Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

[Pere Casals]

Instead of your continually preaching to the choir why don’t you take your theory directly to the sources and ask upper level management at Kodak, Fuji and Ilford about your Don Quixote crusade?

I did it !

I e-mailed several kodak product managers to explain them my point of view. Just I told them that their pricing policy for LF film looks good if they are to close, but if not a better choice it would be expanding the customer base with a popular pricing.

Of course I got no answer from them...

Pere seems to have an amazing amount of inside knowledge, and must have some very skilled industrial spies on his payroll. I'd hate to see someone at Fuji or Harman go to the firing squad just for throwing a note with an emulsion formula on it into the trashcan.

Drew, just read (if you haven't) Making Kodak Film book. Another interesting book for you is "Innovating Out of Crisis: How Fujifilm Survived (and Thrived) As Its Core Business Was Vanishing"



Just read those two books...

It's a question of minimum length, not roll diameter when coating.

There is no minimum roll length, you can coat 1m if you want. Auxiliary/Reusable film bands can be used for leading and trailing the coated section. Of course a manufacturer will decide what is the most cost effective coating batch depending on consumption, financial cost of having the manufactured product in the cold store, initial manpower (etc) for each batch...

I was speaking about another thing, coating machinery has rollers to guide film transport, some (sheet) film may have a minimum transport roller diameter to not bend it too much inside the machine. Just speculating that some coating machines may not be able to coat some thick sheet film.

kodak was coating sheets in a different machine/place than rolls, IIRC. This is an speculation: I see little factors that won't allow to coat sheet film in a machine that is coating roll film, the single one I can guess is diameters of rollers in the transport system across drying, etc

Some people at Kodak (IIRC) complained that ilford had a more flexible manufacturing facility, as they had machinery that was designed to be efficient for the mass production days... not for today's low scale production.

And have you actually tested the TMX sheet base for incorporated UV blocker?

Yes, I've to check it better but my preliminary tests show that the base it's blocking UV, as others have said in this forum.

[Bob Salomon]

I did it !

I e-mailed several kodak product managers to explain them my point of view. Just I told them that their pricing policy for LF film looks good if they are to close, but if not a better choice it would be expanding the customer base with a popular pricing.

Of course I got no answer from them...




Drew, just read (if you haven't) Making Kodak Film book. Another interesting book for you is "Innovating Out of Crisis: How Fujifilm Survived (and Thrived) As Its Core Business Was Vanishing"



Just read those two books...

Emailing is stupid. Make an appointment with someone in upper, not middle, management and present your theories face to face.

You have any idea how many emails those guys receive? And most wouldn’t be read by an executive, am assistant would read it and, if it has merit, pass it on.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, what I see is what everybody may notice. Ilford has a pricing policy that is mostly based in the film surface you buy, (so probably based on ex-factory cost), while Kodak/Fuji were punishing LF photographers with x2 "per surface" overprice for the LF products compared to rolls.

Recently Kodak has modified their pricing policy (in the US at least) for BW film and they charge only a 50% more for LF, well... this is a better situation.

In the color negative LF segment they have no competition and Portra 160 in sheets is still x2 more expensive than in 120 rolls ($15.5 a 8x10" sheet vs $7 a 120 roll).




Those are the facts, what we see.

Continuing to inject emotional conjecture into a business model that you have no inside connections to or direct business experience from is absolutely meaningless. Kodak "punishing" LF photographers literally cracks me up. Really? You have a problem with companies maximizing their profits? Clearly someone is buying their sheet film and ringing their cash register or the price in a competitive market would correct itself. Get over it. Nobody is forcing you into any purchasing decision. Let it go.....

[Pere Casals]

Emailing is stupid. Make an appointment with someone in upper, not middle, management and present your theories face to face.

You have any idea how many emails those guys receive? And most wouldn’t be read by an executive, am assistant would read it and, if it has merit, pass it on.

You are right... but reaching the right people is something difficult for somebody like me and probably it's time consuming. Today Kodak film division is an small company, it should be easier than in the past to reach the right people.


Instead, with ilford I found it's easier to speak with the people you want, I've just contacted them to ask some technical questions and I got fast&good answers.

[Pere Casals]

Kodak "punishing" LF photographers literally cracks me up. Really? You have a problem with companies maximizing their profits?

No problem with companies maximizing their profits, but I've a problem if they priorize profits in the short term, destroying the customer base, and finally discontinuing the product, that policy may destroy color negative LF photography for ever, are you aware of that?

Get over it. Nobody is forcing you into any purchasing decision. Let it go.....

Of course, but we have some "Freedom of speech". Today kodak has a monopoly in the LF color negative film, if I find they have an abusive behaviour (moral or legal) I've the right to say it.

[Bob Salomon]

You are right... but reaching the right people is something difficult for somebody like me and probably it's time consuming. Today Kodak film division is an small company, it should be easier than in the past to reach the right people.


Instead, with ilford I found it's easier to speak with the people you want, I've just contacted them to ask some technical questions and I got fast&good answers.

The people,you reach that answer tech questions are too low on the management scale. All companies have them. You want upper management. Not techs.

There are other ways to reach upper management. Many will be at major shows like Photokina to meet with major accounts. Try making an appointment to meet them there.

Industry press can be a conduit for you if you present a logical case to them, but so far your case isn’t.

[BrianShaw]

Buy the company. That’s one way to get them to listen... and better postures oneself to change business practices.

[Michael Kadillak]

No problem with companies maximizing their profits, but I've a problem if they priorize profits in the short term, destroying the customer base, and finally discontinuing the product, that policy may destroy color negative LF photography for ever, are you aware of that?

Good Gawd. What a complete contradiction of terms. You claim you have no problem with companies maximizing profits but have a problem with destroying the customer base and discontinuing the product. What planet are you living on?

Kodak Valeris (or any corporation for that matter) maintains the complete authority of doing whatever the hell they want to do with their product base including running the company straight into the wall and filing for bankruptcy if their decisions are not timely and prudent in their competitive domain. They can also choose to double or triple their product price at a moments notice without offering any reason for doing so. And they do not have to check in with you or anyone in the process. You are a consumer not one of their corporate executives or a member of their board of directors. What you espouse is a quasi socialism context as to a corporations obligation to the customer that simply does not exist in a capitalist system that exists today. If they want to destroy color films completely, it is their right to do so. How can this be so difficult for you to wrap your head around? Check your emotion in at the door. This is business 101.

[Pere Casals]

What you expose is a quasi socialism context as to a corporations obligation to the customer that simply does not exist in a capitalist system that exists today. If they want to destroy color films completely, it is their right to do so. How can this be so difficult for you to wrap your head around? Check your emotion in at the door. This is business 101.

Michael, you defend socialism, I defend capitalism. Capitalism is aganist monopolies and price fixing, because those are socialist concepts. Kodak has a monopoly in the CN sheet film and they fix a price (no competition)

Capitalism is about improving efficiency through competition, and profits come from efficiency, from volume growth and from innovation, not from price fixing and from chiselling customers after a monopoly. Socialism is about monopoly and price fixing that discourages efficiency.

Film is a decadent market, not a perfect market, anyway present CN LF sheets situation is aganist capitalist conception.

They can also choose to double or triple their product price at a moments notice without offering any reason for doing so.

Yes, because anti-monopoly US federal laws won't be applied, only ATT and Standard Oil saw that, Microsoft was near at one time. Anti-Price_Fixing laws have been applied more times.

Anyway if they can triple their price then consumers can also complain, there is Freedom of Speech in that, insn't it ?

I've never said that Kodak cannot legally triple the CN sheet price compared to 120 format, but I can opine that their policy damages popularity of CN LF photography helping its extintion, which is obvious.

Buy the company.

Now this is possible, it's about having (only) $34 million (or less) as Alaris film/paper/chem division is for sell, and that price was suggested.

https://www.insideimaging.com.au/201...k-up-for-sale/

https://web.archive.org/web/20190425...k-up-for-sale/

and better postures oneself to change business practices.

It won't be difficult to improve their business "excellence". Film commercialization had Alaris in the middle, those were UK Kodak Pension Plan managers, nasty managers. For us, the film photographers, it would be interesting that some corporation with ilford's menthality could purchase the Kodak's film business, we would see a bet for the long term, I guess.

Industry press can be a conduit for you if you present a logical case to them, but so far your case isn’t.

Bob, if they are to sell the company then they are only interested in the short term profits, because it's what it will make the sell easier to happen and what it would help a higher price, if the buyer doesn't see the related customer base decrease from the overprice. I'm sure that you understand that...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190425...k-up-for-sale/


So IMHO Alaris is making a bet for the short term, not mattering if they destroy the customer base or if they provocate the CN LF extintion in the mid term. This is what we have.

[Oren Grad]

Everyone has had their say, and then some.