PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Preparing for Chapter 11 Filing



darr
4-Jan-2012, 12:30
Eastman Kodak Co. is preparing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy-protection filing in the coming weeks should efforts to sell a trove of digital patents fall through, people familiar with the matter said.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html#ixzz1iWI7Pkgl

vinny
4-Jan-2012, 12:55
Kodak? What do they do?

Brian C. Miller
4-Jan-2012, 12:59
Not Necessarily the News:
Antonio Perez was spotted fleeing peasants armed with cameras, pitchforks, torches, rope, sub-machine guns and tripods with long spikey points at the end as Kodak was delisted from the NYSE and filed for bankruptcy. Kodak film, once the choice of the Devine, used for capturing many poignant moments of mankind's existance from creation, the discovery of fire, and that stupid dog next door shagging that gnome lawn ornament, has been on the decline since people figured out that they really don't want memories to last forever. The company will be reorganized into a yet another latte coffee seller, and then go into bankruptcy again because the resulting product tastes worst than Starbucks drinks.

Kevin M Bourque
4-Jan-2012, 12:59
They do the rest after you push the button.

Brian C. Miller
4-Jan-2012, 13:01
Uh, which button? The one Ronald Reagan joked about pushing? :eek:

John Powers
4-Jan-2012, 13:07
Not Necessarily the News:
Antonio Perez was spotted fleeing peasants armed with cameras, pitchforks, torches, rope, sub-machine guns and tripods with long spikey points at the end as Kodak was delisted from the NYSE and filed for bankruptcy. Kodak film, once the choice of the Devine, used for capturing many poignant moments of mankind's existance from creation, the discovery of fire, and that stupid dog next door shagging that gnome lawn ornament, has been on the decline since people figured out that they really don't want memories to last forever. The company will be reorganized into a yet another latte coffee seller, and then go into bankruptcy again because the resulting product tastes worst than Starbucks drinks.

Nicely written humor, sadly.

John

Richard Rankin
4-Jan-2012, 13:22
Not Necessarily the News:
because the resulting product tastes worst than Starbucks drinks.

I kinda doubt that is possible to do, even for Kodak...

Richard

Moopheus
4-Jan-2012, 13:39
I kinda doubt that is possible to do, even for Kodak...

Richard

Well, if they used photoflo to foam the milk and put D-76 in the sugar bowls, it might come close...

Paul Fitzgerald
4-Jan-2012, 13:41
$0.47 and still dropping.

Oh Well.

There does appear to be a silver lining, the end of the road for digital.
No one wants the patents because digital is good enough for military, NASA and Hollywood already.
Consumer cameras are finished with anyone having a camera in their cell phones.
There is already more than enough stock photography to last forever.
Newspaper are done and TV changed to HD some time ago.
No more customer base for digital to expand.

cdholden
4-Jan-2012, 13:53
Not Necessarily the News:
Antonio Perez was spotted fleeing peasants armed with cameras, pitchforks, torches, rope, sub-machine guns and tripods with long spikey points at the end as Kodak was delisted from the NYSE and filed for bankruptcy. Kodak film, once the choice of the Devine, used for capturing many poignant moments of mankind's existance from creation, the discovery of fire, and that stupid dog next door shagging that gnome lawn ornament, has been on the decline since people figured out that they really don't want memories to last forever. The company will be reorganized into a yet another latte coffee seller, and then go into bankruptcy again because the resulting product tastes worst than Starbucks drinks.

Where is Rich Hall when we need him? I can see Sniglets making a comeback!

Peter York
4-Jan-2012, 14:10
My Ektars were sniffling as I walked by them today, especially the 100mm Wide Field (He is such a sap!).

The films are hibernating in the freezer. They won’t know until I wake them.

Greg Blank
4-Jan-2012, 15:24
@ Brian, you forgot the much need tar and feathers. Anyway I found the most interesting part of the online article being in the last sentence "In consultation with Cerberus".....was that not the three head dog that guards Hell's gates? So they are considering a pact with you know who >:D

Drew Bedo
5-Jan-2012, 08:20
Which Button? Maybe Alt+F4.

MDR
5-Jan-2012, 08:48
Please not Cerberus one of the most amoral companies in the world but then again Antonio Perez isn't a very moral CEO either. Tar and Feathers for Perez + 1

Dominik

Sal Santamaura
5-Jan-2012, 09:41
...one of the most amoral companies in the world...isn't a very moral CEO...Corporate amorality, including the behavior of officers and directors, is normal and, in fact, expected. Corporations are not humans, they are creations of the law. Corporations have only two absolute requirements: don't violate the law and make the maximum possible profit for their shareholders/owners.

If those running a corporation make decisions and act in ways that violate the law or reduce profitability because their personal sense of morality demands it, they are derelict in their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders/owners. They may suffer financial and/or legal consequences as a result.

The only way considerations of morality can indirectly influence a corporation is if its customers, as a condition of continued patronage, demand certain things that are not required by law. Should the corporation ignore those expectations and suffer a loss of profitability, morality (the customers' perception thereof) will have had some impact. Otherwise, if it's legal and profitable, it's perfectly acceptable.

This is the system we live under.

Drew Wiley
5-Jan-2012, 10:34
You're far too optimistic, Sal. I can think of any number of big US companies which
tanked or sold out in the last few years because the share-holders were in effect
ripped off themselves by upper mgt. As you might recall, it wasn't that many years ago
when even our two biggest energy corps here in Calif ripped off their own publicly
traded utilities, deliberately bankrupting them by transferring staggering sums of money to the tightly-held parent corps, then got a public bailout to boot. These kinds of folks don't give a damn about public opinion. It's a lot more important for them to go golfing with the right senator or whatever. And as far as breaking the law or not,
why not break it if the odds are that, at worst, the penalities are only a fraction of the
illegal earnings at the top? There aren't enough investigators, courts, or judges in the
country to clean up the mess. The best they can do is bag a prominent offender from
time to time. And the SEC has no teeth anyway.

rdenney
5-Jan-2012, 11:38
Corporate amorality, including the behavior of officers and directors, is normal and, in fact, expected. Corporations are not humans, they are creations of the law. Corporations have only two absolute requirements: don't violate the law and make the maximum possible profit for their shareholders/owners.

I'm not sure it is as strict as this. The whole point of corporations is to create a legal entity apart from its founders/leaders, so that it can, for example, own things, suffer or benefit from its own consequences, and pay taxes. Many corporations are non-profits, and many corporations do not have either stock or shareholders.

The point of being a stock company is to capitalize a business plan, providing those who help capitalize it a share in the resulting reward. But stock companies can exist without being corporations, and corporations don't have to be stock companies.

But one thing corporations do have to do is behave like an entity, and that includes all the same moral and legal obligations that are expected of individuals. Many could easily say that individuals have no obligation beyond following the law and taking care of themselves. But corporations are subject to all manner of criticism when they behave amorally, or in ways that are seen as excessively uncharitable. Witness the backlash against Bank of America for charging a new fee, and (much more substantively) against BP after the Gulf oil spill (and even after Exxon after the Valdez--even now I have a hard time buying gas at an Exxon station, though that is clearly irrational given the way retail gasoline sales work). Courts examine legal requirements, but corporations are still often subject to consequence of moral lapses.

The routine expectation that corporations are expected to behave as entities in the same way individuals are is the reason why corporations support charities, which they do in vast amounts. I'm sure that Kodak has supported charitable giving even in the midst of its current troubles.

The boards of for-profit corporations are indeed expected to represent the interests of the shareholders. But there is a legitimate argument to be made that burning the furniture in a November cold spell is no way to keep warm through a long winter, and thus the Kodak board is not, in fact, representing the interests of shareholders. There is also a legitimate argument to be made that representing shareholder interests includes an expectation of being a good corporate citizen, which requires moral behavior at least as great as would be expected of an individual. And publicly traded corporations are absolutely expected to consider the long-term shareholder value of stock as well as its spot stock price, so boards do have an obligation to consider sustainability when they review the CEO's proposals.

If a board and the CEO are conspiring against shareholder value, then they are subject to legal and well as moral consequences.

Kodak is the victim of long-term incompetence compounded by short-term extreme incompetence. If we were to meet Perez in a social setting, we might find him completely genuine and good-hearted, but I think we'd also find he doesn't know very much about photography. Good companies (whether or not they are corporations) whose business plan requires a long existence--which Kodak's certainly would--would be expected to define their core business and then support that core business. It appears to me that they can't seem to be clear about what their core business is, and they flit back and forth from idea to idea without direction. This is not Perez's fault. This has been a Kodak corporate weakness for many decades.

Good companies look for the intersection of 1.) what they can do better than anybody, 2.) what they want to do better than anybody, and 3.) what people are willing to pay for at a price point above costs. Kodak has for a long time taken the first for granted without rearticulating it as needed. They have been without opinion on the second--seeming to want to be a world leader on digital and film and still hinging much of their investment R&D on consumer crap. And they have been and utterly wrong about the third, missing the movements in the market altogether.

Rick "believing that corporations do have moral obligations perhaps more stringent than do individuals" Denney

Sal Santamaura
5-Jan-2012, 14:58
Corporate amorality, including the behavior of officers and directors, is normal and, in fact, expected. Corporations are not humans, they are creations of the law. Corporations have only two absolute requirements: don't violate the law and make the maximum possible profit for their shareholders/owners...Note that I posted this in response to Dominik's post, in which he wrote that Cerberus is one of the most amoral companies in the world. The entire point of my post was that the entity known as a corporation is inherently amoral. Not necessarily moral. Not necessarily immoral. Morality cannot directly affect the operation. Only the law can do so. Others' perception of the corporation's moral behavior can certainly have an indirect effect, which I also wrote.


You're far too optimistic, Sal. I can think of any number of big US companies which tanked or sold out in the last few years because the share-holders were in effect ripped off themselves by upper mgt...I'm not optimistic at all. I understand that, like individuals, officers of corporations can and do break the law. I only said that law is the controlling factor, not morality.


...our two biggest energy corps here in Calif ripped off their own publicly traded utilities, deliberately bankrupting them by transferring staggering sums of money to the tightly-held parent corps, then got a public bailout to boot. These kinds of folks don't give a damn about public opinion...The indirect effect of customer opinion (publicly traded utilities were those corporations' customers) was indeed minimal. Only the law governed. With respect to specifics of the laws and how those laws are written, I'm afraid we can go no further without violating the forum's prohibition on discussion of politics.


I'm not sure it is as strict as this. The whole point of corporations is to create a legal entity apart from its founders/leaders, so that it can, for example, own things, suffer or benefit from its own consequences, and pay taxes. Many corporations are non-profits, and many corporations do not have either stock or shareholders...It's exactly that strict. The whole point of corporations is to shield their owners from personal liability and, if they're publicly traded, to permit those operating the corporation to take risks with other people's money. Nothing more, nothing less. I wrote "shareholders/owners" specifically to address the case where no stock or shareholders exist. Non-profits are an outlier category that is much more susceptible to perceptions of morality than other corporations.


...The point of being a stock company is to capitalize a business plan, providing those who help capitalize it a share in the resulting reward. But stock companies can exist without being corporations, and corporations don't have to be stock companies...I made no distinction between stock or non-stock corporations. Both are by nature amoral.


But one thing corporations do have to do is behave like an entity, and that includes all the same moral and legal obligations that are expected of individuals. Many could easily say that individuals have no obligation beyond following the law and taking care of themselves...Neither corporations nor individuals have moral obligations under the law, only legal obligations. As a completely artificial construct of the law, a corporation's only legal obligations are to the law. No others. Nada. Individuals' only obligation under the law is to the law. There is no federal, state or local statute in the US I'm aware of that requires "morality." If one or more old ones remain, they will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional, rightly so in my opinion.


...But corporations are subject to all manner of criticism when they behave amorally, or in ways that are seen as excessively uncharitable. Witness the backlash against Bank of America for charging a new fee, and (much more substantively) against BP after the Gulf oil spill (and even after Exxon after the Valdez--even now I have a hard time buying gas at an Exxon station, though that is clearly irrational given the way retail gasoline sales work). Courts examine legal requirements, but corporations are still often subject to consequence of moral lapses...
I believe you meant to write "when they behave immorally," but in either case, you've simply described some of the indirect effects I referred to.


...The routine expectation that corporations are expected to behave as entities in the same way individuals are is the reason why corporations support charities, which they do in vast amounts. I'm sure that Kodak has supported charitable giving even in the midst of its current troubles...There is no such routine expectation. Public corporations support charities because a) they can shelter some income from taxes by doing so and b) it's good PR. Some privately held corporations might have higher motivations for charity as well, but they too are motivated by a & b.


...There is also a legitimate argument to be made that representing shareholder interests includes an expectation of being a good corporate citizen, which requires moral behavior at least as great as would be expected of an individual...Only if the customers would react negatively to different behavior. If the customers don't care and it doesn't affect the bottom line, there is no requirement for behavior that you, or anyone else, would consider moral.


...Kodak is the victim of long-term incompetence compounded by short-term extreme incompetence...On this we emphatically agree. :)


...Rick "believing that corporations do have moral obligations perhaps more stringent than do individuals" DenneyAnd on that we don't. :D

goamules
5-Jan-2012, 17:16
I have never taken the time to understand bankruptcy. But I seem to see a lot of companies go bankrupt, but never shut down. American Airlines is the newest, and they are honoring all my frequent flier bonus miles and pre purchased tickets, and are flying every day. Didn't GM go bankrupt? Some of their new cars are doing very well this year. Reading these posts sometimes feels like going to a auto race hoping to see a crash. Isn't Chapter 11 for "reorganizing and rebuilding the business?" Or are they expected to file Chapter 7?

Also, urgently reporting how many remaining boxes of 8x10 remain...daily...again, seems fatalistic.

Finally, I'd like to address the comments on the other thread where a company is offering to do a bulk order of Tri-X film, if 250 boxes can be ordered. A few people replied they won't buy any more....everyone has enough already...blah. If we cannot get 250 people out of 300 Million Americans to buy a box of film, maybe Kodak has to go away. Is everyone honestly thinking that 300 million of us, and however many gazillion Chinese and other populations don't have .001% of people who will buy this product? I mean sheeze, there are probably 250 people in ARIZONA that buy horse saddles every year! If the only people shooting Kodak LF film are a handful on this forum, LF film from Kodak is dead.

Sizam
5-Jan-2012, 17:42
Its too bad these companies became to big for their britches. If Kodak (or Polaroid) could have spun off their film business into a lean 50 person company it could probably survive. The analog demand is obviously out there (and growing), it just can't support a huge flailing company.

Pawlowski6132
5-Jan-2012, 17:45
There's a great article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about Kodak, it's history and it's failings. There's a big picture of a box of Tmax 400 on the front page. It's pretty wild to see.

Sal Santamaura
5-Jan-2012, 18:14
...urgently reporting how many remaining boxes of 8x10 remain...daily...again, seems fatalistic...I haven't been updating status every day, and started that thread because Kodak announced discontinuations, not as a direct result of the reportedly imminent bankruptcy. Even if Kodak survives and 8x10 320TXP special orders happen, the price, like the price of 8x10 TMX and TMY, will be substantially higher than what final "regular stock" inventory is going for. Also, don't look for Keith Canham to offer free shipping. :)


...I mean sheeze, there are probably 250 people in ARIZONA that buy horse saddles every year!...I'd wager that there are more than 250 people buying saddles in Arizona every year and far, far fewer buying 8x10 320TXP. :)


...If the only people shooting Kodak LF film are a handful on this forum, LF film from Kodak is dead.There are undoubtedly people shooting Kodak 8x10 LF film who don't frequent this forum, but probably not many.

Whether dead or not, 8x10 320TXP is special-order only when the last regular stock is emptied from the distribution pipeline. That's the point of the thread and updates. So anyone interested in stockpiling it is made aware. I've already got as much as I feel comfortable freezing and hope others do the same while there's still some left.

Jan Pedersen
5-Jan-2012, 18:48
Sal, Your updates are much appreciated.
I have not bought as much of the TXP as i did the TMY just before that became special order but i agree that the price will go up considerably when what is left in the pipeline is gone. The price increased in the neighborhood of 50% if we take Badger Graphics prices as a reference.

rdenney
6-Jan-2012, 06:22
It's exactly that strict. The whole point of corporations is to shield their owners from personal liability and, if they're publicly traded, to permit those operating the corporation to take risks with other people's money. Nothing more, nothing less. I wrote "shareholders/owners" specifically to address the case where no stock or shareholders exist. Non-profits are an outlier category that is much more susceptible to perceptions of morality than other corporations.

The point of corporations is not to shield individuals from liability. That may be the reason why individuals choose to incorporate, but they soon find that maintaining that corporate veil requires quite as much effort as avoiding actions likely to put them at liability risk in the first place. (Edit: Ask Kenneth Lay.) The point of corporations is to create a legal entity apart from the individuals. That entity can benefit from its actions (by making profits and owning things), but it can also face the consequences of its mistakes (by being held liable). Corporations are just as likely to be held liable for its negligence as individuals are, and in many ways more likely because they are a deep pocket.

You are right that under the law, corporations and individuals alike are only held responsible for following the law. That's why it's the law. It is a logical fallacy, however, to claim that corporations are amoral because they have no moral obligation under the law, when the law is not the source of moral obligation. Corporations are subject to the same moral expectations as individuals. In fact, corporations that are large and visible are routinely held to higher expectations than individuals. That is not the same as saying legal action could enforce those expectations.

Corporations which have a brand to protect are often more vulnerable to the effects of negative public opinion than individuals are. The reason corporations engage in PR activities is to build a good-will account's positive balance. (Yes, there is a tax benefit, but in monetary terms, the tax benefit is less than the cost.) Is that selfish? Of course it is--I never said it wasn't. But most people who individually give money to charities also do it for the same selfish reasons: To bolster their image among their neighbors or peers, and to do so in a way that provides some tax benefit. Some people are genuinely charitable, but then so are many corporations. Many corporations exist for no other reason, yet they are still corporations.

I'm reacting to this because it's too easy to make the claim that corporations are inherently evil just because they exist, and we hear a lot of that these days. You did not say that, but it would be easy to draw that conclusion from what you did say. I disagree with that conclusion based on my experience as an officer of several corporations, private, public, profit-making, non-profit, and charitable. Corporations are constructs of humans and reflect human morals, both positive and negative.

Rick "not attributing Kodak's current troubles to moral lapses" Denney

John Kasaian
6-Jan-2012, 08:19
Alas poor Kodak, I knew ye well :(

Sal Santamaura
6-Jan-2012, 09:18
The point of corporations is not to shield individuals from liability...Corporations are just as likely to be held liable for its negligence as individuals are, and in many ways more likely because they are a deep pocket...
It's not liability due to negligence that corporations exist to shield individuals from. Corporations are a legal construct established so that they can take financial risks which, if losses occur as a result, shield the owners from financial responsibility for those losses. I've never mentioned negligence; it's a consideration you introduced. The point of corporations, stock or non-stock, privately or publicly held, is to shield their owners from financial liability in the absence of illegal behavior.


...Some people are genuinely charitable, but then so are many corporations. Many corporations exist for no other reason, yet they are still corporations...Which is why I noted earlier that non-profits are an outlier special case. This discussion began in response to Dominik's description of Cerberus Capital Management as amoral. I don't think Cerberus is a non-profit. :)


...I'm reacting to this because it's too easy to make the claim that corporations are inherently evil just because they exist, and we hear a lot of that these days. You did not say that, but it would be easy to draw that conclusion from what you did say. I disagree with that conclusion based on my experience as an officer of several corporations, private, public, profit-making, non-profit, and charitable...You're correct, I did not post that corporations are inherently evil. I don't think it's easy to draw the conclusion that they are from what I did write. My post was intended to ensure Dominik and other readers understand that amoral behavior is required of for-profit corporations like Cerberus.


...Corporations are constructs of humans and reflect human morals, both positive and negative...Corporations are constructs of the law, which requires only compliance with the law. :)

rdenney
6-Jan-2012, 10:19
The point of corporations, stock or non-stock, privately or publicly held, is to shield their owners from financial liability in the absence of illegal behavior.

You keep repeating that as if doing so will make it true. It is a benefit, but it is not THE point of corporations. The legal purpose of corporations is not specifically to shield individuals, but rather to create entities under the law. Even without shielding, if an individual wants to carry business cash and certain other business assets over from one year to the next, they need to be corporate entity. As a sole proprietor, leftover cash will be considered profit and they'll have to pay income tax on it.

But, as I said, maintaining the corporate veil is quite a lot of work. Many who form corporations owned by themselves and maybe their spouses as a dodge against liability end up still being held personally liable for simple losses (if creditors are stiffed and sue) because they did not act like a corporation and fulfill the responsibilities imposed on a corporation. That is separate from illegal actions, for which corporate officers will be held liable no matter what they do to maintain the corporate veil. Everything I've been taught about corporations suggests that, as a matter of principle, corporations cannot engage in criminal activities, only people can, and those individuals can never dispense that liability. Corporate liability is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. That's what Ken Lay found out. You are right that Perez will not have to write a personal check for Kodak's losses, though he can still be sued individually by shareholders if they believe he did not exercise due diligence in running the corporation (yes, I realize it's difficult). But that was not George Eastman's reason for forming the corporation in the first place. He formed the corporation because he wanted to build something bigger than what he, as one person, could build or maintain.

When you say that the only reason corporations exist is to shield their owners from liability, it sounds as though you are making the owners out to be scammers. That is, of course, occasionally true. But individual business owners can be scammers, too, and they are often somewhat harder to catch because they didn't have to register themselves with their state's corporate commission or secretary of state, and they didn't have to file corporate records with those offices with some evidence of their actual identity.

I know you were responding to someone else's comment, but your response was that corporations are amoral by nature, and that is just not so. Corporations are held to the same moral standards as individuals are, often greater standards because of their visibility. Just because courts don't enforce those standards doesn't mean they are not vulnerable when they don't attain them, or even that their officers get a free pass from that vulnerability when they get ousted and have to find another job.

Rick "who was never paid a nickel for the act of serving as a corporate officer even in a for-profit corporation" Denney

Oren Grad
6-Jan-2012, 10:33
When you say that the only reason corporations exist is to shield their owners from liability, it sounds as though you are making the owners out to be scammers.

I didn't read it that way. A key function of the liability shield is simply to enable people to invest in an enterprise without putting all of their other assets at risk. That has nothing to do with scams or ill-intent of any kind.

rdenney
6-Jan-2012, 10:38
I didn't read it that way. A key function of the liability shield is simply to enable people to invest in an enterprise without putting all of their other assets at risk. That has nothing to do with scams or ill-intent of any kind.

In that case, I'll stop there, I'm sure to everyone's relief. But with all the hyperbolic comments in this and the other Kodak threads describing corporate leaders as de facto crooks, it was worth responding to even if Sal didn't mean it that way.

Rick "who has raised purely moral issues in corporate board rooms on many occasions" Denney

Oren Grad
6-Jan-2012, 10:56
But with all the hyperbolic comments in this and the other Kodak threads describing corporate leaders as de facto crooks...

Yes. It's frustrating that the Kodak we grew up with hasn't survived, but remodeling it to thrive in a changed world was never going to be easy. Honest failure to meet a very difficult - perhaps impossible - management challenge seems to me a much more likely explanation of Kodak's predicament than willful malfeasance.

Pawlowski6132
6-Jan-2012, 11:15
Businesses also form corporations as a strategy as in "going public." It's a way to raise cash.

Richard M. Coda
6-Jan-2012, 14:42
Kodak Announces Agreement to Sell Eastman Gelatine Subsidiary (http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Announces_Agreement_to_Sell_Eastman_Gelatine_Subsidiary.htm)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they sell their gelatin operation, doesn't that mean that they are out of the film business?

Kevin Crisp
6-Jan-2012, 14:45
Not necessarily, could be viewed as outsourcing gelatin production. Reduces overhead so long as you can buy what you need for the right price.

Fred L
6-Jan-2012, 16:52
more interesting reading

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/analyst-actually-thinks-kodak-will-rise-over-400/article2294183/

Frank Petronio
6-Jan-2012, 18:25
When they sold the Gelatin business they made a deal to buy exclusively from the buyer. If anything it may help them remain in the film business since much of the gelatin goes into other products, like food. I doubt Ilford makes their own Gelatin either.

Kodak is certainly in crisis but the speculation on these threads is ridiculous, useless, and ill-informed. Nobody outside of a handful of Kodak management really knows what will happen.

Robert Jonathan
6-Jan-2012, 20:33
So... I shouldn't worry about not being able to buy 4x5/8x10 E100G and Portra any time soon?

lbenac
6-Jan-2012, 20:41
You know it's funny my first reaction was to go and order 100 rolls of TMY-2 in 120. But then I just shrugged and said to myself if TMY-2 and Tri-X disappear like Plus-X - too bad. I will change to a film in production and not worry about stockpiling. I use FP5 and HP4 in 4x5, so why not in 120. Why spend all the time learning to use and develop a film to just see the level dropping in your fridge/freezer.

Cheers,

Luc