Ah, yeah that is a bummer, happened to me with Kodachrome 25 back in 2004. I have to say that sometimes it is better to be out of the loop and off the Internet for sure. I know you don't like the Tmax products and they are an acquired taste, especially the 100, but FP4 is a good film too and I am pretty confident it will stick around.
Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim
+1. But mostly (post-Kodachrome/post-Ektachrome) Ilford products. While I would love to offer more support to the folks at EK, the company has - Tri-X excepted - discontinued every other Kodak product I have ever used!
Originally Posted by PKM-25
I'm sure the decline in film related revenues is mostly due to motion picture print materials - the digitization of theatres has accelerated tremendously in the last year.
It would be really interesting to know what the still film and paper and chemistry numbers are, but I'm sure we never will.
“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
There was a statement from the consumer division in the Summer indicating sales were up slightly. However that's overshadowed by larger declines in sales of movie film.
Originally Posted by MattKing
If Kodak was a profitable business, I'd understand your sentiment. Given that they lost triple digit millions, a 15 million profit in one segment doesn't look bad .... please tell me again what they want to achieve in their "digital future".
Originally Posted by Pioneer
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think part of the problem is that Kodak has killed off their unique products. I loved plus-x, although the price hikes made it kind of ridiculous towards the end of production. I loved elite-chrome too. Axing that seems kind of stupid considering Fuji axed their cheap slide films around the same time.
Don't blame the companies who make the film, blame your self and your friends for not buying enough. Everyone wants Ilford to come out with a replacement for IR820 but Simon has stated on several occasions that he doubts that would happen....there is a reason for that, it is called ROI and economies of scale...
Originally Posted by Yashinoff
I'm sure that if you take the time to adapt to FP4 you might find it works well for you. As for Kodak nixing unique products, at this point in time, all film is unique somewhat, TMY in 4x5 being very much so....
Kodak didn't "kill off" films just to spite people. Believe me, if they could, I bet they would be running every film emulsion they ever came up with in every size it was ever offered. But they are a commercial business and they have to make a profit! So no more Techpan, no more Kodachrome, no more Plus-X, and goodbye to the entire E-6 production.
Instead of movie makers shooting on Plus-X, they are shooting on digital. Flat out fact, not enough love for black & white. Instead of chromes, the commercial shooters are using digital. And just because Techpan gave the abjectly awsome enlargements, stuff is stitched and filled, and nobody cares. The populace is happy with an inkjet print.
And of course Kodachrome was twice as expensive as any E-6.
Once upon a time, consumer production was 95% of Kodak's output. Now movie film is 95% of Kodak's output. And all of the numbers are dropping. If all of the members on the forum got together and bought $1000 of Kodak film a month, it wouldn't be enough to sustain anything. I have no idea what will happen next year. When Fuji diversified, it kept everything under its operational umbrella. When Kodak diversified, it spun off or sold off, and the profit no longer went to Kodak. If Kodak had bought Apple, Apple would be dead. If Kodak had bought Google, Google would be dead. They have a lead touch. Actually, they don't. Lead has value.
FP4+ and Plus-X are a lot more similar than they are different. I have negatives made for the same series of prints, made on both Plus-X and FP4+, and every time I look at my prints, I just cannot tell whether it was PX or FP4 negatives.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
The lesson is to use what suits you, and if something is discontinued, you find something else that works. You adapt. The most critical aspect is, after all, to make beautiful photographs, and truth be told, what film you use is probably not going to matter that much, as long as you're willing to learn how to use it. I do understand the infrared film conundrum, though. That's a pickle, for sure, but as always supply is intrinsically linked to demand, and if we don't buy enough of it, the supply will diminish. Accept it and move on. There is very little else that can be done. Do it for the arts! Do it for photography. Stay positive and make good art.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
This is analogous to making the observation that horsemanship is a dying art, then attending a rodeo and blaming its demise on the participants for not riding horses often enough.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
While it's possible the observation may be true, common sense should tell us that if it is, it's definitely NOT the fault of those participating riders. I mean jeez, they're just about the only ones left whose butts are still in the saddles, right?
If for some reason one has a need to assign blame for the worldwide drop in film usage, APUG and its small army of film enthusiasts is probably that last place one should come to point that particular finger.
"Some photographers are the poets of purple mountains' majesty. Some are the poets of the placid suburbs. Weegee is the poet of small-timers who died face down on a city pavement at 3 a.m. in a pool of their own blood."
— Richard Lacayo, Photography: Dames! Stiffs! Mugs!, Time Magazine, January 12, 1998