Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,516   Posts: 1,572,129   Online: 1123
      
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 128
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Yeah, but why not on the right side with a graphic like the others? They even have room for two more boxes there.



    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.
    The "average" user, I'm afraid, isn't using film at all.

    Goodness, but I don't know why Kodak is under such a microscope. No, their website design is rather poor - but we are splitting hairs. The relegation of Plus-X and P3200 films to "Other Films" is not new - I paid a visit to web.arhive.org and it goes back to at least 2007.

    Kodak isn't alone in terms of having a less-than-optima web site.

    It isn't the work of a moment to find the B&W films on FujiFilm USA's site and they are still listing Neopan 1600 in 135 and Neopan 400 in 120 - both of which we now know have been discontinued. And yet they do not receive any criticism at all.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  2. #72
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsu...oryID.40677500

    On the Kodak website in the store they list some 35mm, 120, and 4X5 film. Just a partial page of film. On the main menu digital is on the top and film is way down the list as if it was nasty and had to be avoided as a first choice. I just can't come to terms with a company that brought generations up on it's products only to turn on them in arrogance. I'd give them an "F" for public relations.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsu...oryID.40677500

    On the Kodak website in the store they list some 35mm, 120, and 4X5 film. Just a partial page of film. On the main menu digital is on the top and film is way down the list as if it was nasty and had to be avoided as a first choice. I just can't come to terms with a company that brought generations up on it's products only to turn on them in arrogance. I'd give them an "F" for public relations.
    Your point about pubic relations rings true - but let's not forget that the market turned from them first. As it did for Agfa, Konica, Ferrania...

    Kodak didn't turn on their products in arrogance - they did so in desperation.

    Can you even buy film on Fuji's web site?
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  4. #74
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,575
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    We know that Kodak has been moving progressively to a digital focus for some time. This was a transformation that was begun under the previous CEO (Karp) in 2003.
    Yes, and this is really my main point in these discussions. Every time I read, "If we just keep buying Kodak film, Kodak will continue to make it," I cringe inside. As you note, they began moving away from film at least by 2003, if not earlier. Every move made by them since has only moved them further away. And closer to a film-less product line. So sadly, no, they will not continue making film, no matter how much we buy. According to their own repeated business guidance statements, film is no longer part of their long-term future plans.

    (In fact, if this latest set of Wall Street Kodak rumors finally turns out to be true, it might not even be part of their short-term future plans. Time will tell...)

    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Nobody wants to go to jail, true, but over-analyzing CEO sound bites is sometimes futile. CEOs do not go to jail for changing their minds, do they?
    Agreed. But then simply taking public statements at their face value is not really over-analyzing by my definition. And this wasn't a sound bite. It was a lengthy interview containing in-depth answers to most questions.

    As far as going to jail for a change of mind? If said change was rendered with malice aforethought, you betcha. It's called fraud.

    On a side note, I do want to say thanks for your lengthy, thoughtful response to my PM. You raise some issues I had not previously considered. On a few others we seem to be thinking in parallel. And for the rest I am quite satisfied that we can simply agree to disagree, and wait to see what happens. Good exchange.

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 12-10-2010 at 02:32 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Dang... somehow lost a verb in there.
    "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. #75

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    I'm glad they're keeping the Tri-X for now.....

    I don't shoot 8x10...but I would have liked to have used the T-Max 100 in my 5x7. Oh well! Is Neopan made in 5x7 or 8x10?

    Sometimes we tend to forget it, being in our analog bubbles here, but film has been critically wounded and is lying there dying. The body is still warm...but most definitely dying. It's just a matter of time, folks. We users will just keep dying off, while our kids know nothing of film. It is not going to get better unless the commercial photography world jumps back on board en masse. Artists have always had a very hard time keeping any material around that does not have widespread commercial applications.

    As for that last thing standing question...I would say that Kodak will let Tri-X and Plus-X go before T-Max. It is their state of the art film, and I think that most film shooters prefer it to the traditional films, though I do not (in general). I'd also guess that 35mm would be the last remaining format, just due to its popularity. By that point, I will need to sell a kidney on the black market to afford Ilford products in the U.S.A., and Fuji will have given up on us entirely. I guess I will have to move to Japan or England.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #76
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,956
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    But there is a possibility that the film division could be spun off or sold. There are some obstacles to doing so (toxic torts come to mind) - but one never knows.

    Part of their film coating has already been sold a few years ago.

  7. #77
    dr5chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    448
    Images
    12
    ..i've been saying for years that KODAK should sell off it's film division. It will save the films as they are known. It worked for the Ilford films. The big corporate machine no longer works for traditional imaging products and services.

    Isnt KODAK who just recently put out an article boasting an upswing in film use?
    Film use and sales are up this year, and not by a little. There's something wrong with this picture...

    dw

  8. #78
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Kodak didn't turn to digital out of necessity though, they helped invent it! Their hope was that a Kodak sensor would be in every camera in the world and that they'd make bucketloads of money over it. Kodak sensors are in some cameras but I wonder how much of a percentage? They guessed wrong, that selling a sensor instead of X rolls of film would generate more profit. That Kodak digital printing would outsell Kodak photo paper and chemicals. I'm sure their accountants had a look and they convinced themselves that if they didn't do it, someone else would and that they could be more profitable with digital. Oops? I don't know, this is how businesses go.

    Companies that just made typewriters and cash registers now make other stuff and they've done pretty well. No one is crying for their manual typewriters though using one is nostalgic once in a while. Same goes for old cash registers, anyone who has closed out for the night prefers the current solutions. But there is no artistic value in a cash register, and perhaps just a little in an old typewriter one could argue.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  9. #79
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Fuji and Kodak might be too large - but it's a valid question as to whether Ilford, Adox, Foma et. al. are too small.

    I'm speaking here of raw material costs and availability. The manufacture of analog photographic materials requires the use of silver and rare earth metals. We have entered a period where not only there is increasing demand for these materials for industrial use (e.g. electric car batteries, etc.) but there is now increasing investor demand for these as well to hedge against currency declines. Add to this the fact that most of the rare earth metals are sourced from China - who have become sort of picky about who they are willing to export these to (witness the embargo of rare earth metals to Japan earlier this year) - and it isn't a stable picture.

    Of course these pressures could dissipate - but I would expect that the smaller manufacturers could encounter difficulty in continuing to operate if they persist for much longer.

    We will have to see, but I perceive that the long-term outlook has darkened a bit here. We've adjusted to declining demand for analog photo products (so have the remaining manufacturers) but the material cost/availability issues are something else entirely. I do not see any adjustment possible here (except for charging more for the finished product) - the issues simply have to go away.
    But if what you claim is true then less demand for silver (due to lower volumes being consumed in the photograhic industry) will result in lower silver nitrate prices.

    It is not a question of silver nitrate and goldchloride. Market prices of these metals go up due to reasons beyond the photographic industry (just as you indicated) and yes there will be a certain price effect no mater who is in the film business if they raise. But they have also fallen in the past 8 years. No one can predict the future.

    It is more a question of the long and complex synthesis of stabilizers and sensitizers for some very small scale products but even with our current level of production (which is very small compared to Kodak´s) we are way beyond the point of well diluting these costs in an economic way.
    Film base is also used for LCD screens and other media so there´s no problem as well.
    The only problem at present is fibre base paper. Maybe some day someone apart form the paper industry has to start coating baryta on paper. But this has been done up to the 70ies by almost any photo factory and fibre paper is already neither used by Kodak nor by Fuji for over 5 years now.

    At present we buy all our raw materials independantly from Kodak and as far as I know our sources do not sell to Kodak or Fuji (which is not difficult to believe because Kodak and Fuji can make almost anything by themselves).

    I don´t want to put this thought about raw materials and market decline completely off the table but I am pretty convinced that there will be ways to work it out. Technology advances and many materials can be made today at a fraction of the cost they were made 15-20 years ago. Especially in high grade chemistry, synthesis and around solvents.

    Let´s not worry to much.

    Mirko

  10. #80
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,701
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    The "average" user, I'm afraid, isn't using film at all.
    Obviously, I was referring to an "average" film user. "Typical" would have been a better word.
    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