Kodak-pro and con

[pirateoversixty]

I also follow the Apug forum, as I am sure many of you here do. If you do, you are aware of the contentious issue of how Kodak is seemingly "insensitive" to the analog photographer.

I don't mean to drag this dreck to this forum, but I am curious as to how some of you feel. Has Kodak been THAT insensetive? I don't think so. They are still introducing new film product. Are they abandoning the darkroom printer? It appears that way. But, if coating paper is causing a hemorraghing of money, bye-bye.

Wife and I went to a digitally projected movie today, and I personally was not impressed with the quality of the "picture". (The jury is still out on the quality of the movie, "Atonement"). It seems that Kodak is betting on this technique for the future.

Anyway, would like a few thoughtful responses without slamming, thankyou.
Jim

[Jim Appleyard]

I still use Kodak products and yes, most were excellent (we won't bring up 110). The problem I see is that Kodak is like a big sloath, you can light its ass on fire and it can only move so fast. Kodak has in its mind that it must make 10 trillion dollars a day on each item. If they don't, it's not worth making. They are just too big to become a part-time make of a few niche products.

Ilford, on the other hand is a smaller company and is more able to do niche itmes. They just brought back SFX film on a limited basis. That is great news. I can stock up for a year if needed. Kodak just can't do a run of a certain film once a year. IMHO, they're just too big. They just aren't wired to be small.

I wish Kodak (and other analog companies) all the luck in the world. Kodak is in neighboring Rochester NY and their fortune, good or bad, has an impact on the rest of New York state and the rest of the world.

I will continue to buy Portra and Kodachrome films for as long as I can as I feel there are no better products out there.

[pirateoversixty]

True, Kodak doesn't have the agility that Ilford has as far as filling the niche business. Ocean liners can't turn on a dime. They got that big by being the best for so many years. Their R&D churned out many niche products too numerous to mention. As demand for these faded, so did the product.

I have always been a contrarian, buying the products of the little guy, rather than big yellow.(I was buying Fuji 35mm transparency when it was still E-4 process) HP-5 was my mainstay film for many years. Agfa CT-64 was also one of my favorites way back when. I still think it was better than K-64. Anyway, since I have retired, my shooting needs have evolved somewhat, and I have "discovered T max 100 and rediscovered Plus X. The latest Tri X has also been a revelation. These three films, along with Kodak's continuing development of the Portra films, should lay to rest any concerns about their interest in analog.

The main note of discord seems to be Kodaks' lack of communication with the consumer, I guess. On one level, its understandable. On another, it smacks of arrogance. I may be way off track, here, but has anybody got a different opinion of this communication-thing?
Jim

[bowzart]

I also follow the Apug forum, as I am sure many of you here do. If you do, you are aware of the contentious issue of how Kodak is seemingly "insensitive" to the analog photographer.

I don't mean to drag this dreck to this forum, but I am curious as to how some of you feel. Has Kodak been THAT insensetive? I don't think so. They are still introducing new film product. Are they abandoning the darkroom printer? It appears that way. But, if coating paper is causing a hemorraghing of money, bye-bye.

Wife and I went to a digitally projected movie today, and I personally was not impressed with the quality of the "picture". (The jury is still out on the quality of the movie, "Atonement"). It seems that Kodak is betting on this technique for the future.

Anyway, would like a few thoughtful responses without slamming, thankyou.
Jim

Kodak has never been very sensitive to the needs of individuals or small groups of users. They made some of the best films and papers ever made, and have had no reservations about discontinuing them whenever they ceased making them tons of money. The picture has seemed very clear to me; Kodak's business is making money, and that's that.

I'm trying to move away from using anything they make. I don't want to be dependent on them.

Kodak has been very innovative in marketing strategies which suppress competition and leave the customer high and dry. Remember 620 film? They introduced that "improvement" to prevent the use of competitors' films in their cameras, which, when the film didn't sell enough, they then abandoned. Remember the "disk camera"?

Eastman introduced the original roll film camera with the marketing slogan "You push the button, we do the rest". The original thrust of the company was to make photography convenient, so anyone could do it. Prior to their introduction of rollfilm, photography was incredibly difficult. This was a fantastic contribution, for which we can appropriately be grateful.

I think that there is really nothing wrong with their behavior, if we recognize that their business is about money, and we live in a world that is ruled by capital and defined by market forces. We've been fortunate to have those great products which may not have been made primarily for people like us.

We are unfortunate that our use of their products has had to stop as the juggernaught of industry has gone in another direction. Too bad, but we've also gained something in the process. As the 800 pound yellow gorilla has itself become just another producer, other and smaller producers are emerging. They are, of necessity, more sensitive to markets that include greater diversity. The needs of individuals can now be addressed, rather than just the huge market sectors, such as commercial portraiture, for example. New films, papers, chemicals, etc. are appearing, as well as current versions of older ones that had fallen out of use over the years.

Over our years with Kodak, we have had service that we may have seen as "sensitive", but that was always an illusion. We were going for a piggy back ride. Sure, they would answer our questions on the 800 number line, but the reason that the answers were there was that the big users needed to know those answers. Now the big users are gone. So are the answers. For example, I called and asked why the development time of tri x in HC110 dilution B had been changed from 7:30 to 3.75 minutes. Had the film been changed? The answer I got was "no, the film is the same. We just thought the time was too long". We are still using 7:30, and it is just fine. I suspect that we're going to see their older style bw films in the rear view mirror soon.

[foolscape]

My two cents...

I just bought my first pack of Tri-X 4x5 film. I've always shot Ilford, and Efke, Foma, Forte (RIP), Agfa (RIP), and Bergger films because they were the little guys. I also shoot Fuji. I will continue to buy films from the other manufacturers, as well as from Kodak, because we, as film users and manufacturers, will all sink or swim together. Imagine the blow that film would take if Kodak leaves the market. When do the last consumer-rated film users leave the market? When Kodak does, I'll bet. Sure, Ilford and Fuji will still be around. Motion picture film will still be produced. However, I have to consider the psychology involved. When is film dead? I'm not sure, but I'll bet Kodak's decisions will play a major role. Let's help keep Big Yellow in the black.

--Gary

[bowzart]

My two cents...
Let's help keep Big Yellow in the black.

--Gary

I had more or less come to the same conclusion. Still pretty unhappy with them, and I think they've not done themselves or us many favors by cutting off pretty much a whole sector of their historic business - it seems quite prematurely. Still they have to stay in business and that's how they think they are going to do it. They are becoming a minor player, now, so their influence in the market will be diminishing as that of their competitors increases. Their continued presence, even if only for a time, will give the rest of the market a bit of room to develop without so much of a crisis. Then, they can drop out or stay in without having the devastating effect they'd have if dropping it all now, and if they do stay in on a limited basis, they offer one more small group of options for us.

I do think that some folks at Kodak are trying hard to keep some presence in the film side, and I appreciate that effort.