

Please let us know if you have future questions on this or other of our Kodak Professional products.

Sincerely,

Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19

[Brian C. Miller]

Canham's Kodak order page (http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html)

Pay yer money, have some patience. Seriously, be glad that you aren't shooting 20x24 on Ektar. That's $1789 per box, $71.56 per sheet.

[John NYC]

I think it would be better to concentrate our efforts in one place. Keith Canham is already providing such a service, for no cost. He has quite a list of participating dealers and one deals directly with the dealers. All Keith provides is a clearing house of buying efforts in progress and the number of boxes/sheets for which a commitment has been made at the dealers.

However, Keith is handling this for Kodak film only at this time, so maybe an effort could be made for other brands here.



--
Rick

Whatever works. I assume you know already that he will be adding 8x10 Portra 400NC to his page?

Maybe Keith could update the page to show how close he is on each item?

[ric_kb]

I wonder how much film we shoot per year?
So even if we are 500 photographers with bones-for-fido, how large the market?

I shoot 8x10... returning to Pho a couple years ago to discover that my favorite films were defunct. I tried Ilford & Kodak. Picked Ilford since I felt them a safer supplier... & I wiped out the supply of my local (SF) dealers within two months.

This last year I've slowed down, but I still went through 90 boxes of film, though I doubt that many of us shoot much film. I have to buy from mail order and still have to dicker over prices even on these quantities....
---
Obviously glad I don't shoot color... ouch (re Brian's Ektar cost .. :) Heh, I get a whole box to play with for that)

[Frank Petronio]

Hahaha yep!



I'd be more interested in the "nutjobs" desire for things that are now obselete as evidence pointing to where film photography still has potential
that might be more for the smaller company to fill in with niche products but really kodak could do the same if they wanted to

since kodak is only interested in and perhaps only equipped for the sale of massive amounts of everday photographic essentials
I think they'd know which products to keep and which to kill off

350 bonafide photographers?
Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Mitch Epstein, William Eggleston, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky and so on.
those types of guys would carry SOME weight
I'm sure they've heard from them

If they don't make it easy to contact them because of the ranting nuts
they must know the ranting nuts ideas dont help their business

I don't think you caan find 350 BONAFIDE photographers on LFF so theyd be worthless as well

"This film is essential to the practice"
If the practice itself is essential they wouldn't discontinue it
nobody discontinues soap

"I do believe that there is currently a huge resurgence of interest in large format photography and for many new photographers an eventual transition to 8x10 is inevitable"

that's not gonna work. I do believe? People believe in UFO's. Resurgence? I'm not sure kodak has the patience to keep losing money or not making enough of it to continue production based on a guys prediction of the &*#future^*# esp when digital is so apparent
Kodak would have to wait for this flush of LF bloom in 4x5 and then wait for SOME of those people to move to 8x10 and for only SOME of those people to choose color

"Large format photography in colour is not only increasingly common at universities, but in major museums and art galleries. The majority of which is shot on portra 160 or 400nc."

I'm sure they know if true as made to sound. I don't think they've been producing it hoping someone will like it and use it..they've been making it for the people they know will
Some of those people are probably dropping out.
They'd now have to wait on that LF bloom to make up for only the current losses they could count on before
what if they keep losing regulars?

"priceless advertising and promotion"
Kodak had nascar ..don't think it was a smashing success.
What are a few famous photographers going to do for their sales? majority of nascar watchers don't care
the people who do care about those artists
already do

"my opinion"
I'm sure they have opinions of their own backed up by current reality


I believe Kodak could still make ALL these products
satisfy the current user
the nutjobs desire for panatomic and azo
develop mo better products for the future participant

but they'd have to downsize
I don't think kings become princes ..they die off

[feppe]

Rule number one in business is, if you make profit you run it until you can't.

Completely false.

Simplified example: a girl sells lemonade with sugar at 1 EUR a pop at 20% margin and is happy with that. Then she hears about artificial sweeteners which are cheaper, and are indistinguishable from sugar; lemonade made with them is at 30% margin! She'd be a fool for not using the artificial sweetener. She could even cut her selling price, thus likely improving her revenue along with a higher margin, making it even more profitable to switch.

To re-iterate: lemonade with sugar remains profitable, but there is an even more profitable option available, so the producer will switch to the more profitable option. That's probably what's happening with Kodak: it very well might be that 8x10 is profitable, but there are more profitable options elsewhere in their business for the time, materials and funds needed for it.

The initial investment in R&D and machinery has been paid out probably years, if not decades ago, so that's also not an issue. They can stop the machines, dismantle them, sell them for scrap metal, and use the space for more profitable business.

Also, the ad hominems don't help the debate.

[prado333]

you can buy now online in www.bhphotovideo.com at least 120 boxes of kodak 400
¿whats the problem?

[SAShruby]

Ad hominem tu quoque.

[Rick Moore]

Whatever works. I assume you know already that he will be adding 8x10 Portra 400NC to his page?

Maybe Keith could update the page to show how close he is on each item?

Of course I don't know the answer to your question. This discussion only started a couple of days ago. However, I see nothing that indicates he wouldn't do so if requested.

I believe the status is being updated. The 16x20 TriX order needs 17 more boxes as of three days ago, so someone is updating the totals. Keeping this information up to date requires that the dealers notify Canham of the pre-order quantities they receive. It's in their interest to do so, because if the minimum quantity is not achieved, they do not get that business.

I did not mean to sound critical. I was just suggesting we use an existing mechanism to avoid diluting our purchasing power. If people prefer to do it here, fine.


--
Rick

[John NYC]

you can buy now online in www.bhphotovideo.com at least 120 boxes of kodak 400
¿whats the problem?

Not everyone is going to be able to afford to buy themselves a 5 year supply right now at $100 a box. And because of that, they are lamenting that it will not be available in the future when they want to buy it.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Got a prompt reply from Kodak:


Dear Andrew,
Thank you for contacting us for information on the availability of Kodak sheet film.
Unfortunately, the Kodak High Speed Infrared Film was discontinued due to a lack of interest from photographers based on the sales (or lack thereof) for it. Even limiting the number of runs of production, demand was not enough for us to continue to offer it. We do not have plans to resurrect this product. The closest I have heard of is from Maco Photo out of Germany that goes to about 800nm (ours went to about 900nm).
Although the Kodak Professional T-Max 400 Film is only available in 10-sheet boxes, you might check with your dealer(s) of Kodak Professional products, like B&H Photo (800-947-9980) and Badger Graphics (ph. 920-766-9332), for them to work with their Kodak Professional Account Representative to see if they can put a special order together.
Please let us know if you have future questions on this or other of our Kodak Professional products.
Sincerely,
Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19

[Brian C. Miller]

What are you guys going to write to Kodak about next? Panatomic-X? Super-XX? Kodachrome in 4x5? How about bringing back B&W paper production?

You know these aren't coming back.
(I stocked up on 4x5 HIE.)

[Sirius Glass]

you can buy now online in www.bhphotovideo.com at least 120 boxes of kodak 400
¿whats the problem?

NC I am not concerned about. The new product will be like NC. I wanted 400 VC in 4x5. Even more UC 400 in 4x5!

Steve

[patrickjames]

At this point, while I understand people's consternation, I am just glad there is still film to shoot. It is unfortunate when a film gets discontinued. I almost had a coronary when AGFA went out of business since every film/chemical/paper I used at the time was AGFA. I adapted.

And Frank, since you change cameras with the same frequency as some people change underwear, you will forget all about the discontinuation of 5x7 soon enough. Onwards and upwards as they say.

[Frank Petronio]

Whoa, photographers change their underwear?

Yeah I am quite promiscuous, luckily cameras don't spread diseases. They do, however, clean out your wallet just like a....

(And I'll admit, as good as 8x10 Portra 400NC was, it was too damn expensive to shoot exclusively.)

[Chris CS]

I'd be more interested in the "nutjobs" desire for things that are now obselete as evidence pointing to where film photography still has potential
that might be more for the smaller company to fill in with niche products but really kodak could do the same if they wanted to

since kodak is only interested in and perhaps only equipped for the sale of massive amounts of everday photographic essentials
I think they'd know which products to keep and which to kill off

350 bonafide photographers?
Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, Mitch Epstein, William Eggleston, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky and so on.
those types of guys would carry SOME weight
I'm sure they've heard from them

If they don't make it easy to contact them because of the ranting nuts
they must know the ranting nuts ideas dont help their business

I don't think you caan find 350 BONAFIDE photographers on LFF so theyd be worthless as well

"This film is essential to the practice"
If the practice itself is essential they wouldn't discontinue it
nobody discontinues soap

"I do believe that there is currently a huge resurgence of interest in large format photography and for many new photographers an eventual transition to 8x10 is inevitable"

that's not gonna work. I do believe? People believe in UFO's. Resurgence? I'm not sure kodak has the patience to keep losing money or not making enough of it to continue production based on a guys prediction of the &*#future^*# esp when digital is so apparent
Kodak would have to wait for this flush of LF bloom in 4x5 and then wait for SOME of those people to move to 8x10 and for only SOME of those people to choose color

"Large format photography in colour is not only increasingly common at universities, but in major museums and art galleries. The majority of which is shot on portra 160 or 400nc."

I'm sure they know if true as made to sound. I don't think they've been producing it hoping someone will like it and use it..they've been making it for the people they know will
Some of those people are probably dropping out.
They'd now have to wait on that LF bloom to make up for only the current losses they could count on before
what if they keep losing regulars?

"priceless advertising and promotion"
Kodak had nascar ..don't think it was a smashing success.
What are a few famous photographers going to do for their sales? majority of nascar watchers don't care
the people who do care about those artists
already do

"my opinion"
I'm sure they have opinions of their own backed up by current reality


I believe Kodak could still make ALL these products
satisfy the current user
the nutjobs desire for panatomic and azo
develop mo better products for the future participant

but they'd have to downsize
I don't think kings become princes ..they die off

Frank made a thread suggesting those concerned might want to send an email while the issue's current. I spent fives minutes typing one, sent it and they replied. I posted it to give Frank's thread some support or somebody else emailing an idea.

After that point, I can't imagine what you hoped to gain from the barely literate, incoherent, rambling mess you posted. All that comes across is your failure to appear clever. What your agenda or actual opinion is lost in a haze of arrogance and run on sentences.

If photography's a hobby for you, and you don't use the film in question why get involved at all?

[Michael Kadillak]

I have spent considerable time speaking directly to Kodak management about the issue of 8x10 sheets and 50 sheet boxes and without getting into the gritty details I have come to the conclusion that while it would be easy to toss TMY to the curb along with Kodak, it would be foolish to do so. There is a reason that this request is not getting traction but it is still available. The costs would go up for 50 sheet boxes for legitimate reasons so what is accomplished?

The new T Max 400 has the longest density building character of any sheet film in the market, is blazingly sharp, has the best reciprocity correction characteristics and has impeccable quality control.

As a result, I will be feeding the numerous old 50 sheet boxes with the 10 sheet packets in large quantities as the alternatives while less costly, just do not have the same consistent zip for me.

[Michael Kadillak]

if you want to evaluate another variable in this equation, take a look at the cost of silver that has been rising.

[Deepanshu]

My pet peeve is the loss of Plus-X in 4x5. I will ask them about it. Sure would like to have it back.