Rumor so far.... Kodak is killing off all B+W paper products.

[gnashings]

I have heard several professional photographers make comments to the effect that in order to stay competitive, you have to go digital. The simple amount of effort and time that they save calls for it. Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!
Therefore, as a proffesional wedding photographer, do I invest in a decent DSLR and a copy of Photoshop, buy a printer or find a place that has a good one, or do I buy film, pay someone to process it (most of these guys don't have the time to do their own darkroom stuff, or its not their forte), wait for the negs, study the proof sheets, send them back to a custom lab, etc etc, and so on and so forth? How long does it take for that crappy digi-gizmo to pay itself off? And the fact that you can have the results back to the bride before the initial euphoria wears off, and she realizes that there actually is NO way to make her look like the cover of Brides Monthly or whatever fantasy she managed to cram her portly frame into for the duration of the period of suspended reality she calls a wedding?
Bite the bullet, buy digital and count the money. Not to mention press photogs with their deadlines and logistical problems (especially foreign correspondace type stuff, I assume).
And if they still like film, if they still, after all that time, get that huge kick from seeing that image come up in a tray... well, they join our ranks here at APUG - namely those who try as they might, will never sustain an industry that is used to being in the big leagues.
The only bright side is, that as Flotsam pointed out very astutely, we will sustain an industry - just not the one that is currently out there. It will be a more costly, luxury and leaisure oriented industry akin to those who make brushes and paints, etc.
The only other hope is this - if we all spin it right, traditional photography will become the Evian (ever spelled that one backwards?) water of picture taking. It will be cool, or fashionable to have a "silver print" of your wedding. It will become something to be seen with - like a handbuilt car, or a cedar yacht. I just don't know if then the cure won't worse than the disease...

[David H. Bebbington]

I have heard several professional photographers make comments to the effect that in order to stay competitive, you have to go digital. The simple amount of effort and time that they save calls for it. Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!

Couple of points here. First, badmouthing another professional's work will not impress anyone - OK to take out one of your prints, show it to people and invite them to compare it with work by someone else that you don't think much of, not good to express yourself in the terms you have chosen.
Point 2 - there are people in this world (particularly analog photo fanatics) who will apply rigid technical standards to prints (must have an area of maximum black, must have an area of almost paper-base white). These criteria can be virtually meaningless to the public at large, who may find this kind of print too harsh and a technically "wrong" print (gray-to-gray) better. The achievable tone scale with digital b+w is virtually the same as with silver-based prints - in my personal case, I have not developed digital b+w printing skills to the degree where I can do the same as in the darkroom in terms of dodging and burning, so the darkroom has an edge - the public really don't care. Shots such as "Twilight, Minnis Bay" in my APUG gallery I take (on film) with the intention of making a fiber-based darkroom print, in the vast majority of cases I end up printing digitally (and selling). For wedding photography, speed of proofing is a strong argument in favour of digital, you are unlikely to want the archival qualities and ability to print very big which film could give you.

PS: Don't want to labor the point, but overweight and not outstandingly attractive people looking for a fantasy experience on their wedding day are your CUSTOMERS! Given your evident attitude to people of this kind, are you sure you want to be a wedding photographer at all?

[Rlibersky]

[QUOTE=Point 2 - there are people in this world (particularly analog photo fanatics) who will apply rigid technical standards to prints (must have an area of maximum black, must have an area of almost paper-base white). These criteria can be virtually meaningless to the public at large, who may find this kind of print too harsh and a technically "wrong" print (gray-to-gray) better.[/QUOTE]

My wife is always telling me to not talk about my work with a customer. I seem to be my worse critic.

[DKT]

I Take an example - wedding photographs. Recently I have seen people go positively ga-ga over some B&W (mor like gray&gray..but whatever) pictures included with thank you notes from weddings they attended. Apparently B&W is all the rage now in weddings (again...). I took one look at the photo and asked "Did this come as backing in a dollar store frame?" - and everyone was offended. The photo was pure $h!t, as were the other B&W photos that all these people were oozing about. My point? Most people on this site, even beginners like I, would takeone look, from quite far, and not care to use these "prints" to paper train their dog, lest the k9 have psychological scarring. BUT NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO NOTICE OR CARE!!!.

I think you're missing the point here--these prints you describe them as being included in a "thank you" note--are most likely not meant to be a finer-art masterpiece. 99.9% of them will wind up being stored promptly in the vertical file.

As for wedding photography--like any other profession there are all different levels. I would not criticize so quickly--without the benefit of standing in their shoes. I don't consider myself a wedding photographer, but like many other working photographers, I've done my share. Yeah--I've shot them in b/w as well.

When it comes to printing--it's no different than other commercial work. You can elevate it to a "fine art" level--but to make it as a living you need to prioritize the prints. The first round of proofs will be straight prints. If a lab does them--this often means a machine print. Even if you make them by hand with a machine, or by trays--you cannot proof dozens of rolls of film and have each frame be a masterpiece. You will never get them done, never make any money, and in the end, nobody cares because it's a proof. It will not be a great looking b/w print. The final prints will be. That is all that matters. Nobody cares about the quality of the proof. That's the point of the proof--to help with the edit. If a client can read a contact shet with the skill of the photographer--the proof print would never get made. If they knew how to read a negative, then the contact wouldn't even have to made.

So--forgive for sounding like a hardass, but complaining about a flat proof print, or a print put in a thank you note, is a little out of touch. I also agree with the others about tonality. One of my jobs before scanners, was to "print for reproduction"--this meant I had to print a certain way to be able to compress the tones in the print so they wouldn't get lost through the halftone screens. It's a full range print, but flat almost.

Nobody cares about that, when they look at a print on the wall or their refrigerator door. They only care about what speaks to them--and if they're the client and they're happy with your work, that's all that matters. To stand around and bitch about someone else's work is easy--to please your clients is another story, and in the end, nobody cares about what anyone else thinks. you please your client--you get paid. you get more jobs, life goes on.

[juan]

The folks in my camera club have recently become fascinated with monochrome, as they call it. Of course they mean digital - desaturating a color image and printing it on an inkjet printer. Their prints have lighter and darker shades of gray - no blacks and no whites. I guess they really are shooting monochrome. They say my Azo prints are too dark. It's all a matter of taste, I guess.

[stormbytes]

Here's the release I was sent:

Kodak Announces Discontinuance of KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black & White Papers

June 15, 2005 Due to the significant declines in market usage of papers
designed for Black-and-White printing, Kodak is discontinuing the
manufacture of all KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black & White Papers.

This announcement has no impact on the production or availability of
Kodak's portfolio of Black & White Films and Chemicals for processing
Black and White Papers or Films.

Most of the Black & White Paper products will remain available through the
end of 2005 - although depending on demand, some specific formats or
products may be exhausted sooner. The paper products affected are:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

Digital Black & White Paper RC base -For Digital Exposure -Traditional

B & W Process,

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

POLYCONTRAST IV RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL V-PRINT Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure -
Traditional B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

KODABROME II RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PANALURE Select RC Paper RC base -For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

POLYMAX Fine Art Paper Fiber base - For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

AZO Paper Fiber base - For Optical Exposure - Traditional

B & W Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PORTRA Black & White Paper RC base -For Optical and Digital Exposure

RA- 4 Process

KODAK PROFESSIONAL

PORTRA Sepia Paper RC base -For Optical and Digital Exposure

RA- 4 Process

THERE MUST be some mistake!

Michael & Paula KEPT Azo around! Why's it included in this list?? I spoke to M.Smith this morning, before coming across this article, in fact I've got a couple of boxes of Azo on their way! Michael would've said something..

I think this needs clarification

[lee]

dear SharpFocus,

Have you been under a rock? Smith has told us there is enough Azo now to last for about 5 years. He is presently working with someone to make a new version of Azo. Please check this thread early on toward the beginings.

lee\c

[Jim Chinn]

THERE MUST be some mistake!

Michael & Paula KEPT Azo around! Why's it included in this list?? I spoke to M.Smith this morning, before coming across this article, in fact I've got a couple of boxes of Azo on their way! Michael would've said something..

I think this needs clarification


Kodak produced the last of its AZO a few years ago. What remains (approx 5 year supply) is on master rolls at Kodak. Kodak has an agreement to provide AZO from the maste rolls to Michael and Paula for resale.

At one time it was thought Kodak would do another run of AZO at their Brazil facility. So technically Kodak is correct that there will be no more AZO produced. What remains is considered remaining stock that can only be obtained via Michael and Paula.

[stormbytes]

dear SharpFocus,

Have you been under a rock? Smith has told us there is enough Azo now to last for about 5 years. He is presently working with someone to make a new version of Azo. Please check this thread early on toward the beginings.

lee\c


Well now that you mention it...

I do live in a basement apartment in Brooklyn - Technically speaking I think that would qualify as "living under a rock" -

But back to the Azo issue...

I know/heard that Kodak has a 5 year supply and that it would be available through Michael/Paula. I thought that "5 year supply" was measure of continuity rather then a "final countdown". As for making another run, I think that now would probably be as good a time as any to push Kodak for that second run - Brazil or wherever they make it. You got to hit the anvil while its hot. Once things cool down & the shock of all the discontinued product is absorbed/muffled, we'd all be hard-pressed to get Kodak to roll its presses onces again.

As for the "new manufacturer" Michael was looking into, I can only say this:

Better one bird in the bag then two in the sky.

Daniel

[Jorge]

LOL..Daniel bubba, you have got to get out of that basement more often, the Brasil plant is shut down....no more papire my friend......your only hope is that MAS comes through...or learn to use another paper... :)

[roteague]

I think you're missing the point here--these prints you describe them as being included in a "thank you" note--are most likely not meant to be a finer-art masterpiece. 99.9% of them will wind up being stored promptly in the vertical file.

This thread sure has gotten way off track.

I personally don't do weddings, however, I don't see anything wrong with insisting on quality - although I wouldn't bad mouth the photos out loud. It all depends on the individual photographer, whether they are commited to their art, or whether it is just what they do for a living (like any other type of job). There are a lot of photographers out there who are not willing, or interested, in producing the best they can. It is up to you to determine which one you want to be.

[DKT]

hey--I agree, but I'm not advocating a GIGO approach here. I'm just saying put it in perspective. To make a living, you need to be realistic and have a range of services. It's basic business really. I'm not saying to produce sub-par work, to cut corners. I'm just saying a proof is a proof. a repro grade is repro grade. you get what you pay for.

I used to make a lot of PR prints at work, before we moved into FTP transfers and the like. I would have to make 350-500 5x7s of each of several negs in a day, using cut sheets processed using a machine. I'm good at it--I can do 350 in less than 2 hours, but it's zombie work. I like to do straight prints, but will do a minimal amount of dodging & burning if necessary. The important thing is to get them done consistently asap, and using minimal amounts of material.

My workplan actually--I get a few sheets of paper per negative. There was a problem with excessive usage years ago, so they implemented these plans and actually doled the paper out in small amounts to the worst offenders. You are expected to be able to print--to know your job. Even for exhibit prints, the limit is 5 sheets tops. That's how they budget the materials---I've worked on exhibits with budgets so tight, we had 2 sheets per neg and had to make 200 prints or more, getting up into 20x24s. With no excess--if you run out of paper, you're screwed.

Now you might get a negative that is really bad, and you know you only have a few sheets to work with. If you go over, how much do you go over? How much is it worth wasting materials, if in the end you still have a marginal print, because the negative is lousy? There has to be a limit. Otherwise, it's a trap--it's like quick sand, you find yourself trapped in it, making minor corrections to prints that only you can see. In the end, the first prints often look just as good, if not better than the final ones. You need to prioritzie--trust your judgement and get the job done.

It's hard for some people to do this. But it's a tradeoff you make to do the job. Does that make me lazy or unprofessional? Perhaps to some, but I would tend to think these would be people who've never worked for a living in photography.

[thedarkroomstudios]

The bottom line is that commercial printing, hobby printing and art printing are all very different. Newer folks come in and ask, "Gee, I only have 2 hours, how many prints can I get done?" My answer, "Well, some folks take 10 hours to do a print and others do 10 prints in an hour... it all depends on your skill and where you draw the line."
Hmm, flat prints usually idicate machine (which are getting better these days) while high-contrast prints often indicate a hand job (easier to knock out a decent looking roll of proofs at a higher contrast, slight exposure variences don't tend to be noticed as much).

"It's your art. If you like it, it's good. If some else is willing to pay for it, it's even better." -unknown

[jmailand]

As of today I can still go down to my local superstore (not Wal-Mart) give them a roll of B/W film, come back a few days later and have prints presumably made on Kodak B/W paper. Though I haven’t used this service myself since I got into darkroom processing, I know a few people who still do. I guess this will be another thing of the past, huh. So much for "you push the button and we do the rest".

Kodak has always been a beginning to end (film to prints) photo company. You take one out of the equation (paper) can the other (film) be far behind. If you use a lot of Tri-X you might want stock up the freezer. I have to think Kodak’s film making days are getting short. Maybe I'm wrong, but 5-10 years for everything but maybe a handful of emulsions that feed the small retro market.

[jmailand]

I found the following announcement on the Kodak web sight. I though I'd post this for a laugh or a cry. It certainly is Ironic (sorry Alanis M.). Read the last paragraph. Looks like their taking my Kodachrome, PolyContrast, and Azo away (sorry Paul Simon).

"ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry.

Eastman Kodak Company remains committed to providing Super 8 camera users a range of products and creative choices. As such, Kodak has added a new color reversal film to its Super 8 portfolio-the super-saturated, fine grain KODAK EKTACHROME 64T Color Reversal Film 7280 will be available in August of this year.

"Introduced in 1965, Super 8 film has found new life with each new generation of filmmakers that continue to embrace the format," said Bob Mayson, general manager and vice president for Image Capture products, Entertainment Imaging division at Eastman Kodak Company. "Forty years after its introduction, this small-gauge film still provides an easy, inexpensive way for students and enthusiasts to work at film resolutions and color depths as yet unmatched by the latest digital technologies."

"In fact, many of today's great cinematographers and directors began their careers decades ago, at the counter of their local photo shop, buying a cartridge of Super 8 film."

"That's why Kodak has continued to invest in the Super 8 business," he added. "We're just thrilled to introduce this vivid, new emulsion to the marketplace. It's a great new product with very high image quality and excellent color reproduction, providing our Super 8 customers another creative tool for their toolbox."

The new KODAK EKTACHROME 64T film expands the current Super 8 portfolio that includes two black-and-white reversal films in medium and high speeds covering a range of lighting situations. Super 8 customers will also find the latest KODAK VISION2 motion picture films available in 200T and 500T speeds, incorporating the highest quality images, improved sharpness and grain, along with a full systems approach, optimizing the entire imaging chain.

"With Super 8 gates now available for high-end scanners, coupled with the KODAK VISION2 film technology advancements, Super 8 is what 16 mm film used to be," says Mayson. "Super 8 color negative film has become another option for professionals with low budgets."

As part of the portfolio revamp, Kodak will discontinue sales of its S8 KODACHROME 40 Movie Film. Final sales of KODACHROME Super 8 will be based on product availability over the coming months. Sales of KODACHROME 16 mm films will continue, unaffected by this announcement.

The decision to discontinue KODACHROME in Super 8 was driven entirely by marketplace dynamics.

"Because the 'home movie' market has shifted to digital, sales of KODACHROME Super 8 film have declined significantly," according to Mayson. "In tandem with that decline, the availability of processing for KODACHROME Super 8 cartridges has diminished. In other words, fewer and fewer labs worldwide have the machines and the chemistry necessary to process this film emulsion in the Super 8 format."

Kodak will give customers at least a year to process their KODACHROME Super 8 film with Kodak or seek an alternative.

Kodak remains committed to the Super 8 format, as evidenced by the new film announced today. Kodak is building on a product line that covers the needs of enthusiasts, from a choice of stocks in negative, black and white, and reversal films. Kodak's intent is to maintain the format as long as it is supported by marketplace conditions."