PRICE HIKES HIT SURVIVING KODAK FILMS (Rumor?)

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by randrew1, Mar 10, 2012.

  1. PRICE HIKES HIT SURVIVING KODAK FILMS

    I haven't seen confirmation directly from Kodak so it may be early to start stocking up.
    If this is just a rumor, it could have been planted to spur sales at the end of the quarter. The old Kodak would never have done this, but who knows these days.
    If this turns out to be true, it signals the beginning of the end. A price increase of this magnitude would be part of a harvest strategy to extract as much profit from film as soon as possible. I've been out of the company for 6 years, but I still live in Rochester. I've never seen more desperation from company execs.
     
  2. A price increase of this magnitude​
    Of what magnitude?
     
  3. 15% says the article.
     
  4. It's no surprise. Kodak is having fiscal trouble so they need to increase profits. I'm sure they've done their homework and decided to make their film division make money or cut it to the bone... maybe both.
     
  5. There's always Ilford. Actually it seems as though all of the film prices, like everything else, have risen the last few years. I would expect film to rise in price as it becomes less mainstream. I'm going to keep using it though but these days I do my high volume shooting digitally. The days when I burned through thousnds of feet a year are gone. More's the pity.
    Rick H.
     
  6. It's fine with me. Prices are going up and my wages are not. Every price increase of anything I might buy means less of something else. Last month I decided to try out Kodak Gold again and the film seems fine to me. Scans well on my Plustek. Probably I will just quit buying Portra and stick to Gold 100 and 400 and be happy.
     
  7. Most people who are still using film are doing so for a reason. They're a mixed bag-- film enthusiasts, a few creative amateurs, and a fair number of professionals who still use film in their personal work.
    That group is not going to get excited about having to pay an extra $0.02 per exposure, and they'll pay it for the ability to keep using Portra or Ektar. This is what economists call low elasticity of demand.
    Stated differently, the variation in the retail price of a roll of film is huge, so this 15% will get buried in that. I don't even know what a roll of film costs anymore; I just order from B & H twice a year and it's about $4 (120) to $5 (35mm). Sound about right? All I know is they have the best prices, and I'll pay double that at some other retailers, so 15% won't get noticed.
    Kodak's marketing folks have probably thought this one out carefully. It's a sound idea, and it will make Kodak a few million bucks, but it won't affect the final outcome materially. I think the end's still a decade or so away for Kodak C41.
     
  8. I wonder if Kodak has been greedy all along.
    Walmart not the lowest price around but generally trying so sell things for less.
    ( ali id less expensive)
    several years ago Walmart started selling only a few kinds of Fuji films.
    I can still recall kodak film and even 110 on the racks at walmart.
    Is it a matter of price -original cost- ?
    walmart used to post signs saying how this oir that product was made in america
    those signs are all gone for years.
    With the old man dead have his children gone intenational?
     
  9. Walter... Of course Kodak is greedy. Greed is the root of all profit. :)
     
  10. I think I am going to set a cap of $5.00 for a roll of 36 exposures. That would include tax and shipping as it is applicable. I can shoot Gold or Superia at that price no problem. I am no longer going to have a photo CD made as it cost a lot for an inadequate scan and it's wasteful to make those things. I would be ok with putting my pictures on-line or on a thumb drive but no more CD's. I will just have my film processed for me. It's quicker anyway. The last time I did that I had to spend 40minutes standing around because the machine was acting up.
    However I have no problem with Kodak increasing their prices. They are trying to keep their doors open and that is what they should do. As was said above many people will just pay the price and keep on truckin. That is what Kodak is hoping for.
     
  11. I'm not terribly upset by this. Kodak is no doubt trying to make their remaining businesses profitable again. If it helps them stay open then it's worth it; it isn't going to put me off buying Portra, any more than Ilford's price increases put me off buying XP-2 Super or Pan F Plus.
     
  12. Oh, yes, greed is actually the root of Kodak's problem. They pretty much managed to setup a monopoly on film in the US, and managed that to get 80% profit margins, which are extraordinarily high margins.
    Every time Kodak tried to diversify, because some smart manager saw the "end of film" coming, they couldn't make 80% profit margin in the new product line. Eventually the bean-counters (accountants) shot down the diversification, and either shut it down, or sold it off, because it didn't make 80% profit margin.
    Meanwhile, the 80% profit margin business was shrinking, shrinking, shrinking.
    Of course they have to raise prices, they clearly weren't charging enough to pay the bills.
     
  13. That group is not going to get excited about having to pay an extra $0.02 per exposure​
    Many may have tolerance for price increases in general but, its doubtful its a per exposure analysis. Unless every exposure is a keeper which is far far removed from reality. Rather, the analysis may be cost in general to get the amount of useful images the photographer is likely to obtain. Also, this is not a one time hike. Over time prices have been increasing so its not a one snapshot in time type measurement that counts. Moreover, the measure doesn't account for the any price increases or hassles arising from more limited processing choices. Tolerance may be high but its not going to be based on the particular figure presented here.
     
  14. It wasn't the been counters who shot down diversification efforts. When George Fisher arrived as CEO, he reversed decades of mostly successful diversification and divested Eastman Chemicals, sold the blood analyzer business to J&J, sold the pharmaceuticals business to Bayer, sold the household products to somebody (I forget who), split off Ultra-life batteries, and sold the space sensing systems to ITT. The stated goal was to raise enough capital to invest in digital imaging to be successful. They were also milking the film business in those years for the same reason. The current value of all of the billions of dollars poured into digital imaging is less than zero. If Kodak has kept those other assets and planned an orderly decrease in the film business, the company would be thriving today.
     
  15. It's a tax write off for me either way, so I try not to think about price increases too much. I am also *very* stocked up, over 1,700 rolls of Portra 400 in 220, Tri-X, TMX, Ektar 100, Acros 100, HP5, PanF, APX 25, Techpan, HIE and Rollei IR 400 in 120 alone, so I just order 20 rolls of a still available type of film at a time and rotate stock according to expiration date.
    Right now, you can get 120 Tri-X from Freestyle for $3.79 a roll, HP5 is $4.29 a roll so this 15% increase makes the price the same as HP5. Even if Tri-X in 120 were to go for $8 a roll in 5 year's time, I would much rather give that to Kodak instead of some opportunist on ebay who is making a killing on a discontinued film.
     
  16. I find it interesting that people are angry that Kodak is raising their prices, but when Ilford did the same thing last year, people were talking about how it was just necessary in the current environment, and not to hate on Ilford.
     
  17. You can still get Tri-X and Plus-X as Arista Premium at Freestyle. The Arista Premium 100 (rebadged Plus-X) is going for $1.89 a roll for 24 exposure.
     
  18. Kodak still makes film?
     
  19. Accoding to Kodak the price increase is due to cost increases of materials.
     
  20. I for one, am about as angry and frustrated as I've ever been... I'm really hoping that this is a rumor; there WAS a considerable price hike just several weeks ago on most Kodak films, both color and black and white!! I can't believe that no one mentioned this. And upon news of the E100g discontinuance, I noticed that B&H almost IMMEDIATELY jacked up the price YET AGAIN!!! This, AFTER the last recent price hike I mentioned, upon which they raised it from an already expensive $7.50 to $8.50! This was one of my all-time favorite films, but they've now made it impossible for me to stock up and pay their outrageous current $10+ price, let alone 15% more!!
    I love the Portra films too, and they've already raised most of them about 15% recently, too!!
    Before I'll take up digital photography, which sure seems like what these greedy (add terrible managers in the case of Kodak!!) so and so's are all attempting to force us into, I swear, I will find another pastime, though photography has been #1 with me for many years. I've tried digital, and it simply leave me cold; no interest WHATSOEVER.
    Can anyone confirm or deny this awful news? Here I am spending yet more time worrying about future supplies on a beautiful day instead of getting out and taking pictures. Thanks mainly to Kodak and its legacy of incompetent, ridiculously and obscenely overpaid top executives (along with virtually all of their big company counterparts in the U.S.).
     
  21. I don't think you are *quite* getting it Jeff, this is the same 15% that has been talked about for weeks, now it had been
    made official by Kodak as well as the announcement that Kodak E-6 is history. The price on 120/220 Porta and Ektar has
    not changed since I bought 200 rolls of it back in November on the announcement of Kodak's possible and now real C-11
    filing. How on EARTH did you not see this coming man?

    Demand for color slide film is falling straight down to earth at terminal velocity and you think this is Kodak being greedy,
    lol! The price of silver is not helping this either, the price we pay on both film and silver gelatin paper is going to continue
    going up, that is why I am buying another 100 rolls of Tri-X in 120 today, from Freestyle, who is charging far less for it
    than B&H. Freestyle is also charging the same as B&H for the now finite supply of Kodak E-6 films you are talking about.

    If I were dead set on using Kodak E-6 stock, I would put my order in NOW from Adorama at $8.95 a roll:

    http://www.adorama.com/KKE100G36U.html

    Or give Matt a call at Glass Key Photo in SF on Monday to see what he can do for you:

    http://glasskeyphoto.com/

    But to blame Kodak for this when they are trying like mad to hold onto film production in a rapidly sinking market is utterly
    insane my friend, really.
     
  22. I don't think you are *quite* getting it Jeff, this is the same 15% that has been talked about for weeks, now it had been made official by Kodak as well as the announcement that Kodak E-6 is history. The price on 120/220 Porta and Ektar has not changed since I bought 200 rolls of it back in November on the announcement of Kodak's possible and now real C-11 filing.​
    Daniel, I sure hope you're right; that is, that this price hike IS the one that happened several weeks ago, okay, maybe it was back in November, but I'm almost certain that B&H, Adorama, and Unique, have raised prices much more recently, and by about that much! I'll have to check my receipts, but it was recent in my mind. I'm in an awful hurry right now, but I will pull them later. And I'm virtually certain that B&H Photo, an otherwise decent outfit, imho, jacked up the price to over 10 bucks a roll on the very recent discontinuation news after they raised it to $8.50 just a short while ago, as per that recent price increase I mentioned.
    Sure, I did see this coming as far as the steep drop off in slide film. What I'm blaming Kodak "leadership" for is for the mistakes that Ron Andrews mentions; this has been going on for YEARS. Had they done what Ron mentioned, they'd be in good shape, albeit, the film division would be smaller, of course. They've done almost absolutely NO MARKETING, no advertising, yet their film division has been consistently profitable, perhaps the only division to do so!
    Please don't get me wrong. I LOVE Kodak films; that's why I'm so mad. I have the utmost appreciation for the good people that have brought us these products, and the utmost contempt for the executives that have run it all into the ground through their gross misallocation of capital and generally terrible decisions. And in these tough times, while so many get continually squeezed in all areas of life, the executive class, no matter how lousy, continues to collect its millions.
     
  23. Jeff, I know what you mean. But in order for Kodak to have pulled this off w/o a re-structuring like Ilford did, they would
    have had to have started making big moves about 10 years ago. That did not happen and then Sept. 2008 happened and
    the whole world went to crap.

    I love the products and it is frustrating to know that it could have been different. But I also think the work by Kodak
    engineers Garrett Kokx, Barb Ulreich, and Bob Masters in giving us their all shows in what we still have, they must feel
    like crap to hear people say how Kodak utterly failed when some of the best films the company has ever made are sitting
    on shelves going out of date because the novice, memory sharing brigades opted for instant and near-disposable
    Facebook galleries instead of tactile prints.

    There is not one single film maker that has flourished from their heyday point, they have all either gone out of business or
    vastly re-scaled and continue to re-scale in a steadily declining market. Ilford and other small black and white only
    companies have made realistic forecasts for this decline and have both refined their product lines and priced them
    accordingly. The two big things now that foretell film's future is demand and material cost.

    As far as Kodak's ability to succeed in coming out of this with a re-scaled business plan for film, it is anyone's guess, but I
    would think that you can expect more varieties to drop off in the coming years as times and needs continue to change.
    As much as I use it for work, I think what digital and the Internet have done to the photo world flat out sucks. If the day
    ever comes I can not shoot black and white and print it in my darkroom, I am finished with photography.
     
  24. By the way, the prices on good silver gelatin paper are not exactly a joy either, I am looking at investing $10,000-$30,000
    in the next 5 years....that's insane amounts of money to me. If my fine art scheme does not pan out, my wife may put all my gear and
    ME on eBay!
     
  25. What I'm blaming Kodak "leadership" for is...​
    The film ship is sinking and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
     
  26. Hey joyus John, FYI, black and white is film too and is *fine*...
     
  27. Very good Daniel. I'm sure you know what the point being made is nevertheless.
     
  28. I don't think anyone has mentioned yet what is likely the real reason for the hikes.
    Silver metal price has increased tenfold in the recent decade, especially moving up strongly in the last few years. Silver is a critical part of film and paper emulsions, in addition to the color dyes and other components.
     
  29. Sure John, but film is not going to just disappear, there are a lot of people who still use it and will continue to so there is a
    market for it, just not at the scale that it used to be. So smart companies made the right choices in their offerings and
    prices years ago, it's simple economics, you don't just discard a product line worth millions in revenue because it no
    longer brings in hundreds of millions, you change your scale or sell it to another company that is willing to run the
    business properly.

    This is why simplistic statements like "Film is Dead" or "The Film ship is sinking" serve no purpose other than to make the
    person saying it feel vindicated or cause a stir. You have this so called hero next to your name which means you
    contribute to the site in terms of learning and what not....but when you say these things, you make a mockery of everyone
    using film, from legends like Mary Ellen Mark and Michael Kenna to the young 20 something that just got handed down
    his grandfather's Leica. I am a fairly decent photographer who makes a great living in photography and as far as I am
    concerned I am using more and more of it every year, so I don't care for these useless one liners, frankly it is offensive
    and shows an overall lack of tact and being informed...
     
  30. I mentioned silver Arthur, I expect film and paper prices to nearly double because of it in the next five years. That is why I
    think paper that would cost me $10,000 to buy now might cost as much as $30,000 in 2017 so I am in an "arms race"
    right now...
     
  31. In 2003 silver was trading at less that $5 oz. It shot up to almost $50 oz. Currently it is trading at over $33 oz. Ilford raised their prices due to the increase in the cost of silver. Kodak is now mulling an increase. This is news or unexpected how?
    Silver Prices.
     
  32. The amount of silver in a roll of film has increased form about 10 cents worth to about 65 cents. Other chemicals have also increased in price, but not as much.
     
  33. This is why simplistic statements like "Film is Dead" or "The Film ship is sinking" serve no purpose other than to make the person saying it feel vindicated or cause a stir​
    Wrong. In this case at least. I didn't say film will disappear altogether. I used a metaphor about film continuing its decline which is an actual phenomenon. It was made in response to hyperbole about business management as though it would somehow have ultimately spared the poster the disappearance of favorite films, price increases or whatever other grievances are harbored about the state of film availability.
    I didn't realize that this would have to be explained to others making wild assumptions about it insulting the integrity of generations of esteemed photographers despite making the comment in connection to a quote on completely different issues. IOW, you had no idea what I was talking about.
     
  34. I used a metaphor about film continuing its decline which is an actual phenomenon.​
    Kodak says that sales of their professional films are UP. Sounds to me like a certain poster has an AGENDA and is passing it off as fact.
    Silver prices and any one company's ability/inability to manage their business over the short term are not indications of consumer/professional interest in a particular art form. You like digital, great, good for you. That doesn't change Kodak or Ilford's sales numbers.
     
  35. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    James, that link you provide is to one individual's comments that have never shown up in any Kodak official documents. Also, he's a Marketing Manager for the segment, which might color his comments. If you look at the Business Segment Review that is on Kodak's official documents page, you will find that film is not even mentioned, which is probably a good indicator of where Kodak is going. In the Public Lender Presentation, they list "Core Businesses," "Growth Businesses," and lump film into another section called "Manage for Cash/Value," which makes it pretty clear where things are headed. They've already sold off Gallery, also listed in the "Manage" section.
     
  36. James, that link you provide is to one individual's comments that have never shown up in any Kodak official documents. Also, he's a Marketing Manager for the segment, which might color his comments. If you look at the Business Segment Review that is on Kodak's official documents page, you will find that film is not even mentioned, which is probably a good indicator of where Kodak is going. In the Public Lender Presentation, they list "Core Businesses," "Growth Businesses," and lump film into another section called "Manage for Cash/Value," which makes it pretty clear where things are headed. They've already sold off Gallery, also listed in the "Manage" section.​
    Wait a minute. I have an audio tape of an executive at Kodak (not just a random "individual") saying very specifically that Kodak Professional Film met the previous year's revenue number in October and the rest of the year is gravy and you rebut with... inference and conjecture?! How in the world does that rebut an audio tape?! Color his comments?! "We met last years revenue figure in October." How is that "colored"?! Either you meet the revenue figure or you don't. You are basically, without proof mind you, accusing Kodak of fraud.
    Secondly if you reread my post I quite clearly say...
    Silver prices and any one company's ability/inability to manage their business over the short term are not indications of consumer/professional interest in a particular art form.​
    There are plenty of companies that f'up a great business opportunity. You should listen to one of the executives at Ilford echoing many of the same thoughts expressed on the audio tape I linked to. Bottom line message is the precipitous fall in film sales has ceased. There still is a gradual decline but there is an uptick in certain segments. Also the price of silver looms larger on these guys at the moment than digital. Furthermore a large lumbering multinational that is mechanically set up to do gigantic continuous runs of emulsion may have trouble right sizing to the current market size. Ilford argues that they are no where as big as Kodak or Fuji so they can do smaller runs profitably. They don't have the infrastructure to maintain. Smaller machines, faster switch over, etc.
    The price of silver and an individual company's business acumen or lack there of has nothing to do with the end user's interest in shooting film. Well in an indirect way high silver prices and incompetent business practices can eventually put the consumer off but at the moment the demand is there.
     
  37. Jeff, those are very telling documents to be sure, but there simply is no way to know how this is going to pan out with
    Kodak. I would say in a worst case scenario, they currently have master rolls made of enough product to slit & distribute
    most of the existing still film product line well into next year. So it is easy at this point in time to say they are committed to
    making and selling film. The fact that their E-6 emulsions are toast does not say as much as you might think as that
    product line made up only 1% of recent gross revenues according to a recent interview with Kodak engineer Ron Mowery.

    It would be interesting to know how many materials vendors are shared among the major players in film. For example, the
    base material Kodak uses for film is made in house where as Ilford gets it from a supplier. There are simple things that go
    into making film at Kodak and then there are involved ones that depend on high volume such as some of the more
    complex films collecting some 40 different layers in one long pass.

    I think there is no question we are going to see more Kodak films come to pass as time and proceedings move along,
    how that all plays out, who buys what from whom is an ongoing saga so there is not nearly enough factual information out
    there for John to make one-line broad statements like "The film ship is sinking and there isn't anything anyone can do
    about it."

    Ships tend to sink to the bottom as in gone, film is not going to do that for quite some time if ever.
     
  38. James, you also bring in some good points, but as far as Kodak's numbers are concerned, while still films may be
    flattening out a bit and in terms of black and white, seeing a bit of an uptick, the motion picture industry's exit from film
    product in the coming years is going to have a pronounced effect on the balance sheet. In terms of Kodak still films, they
    face a tougher set of financial critics than those of Ilford because they have been riding on the big profits of the motion
    picture industry since film started a sharp decline in consumer and pro still markets.

    I am optimistic about the future of black and white film and wonder about the fate of color. I am very cautiously optimistic
    about the future of any Kodak stock. I know who is behind the commitment to film at Kodak and I know they are praying
    for an Ilford-like rescale, but their hands are tied and this whole enchilada is a very different re-structuring than what Ilford
    went through.

    I have stocked up and now I consume and replace depleted stock on a regular basis, other than that, I just try to make
    great photographs, print them and forget about it....
     
  39. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I have an audio tape of an executive at Kodak​


    Your link comes from a marketing manager. That's very different than an executive.
    You are basically, without proof mind you, accusing Kodak of fraud.​
    When they put it in a Kodak document, then it could be fraud. Until then, if it's the link you gave, it's just a mid-level manager saying something. I didn't say anything that anyone could construe as fraud. You might want to get some legal training before making those kinds of remarks.
    Jeff, those are very telling documents to be sure, but there simply is no way to know how this is going to pan out with Kodak.​


    I don't see a great way out for them, they are dependent on others at this point. It's not going to be their decision in the end. It's pretty sad, Rochester will look like the next Buffalo the way things are going.
    Ships tend to sink to the bottom as in gone, film is not going to do that for quite some time if ever.​


    If you are referring to companies as ships, that's not true. Look how many computer companies have gone under, or been bought and vaporized. Look at car companies, they come and go. I may be a pessimist, but I think Kodak's fate is almost certain at this point, which is not the same as making a comment on film's fate.
     
  40. Jeff, re last paragraph above, I took John's quote to be film in general, not Kodak only, I agree with you then in terms of Kodak.
    Kodak' s ability to make and sell film is the subject, best case, they find a way to make a niche like Ilford, worst case, they
    stop and it all goes away. I am hoping that something in between happens, but who the heck knows, it's all corporate
    damage control at this point.
     
  41. Your link comes from a marketing manager. That's very different than an executive.​
    "Scott DiSabato is Kodak's U.S. Marketing Manager for Professional film and the U.S. National Sales Manager for imaging specialty channel accounts."
    Spin it any way you want. This isn't some random guy spewing BS.
    When they put it in a Kodak document, then it could be fraud​
    I have never heard that narrow definition of fraud. An executive at a company going around and purposefully lying about revenue numbers to investors, consumers, partners, and suppliers at trade shows is fraud dude. And frankly its a bizarre charge when made with NO PROOF.
    the motion picture industry's exit from film product in the coming years is going to have a pronounced effect on the balance sheet.​
    I don't really have much insight into the future of this dynamic. From my understanding most movie houses in the United States have switched to digital already for screening purposes. Film is still considered the gold standard for shooting... I believe. This was an interesting blurb about film in Variety...
    Kodak execs say its motion picture stock business is a profitable, viable business.
    "We're still making billions of feet of film and will continue to do so," Kodak VP of marketing Ingrid Goodyear told Variety. "Right now and for the foreseeable future we still see film to be an important of Kodak's business."
    Hollywood may be abandoning film, said Goodyear, but "India is still very, very film-centric. It's very strongly embedded in their industry and their psyche. Interestingly enough, we saw some decline in Japan, that was 2010 versus 2009, and this year we've seen some stabilization."
    What's more, Kodak is seizing the one area where film is unquestionably superior to any digital solution in the market today: archiving.
    I took John's quote to be film in general, not Kodak only, I agree with you then in terms of Kodak.​
    Yup me too. One company can certainly botch a good thing. That doesn't mean consumers and professionals don't want to use a particular medium.
     
  42. The film ship is sinking and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.​
    John,
    Film ship is not sinking. It’s being sunk. If you don’t see it you’re either too naive or just fooling yourself.
    Note to mentors: I believe that expressions like “Film is dead” or “Film is vanishing” or similar must be strictly prohibited from usage in public media since they are generating anger and hate. Such expression can be classified as an attempt to discriminate and abuse individuals based on their artistic preferences. Why should we constantly listen these meaningless and idiotic words especial on website which is supposed to support photography? Just because Nikon or Canon are not supporting film anymore? Please don’t covert this website to another commercial machine seeding disbelieve in the art of traditional photography. And I agree with Daniel that saying “Film is sinking…” John H. has disgraced himself as a “Hero”.
     
  43. Oh please. I responded to a post about actual anger towards some executive as though it would made a difference in current trends affecting Kodak. Trends that actually exist. This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.
    Grow up.
     
  44. Daniel, Sorry it's taken so long for me to get back here. You may well be right about the timing of that price hike, but still, it was sizable, and in this tough economy, I cringe at the thought of another one. As recently as last summer, I already felt compelled to purchase the various emulsions I use from three of the major suppliers, as each seemed to have meaningful differences in the price of these films. I was paying $7.50 in August from one of them, then there's a bill for $8.50 a roll in November, from another… And I'd been considering purchasing some more just a week or two before reading this, and they were all at $8.50.
    I'm as guilty as anyone for not shooting a lot of it, because I've been doing much more people and event photography in lower light levels in the last few years. But I still love this film for what it's meant for. I was pretty miffed when I wrote my first post in this thread, as it was a beautiful day here, and I was thinking of getting out for some shooting, but instead came across this. Sorry if I sounded obnoxious.
    And thanks for naming some of the folks that have a hand in producing these great products. I had the pleasure of speaking with one of their counterparts several years ago, but I can't remember his name. This man had a lot to do with the version of Kodachrome that was on the market then, and he was very upbeat about the quality of this Ektachrome.
    Yeah, it is really a shame that these products are not thriving… I think that were it not for digital, we'd surely have the faster versions of Ektachrome that I dream about.
    "…As much as I use it for work, I think what digital and the Internet have done to the photo world flat out sucks…"​
    I could not agree with you more. One example: I recently shot the dress rehearsal for a friend's play with Portras and BW400CN. Because of the costs, I'd originally thought to shoot a couple of rolls of Portra 800 just so that she would have some nice memories. Well, as soon as it started and I realized how very good they all were, and also, how photogenic the whole scene was, I got carried away and shot it as if I were getting paid, just for the hell of it, and to maybe build my portfolio. Well, they all seem to really love the images, and have been raving about them, but my friend realizes the work and expense, and wants for me to get paid at least a little for the quality I produced for them. She is irritated that the others think photography is, basically, "pretty much free these days"... At this point at least, if it gets too much worse, I really think I'd give up photography before giving up film photography.
     
  45. Oh please. I responded to a post about actual anger towards some executive as though it would made a difference in current trends affecting Kodak. Trends that actually exist. This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.
    Grow up.​
    John H., You make me laugh. You started this with your negative, petty comment, and then continued with it!


    How can you say that? I think others have illuminated the incompetence of these executives and how that has hurt Kodak... Wouldn't it be AT LEAST as plausible to say that had Kodak not wasted millions upon millions of dollars on disastrous ventures and stupid divestitures, that they would not have to milk film so hard, the only, or close to the only, profitable division, by the way (and without discernible marketing of any kind!).


    Daniel, James, Roman, and others have a passion for film. You obviously do not, and I find it an ongoing mystery why people like you continually show up here, ready to parse everything that doesn't strike your fancy and argue, and end up wasting our time and energy.
     
  46. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I find it an ongoing mystery why people like you continually show up here, ready to parse everything that doesn't strike your fancy and argue, and end up wasting our time and energy.​

    Speaking as a moderator, photo.net does not require that people only post on certain forums.
     
  47. Daniel, James, Roman, and others have a passion for film. You obviously do not​
    I shoot film fairly frequently. I have Kodak slide films, including ebx, stocked up, Some favorites Agfa Ultra 100 Optima 100 and APX 25 still frozen and well expired trotted out from time to time as well as Fuji and other films on hand and used.
    The only thing that is "obvious", then, is the extraordinarily poor analysis in making the remark above. That somehow saying something about the bad state of the film market 'must' mean it is all some sort of 'hate' for film or effort to insult and cause grief to those who enjoy film. Especially when the comment iis made to dispute the contention that its all some executive's fault that people are buying less film and, thus, less Kodak film.
    Disagreeing with the point being made is all well and good but assigning these wild accusations about motives and so on is, with all due respect, childish. Moreover, it amounts to the kind of behavior that you are condemning.
    The fact is that the film market is diminished and will continue on that course and, as much as it may be desired to blame people at Kodak for its woes, the market condition is reality. You will encounter people discussing this when participating threads like this one. If it is too distressing, it may be best not to participate.
    Best wishes.
    John H.
     
  48. Sorry guys. If we can't discuss business in a thread about business, I'll leave you to it.
     
  49. The fact is that the film market is diminished and will continue on that course and, as much as it may be desired to blame people at Kodak for its woes, the market condition is reality. You will encounter people discussing this when participating threads like this one. If it is too distressing, it may be best not to participate.​
    John, I was a little hot when I made my original posting in this thread. I tried to explain that, and clarify what I meant. I'll try to do so again.

    Yes, the film market is diminished; we are all aware of that. But no, it is not inevitable that it will continue on that course. Perhaps slide film will, but there are significant signs that the overall decline has at least leveled off.

    No one that honestly has passion for film would would have your tone. You can tell me that you regularly shoot every emulsion in production, but you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't make these dispassionate-seeming, fatalistic statements. And you are completely (and conveniently?) ignoring what Ron and others have clearly pointed out about executive mistakes at Kodak that have directly led them on the path to dire financial straits. This is over and above what's happened in regards to so many turning to digital photography. What part of this don't you understand?

    Here's what Ron said, and I've heard similar accounts from others:

    "It wasn't the been counters who shot down diversification efforts. When George Fisher arrived as CEO, he reversed decades of mostly successful diversification and divested Eastman Chemicals, sold the blood analyzer business to J&J, sold the pharmaceuticals business to Bayer, sold the household products to somebody (I forget who), split off Ultra-life batteries, and sold the space sensing systems to ITT. The stated goal was to raise enough capital to invest in digital imaging to be successful. They were also milking the film business in those years for the same reason. The current value of all of the billions of dollars poured into digital imaging is less than zero. If Kodak has kept those other assets and planned an orderly decrease in the film business, the company would be thriving today."
     
  50. This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.​
    Good sense of humor, John.
    Well, suppose the film market is diminished. But what are you doing as a Hero except just keep yakking about it and fueling up this animosity.
    I guess you must take more responsibility for what you’re saying publicly. We have enough nuts on this site to “distress” our community.
     
  51. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'm going to try this again.

    Speaking as a moderator, individuals are not targets. Feel free to disagree with people's ideas, but attacking people and their status here is not acceptable. I will bring this up to the other moderators, I think this thread has gone beyond photo.net standards of decency.

    If you like attacking people, I recommend usenet.
     
  52. John H. wrote:
    I shoot film fairly frequently. I have Kodak slide films, including ebx, stocked up, Some favorites Agfa Ultra 100 Optima 100 and APX 25 still frozen and well expired trotted out from time to time as well as Fuji and other films on hand and used.
    The only thing that is "obvious", then, is the extraordinarily poor analysis in making the remark above. That somehow saying something about the bad state of the film market 'must' mean it is all some sort of 'hate' for film or effort to insult and cause grief to those who enjoy film. Especially when the comment iis made to dispute the contention that its all some executive's fault that people are buying less film and, thus, less Kodak film.
    Disagreeing with the point being made is all well and good but assigning these wild accusations about motives and so on is, with all due respect, childish. Moreover, it amounts to the kind of behavior that you are condemning.
    The fact is that the film market is diminished and will continue on that course and, as much as it may be desired to blame people at Kodak for its woes, the market condition is reality. You will encounter people discussing this when participating threads like this one. If it is too distressing, it may be best not to participate.
    Best wishes.
    John H.​
    This is a better way of getting your point across than simple one line commentary on a sensitive matter of losing or keeping a close to the heart for many product like film. Of course it is headed downward, but so were a lot of things in history, some shrank to niche markets, some flat out disappeared. I think color is on the endangered list, especially with Motion Picture switching over, hope I am wrong, choice is good and Kodak's current C-41 is the best ever.
    But black and white could be safe for 10, 20 even 30 years before things change, if ever. There is too much conjecture in these discussions for this topic to bring everyone to one warm and fuzzy table. We all still only have 24 hours in one day and at the end of it, you each have to decide what is worth fighting for, baling out of or just taking a wait and see approach with. Some like to discuss this kind of stuff a lot, I like to talk about it a little and then do what I can to make my little part of the world spin more to my liking.
    But it *IS* a sensitive and provocative subject, that is why I personally appreciate the effort you put into this post far more than the other ones, so thanks for doing it and thanks for understanding.
     
  53. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    I think that is enough.
     

Share This Page