send a message to Kodak

[John D Gerndt]

Do you think a letter to Kodak could help?

I think that Kodak would like to stay in the film business but needs help deciding what to specialize in. IF there is a consensus as to which Kodak products are unique and/or superior we could give them the hint they need. Can we as one (tiny?) group give them that clue?

For me HC-110 and AZO papers are always on hand. I think Tri-X has a place in the hearts of most photographers too. Running in a distant secon to me are D-76, Dektol, Plus-X, Technical Pan and Verichrome Pan. Beyond these other companies seem to have something similar. As a B&W art photographer, color stuff is not an issue. When I do shoot it I tend toward Fuji anyway.

If someone out there has a complete checklist of Kodak products we might each make a priority listing of those and thus have our vote counted. It is just an idea.

Cheers,

[Gary DeWitt]

Kodak will stay in the film business as long as it is profitable. They will manufacture and sell the products that are profitable. They will not be swayed by letters, statements of support or public opinion. If enough people buy the product they'll sell it. Otherwise, forget it.

If you wish to influence their business decisions you can only do so with your wallet.

[Abe Slamowitz]

As much as I would love to have an input into their business, I give up! Kodak will do what it wants, whther it makes sense, or not! Lucky for us there are alternatives.

[Bruce Watson]

John,

I've tried. Out of all the letters I've written, up and down the chain of command (which changes seemingly on a weekly basis, so you have to be quick), I've gotten exactly one reply. That reply was a form letter of the "thank you for your suggestion, now go away and leave us alone" type.

Kodak under Carp (and several of his predecessors, apparently) just isn't interested in what the customer wants. They really believe that they can "read" the market. You can see it in the relationship between Tri-X and it's "replacement" - Tmax. The accountants at Kodak were positive that they could shove Tmax down our throats and that we would willingly stop using Tri-X. They even put Tmax in readyloads to "sweeten the deal." Yet, Tri-X remains their best selling B&W film. To their credit, they do at least continue to make Tri-X, but they apparently are never going to put their best selling film in readyloads. Considering all the R&D for the readyload system is already done, this looks like accountants being vindictive. But what do I know? I'm just a customer.

Kodak is strictly driven by the perceived financial desires of the shareholders. It is many things, but "customer driven" it is not.

[Todd Wright]

If Kodak is driven by shareholders why don't we all go out and buy a few shares or a share each. As a shareholder Kodak would have to listen to us.

[Gem Singer]

Hi John,

Why spend your time, money, and energy beating a "dead horse".

Make the change over to Ilford products and avoid the aggravation. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I realize that in a few years we'll be talking about writing similar letters to Ilford. However, by that time, there will be other manufacturers to take Ilford's place.

As long as there is the need., B&W film, paper, and processing chemicals will be out there.

[Jerry Flynn]

I agree with Gary De Witt's statement. The reason any firm is in business is to make a profit -- to return a profit to its owners and shareholders. When a line of business fails to do that or ceases to do that, the company must make changes or risk going out of business all thogether.

At this time, Kodak has seen its consumer business move from film to digital and it has to react -- it's too late to be out in front.

What this means is that the company will concentrate its efforst on consumer digital because that is where the major market is. In the mean time, if film sales continue to be profitable, Kodak will continue to make film.

But the end, I believe, is on the horizon. Hobbyists like myself have benefitted from the fact that large commercial industries like advertizing, portraiture and the movie industry have purchased large quantities of film over the years. This has made the professional lines that Kodak manufactures very viable. Professional studios have largely moved to digital to remain competitive -- clients expect the quick turnaround and Quark-ready images that digital provides. There is even a growing digitalization of the movie process that will elimiate the need for the miles of stock that Hollywood uses today. As the support that those industries supply erodes, the econmoy of scale that they provide will also erode making it less profitable for Kodak to stay in the film business.

As others have pointed out, others may fill the gap, but they too, wil have to be profitable to survive. Ilford - whose products I prefer - will have to face the same issues, eventually. The same for Forte, Bergger and the rest. Some may continue to provide products, but a shinking volume in demand would tend to push prices up and reduce the number of choices.

Finally, in defense of the accountants: I work for a major accounting firm. I am here to tell you that in most cases, the accountants do not run the companies. They provide the information that upper management uses to make decisions. Rare is the CEO or COO in industry who comes from the acoounting department or even the engineering department. (Lee Iacocca was considered to be a bit of an odd man out when he became chairman of Crysler, having been an engineer). The upper management tends to come from the ranks of sales because those are the folks who deliver revenue to the company.

So, why doesn't Kodak put Tri-X in Readykoads? The accountants would probably say the cost/benefit would be about the same. The sales guys, however, want to sell the new product TMax, more.

You might be able to influence Kodak as a stockholder, but be prepared to buy a million or so shares in order to be heard.

[Eric Woodbury]

I sent a message to Kodak: I buy Ilford films. They are much easier to find in the odd sizes.

[Michael Kadillak]

Hogarth has articulated the situation about as clearly as it could be stated. Here is where the pavement hits the infamous pedal:

If Kodak had one ounce of management proactivity to only see what their competitors were doing (let along what their customers want), they would not be in the mess that they are in. Period.

Unfortunately, with management asleep at the wheel for the last five + years such that the opportunity train has long since left the station, the only way to extricate them from control of the corporation is to watch it implode under the aggregate weight of competition and no business plan.

About the only good thing you can say about the status quo as we are watching this circle jerk is that it presents a great opportunity to make some money shorting this stock. Mark my word, Kodak will be forced by their own lack of direction/stupidity to pay a huge premium to acquire someone who is already a digital player to save their skin and it will be their demise.Until someone replaces Carp and his band of brothers, this pony will not get out of the corral.

It will not, however, have any impact on large format shooters ability to acquire film or most other conventional materials that they currently sell because they desperately need the cash flow.

[Ed Eubanks]

John said...
"Running in a distant secon to me are D-76, Dektol, Plus-X, Technical Pan and Verichrome Pan. Beyond these other companies seem to have something similar."
Frankly, this is the comment that took me most by surprise. Ilford's ID-11 long ago replaced D-76 for me, and the two appear to be virtually interchangeable (except that ID-11 is available in a broader range of quantities for less money). Similar with Dektol-- I actually use LPD, just because it lasts so silly long, but before that I have used Ilford Multigrade and others. I actually prefer FP4 to Plus-X, and I have never used Verichrome Pan. (For that matter, I prefer HP5 to Tri-X as well, but I know so many love ol' Tri-X.)
Technical Pan, to me, is truly a marvel; in the right context, it is amazing to use and print, and I would be saddened (and ashamed of Kodak) were it to be eliminated. I must confess, however, that I have only used it in rollfilm, because I cannot afford to buy even the smallest amount in 4x5. Further, it is so finicky in terms of development and handling issues, that I find more and more that I will choose NOT to use it, and instead turn to Ilford's Pan-F 50 when I need a fine-grain film. It is the rare circumstance that calls for Tech Pan, in my work.
So, would I miss some of Kodak's B&W products if they were discontinued? Sure-- certainly Tech Pan, maybe one or two others. Could I live without them? Just as certainly. Do I expect Kodak to discontinue them anytime soon? It would not surprise me at all...

[Chad Jarvis]

Kodak already knows which products you use, and they don't care why or how you use them.

[James Venis]

As best I know, Verichrome Pan never was made in regular sheet-film sizes. Kodak mainly offered it in rollfilm sizes 120, 620, maybe 127. There's also a mention of Cirkut film size. Verichrome was a lovely film, both fine-grained and tolerant of overexposure, but The Great Yellow Father discontinued it in 2002, so this horse has left the barn.

I still have two rolls of it that I guess I'm keeping for sentimental reasons. But they are about the only yellow boxes left in my storage cabinet, if that tells you anything.

[Christopher Condit]

I agree with Chad, Kodak knows perfectly well that what we buy most of is Tri-X, and they still refuse to put it in ReadyLoads. What more do you need to know about Kodak?

My plan remains to buy a little freezer, and the day Tech Pan and Tri-X are discontinued, to buy a life-time supply of each.

[David F. Stein]

"But the end, I believe, is on the horizon. Hobbyists like myself have benefitted from the fact that large commercial industries like advertizing, portraiture and the movie industry have purchased large quantities of film over the years."

I agree. The driver of film technology has been its commercial uses. It is painful to fathom, but I expect there will be a time when few or NO motion pictures are shot on film stock.The same forces apply to the cameras available and their relative costs. It is important to listen to customers and give them what they want, but who is also cultivating customers. What photographic entities, for example, are working closely with university and trade school photography programs-to build future sales base?

[tim atherton]

"It is important to listen to customers and give them what they want, but who is also cultivating customers. What photographic entities, for example, are working closely with university and trade school photography programs-to build future sales base?"

You mean all the ones that are rapidly dumping LF (and MF) from their programmes in favour of digital (even if it is a phase one back) and how to use Photoshop and a Mac?

One also has to wonder how long it will be before the likes of Sinar, Linhof will feel the pinch etc, who, I think, have always had a fair part of their sales to such schools and students in the form of "student starter kits

I am aware of several institutions that have recently sold off a lot of this gear (unfortunately not to me...) and won't be re-stocking more. Talking to students, many of them don't expect to have the opportunity to do much LF at school in the future. Not the case everwhere, but it's certainly a trend

[Donal Taylor]

"As best I know, Verichrome Pan never was made in regular sheet-film sizes. Kodak mainly offered it in rollfilm sizes 120, 620, maybe 127. There's also a mention of Cirkut film size. Verichrome was a lovely film, both fine-grained and tolerant of overexposure, but The Great Yellow Father discontinued it in 2002, so this horse has left the barn."

I think at the end it was made at the Kodak plant in Canada. Until very recently you used to be able to custom order it from Kodak Canada in special sizes such as for the Kodak scanning/panoramic cameras. You didn't used to have to order massive amounts and it came in nicely made custom boxes.

As for sending Kodak a message - the LF users of the mainly "hobby/amateur kind" (not meant in any negative sense) and even most of the full-time fine art photographers etc just don't even show up on Kodak's radar as a significant number of film users.

Once Schools and the really big major commercial users such as car and fashion photographers finally completely drop out of LF (architecture is already heading that way)