Kodak product line, Please keep the variety!

<p>My intention in not to bash Kodak. I love their products and I know they are being forced to make decisions that not everyone agrees with. Instead of a petition, that I feel would be useless, since in the business world we have to vote with our dollars not our signature I would like to try this. <br /> <br /> Here is a draft of a letter to Kodak. I would like suggestions before I send it to them. Please, just offer suggestions don’t call me crazy for trying. If nobody ever tried there would never be a success. <br /> <br /> Dear Kodak,<br /> <br /> I have been a heavy film user for decades. For most of those years I used Kodak film, paper, chemistry and developing services almost exclusively. When Kodak offered a large variety of items that was easy to do. <br /> <br /> Over the last few years Kodak has trimmed its product line considerably as demand for traditional film declined. The problem I see is there seems to be a thinking at Kodak that if you discontinue product A and suggest product B as a alternative most everyone will switch to product B. In truth most customers do not switch to product B. Most customers try out other products and switch to a non Kodak product or decide to go totally digital since they can’t get their favorite film product any more.<br /> <br /> Here is my story. When Kodak decide to discontinue all B&W paper they suggested a switch to making B&W prints on color paper. I had about $1,000 in Kodak B&W paper in my darkroom at that time. I did not switch to Kodak color paper I switched to other companies B&W paper. <br /> <br /> Since Kodak closed the Qualex perfect touch labs I have almost completely given up using color negative film. Now when I want prints I use my Digital SLR and get prints from a lab that uses Fuji paper. I would love to still use Kodak services but they are no longer offered.<br /> <br /> I still shot over 50 rolls of slide film a year. I shoot slides because I like slides. I have seen the suggestion by Kodak that the new Ektar could be an alternative. I will NEVER use a negative film as a alternative to a slide film. I used to use a lot of Kodachrome and when it was I was disappointed when it was announced it was going away. I decided to switch to E100GX. I placed an order for 20 rolls. My supplier got back with me and then said it too was discontinued. Reluctantly I ordered Fuji instead of Kodak. I still use Kodak E200 slide film but if Kodak were to discontinue it there would no longer be ANY color film for me to buy from Kodak.<br /> <br /> Film is no longer a mass market item that every household will use. It is now a speciality item used by enthusiasts. Enthusiasts love and exist on variety. For example B&W film long ago switched from the mainstream everyone uses it category to the enthusiast category. Last time I checked Freestyle photo offered over 40 types of 35 mm 36 exposure B&W films. The enthusiast market supports all those types of B&W film types.<br /> <br /> The more Kodak continues to consolidate film varieties the more the total film sales at Kodak will decline. If Ford were to make only one car model they could do it efficiently and make a high percentage profit on the cars they did sell. However the total income at Ford would fall enormously. <br /> <br /> While film is still a major part of Kodak please invest in the equipment and techniques necessary to offer smaller batches of film with more variety. This in my opinion is where the future of traditional film is.<br /></p>

<p>I think many people will agree with you. I do. Kodak should try to down scale their manufacturing line up and work with the people still shooting film. They have offered some killer films. Instead of making rolls that give tens of thousands of rolls of film off of them, why can't they shrink that to make a few thousand at a time?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem I see is there seems to be a thinking at Kodak that if you discontinue product A and suggest product B as a alternative most everyone will switch to product B. In truth most customers do not switch to product B.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This question was always considered when I worked for Kodak. It kept some product lines around longer.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Instead of making rolls that give tens of thousands of rolls of film off of them, why can't they shrink that to make a few thousand at a time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Smaller scale manufacturing was considered. The problem is that it requires additional investment in equipment and additional R&D work to get the new formula right. While a narrower coating is scalable, a smaller scale emulsion precipitation vessel isn't.</p>

<p>The engineers in film manufacturing have done an incredible job taking cost out of the system. I estimate film sales are about 1/8th what they were at the peak, yet film manufacturing is still profitable. Could they continue to make a profit if they had to invest heavily in hew equipment and new development? I can't say for sure, but I know these questions are being addressed.</p>

<p>It is easier to run a microbrewery than a microfilm production line. The pickle is there is a huge cost to keep a line *up* even if there is a lower production rate. The same thing happened with process camera films about 12 to 18 years ago; demand dropped' prices rose. Once there were only about 6 makers of process film; when it went to only 2 prices rose radically. The whole still film decline thing is now happening; and echo of the process camera decline; due to digital. Most still film used is dumb c41 by Joe Six Pack; not specialty films. Long ago one could by 616 Verichrome in any drugstore; and Kodachrome was in sheet film sizes. Kodak has been scaling down for the last 2 decades.</p>

<p><em>in the business world we have to vote with our dollars not our signature</em></p>

<p>The first thing you did after making the statement above was to spend time (in the very same post) drafting a letter so you can vote with your signature instead of urging people to vote with dollars and buy Kodak films.<br>

</p>

 

<p>why bother, by the time i learn how to use the film and all of its intricacies, it'll get yanked. been happy with provia100 before. Never used it for people, but if it works, that will probably be my new main film after kodacrhome. I left provia once i figured out how to get kodachrome to work for me, might as well go back... Havent been as happy with the couple rolls of ektachrome that i've shot.</p>

<p>Good letter. One thing you should ask for is lots of notice to the public before discontinuing a film so we may stock up on it. Another thing is that the most basic films be continued in at least 35, 120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10. By basic, I mean tri-x in b&w, which is what I shoot. And Ektachrome in color. I have wanted a second 5x7 camera for some time, but have not gotten it because I was afraid that the film will be discontinued. We need better communication with Kodak on these things.</p>

<p>I have a good feeling that Tri-X isn't going very far...yet.</p>

<p>I'm not so worried about the demise of film in general, but Kodak should be concerned. As it is, the manufacturers from the eastern Europe countries (as well as Ilford) have stepped up with some fine offerings. More than enough manufacturing capacity if Kodak could disappear.</p>

<p>If there was an "easy dip-n-dunk process" for K-14, I suspect that Kodachrome would not have been discontinued. I think the truth was more of the developing houses not wishing to maintain their gear than a drop in demand (enough) to halt production and the drop in staffing at Kodak limited qualified people to service the machines. I can't see this happening to C-41 or E-6 because there is home alternatives. You may see some brands disappear, but not the product entirely.</p>

<p>The reality for me is although I used to shoot PlusX/FP4, a 100' reel cost me 50+. I can get a 100' reel of Foma100 for 17. I actually like it better. I bought a 100' reel of Portra100NC last year (and love it) but cannot seem to find it anymore. I love TMY (120) but in that format I have many other choices because grain is of much less concern. I develop mostly with WD2D+ and Rodinal, with some HC110 use. I don't go through enough HC110 to keep anyone rich. I don't use Kodak C-41 because no one will ship them to me, as I live in a little town in Canada called Montreal. I use mostly liquids for FIX and STOP which leaves Ilford suppling most of my needs.</p>

<p>The thing is, Kodak is mostly out of my life now, and I shoot mostly film. Their film is much too expensive or unobtainable and their competition are offering products that are getting better.</p>

<p>A company that does not adjust to their market *will* die. And that is just reality. Kodak, what are you doing for me?</p>

 

<p><em>Good letter.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I'm not sure that a letter designed to encourage production of film products mentioning about nine times that the author and/or the public will not buy or will substantially limit the purchase of various film products should be described as "good". </p>

<p><em>Please, just offer suggestions don’t call me crazy for trying</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I might suggest a more enthusiastic approach but, ultimately, the "voting with dollars" is what matters. That's where the effort should be made.</p>

<p>companies in general are out of touch with reality.<br>

many useful products are no longer available because of political ( both company and government) decisions.<br>

If a small company in Englamd ( Ilford) can arise from the ashes, why can't Kodak spin off<br>

the B&W film paper and chemical; business and make a profit?<br>

One of the problems with Kodachrome was it's unavailability.<br>

You had to eithr go to a big city store or mail order.<br>

you could not buy it "off ther shelf"<br>

Some of my newer automaatic cameras cannot even use a 64 speed film 50 or 100 or faster. Kodak should have recognized this and made a change tro K100.<br>

and improved the distribution.<br>

If a small company on Croatia can sucessfully make film,. why not Kodak? it is because there is too much corporate inertia.<br>

When I worked for Singer in 1979 we could even get part numbers so my boss used his intitials JCS as a prefix, Did they want us NOT to produce a new producxt?<br>

when IBM came out with the original PC, it was deliberately separated from "corporate"<br>

so all the extra meetings and waiting for comittee decisions was eliminated.<br>

This is the " untold story" corporate inertia is the enemy of sucess.<br>

The forseeable result will be Kodak will bumble along and someone with a <br>

limited knowledeg of photography and little interest. will make a snap decision.<br>

OOPS no more tri-x . "it seemed like a GOOD idea at the time"</p>

<p>Actual real life sales matter more than letters.<br>

<br /> One can pay ones employees; taxes; insurance; inventory etc with actual cash made from real sales.<br>

<br /> Most folks on Photo.net are not business oriented and thus pleas to vendors to keep products still made are done.<br>

<br /> One can besiege ACME with many thousands of letters to still make 6 volt cars; straight eight engines; Kodachrome; 486 computers; beta tapes.<br>

<br /> In like manner if Kodak sells say Kodachrome at a loss; it would have to raise prices on other products to pay for the welfare product.<br>

<br /> Kodak is in touch with reality; it has cut marginal products over many many decades. It has done the welfare gambit and it kept 616; 127; disc alive after it was not marginal; now they are gone.<br>

<br /> In like manner folks can write YOU as a photographer to do work below your costs; ie 100 buck weddings; you use you own car; after awhile you can max out the credit cards to keep your service going.<br>

You can pay the credit card company with those tear jerker letters!v :)<br>

<br /> PRACTICE what you preach; do work below what it costs!</p>

<p><em>The first thing you did after making the statement above was to spend time (in the very same post) drafting a letter so you can vote with your signature instead of urging people to vote with dollars and buy Kodak films.<br /></em><em></em><br>

The point of my letter is I can not vote with my dollars if they don't make the products I need and desire.</p>

<p>I've met and spent time with the film division people at Kodak. From production engineers up to the VP of the film division, to a man (or woman) they all want to see film stick around. There is not a single person I have interacted with at Kodak who wants to stop making film. They are not the enemy.</p>

<p>However, they also cannot lose money on film products these days. The only way that film is going to stay available is if people buy enough of it that a profit can be made. Passionate letters aren't going to do that. Believe me, the kodak people know that the film community is passionate about their films (and/or film in general). But passionate letters just can't make a difference in this day and age. Digital is here, the economy is down, times have changed. The only thing that will keep the films you love afloat is selling enough of them so that kodak/fuji/etc continue to make a profit on them.</p>

<p>Is there a place for writing emotional letters? Yes, but you should be writing them TO other photographers asking them to consider the world of film photography. THAT is how a difference can be made. Kodak wants to sell you film, believe me.</p>

<p>The demise of still photographic film has several different phases. These phases can run in parallel with two or three phases active at the same time. In the first phase of product consolidation, most of the cuts reduced the number of versions of particular products. Rather than selling the same film in 12 different packages, they cut down to one or two. We are now in phase 2 where film products that are no longer profitable are eliminated. At the end of 2010 when K-14 is no longer available, we will start phase 3 where product lines and their associated processes are eliminated. The next process on the bubble is E-6. I'd guess it has 10 or 20 years left to run. After that, C-41 will follow. Eventually we will be back in the same place where 35mm photography started. We will be buying the short ends of motion picture film from Hollywood and sending the film to the nearest ECN-2 process. </p>

<p>The good news? Don't throw away your 35mm SLR's. 35mm still film photography started in the 1920's and became the predominant amateur format in the 1980's. It will continue well into this century.</p>

<p>Thanks Josh, I think you have put me on the right track. My goal was not to change Kodak but I hoped that maybe this letter would make someone there pause for a minute and reconsider if the next film would go or stay a little longer. I know it all comes down to dollars. I also know in some companies a product will be killed even if it IS still making money. This is besause someone upstairs as declared anything earning less the 15% profit must go to make room for then next big thing. However sometimes the next big thing is a flop. I know that Kodak had lost Millions and Millions of dollars on items that never even really made it to market. I would like some of those millions to go into R&D and capital investment on small batch film production.</p>

<p>That "Millions and Millions of dollars on items that never even really made it to market" <strong>was</strong> R&D. It included some money to develop small scale manufacturing. They know how to build a small scale plant. The just haven't figured out how to make money with the small scale plant. </p>

<p>I agree with what Josh said.<br /> <br /> In the end, film makers will only continue to produce films that are profitable for them. Josh is spot on when he says that you need to convince other photographers to shoot film. The only way to do that is through education of the benefits of shooting film.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the way most people see it, the benefits of digital outweigh the benefits of film. So it really is an uphill battle. The fact simply is that film is in the "decline" part of the product cycle.</p>

<p>We still have Chryslers, 4/3 sensors, and Brylcreme. Film will outlast all but the latter (because television preachers require it).</p>

 

<p>Certainly Kodak and other major players in imaging technologies could be approaching these felt needs of pro and serious amateur customers from the digital side. I know from reading many "film vs. digital" posts that there is a "tooth" and "grain" in film scans that so far has not been equaled from digital cameras. But how about asking the people in R&D on the digital side to come up with products that emulate the best qualities of film? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We still have Chryslers, 4/3 sensors, and Brylcreme. Film will outlast all but the latter (because television preachers require it).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And people still listen to Vinyl. Just because a product is in decline doesn't mean it is gone. But you may have noticed, you can't get Vinyl records at any music store nowdays either; where you tend to find them are at specialty stores...which may well be the case for film in the next decade (including even C-41).<br /> <br /> I'm just glad that my Velvia mailers are still good.</p>

<p>Howard,</p>

<p>My knowledge of Kodak R&D is almost 4 years old so I don't know anything about what they are doing now. I know that from about 10 years ago up to 4 years ago, there was plenty of work aimed at flashy new digital products. The company had an obsession with appearing new and high tech in the digital world. What I hear about in mall intercept surveys and on-line surveys suggests that this mentality still persists in the marketing arena. My guess is that there isn't much going in in Kodak R&D to incorporate the best film features into digital. Regardless of what is or isn't going on at Kodak, what film features would you like to see incorporated into digital?</p>

<p>Here are a few items on my list:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>lack of bayer aliasing</li>

<li>easy to produce large image sensors (anybody seen a 20x24 inch digital sensor?)</li>

<li>images preserved in human readable form</li>

</ol>

<p>What features would others add?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What features would others add?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>4. Preselectable film styles (i.e., the ability to push a button in the field and get a file indistinguishable from a Velvia, Kodachrome, Astia, etc drum scan, with no post-processing whatsoever).</p>

<p>5. Lightweight (<16 oz) full-frame bodies, <strong>or</strong> prime wide-angle APS lenses for the lighter APS bodies. I want a kit equivalent to my FM10, 20mm f2.8, and 100mm f2.8 Series E for trail running, not some heavy 12-24 and 55-200 zooms w/ no hyperfocal scales. </p>

What we need to do is discontinue Kodak all together. Ask the Kodak people to hand over their recipes for making film to a reputable dealer and be done with this story.

<blockquote>

<p>What we need to do is discontinue Kodak all together. Ask the Kodak people to hand over their recipes for making film to a reputable dealer and be done with this story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh yeah, that will really help things. After all, those Polapremium guys are cranking out the polaroid aren't they. Oh wait, no they aren't.</p>

<p>Do you really think that any small scale producer would keep all the films that Kodak currently has now? There is no way that would happen. The fastest way to fewer emulsions available is to get what you are asking for. You want to loose 50-75% of the available kodak emulsions in a single swoop, have kodak get rid of their film division and hand the emulsions to a smaller company.</p>

<p> </p>