Kodak's down? Tri-X will survive...

[NB23]

Spending 4000$? Terrible, terrible recomendation.
If you spend that kind of money you wont return for a few years, sending a bad message. And why buy 1000 rolls now when you can buy 100 and wont have it expire on you?

What kodak wants to know is if there's a next generation after the old generation stops shooting or living (us). No matter how much we use the film, what's important to know is if there's a next one coming.
And the answer to this is no, unfortunately. And this is where film dies a peacecul death together with us.
The next generation wont even care nor will we, after all.

[Sal Santamaura]

...The freezer I am using...has lead sheeting on the interior and exterior...Lead sheeting won't help. It's transparent to the background cosmic radiation that, cumulatively, will fog film. Rate of fogging depends on film speed and emulsion, with conventional-grain types often less susceptible at a given speed than tabular or core-shell flavors.

The only thing that will effectively eliminate fog from cosmic radiation is a substantial layer of earth. But make sure there's no granite in that layer. I've often thought that the underground refrigerated storage offered by this outfit

http://www.undergroundvaults.com/index.php/offerings/secure-storage-facilities/refrigerated-storage/

would be optimum, but am afraid to even ask for a quote. :)

Tri-X in sheets is one of those higher-speed films that lasts very well in long-term frozen storage, suffering only a very gradual increase in fog. One can lower the exposed speed over time and simply print through the fog, being left with a perfectly usable EI 250 film (rotary, ID-11 1:1) even after decades. Fresh, that combination yields a 0.1 over fb-f EI of 500; I shoot it at 250 anyway to get off the toe, so don't anticipate any change in my shooting routine over time.

Given already announced Kodak discontinuations, not to mention probable imminent bankruptcy, I decided a dedicated film freezer wouldn't be worth the floor space, cost (acquisition and energy) or trouble for me. Instead, I negotiated with my wife to "split up" volume in the freezer compartment of our regular refrigerator-freezer. Then I concluded that, for the most part, 5x7 320TXP was the best film to bank.

As a result, I removed an inner door and shelf in the ice tray area to accommodate even more boxes than were already cached. There are now 1,800 sheets of 5x7 and 100 sheets of 8x10 320TXP in the freezer. An additional 126 sheets of 5x7 remain in the refrigerator compartment. And we can still store all the food our cooking/eating habits require. Seems like a good compromise, especially since I haven't found any film that better matches the thousands of sheets of Azo I stockpiled when that final batch was sold. As an amateur who is 14 years older than you and shooting much less, Dan, I'm considering this a lifetime supply.

[stormbytes]

Spending 4000$? Terrible, terrible recomendation.
If you spend that kind of money you wont return for a few years, sending a bad message.

This has to take stupidity to a whole new level. I won't "return" for a few years?? Return to what exactly? Sandisk memory cards? I'm sure there will be plenty to be had! The question of stocking up on a cherished medium is about securing availability when the fate of continuity is all but sealed.


What kodak wants to know is if there's a next generation after the old generation stops shooting or living (us). No matter how much we use the film, what's important to know is if there's a next one coming.

The basis for this entire thread is the unspoken consensus that there is no "next one coming". Rather then spouting thoughtless discouragement, I suggest you try to see the matter in its proper context.

[Rudeofus]

The basis for this entire thread is the unspoken consensus that there is no "next one coming". Rather then spouting thoughtless discouragement, I suggest you try to see the matter in its proper context.
Just to back this up: The small but thriving dark room crowd in our local photo club (100+ members) consists mostly of younger folks (25-45 years old) while the old members (50+) are 100% digital.

Some people like CGW, Aristophanes and NB23 really seem to get a kick out of calling film a dead medium. If they truly believed in their assertions in any way, why do they spend hours per day (look at the sheer length of Aristophanes' postings in multiple threads! ) and hang out with us luddites here on APUG, when they could get a nice smart phone and set their sail into a bright future? It looks like film has become so popular lately that APUG has attracted its share of trolls now :(

[bwfans]

Exciting thoughts. Not enough to save Kodak. But it is the best investment, in my opinion, if you are a dedicated film user.

You probably can buy Tri-X for $2 to $3 a roll five years back. And you probably can buy Tri-X for $6-$8 a roll in next three to five years, if you still able to find it. In last five years, Tri-X has appreciated its value for about 50-100%. And in next five years, it will appreciate its value again 50% to 100%.

Can you get this kind of result from a bank or investment account with a simple no-brainer purchase?

So I think this is a great investment decision.

But this won't save Kodak. If there are 1,000 APUGers bought 1,000 rolls of Tri-X in 2012, that will be 1,000,000 rolls. Sounds a lot. But that is 4 million dollar only even if you purchase directly from Kodak. A fired Kodak CEO probably can take 40 millions dollars home. In that case, 1,000 APUGers need to purchase 1,000 rolls of Tri-X 10 times, or 10 years to satisfy a typical exiting CEO's stomach.

Now what kind of consumer purchase can save Kodak? You need, additionally, one million people to buy 100 rolls of Kodak film for $4 a roll every year to help Kodak's consumer film division to break even this year, or every year. And there are a bunch of divisions losing this kind of money at Kodak every year.

[Rudeofus]

Exciting thoughts. Not enough to save Kodak. But it is the best investment, in my opinion, if you are a dedicated film user.


It might be an investment but it might as well not. And saving Kodak is neither our job, nor within our reach, especially as long as Kodak includes an inept CEO with no vision but with a corporate jet.

It's funny: for a decade or more Kodak has defined itself as a digital company and treated film like an unwanted child. Huge amounts of money were transferred away from its film division to pay for that digital transition. And now, that this whole circus nears its end, the analog folks are the only ones (besides former and current employees and of course the stock owners) who mourn the demise of Kodak.

[Aristophanes]

Just to back this up: The small but thriving dark room crowd in our local photo club (100+ members) consists mostly of younger folks (25-45 years old) while the old members (50+) are 100% digital.

Some people like CGW, Aristophanes and NB23 really seem to get a kick out of calling film a dead medium. If they truly believed in their assertions in any way, why do they spend hours per day (look at the sheer length of Aristophanes' postings in multiple threads! ) and hang out with us luddites here on APUG, when they could get a nice smart phone and set their sail into a bright future? It looks like film has become so popular lately that APUG has attracted its share of trolls now :(

I do not think film is a dead medium.

I think that way a market thinks of film and its placement within is in the wrong place and needs to change to allow roll, cartridge, and sheet film to survive. This change will have to take place both on the producer and consumer side, and requires multiple pieces in play.

At the heart of it is raw economics. The home hobbyist darkroom crowd is a resourceful evangelizing source of pro-film bias, but there is nowhere near enough volume to make up for the demand loss of almost all the pro market and certainly the consumer market. The inward looking focus of the darkroom set (which had a modest but nevertheless small market impact on the industry when home darkrooms became a thriving hobby industry in 1970's and 80's , especially in suburban America and Canada with all those new basements in need of a purpose) is actually part of the problem. There will never been enough volume of this crowd to make a dent in the demand side, and, to be blunt, many people find the darkroom concept a barrier to film enjoyment. Most people just want to shoot. this is not a bad thing, but a good thing.

In order for any film production to survive you'll need a majority of the market processing through mini-labs with scans and multiple ways of sharing. The economy-of-scale these well-established systems provide offer the greatest chance for retention of enough demand to keep the rollers rolling. This should be encouraged and discussed (which APUG gets into spasms about, especially the scanning side which is now integral to the business case and consumer enjoyment). That level of industrial consumption and processing is the only way to keep the required level of industrial film production going, even with multi-format/session coating machines in play. Ilford launched their photo lab service because of that harsh economic reality. The Lomo crowd also has it right.

Film is NOT versus digital. Got that? The vast majority of film shooters shoot digital as well. That's not a threat or a zero sum game; it's an opportunity. The either/or hyperbole doesn't help.

Generally stockpiling anything perishable is a time limited solution. It's survivalist photography.

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Kevin,

Just for the sake of accuracy : We are indeed a small company but a little larger than the $ 20m you suggested:


HARMAN technology Limited sales in 2010 were £ 23,076,000 x 1.55 USD to the £ gives sales of
$ 35,768,000 :

Dear Domaz : As for 2010 we were profitable, as for 2011 we are profitable, and I do know:

Also as a private limited company in the UK we are required under law to submit our audited accounts to companies house in the UK, they can be inspected by anyone, or indeed you can get a full copy of those accounts but you have to pay.

Regards Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

[Kevin Kehler]

Simon, I forgot the statement was in pounds, as opposed to dollars. It is obvious in retrospect but something I overlooked. Thanks for the correction. My point was that Ilford is a small company when compared to most global companies and would likely lack the resources to take over Tri-X production.

[NB23]

Stormbyte, Yeah, you want to sound even smarter? Recommend all of us to spend 20,000$ each on some film that will ultimately expire in 2014.
Way to go.

[thomas l]

Why should Ilford make Tri-X, when it has its own HP5 and Kentmere 400?

It is possible to make Tri-X, Mirko stated in this thread http://forum.fotoimpex.de/index.php?showtopic=2480&st=0 that it would cost around 2.000.000,- € and a time from one to two years to start producing Tri-X again on different coating machines. If it can be made on the coating machines used by Kodak today it's cheaper (, but there you have the problem with the big charges and are maybe producing too much film).

[viridari]

Perhaps buying 1,000 rolls of HP5+ would have been a better down payment on the future of film.

[thomas l]

Yes I think you are right.

[MDR]

If Kodak stops making TRI-X the new Tri-X (from another company) would definetely not be identical to the original it might come close but not identical just like I doubt that Mirko's APX Clone will be identical to the original. His MCC paper is superb but it's not identical with the original product neither was his first testrun of the APX 400 clone. As has been stated by PE many times it's not that easy to recreate an emulsion even on the same machine. I also hope that Tri-X will remain in production for the next 50+years under the Kodak label.

Dominik

[michaelbsc]

In order for any film production to survive you'll need a majority of the market processing through mini-labs with scans and multiple ways of sharing. The economy-of-scale these well-established systems provide offer the greatest chance for retention of enough demand to keep the rollers rolling.

I've thought this for a while. What's really needed is for a lab to offer absolutely stupendous scanning on disposable cameras with a "free" disposable camera coming back at you. Just like Kodak used to send you a "free" roll of film in the package. Free my foot, but it got put back in the camera, and returned with the money.

[Rudeofus]

I do not think film is a dead medium.

I think that way a market thinks of film and its placement within is in the wrong place and needs to change to allow roll, cartridge, and sheet film to survive. This change will have to take place both on the producer and consumer side, and requires multiple pieces in play.

At the heart of it is raw economics. The home hobbyist darkroom crowd is a resourceful evangelizing source of pro-film bias, but there is nowhere near enough volume to make up for the demand loss of almost all the pro market and certainly the consumer market. The inward looking focus of the darkroom set (which had a modest but nevertheless small market impact on the industry when home darkrooms became a thriving hobby industry in 1970's and 80's , especially in suburban America and Canada with all those new basements in need of a purpose) is actually part of the problem. There will never been enough volume of this crowd to make a dent in the demand side, and, to be blunt, many people find the darkroom concept a barrier to film enjoyment. Most people just want to shoot. this is not a bad thing, but a good thing.

In order for any film production to survive you'll need a majority of the market processing through mini-labs with scans and multiple ways of sharing. The economy-of-scale these well-established systems provide offer the greatest chance for retention of enough demand to keep the rollers rolling. This should be encouraged and discussed (which APUG gets into spasms about, especially the scanning side which is now integral to the business case and consumer enjoyment). That level of industrial consumption and processing is the only way to keep the required level of industrial film production going, even with multi-format/session coating machines in play. Ilford launched their photo lab service because of that harsh economic reality. The Lomo crowd also has it right.

Aristophanes, you essentially say film is well alive but the whole world would have to change to make it so. This does mean "film is dead", and most folks here on APUG interpret you that way, just like CGW and NB23.

There's a good chance that Kodak will go down the drain real soon now, whether we like it or not. It is highly unlikely that the whole world will change before Kodak runs out of options. I envision the movie industry pick up the shambles from Kodak's film business for a few years until they have completed the conversion to either Fuji stock or digital, and it is unclear whether the movie industry will support us photographers.


Generally stockpiling anything perishable is a time limited solution. It's survivalist photography.
If a frozen stock pile keeps me going for 20 more years, what more can I ask for? Tri-X film lasts about that long in a freezer (according to PE whom you love to whole quote lately) and I am about to learn how to mix the chems myself. Call it survivalist all you want (CGW loves that term, too), I'd rather be the last one to try (with the option of failure) than the first one to give up.

[Rudeofus]

If Kodak stops making TRI-X the new Tri-X (from another company) would definetely not be identical to the original it might come close but not identical just like I doubt that Mirko's APX Clone will be identical to the original.
Kodak has changed the recipe of Tri-X multiple times yet it's still Tri-X. I have no idea why nobody with the necessary budget should be able to recreate Tri-X. The question is rather whether all those screaming "Tri-X or nothing" would rather pay extra for the survival of Tri-X or whether they will quietly move to HP5 as soon as the remaining Tri-X stock dries up. The thread about the discontinuation of Kodachrome is longer than its customer list for it must have been for a while.

Instead of ragging at everyone trying to recreate loved film emulsions we should rather applaud their efforts. Nobody helps film if we only moan about minute differences between old and new stock and keep denouncing everything which looks just a bit different from what we use right now.

[MDR]

Rudeofus is it really the same I think not the emulsion became finer grained had better color reproductions etc... but it's not the same as the original Tri-X or the Tri-X from the 70's it's the Tri-X from the late 90's. I applaud Mirko's and other Manufacturers wish to (re)produce the emulsions we all love but claiming that they are identical is a bit much. Ilford was (I believe) always honest in that regard HP3 >new emulsion HP5 >new emulsion HP5 plus etc.. Kodak should have done the same thing.

Dominik

[thomas l]

Rudeofus is it really the same I think not the emulsion became finer grained had better color reproductions etc... but it's not the same as the original Tri-X or the Tri-X from the 70's it's the Tri-X from the late 90's. I applaud Mirko's and other Manufacturers wish to (re)produce the emulsions we all love but claiming that they are identical is a bit much. Ilford was (I believe) always honest in that regard HP3 >new emulsion HP5 >new emulsion HP5 plus etc.. Kodak should have done the same thing.

Dominik

Mirko didn't mention in his german thread that the film would be identical, but that it would be near identical. Even different charges of Tri-X are not completely identical. You are right, that the MCP and MCC are not identical to the original, but nobody claimed that they are identical. But the real difference within the two papers is not the emulsion, but the carrier (is it the correct english word?), so the paper itself is different because the original carrier isn't available anymore. So Adox MCP and MCC is coated onto the same paper as Ilford papers are, so the new paper is more white than the old one.

I do not use Kodak B&W films, but colour films, so I hope that they will be produced by Kodak in the future. It would much more difficult to build up a new coating line for colour films than for a b&w film.

[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes, you essentially say film is well alive but the whole world would have to change to make it so. This does mean "film is dead", and most folks here on APUG interpret you that way.


The world HAS changed. it's the denial of that reality among some (often very bitter) filmophiles that is part of the problem. They are stuck in a 1987 time warp. The nostalgia about how film may come back vs. digital is ludicrous. It's like saying we'll use the internet but with typewriters. Or if we all spend $4,000 on hard copy encyclopedias we'll bring back that industry.

Very few enthusiastic digital photographers bad-mouth film the way that some users here bad-mouth digital, (and Lomography). Anyone who is legitimately passionate about imaging AND who wants to see film as a viable medium going forward should understand the changes and work through that information channel towards keeping as broad a film market as possible rather than parochial in-fighting and silly boundaries about what can and cannot be discussed.

How many biz classes teach that you can promote a product through censorship and stifling of discussion? Think about it.