The B&W dream that will never be

After some questions on seeing if it was possible to do a special

order of this film by Kodak, it's obviously a bust. Here is a picture of what it would look like had Kodak made it today. The dream that will never be. Off to Efke I go...

That's a scream.

 

Can you whip me up some gray market TMY at $1.89 a roll?

You have no idea how much I detest Eastman Kodak for discontinuing this film. It took me ten years to even buy another roll of Kodak film.

I'm sure HIE will be next. Better stock up!

Gentlemen;

 

EK truly wants to hear your opinions. Regardless of what you might think these are issues that they want to be aware of.

 

I had lunch with a director this last week and described comments like the above to him. He was attentive and interested. I believe that they want to do a good job but lack information sometimes.

 

Call them or send them an e-mail. It certainly won't hurt.

 

Regards to you all.

 

Ron Mowrey

Ron,

 

Just who do we call, write or e-mail at Eastman Kodak? I might have been one of the ones responsible for an extra shift or two at Kodak Park, as I have been filling my freezer with films I think will disappear in the next few years. No, I am not going to list them here and add more fuel to the fire. If you don't think people still want various 25 speed B&W and color films, both K-14 and C-41, just check some recently completed sales on the various auction sites! Astronomical!

 

Robert Johnson (me@robertejohnson.com)

Any suggestions on who exactly to contact that would be interested in hearing our thoughts? I mean if we pleaded to Kodak to see if they could do a special order batch of this stuff, it would take some pressure for them to dig into old formulas and set it up for the new machines.

I was bidding on some 35mm Pan X, and had to let it go because the price is getting to high for what its worth. Its already at $33 for 20 rolls of film that has probably been baked in a storage unit for 18 years at 100 degrees. For cold stored film its easy to get into the $100 US range. Even if Kodak won't make it a regular production item, they could at least do runs of it now and again to give the demand that is out there for it. Like 1 run every 2 years or so. Enough to make people stocking up get the rolls they need, and store in the freezer. Then when a couple years have passed make another run to restock that supply. I bet we could get enough people together to do some sort of run if Kodak said it was possible to still produce this film even after 18 years.

The shelf life of Panatomic-X is long when frozen. The asa is only 32; so the cosmic rays phase it way less than say tri-x . Stuff I have that expired in 1984 still is quite useable; with radically less base fog than Royal-X of the same vintage. Kodak would have to make many miles of the film just as a small start up batch to finish into 120 and 35mm rolls. Just fire all the marketing chaps who would want to spend millions on a new box; and just use Scotts box; or the one from the 1930's :) Panatomic was around in the 1930's in one form for 35mm cameras.

In the late 1970's; Ford Motor made new dies and made NEW wheel covers for the 1965 Mustang; in 14 and 13 inch sizes. Here an older company actually did a return on investment; and made a buck on their "obsolete" product from circa 1965.<BR><BR>So with Kodak; how many million does it take to make 10 to 20 miles of Panatomic-X?<BR><BR>Maybe like the specialty steel mills they need to make a way to make small batchs of a custome product. Like the Berger King theme song!

"Scott,

 

The emulsion for Kodak Panatomic-X and Super XX have been discontinued

for many years now and we would not offer to make them. I would suggest

that you contact you dealer of Kodak Professional Products, tell them

exactly what you need a film to accomplish and they will work with their

Kodak Professional Representative to research this."

 

This was a response from Kodak Canada. I wonder if I got someone internal I would have gotten another response or an ellaborated answer. I'd really like to know why its still possible to make Tri-X and Plus X which are old tech films, but not Pan X which is basically the same technically as the other two, but finer grained. Here is a picture of an older box from the 70s and early mid 80s. The late 80s box changed to what it is in the next post.

Oops wrong one. Here it is:

And the last box before it was killed off. These are all 120.

And 35mm.

And some old old Pan X. By the way the guy I got the email from Kodak was:

 

Peter V.

Kodak Information and Technical Support

Kodak Professional

Ph. 800-242-2424 ext. 19

This roll of FXP120 Panatomic-X expired in 1984. <BR>The RX120 Royal-X in expied in 1982. <BR>The TX620 expired in 1972. <BR><BR>The canned Kodak reply by a salesman is to replace your "Panatomic-X need with a better Kodak product; which they now carry; like XYZ....<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-496.jpg>

Here is a box dated 1973 that was called FX. This was before the 120 version was listed as FXP, but the same as FX 35mm. Scott E. says Pan X in 35mm is different then the 120 version. Not sure how.

I was bidding on ebay with the current lot that there, but its up to 30+ bucks. who knows, perhaps sometime they could make a small production machine/research production machine that could run off some of these old films for 3 bucks a roll or so. But I know that Kodak production is geared to high volume production.

Guys;

 

EK has a toll free number where you can register such comments. You get a live person who can connect you with an engineer or other type who can give you specific information on who to contact or what to do.

 

I passed on concerns about product cancellations and renaming products to a responsible manager who will try to get this up to the president himself, if necessary. I suggest though that your contacting EK will be more effective coming from customers, and coming from more than one person.

 

One contact, now retiring from EK was James Blamphin of public relations. He may have retired already and I don't have the name of his replacement.

 

The reply from Canada parallels my own comments previously. Many of these films cannot be made anymore. The reason very often is due to the fact that they use 'forbidden' chemistry. EK will not use Cadmium in any product for example, nor Mercury. If PanX used either of them, it could not be made today, and it would take months of research to find a replcacement in such an old formula.

 

The complexity of reformulation is truly staggering.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ron Mowrey

Interesting stuff here!<BR><BR>In other industries; classical items have been withdrawn becuse of toxic materials been used in processing; or the materials themselves. <BR><BR>(1)Examples are certain types Eradicators for removing text and lines from engineering mylars; in both diazo and photo images. The "replacements" are hated by actual users; they dont work well at all. The original Eradicators had a material toxic to pregnate women when exposed in large doses.<BR><BR>(2) In Engineering Diazo Linen; the process became too toxic for USA producers; and then was made in Canada; then it got halted about 5 years ago. <BR><BR>(3)In Engineering technical pens the best ink was stopped being produced; because it was toxic if drank. The replacement is of course not as good; and costs more.<BR><BR>(4) Several printers inks have "dried up" in availablity due to toxic concerns.<BR><BR><BR>* * * * In inkjet; the pigmented inks are often toxic; way more than plain dye based inks. In shops that have many GIANT large format pigmented ink printers running; venting the toxic fumes off is now done to protect workers. In an odd way this is abit funny; since traditional photo processing seems to be always damned as being toxic; and its replacement as being a pure clean process; with no waste or pollution.

Kelly;

 

When I joined EK in 1965, their charge to all the color film and paper teams was to develop new emulsions and processes that were benign to the environment and better.

 

The result, C41, E6, and CP3 eliminated mercury, cadmium, ferricyanide, and most of the formaldehyde. It reduced process times and the number of wash steps and lowered replenishment rates. At the time, all of those products got kudos in the press for these improvements. Oh, and the films had better speed, grain and sharpness, along with a big improvement in paper dye stability.

 

I was on the CP3 / Ektacolor 70 paper team of 3 engineers and 3 technicians from 1965 until 1970, when the product was released.

 

I believe that this case runs counter to your examples above. An improved family of products that really were improved.

 

Digital, OTOH, has a log way to go to clean up its act, as you point out. And, don't forget the selenium, germanium and lead used in making digital products.

 

Ron Mowrey

Russ Rosener

 

I feel the same way that you do. I love Panatomic X, and was way pissed when they dumped it for the T-max line. I no longer use standard Kodak B/W films. Delta's and Neopans for me. And if they ever dump the HEI that I like so much....

 

Russ

Here is James B. contact info:

 

Corporate Media Contacts:

 

Manager, Environmental Communications

 

James Blamphin

Corporate Media Relations

Phone: 585-724-5036 Fax: 585-724-0964

Mail Address: Eastman Kodak Company 2/15/KO - Mailstop: 00539

343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650

 

I'm not sure if he is the correct person to contact according to his title. Here is another:

 

Manager, Communications & Public Relations

 

David Kassnoff

Global Diversity

Phone: 585-724-2137 Fax: 585-724-3828

Mail Address: Eastman Kodak Company 2/10/KO - Mailstop: 00554

343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650

 

These were found at:

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2569&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a8022de3e

 

So go ahead and write or call these people. Ask them if they would consider allowing a special order run to be made, or if they would consider making this film again.

Ron,

 

I'm wondering about the ability to produce this film again. Since its still being made for Polaroid in their type 55 film, and was also until recently made into Aero film with more red sensitivity, would they have not then solved the issue or at least have a way out to be able to produce it today with the toxic ingredients taken out? Or they may know a way to update the old emulsion because of the production of these two other films. It also seems to me people are willing to pay the extra premium of buying type 55 and taking out the neg just to shoot on this stuff, while discarding the paper/ chemical packet.

 

The ebay auction for the heat damaged film is already at $45 US. Seems people are willing to pay anything to get their hands on this stuff. It also keeps well over the years when unused.

Ah. Another thread for me to voice my growing disillusionment with the Eastman Kodak Corporation as a result of their self-destructive marketing strategies.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the statements about Kodak at times (if not all the time) not knowing their own market base. There are plenty of photographers out there who would use the products that EK seems to think lack demand. Sure, maybe they aren't as popular as they once were, but there is still a demand for them. Instead of limiting the production runs so that the manufacture of the film is more cost-effective, they decide to kill it off. There were many great products such as Kodachrome 25, Panatomic X, and now Technical Pan that are in (or are going) to the bin. As much as I hate to say it, Kodachrome 64 and 200 are probably going to die withing the next decade too, along with other "unpopular" judged films such as Ektachrome 400x Professional, possibly Ektachrome 64, as well as a few tungsten balanced films.

 

And all the product label name changes. Why couldn't they just have kept on calling it Portra 400UC instead of going off and forming a whole other film family? Photographers like consistancy, and I for one find it very annoying when they keep changing the packaging in order to make a short boom in sales due to new product intrest, when it's really the same old product just in different clothes. Rediculous (sp?). That's what you get when you have penny-pinching bean counts in the high levels of management instead of photographers (or at least people who think like we do) who know how to run a company.

 

I would also like to take the opportuinity to voice my extreme distaste for the T-Max line of films. They're terrible! I discovered this when our photo teacher told us that we would be using TMY for the semester. I had expected her to use Tri-X, or give us a choice of films (I would've used Plus-X). True, it may be three RMS ratings lower than Tri-X Pan, but Tri-X's grain pattern is so much nicer (a subjective term, I know) when compared to the T-Max line. They seem to be wanting us to use T-Max 100 as a substitute for films that are clearly quite different from it, like Technical Pan and Panatomic X. T-Max 100 just isn't good enough to replace such time-honored classics. I'd imagine that if/when they cut Plus-X, they'll want me to eat T-Max 100 too. I won't do it. If it survives its current financial dillema, I'll switch to Ilford films. Pretty soon, Pan F will be the only B&W film left that is lower than ASA 100.

 

And don't even get me started with my Kodachrome woes. I'd take up far too much space.

 

I think that someone really ought to make up some sort of formal petition to mail to an EK executive outlining and explaining our grievances. Then, people should go to every photo forum known to man and ask for people interested for their signature. As it would be improbable to send the actual document around to so many places for signatures, people could just scan in a signature and e-mail it to said person, who will then paste it into the document, along with the signee's name. We might ask for limited re-introduction of a few discontinued films, such as Kodachrome 25, Panatomic X, Technical Pan, and some others.

 

We should show them just how pissed we are at their marketing strategies and their bad habit of killing off distinctive films.

 

Maybe they'd listen to 1000 photographers (perhaps I'm overly optomistic about that number), amateurs and professionals alike. Just a thought.

 

Anyways, I had to get that off my chest.

Keep in mind Efke makes a 25 ISO and 50 ISO B&W film. And Maco also makes a 25 film called Maco UP 25.