Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,192   Online: 702
      
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 128
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Kodak's CEO has been telling us this for years now. Unfortunately, many here simply refuse to listen to him.

    Colin is correct. It really does no good to bash Kodak. But it also does no good to praise them, either. Their long-term decision to get out of the photography market is absolute and unwavering. They - or he - see their future elsewhere. At this stage perhaps the best we can do regarding Kodak is to just give them an honestly sincere "Thanks for the memories..." At least until we reconvene this topic again in a few months for the next scheduled round.

    So did anyone else notice that Kodak Plus-X film has now been relegated to also-ran status on Kodak's Professional Black & White Films webpage?

    It's now listed way down at the bottom under the heading "Other Black and White Films" along with T-MAX P3200, and now merits only two lonely sentences of product information description. It's also conspicuously missing from the "Traditional" black & white films section of Kodak's online store - as is P3200 from the "T-Max" section.

    I wonder why that is?

    Maybe it's Kodak's way of trying to sell more of it?

    Ken
    The PXP and P3200 are still featured in the left-hand navigation frame with the same prominence as the other films.

    If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    I just confirmed that with Pete at Kodak Professional Products (Ext. 19). Kodak has also just discontinued TMX in 5x7, where 320TXP will be the only film available as a stock item.

    It doesn't seem like the 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 were to blame, since 5x7 TMX continued to be packaged in 50-sheet boxes, to no apparent avail.
    I think the 10-sheet boxes were indicative of a lack of faith on Kodak's part that there would continue to be a market for the film in 8x10.

    I think they had the product volume under a microscope. If a box with 20% of the product volume isn't turning over 5 times as quickly - demand is on the decline.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  3. #53
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,219
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?
    Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

    But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

    ...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

    "When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

    "PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."

    That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

    If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

    I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  4. #54
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,219
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    I think the 10-sheet boxes were indicative of a lack of faith on Kodak's part that there would continue to be a market for the film in 8x10.

    I think they had the product volume under a microscope. If a box with 20% of the product volume isn't turning over 5 times as quickly - demand is on the decline.
    This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

    But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

    ...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

    "When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

    "PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."

    That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

    If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

    I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

    Ken
    Kodak simply doesn't have the cash to broadcast that message in the face of a very well-monied digital onslaught. Nobody is aggressively marketing film in mass traditional or online media now.

    Kodak downsized their film production infrastructure tremendously 7 or 8 years ago - but their estimate of what would be the eventual, equilibirum size of the film market has proven to be too optimistic.

    Demand has continued to decline and now there is the double-whammy of an upward spiral in material costs.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

    Ken
    Ken,

    Kodak isn't looking for excuses to discontinue products. They are simply a cash-poor company that cannot afford to be behind market demand trends and suffer any sort of losses from continuing operations.

    Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again. But this simply isn't going to happen and they lack the resources to market film in the face of extremely-well-monied digital imaging comapnies. Not even FujiPhoto (of which FujiFilm is but one division of a much better capitalized company than EK) has the resources, and they are certainly showing no inclination to use what they have.

    I'm optimistic that a couple very small companies may keep analog B&W photo materials available for another few years or even another decade or two - but there is no "second coming of film" in the offing.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  7. #57
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,219
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again.
    PM sent, as this has already drifted too far off center line...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #58
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Quote Originally Posted by JLP View Post
    I do care but don't care much for your arrogance.
    You don't really believe that the quality from the new Adox pan 400 will be comparable to Kodak's first rate Q&A do you?
    Not bashing Adox and Mirko, i will most likely try to keep my now precious stock of TMY going as long as i can shooting Adox Pan 400 in the future.

    That Adox film is going to be made by most competent high rank people who did so before at Agfa.
    So much about arrogance.

  9. #59
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,173
    Images
    6
    Well, at least I'll be able to develop by inspection again.
    Jim

  10. #60
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,629
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    The PXP and P3200 are still featured in the left-hand navigation frame with the same prominence as the other films.
    Yeah, but why not on the right side with a graphic like the others? They even have room for two more boxes there.

    If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?
    Well, they feature Tri-X, a widely known, legendary even, film- so your question makes no sense. People who know about Kodak films don't need to go to their website to find out about them- it's those who don't know about the films.

    Grouping them under "Other Films" just makes them seem archaic or in some other way unsuitable to average users, and it also makes it look like Kodak doesn't really care about them. What's the point of not promoting them the same as the others? What's gained? It might make sense if the list of other films was of highly specialized films, or if it contained 10 or 20 emulsions, instead of 2.
    Last edited by lxdude; 12-09-2010 at 10:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin