PDA

View Full Version : The future of Kodak film?



Stephen Willard
30-Jan-2011, 22:59
I have just read a very bad thread on this site about Kodak’s recent losses, and I am trying to figure out what action I should take as a LF photographer who uses both color and b&w Kodak films.

The thread is at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=71552

In a worse case scenario, if Kodak should announce it is shutting down its film production, I believe I will have 1-6 months notice to decide if I want to secure a life time supply of film. However, if I should make such a purchase, but cannot buy the chemistry I need to process it, then what good is it.

With that in mind, I have heard that Kodak chemistry is no longer owned or made by Kodak, but rather some other company that is using Kodak’s name. If this is true, then does anyone know the name of the company that makes the Kodak chemistry? Does any one know if this company is profitable? If the company is profitable, then I would be more inclined to invest in a large purchase of film.

Daniel Stone
30-Jan-2011, 23:20
buy what you can afford, or choose to buy what you want on credit. But just remember, you have to pay it off ;).

Personally, I've become quite content with Efke 100 and FP4+ for b/w work, and some smatterings of Tri-X(well, Arista Premium 400, same thing, just different clothes) thrown in for good measure.

B/W Film developer(Pyro-HD in my case) is capable of being scratch-mixed, I use the Photographer's Formulary glycol kit for ease of use, and my paper developer(Amidol, MAS formula) is scratch mixed by myself before every printing session.

Kodak hasn't actually "made" chemistry for a while know IIRC, they handed the reigns off to CHAMPION Chemicals I believe a # of years ago. So far so good. I'm stockpiling Selenium Toner(KRST), basically, whenever I go to buy a bottle, I buy two or three :). Nothing beats being out of selenium toner when you need it!

Moreover, seeing that Kodak has just released 2 new films in the past 3 years(Ektar 100 and Porta 400), I doubt if they're looking to jump ship, especially since they probably haven't even recovered their R&D budget yet for those two emulsions. But if you can, stockpile your favorite films as much as possible, put em on ice(in the freezer), and rotate your stock as you shoot through it.

Fuji-(Hunt Chemicals Corp actually) makes C-41 and E-6 chemistry, damn fine chems if you ask me, and there are other small outfits out there making c-41 and e-6 chems as well. B&W formulas are pretty easy to scratch-mix, the formulas are generally pretty well known industry-wide, but if you're not into that thing, buy up while you can.

So basically, if you're paranoid, stock up NOW. Film prices to the best of my knowledge WON'T be going down anytime soon(if ever, wish they would), buy what you can afford while its available, and plan for as long or longer than you'll think you'll need your materials.

I've decided to take on an extra job just to help fund this little endeavor of mine :). 8X10 photography isn't a cheap mistress :D.

on another note, I'd recommend also getting another set of bellows for your camera(if it has bellows). You'll never know when you need it, but just in case. Hedge your bets!

-Dan

georgl
31-Jan-2011, 00:56
I haven't seen the recent business report - but as far as I know, Kodak is profitable with making and selling film! It's the digital sector that's worrying! Their fab in Rochester is highly advanced and efficient (I think they build it in 1996).

Unless some stupid shareholder/hedgefond-BS tries to intervene (and make it a "modern" company, sending the fab/ know-how to China) they have a chance.

jp
31-Jan-2011, 06:50
Film's not going to get any cheaper. It's worth buying what you can sooner than later. I'm not worried about it going away, as I've got two years worth in the freezer and two years ought to be enough time for me to get used to something else, though I really prefer the Kodak film.

B&W Chemistry is easily mixed yourself or purchased packaged from a wide variety of sources. I'm using formulary or kodak developer, ilford stop bath, foma fixer, berg hypo remover for film, and kodak or bostick&sullivan chemical products for printing.

Color chemistry (c41/e6) is also made in packaged form by a variety of sources, though not as many as B&W.

SamReeves
31-Jan-2011, 09:51
Kodak will a charge big price for the yellow box. Why do it when Foma makes boxes of film for 1/2 the price?

In any case though stock up, because I don't think the great yellow father will be around in the next decade.

Bruce Watson
31-Jan-2011, 10:03
Kodak will a charge big price for the yellow box. Why do it when Foma makes boxes of film for 1/2 the price?

TMY-2. 400Portra.

The price of film is small compared to the price of a photography trip. That's why I use the highest quality film I can.

Henry Ambrose
31-Jan-2011, 10:22
If people keep buying film they will keep making film.
It may or may not be Kodak but someone will make film if there is demand for film.
Buy your favorite film and use it up, then buy more. That's about all there is to do.

John Kasaian
31-Jan-2011, 10:28
I've stocked up on enough Ilford film to get me through the summer, but I shoot B&W, not color and I don't (or rather cannot afford to) buy Kodak in 8x10 format. Color would be a different consideration----B&W ages well, I would be worried about long term color film storage though. I think I would get started on learning to love Fuji color materials, just in case.

SW Rick
31-Jan-2011, 10:33
TMY-2. 400Portra.

The price of film is small compared to the price of a photography trip. That's why I use the highest quality film I can.


Exactly, Bruce! Wondering if this sheet or this roll is a good one or a bad one is not conducive to producing good images.

Jiri Vasina
31-Jan-2011, 10:44
The price of film is small compared to the price of a photography trip. That's why I use the highest quality film I can.


Exactly, Bruce! Wondering if this sheet or this roll is a good one or a bad one is not conducive to producing good images.

Bruce, more than true.

But I have so far had not any single sheet of film from Foma "defective". True I have mishandled quite a lot, scratched a few, but I would not blame them... And those Ilford films I have used are even more scratch resistant (in my handling) than Foma/Efke/Wephota.

Yes, the films behave in a different way in their response to light, Foma 100 is terrible with the reciprocity failure...

I have used very few Kodak films because the price/performance value is not right...

CG
31-Jan-2011, 10:56
I'm usually a big fan and supporter of Kodak, but from what I have heard, they seem not to have consistently given reasonable notice for critical products being discontinued. Perhaps I have read erroneous reports on the net, but if a particular Kodak film product was critical to my work, I'd keep a massive stock as insurance.

Pawlowski6132
31-Jan-2011, 10:59
If Kodak announces they're getting out of the film basis, I don't think you'll have 1-6 months to decide anything. Maybe 1-6 days. And others have mentioned, I don't believe there are any proprietary chemicals Kodak mixes/makes that would leave a huge hole if they left that market.

Sevo
31-Jan-2011, 11:06
In a worse case scenario, if Kodak should announce it is shutting down its film production, I believe I will have 1-6 months notice to decide if I want to secure a life time supply of film. However, if I should make such a purchase, but cannot buy the chemistry I need to process it, then what good is it.


So what? The last Kodak film that needed Kodak chemistry was Kodachrome. Its developers never were available to anyone except for select Kodak partner labs, and the last processing line was closed weeks ago. If that is the threat you fear, you already are in a stew - and are off topic here, Kodachrome hasn't been made in large format for something like fifty years.

As far as other films and developers go, Fuji E-6 and C-41 compatible processes are guaranteed to develop to Kodak specifications, and there are several independent makers of compatible processes as well, both in Europe and the US. Black and white never was vendor specific, and all relevant classic developers have lost any patent protection they had ages ago, so that you can get developers of the same composition as D-76, HC-110 (or Rodinal, where the original maker already ceased to exist) from several vendors, or can read up their formula in books and roll your own (or even start a business that makes them) - which leaves only the reletively recent Xtol and maybe the T-Max developer that might still be patent protected and in limbo for a few years if Kodak folds.

Likewise, film is still being made by others - there are at least nine more makers of black and white sheet film still operating. Colour is a bit more at risk - Kodak and Fuji currently are the only ones to make colour sheet film. If both should fail simultaneously we can only hope that someone hires some of the laid-off staff and starts anew (or that Agfa Gevaert feels like re-entering the market).

Mark Sampson
31-Jan-2011, 11:22
Ken Lee's 'video' from the pyro developers thread seems appropriate here as well.

Brian Ellis
1-Feb-2011, 12:28
I haven't seen the recent business report - but as far as I know, Kodak is profitable with making and selling film! It's the digital sector that's worrying! Their fab in Rochester is highly advanced and efficient (I think they build it in 1996).

Unless some stupid shareholder/hedgefond-BS tries to intervene (and make it a "modern" company, sending the fab/ know-how to China) they have a chance.

Actually to the extent Kodak is doing well at anything, it's closer to the other way around:

"Full-year 2010 sales were $7.187 billion, a 6% decrease from the prior year. Full-year revenue from digital businesses grew by 1%, reflecting an 18% revenue increase in the company’s core growth businesses -- Consumer and Commercial inkjet, Packaging Solutions, and Workflow Software and Services -- and an increase in non-recurring intellectual property licensing agreements. Full-year 2010 consumer inkjet printer and ink revenue grew by 35%. Traditional revenue for 2010 decreased 22% from the prior year to $1.767 billion. . . . The company’s digital businesses delivered $301 million in earnings from operations for the year, a $308 million improvement from 2009. . . Revenue from the company’s traditional business decreased 25% to $439 million for the fourth quarter."

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&gpcid=0900688a80e9657e&ignoreLocale=true&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=24118

I know I'm just an amateur but I know what terms like "decreased 22%" and "decreased 25%" mean.

Pawlowski6132
1-Feb-2011, 12:36
I heard THIS (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/02/01/133188723/tools-never-die-waddaya-mean-never)today and thought of this thread.

Look at the first example in the image slide show.

Pavel+
1-Feb-2011, 19:48
It seems like the traditional businesses, even though down, are far more profitable still than their digital side.

Roger Cole
1-Feb-2011, 20:46
I can live just fine without Kodak. I don't WANT to do so - I like the variety in color and I like Tri-X (better than HP5+ for some things) and, especially, TMZ, but I can survive with Ilford, Efke and Foma for BW and Fuji for a little color fix.

Michael Kadillak
1-Feb-2011, 22:00
You're reading a bunch of amatuer opinions, and worried over nothing (start looking at what other mfrs are doing, and that is what counts). Don't just look at film sales (they decreased for a reason....market now shared with digital, and photoshop killed need for different flavors of film, therefore we buy far less today). The key to remember is whether a need still exists for large format film. Presently large format satisfies 3 needs....max quality, ability to print very big, and affordablility (and digital has a way to go before they catch up, especially with regards to pricing). If you sell your 8x10, are you ready to spend $40k for the DB plus lens, body, etc? Instead of looking at one variable in the industry (film sales)....look also at what the rest of the industry is doing.

Number of Mrs- Over 15+ large format mfrs, and none are closing.

Product Lines- are expanding, more choices and formats then ever before. Check out Toyo, Chamonix, Ebony. We now have 5x8, 7x17, etc. Something you didn't see 10 years ago.

Product Differentiation- is taking place (variations of same product, even if just in color choice). You don't see this happening in a dying market. We now have 2 choices of 617 view cameras by both Shen Hao and Ebony.

New product introductions-you don't develop new products for a dying market. Recent new products are a new Schneider 350mm lens, a 2nd Bessa 6x7 (two on market now), Reflecta 120 scanner announced for June 2011, Pacifica 120 scanner allowing 612, 2 new films by Kodak (Ektar was introduced first for 35mm, and later in large format up to 8x10...doesn't sound like they are giving up on us). Epson is also bringing out the V900 scanner. Also check out the new products just out by Fotoman China....Fotoman 69H, Fotoman FD66, Fotoman 69S, and DMax (just up on their website).

Existing products updated- eg- Fotoman, Linhof (technicas, technorama). They must see a future in film (they have to recover their investment).

I've said all this stuff at least 10 times now. Until we're down to only a few large format mfrs, and a very narrow product lines.....I am not worried. I also am not going to spend $40k for a digial back that looking at appears to be worth about the same as my car alternator. I am not getting value per dollar like I do with large format.

A man I can really relate to. Wells stated and right on point.

The only time I feel hooked into planned obsolescence that seems so much a part of the digital photographer of the day is every other year when I purchase two or three new Apple computers for myself and my family. Financially painful and glad when it is completed. I would go nuts expending the resources necessary to stay up to date in this arena. It is a good thing that I chose not to go down this road.

Stephen Willard
2-Feb-2011, 00:21
The comments here have been very well thought out, but who really knows what Kodak will actually do. My guess is they will not simply stop producing film. It is still generating a good chunk of revenue, and thus, it has value that can be sold to another company. So why stop production when they can sell it and make a profit.

I shoot exclusively Kodak Portra 160 VC, and I use TMAX for building masks. I could use any b&w film for making mask, but color film is another matter. I have built characteristic curves and done Mackbeth color chart graphs for every color negative film on the market, and Portra VC is the most amazing film in every aspect compared to all other films. If I lost VC 160 it would have a negative impact on how I shoot film for sure.

Just for the record, I have had record breaking sales this year, and all of it is big stuff. Big panoramics that frame up to 60" are my biggest sellers. My market is people who have big wallets that live in big country homes that have big walls, and they want to hang big art on their big walls.

As a landscape photographer who packs everything into the back country with llamas, digital of any format is not plausible due to its power requirements. On my last trip I spent 26 days in Wind River Wyoming without coming out to replenish for food or film. So I need film. Even if I could have access to power, doing big digitally is way to expensive compared to using big film.

I am poised to make a large purchase of 8x10 which I then will cut to 5x7 and 4x10. In fact, I may start buying blocks of 50 boxes until I have purchased between 100 - 200 boxes over a period of a year. The company that owns Kodak chemistry is a small privately owned company that has been in business for 25 years and has a world wide marketing network for distributing its chemistry. My guess is that they will be around for some time. So even though I do not want to commit any resources for purchasing a large chunk of film, I suspect that I will be doing so because of the uncertainty of the film market.

Robert Hughes
2-Feb-2011, 11:58
Whatever Kodak's eventual fate is, it probably won't be due to whatever market for film exists at that point. Most big companies ultimately strangle themselves, it seems.

Brian C. Miller
2-Feb-2011, 13:36
If the company is agile and adapts, then it survives. IBM started in 1896, and Nokia started in 1865 producing paper and lumber. If Kodak chooses to remain a film producer, then at some point its film production will plateau. The question is, when will it get to a steady state. The steady state that we are worried about is a flat line. Will somebody be producinging film somewhere in the future? Yes. Will that somebody be Kodak? I don't know.

The film industry is the major consumer of Kodak's film production, as I am sure that it is Fuji's main customer. Both have been creating new emulsions. As long as the motion picture industry keeps using film, and I hope they will because I don't like the Christie projectors, then the rest of us will get our film, too. If the motion picture industry goes all-digital, then I think the rest of it will flat-line.

Drew Wiley
3-Feb-2011, 11:00
Stephen - it's wonderful to hear that you were able to spend so much time in the Winds. I've certainly gotten my share of mosquito and horsefly bites there, and maybe
a few decent pictures too. I really prefer TMax100 for masks which require very low gamma and a straight line - useful to color negative and dye transfer work. But for
Ciba printing and contrast increase masks for color negs (made from straight-line
interpositives), I generally prefer the upswept shape that FP4 gives me off the toe.
I simply edit out any base fog and excess toe with a brief dip in Farmer's. But the
future shortage of 8x10 TMax100 is making me experient with trying to get a straighter
low gamma curve in FP4. See how it goes. In the meantime, I've stockpiled TMX in
the freezer, and learned to maked excellent separation negs with TMY too. What I
really miss is Astia 100F in 8x10, which was the finest dupe film ever, once it is balanced for tungsten. I've only got one box left, plus quite a bit of CDUII, which was
simply tungsten balanced old-style Astia. With chromes, sometimes it makes more
sense to put all the cumulative masking corrections onto the dupe, then print from
that. With color negs, it's a different ballgame, and I'm just beginning to experiment
with 8x10 Ektar, which might be the future of the game for me, the way things are
going.

Drew Wiley
3-Feb-2011, 14:52
Ilford doesn't make color film. And even when Kodak dropped black and white paper,
there were other folks doing a better job of it - it didn't create a significant void like
the loss of LF color film would.

jp
3-Feb-2011, 15:31
Kodak's everyday polycontrast rc B&W paper was not that great compared to Ilford, et.al. It's sort of a play to win or go home decision. However for film, they've got some of the best stuff going, top of their game. Different comparison.

They still sell chemicals like dektol for paper strangely. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me. (I use dektol though)

Brian Ellis
3-Feb-2011, 16:45
Here's a portion of Kodak's news release as it relates to Kodak's traditional business following its recent investor strategy meeting:

"For 2011, the company is taking aggressive action to improve the operating results from these businesses (referring to the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group). These actions include capitalizing on Kodak's market-leading position through a continued focus on unsurpassed quality and service and the introduction of innovative, new film products; continuing to aggressively reduce costs in line with industry decline rates; and taking aggressive actions to mitigate silver pricing volatility, including the implementation of an indexed pricing model for key products and a transition to a product portfolio less dependent on silver."

"Innovative, new film products" sounds good. " ". . . transition to a product portfolio less dependent on silver" doesn't sound so good.

Brian C. Miller
3-Feb-2011, 16:53
Has there been a commercial photographic technology that wasn't silver-based?

Drew Wiley
3-Feb-2011, 17:11
Depends what you mean, Brian - I can't think of any commercial film that wasn't silver
based; but most of the "alternative" printing processes had their commercial heyday
and were produced accordingly, including carbon tissues, Pt/Pd papers, certain carbro
component, cyanotypes, and quite a few now almost extinct press techniques.

Brian C. Miller
3-Feb-2011, 18:33
If transitioning to ".. a product portfolio less dependent on silver" meant the development of a non-silver film, I definitely would try it. Of course they probably mean putting more effort in their profitable digital ventures.

Drew Wiley
3-Feb-2011, 19:26
The incentive to reduce the use of silver has been around for quite awhile. It is at
least one of the reasons for developing thin-emulsion films which allow less silver to
capture more light; and color film and paper needs comparatively less silver to begin with. A smart strategy also means developing core film products which potentially replace several previous items; and this has transpired too at Kodak.
The catch 22 is that the less silver they purchase, the less they control the volatility
of this commodity. The irony is, digital imaging and computers in general are far
more dependent upon rare earth products and political turmoil in countries which
happen to contain them. It's a constantly shifting resource landscape, with all kinds
of complications. But I think it's ridiculously premature to assume they're abandoning film products altogether. By eliminating slower moving products and
introducing rather versatile ones like TMY2, Portra, and Ektar, they're focusing the
volume where they can perform best. It's not like there's much competition out there. Agfa is gone, and Fuji's strength is in tranny film and color paper. Digitial
imaging, however, is a brutal food fight; why would they totally abandon a sure
thing in terms of market share? But you never know these days.

Stephen Willard
4-Feb-2011, 05:06
Hey Drew, just a quick note to says thanks for your help with printing 30x40s on the CPI 40. Everything worked out great. Just for the record I was able to figure out how to make the 30x40 CPI 40 drum Kodak test strip compliant. This allowed me to do determine exposure time, enlarger aperture lens setting, and color head CC settings using my Fujimoto CP-51 to develop 8x10 test prints, and then develop the final 30x40 print using the CPI 40 30x40 drum. It was amazing to get the exactly the same results on both machines. If you are interested I can send you the documentation I wrote for making the CPI 40 Kodak test strip complaint.

That said, I also use TMX100 for my mask. However, I do not try to achieve a straight line characteristic curve when developing my b&w mask for my 5x7 and 4x10 color negatives. I have decide that a curved characteristic curve (CC) is better because it will builds up density faster in the shadows than in the high lights. This produces a better light contrast mask (LCM) for color negative film that results in a more normal looking print. To get a curved CC as opposed to a straight line CC, I develop TMX100 using HC110 at a 1:7 dilution of stock solution. I am attaching a family of curves for both 5 and 10 minute development times that I use to predict my exposure time for the mask.

Ektar 100 is not as great as you may think. Its reds are I slightly more exaggerated then 160VC, but 160 VC is better for greens and blues. The big difference is the dynamic range. 160 VC is around 13 stops while Ektar 100 and 160 NC is closer to 9 stops. I have attach a CC graph that compares the CCs for Portre 160 VC, Ektar 100, and Portra 160 NC. Both the CCs for 160NC and Ektar 100 show notable fall off of gamma or film contrast at Zone IX. The graphs are only through Zone X, but you can see both the CCs for Ektar 100 and Portra 160 NC start to fall off a Zone IX while Portra 160 VC keeps climbing.

I have also attached bar graphs for the red, green, and blue layers for the Macbeth chart as well.

Thanks again....

PS I was not able to upload the blue or green layers for the Macbeth bar graphs(4 files is the limit). I will do it in my next posting.

Stephen Willard
4-Feb-2011, 05:15
And here is the green and blue layers for the Macbeth color chart bar graphs.

Drew Wiley
4-Feb-2011, 10:19
Thanks so much Stephen. I'm slowly fiddling around but otherwise preoccupied with
house remodeling. I picked up a nice 20" processor just for test strips and minor stuff
but haven't had time to get it into operation. I'm still trying to figure out where to put
a 40" machine but will probably stick to the drum for awhile. I haven't actually printed
any Ektar yet, and the results with Portra 160VC sometimes lack sufficient contrast for
me, so I too will be fiddling with contrast enhancement masking. It's nice that there's
someone else out there who still understands the flexibility and potential of real film.

LF_rookie_to_be
16-Feb-2011, 07:58
Hey Drew, just a quick note to says thanks for your help with printing 30x40s on the CPI 40. Everything worked out great. Just for the record I was able to figure out how to make the 30x40 CPI 40 drum Kodak test strip compliant. This allowed me to do determine exposure time, enlarger aperture lens setting, and color head CC settings using my Fujimoto CP-51 to develop 8x10 test prints, and then develop the final 30x40 print using the CPI 40 30x40 drum.

Stephen, would you be so kind to post a few pictures of the CPI 40 processor/drum? This seems to be a rare beast and it may perhaps be of interest to others on the forum - especially those trying to find a way do develop 30x40 prints at home.
Thanks.

LF_rtb

Stephen Willard
16-Feb-2011, 11:05
Hi LF_rtb,

Attached please find four photographs of the CPI 40. In one of the images you can see how I attach a Kodak test strip to the drum using water proof gorilla tape. This is the same test strip that I use for my Fuijimoto CP-51. When both machines are compliant with the test strip reflective densities, then I can do cross platform development and get exactly the same results on either machine. This allows me to develop 8x10 test prints on the CP51 for determining my enlarger settings and then make the final 30x40 print using the CPI 40 processor. It is pretty cool.

Note, unlike the JOBO, the CPI 40 uses no water bath to control temperature. Chemical temperatures must be maintain in a separate water bath.

Drew Wiley
16-Feb-2011, 18:14
I still owe some folks the shots of the gearmoter inside the CPI, but just haven't had
in out lately. One of these days I'm going to see if there's a standard size of industrial or drainage pipe the right size to simply section off and mfg 30x40 drums.
The base cap and ribs are a no-brainer, but to the top fill&drain cap would be tricky
without injection moulding. Still, a standardized cap might be capable of being modified. CPI drums were made of expensive Noryl plastic, so have better internal
temp retention than the thin ABS plastic of Jobo drums, for example.

LF_rookie_to_be
25-Feb-2011, 02:15
Stephen, many thanks for the photos. This certainly seems like a well-designed and made processor. I was just wondering whether the fill/drain cap is similar to those on Jobo drums. From looking at the cap on a 16x20 drum I have, the basic design would be similar to this:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/30cbd74fea.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

Is this how the cap on a CPI works?

Drew Wiley
25-Feb-2011, 10:08
The CPI cap isn't anything like the Jobo cap. It fills and drains way faster, so in my
opinion is a far better design.