So they are dropping 8x10 Tri-x but keeping it in 5x7. Seems weird to me. But the cost of 8x10 is probably causing some people change formats or switch to a cheaper film.
This is exactly why i wont buy any Kodak film. Although I'm relatively new to film, I started out with Ilford about 10 years ago and since then I've seen one film after the other being dropped by Kodak. I really don't want to start liking any Kodak product, invest time and effort in learning to shoot it, just to have it dropped by poor economic decisions made by Kodak. It's their instability that has prompted my decision to stay away from them. If they start getting hinky about their chemicals, I'll source out something else.
About a year ago, I was stocking up on film from B&H and I noticed just how many more varieties and different exposure options there were in Kodak's roll film offerings alone. The first thing I thought was "Man, they need to trim that down, I bet they would save a bundle in packaging costs alone."
So the BS posted above about not using a Kodak film due to fear of it disappearing is kind of, well, lame. Kodak is doing exactly what I would do if I were faced with needing to streamline the company to stay afloat. I use Tri-X, TMAX-100-400 and Ektar 100 in both 35mm and 120, I keep it well stocked in my freezer. The biggest problem I see and from what I have gathered in talking to Kodak them selves, DiSabato included is that while there are still a fair amount of people who use film, most only use a little bit, dabble in it. So even with those numbers, it is still too costly for them to have 100 different film sizes and options out there when stuff becomes short or outdated and does not move as well as say, Tri-X in 36 exposure rolls.
So they have to do this and frankly I am surprised it has taken this long. I work with about 10 different Kodak and Ilford black and white films and I think even that is too much. Many pros I know who shoot black and white all the time shoot with maybe three varieties, tops, for consistency's sake. They master the medium and then get to work. They keep a good inventory of it, rotate stock but don't go bitching on a forum about losing something that is less mainstream.
Do I wish it were different? Sure, but there is not much we can do, that is what the digital junk show has done to not only the photography world, but the entirety of it all.
The people in the Film and Entertainment Group have had the proverbial gun to their backs for years, especially since Perez, they care deeply about the product and the customer, but there is only so much they can do. I think losing 8x10 Ektar sucks, but it must be hell-a-niche in the first place, so stock up. Sell a lens to order a few grand worth and then freeze it, do what you have to in order to protect at least *your* future with it.
We are in a permanent global recession, the animal will change locations and behaviors, but it will always be there, affecting someone, so this is the new reality. Film offerings are going to shrink, so make smart choices in what you want to use and get on with it.
The day I can no longer get the films I want to use, which have been chosen partially in consideration of potentially being around the longest, I will get out of photography all together.
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
If Kodak disappears, it will hurt the entire film industry, including Ilford.
Buy the film products you like, and encourage others to do the same.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Yes, I thought it was still 2010
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
"According to their latest publically available accounts they had revenue of £22.6m and profit after tax of £1.4m for calendar year 2010 (though made a loss in 2009). So they were profitable in 2010, but there is no data to allow the reader to split revenue between film sales and other lines."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Shrug. I don't think 2011 figures are available yet, certainly not entire year figures since the year isn't over. That's the most recent data, AFAIK.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
I don't know - I can see "if you like Kodak buy it" but there's always the "don't get too used to because it will be gone next week" thought too.
In color I do like and use Kodak and will continue until it's gone. There's just nothing from Fuji that I'm aware of that's like Ektar 100, and nothing quite as good as the new Portras. I would use more E100G and E100VS but the demise of Ilfochrome even before I could get back into it leaves that less appealing than it would be otherwise. Besides, I don't think E100VS is available in sheets anymore anyway meaning for 4x5 I'd be using Velvia when I wanted amped up saturation.
I also recall PE saying that Ektar did not freeze well but maybe that was only the older version.
I don't really see the issue.
It doesn't take too long in my experience to get used to using another film; I reckon use what you like while you can and accept and adapt to whatever changes occur in the future.
I'm using Kodak and Fuji films, and Ilford and Foma papers and chemicals. I use what I like and see no point siding with a brand based on something other than how you feel about the actual product.
I think the reasoning is that the shrinking analog market has more players than it can keep afloat and it'd be better to have, say, two doing well than several struggling. But maybe you're right and it's best to let the market sort out the survivors and hope they aren't too bruised and bloodied by then to continue in business. But I admit I don't much trust "the market" - it's ruthlessly efficient but, like fire, is a capricious servant and a cruel master.
Keenly observed and most eloquently phrased...
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
"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