Proposal to Kodak for its Film Customers

[terry_m7]

Attached are a few Letters I sent to five Kodak Executives regarding a new way

for them to offer some of their discontinued Films to their customers. The only

fundamental consideration for Kodak is that they be able to make a profit on

their endeavours. This proposal assures profitability by requiring all orders

to be "pre-paid" in advance, and Kodak would only run-off production of a

specific Film every six months or so once enough worldwide orders have been

received. My original Letter dated back to last summer, and I haven't received

any reply. I cannot figure out why they wouldn't immediately jump at a

guaranteed profitable way for them to supply their customers -- unless they

intend to gradually abandon their Film customers! Although I primarily

addressed Kodachrome 25 in my Letter, this proposal applies to any of their

Negative Films which they've discontinued. If you would like to contact the

respective Executives to endorse this proposal, their contact information is

below. Just use your Mouse to clip and paste the info into your text editor.

I've provided E-Mail Addresses, but it would be better to send a paper copy Fax

for something this important to their company. If you wish you can E-Mail me at

tlmester@niagara.com.

 

I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know about a way to avoid Postage

Fees when sending your Kodachrome Films for developing. Simply use Kodak's

subsidiary Qualex Photofinishing which is affiliated with a few thousand Stores

across Canada and the United States (possibly Mexico?) -- including all Wal-Mart

outlets. Qualex develops all Films, and will pickup Kodachrome from any of

their Store affiliates and deliver it to Dwayne's Photo for developing. They

will then return the developed Film Slides back to your local Store so you can

avoid return Postage charges. If you wish to contact them, you can call

1-800-315-9901.

 

Apparently Kodachrome sales declined notably around 1988 -- the year that Qualex

was created. It's too bad that Kodak didn't have enough brains to tell their

Kodachrome customers in North America about Qualex. I saved $6.84 on Canadian

Postage by sending my S8 K40 Cartridges with Qualex, and I also saved Kodak

$6.84 in return Postage since Qualex returned the developed Film back to my

local Wal-Mart. More Ektachrome users would definitely use Kodachrome if they

knew about Qualex's free delivery.

 

---------- Kodak Film Executives ----------

 

Dr. Mary Jane Hellyar, President

 

Film Products Group and Executive Vice President

 

Eastman Kodak Company

 

343 State Street

 

ROCHESTER, New York 14650

 

FAX (585) 724-4999 E-Mail: MaryJane.Hellyar@kodak.com

 

.

 

Mr. Paul Walrath, Director, Chief Operating Officer

 

Worldwide Operations, Film Products Group and Vice President

 

FAX (585) 724-9752 E-Mail: Paul.Walrath@kodak.com

 

.

 

Mr. John O'Grady, Chairman

 

General Manager, Europe, Africa and Middle East

 

Consumer Digital Imaging Group and Film Products Group, and Vice President

 

Eastman Kodak S.A.

 

FAX in Switzerland 41-22-747-2498 E-Mail: john.ogrady@kodak.com

 

.

 

Mr. William G. Tompkins Jr., General Manager & Vice President

 

Motion Picture Film Group, Entertainment Imaging and Vice President

 

FAX in Los Angeles (323) 468-4240 E-Mail: William.Tompkins@kodak.com

 

.

 

Mr. Michael Korizno

 

General Manager, Americas Region Consumer Digital Imaging Group

 

& Film & Photofinishing Group and Vice President

 

FAX in Atlanta (770) 522-2600 E-Mail: Michael.Korizno@kodak.com

[ronald_moravec1]

What don`t you understand about Kodak wanting out of the film business.

 

Furthermore ther is no way to make small runs of anything at a cost you can afford. If they did make it, do you think they would mail it to each customer.

 

Let it go. Someone else will make film.

 

I personally long for more Ektar 25, but it is dead. So I move on.

[User_502260]

I used the Kodak lab in Fair Lawn, NJ on and off between 1971 and when it closed a few years ago. When Qualex took over the quality of the work suffered badly. I complained to the plant manager and I was told that it was the intent of Kodak and Qualex to get rid of any experienced employees and to replace them with lower cost new employees who had no experience. Their plan worked and quality was secondary. Eventually Kodak had to send its own people back to straighten them out. By that time it was too late to win back many of the customers, especially the professional photographers. In about 1990 Fuji introduced Velvia. It was close enough in sharpness and grain to the Kodachrome 64 and 25 films and offered the convenience of E-6 processing. The exact look and characteristics of Kodachrome were not duplicated by Velvia but not having to deal with the Kodak/Qualex labs for processing was a big advantage.

 

It would be nice to have Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 and Panatomic-X back but I don't expect that to happen. Medium format equipment has fallen so far in price that if you need to make a large print and don't like grain, just shoot with a larger format. Kodak is introducing new T-MAX 400 b&w film and new Portra color print films. You will have more fun trying them than worrying about films which are no longer made.

[terence_spross1]

Isn't the court judgment from years ago that prohibits Kodak selling film (in the USA) with pre-paid processing still in effect? The closest I've seen them come recently is pre-paid photo CD when processing is purchased separately. I believe that judgment was in response to Kodak's near monopoly at the time but is no longer an issue, however I think the restriction still stands.

[benny_spinoza]

I doubt if your letters, whether faxed, e-mailed, or snail-mailed, ever made it to their intended recepients.

[Mike Gammill]

IMHO, the only way we could ever have Panatomic-X, Verichrome Pan, Ektar 25, Super XX and Kodak B/W paper would be for enough serious film photographers to gain control of the majority of Kodak stock. Just dreaming, of course.

Oh, yeah, better add Tech Pan to the list too.

[terry_m7]

Ronald,if Kodak isn't going to make Film, they might as well fold up altogether. Kodak already does mail out their Movie Films to their customers, and so it would not be a big deal to mail out Photographic Films. If they were smart, and they're not, they would use Qualex as a delivery service in North America to drop off purchases to a customer's nearby Photo Store like Wal-Mart. One Film is not the same as another, and only Kodak makes Kodachrome.

 

Hi Jeff, I'm shocked by your revelations about the Fair Lawn Lab. I had read previous complaints about Fair Lawn, but I didn't know it was that bad. Large companies seem to have this problem of going awry. Apparently the Lausanne Switzerland Lab was very good -- which is what's inexplicable about Kodak's decision to close it. If you know any other stories about Qualex, please let us know.

 

As far as I know Terence, Kodachrome is sold in the U. S. without processing in the price. Anti-trust laws are the reason why Dwayne's is licensed to process Kodachrome.

 

I share your concerns in these matters Benny. That's why I made sure to obtain the specific Fax #s for these specific Executives. You can be sure that their Secretaries obtain their Faxes and E-Mails. There hasn't been enough time to get a reply to my January Letters, but the reason I didn't hear back from last year is simply because they have no good answer to give. They know that they're neglecting their Film customers. Kodak is being ruined these past five years by the former Hewlett-Packard Executive Antonio Perez. This computer guy has no belief whatsoever in Film. He sold off Kodak's Healthcare Unit last year for a paltry $2.35 Billion -- $200 Million LESS than its annual revenues! That Unit shouldn't have been sold for less than $8 to $10 Billion. Perez is slowly being pushed out, and that can't happen soon enough. It takes time to steer a big company, and they need to hear from their customers to know which way to go. There's still hope Mike! Keep the faith.

[tibz]

Kodachrome is still made but only in 64 ASA 35mm slide film and possibly 16/ regular 8mm movie film (super 8 is long gone by now and you're lucky to find a roll on ebay expiring before the late 70s).<p>

You sort of realize that Kodak really doesn't care what it's customers **want** and simply how it can provide them with the most convenient ways (convenience>quality) to take pictures with the most profit to them. (Hence the "ultra max versatility super duper plus extra duper" 800 ASA print film and the "Gold" 100 ASA.)<p>

Even if you really wanted them to make more stock of Kodachrome 25 by the time you could get anything going KC 64 will probably be gone and with that Dwaynes (which is the ONLY place left for consumers in the world to process K-14 after the other one in Japan closed mid december). You'd probably be better off asking them for their old "recipies" and buying the equipment to manufacture it yourself (KC is simple to make as far as color films go, the processing is what kills it.)<p>

I was a diehard fan of Kodachrome until I saw where Kodak is going and then I bought a roll of Velvia.

[walter_degroot]

business: when wordperfect sold out and the buyer coul not make it go

they sold to corel at a loss. what a deal!

big businessmen are often dumber than small businessmen

and bad management cause 8 out of 10 of the last companies to fade away.

No i was not a manager, I was at the bottom.

 

I read that Half of kodak's profit comes from film and they still are working as hard as they can to get out of the film business.

what a concept! Could I open a grocery store and NOT sell food?

 

With a few brains, Kodak could offer the finest film products in the world,

 

panatomic-x was, when Modern tested it, Vastly superior to Ilford';s

Pan-f, and Ilford is/was a good company!

 

Kodachrome is unique and superior in terms of Longevity and quality to other films. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall of the conference room when they decided to discontinmue so many good products.

 

I would like the experts here to have been there, and be able to remark on the convoluted reasoning that caused this disaster.

 

We see american auto manufacturer's saying secretly, "lets make really crappy cars and a lot of money, people are really dumb, they won't know"

It happened, I visit junkyards with my son, and see one part full of cars that look as you could jump in them and drive to the Prom.

But they are waiting to be crushed and melted and made into Toyotas and Nissons. ( japan imports steel- no reflection on their cars)

 

The author is looking in the right direction, but doing busines based on common sense? forget it!

Kodak already prover their idiocy with the 120/620 116/616 126 110 disk and advantix.

they could bring back 127 in a week, they still make 46mm stock.

 

Each of the newer revolutions heralded the end of 35mm. sure it did.

[terry_m7]

I share your dejection Nicholas & Walter. I think that it's not yet time to give up hope. If worse comes to worse, Fuji can buy out Kodak. You can always rely on the Japanese to be committed to serving their customers. I personally think that Antonio Perez will be given the boot before the end of this year, and this will open up new possibilities. Exactly one year ago yesterday I E-Mailed all of the Kodak Executives to warn them that the sale of Kodak's Healthcare Unit for so little money was a monumental mistake, and that they should cancel the sale if possible. I warned them that Kodak's Stock would drop notably if that sale went through, and, even before the recent January Market correction, their Stock had dropped fully 25%! This is mostly Perez's fault, and he will get rewarded with the boot.

 

I hear you too Walter regarding car manufacturers. The mistakes of Kodak and car companies are actually similar. In October 2003 Kodak (under Perez) chose to EXCLUSIVELY focus on computerized Digital products, and basically ignore Film. Designing and manufacturing computer products is VERY EXPENSIVE with little profit. Car manufacturers have similarly stuffed their cars full of electronic components which fail because hot and cold temperatures are bad for electronic micro chips. They then charge a fortune to replace these components which makes their customers hate them. I personally like to keep things simple and inexpensive -- which is why I wouldn't spend a dollar to buy a digital camera. I own a 1986 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance -- their top model. The computer which controls the carburetor fuel solenoid failed. Although the engine runs perfectly, it wouldn't pass an Emissions Test. Since it's carbureted (not computerized fuel injection), I was able to fudge the fuel mixture, and get it to pass the Test with flying colours. The computer module which controls the blower motor also failed, but I was fortunately able to bypass that with a headlight relay ($6 cost) powered off of one of the wires from the climate control buttons. The blower runs only in full speed, but it properly turns on and off with the proper climate buttons. The computer module which controls the air conditioner compressor also failed, but I was able to power that off of the same headlight relay. Then the computer which controls the heater / AC air ducts failed. I was able to bypass that with a simple two-way switch ($1 cost) mounted on a folded tuna can lid under the dash board. I just switch to heater for winter, and AC for summer. All together I saved a good $700 bucks or more in not buying new computer components. How much money have people wasted in buying their second or third Digital Camera? When will they realize that digital photography is just a racket to get people to keep buying new cameras and printer ink? Unfortunately the current bunch of Executives at Kodak seem to be part of that racket.

[randrew1]

Terry,

 

I know some of the people on you list and I know they considered things like your suggestion long before you sent it. If they could figure out a way to make money this way, they would do it. I didn't agree with all of the management decisions (especially when they eliminated my job), but they never quit trying to make money.

 

In the specific case of K-25, the coating room where that was made has been shut down. They couldn't keep 13 room running just for K-25 and they ran into problems in the attempt to move the product to Building 38. The cost of redesigning the product was going to be more than the expected profit. It is tough to see my favorite products discontinued, but these are the casualties of digital substitution.

[michaelchristensen]

Well if they just offered Panatomic .. I'd be a very happy person. I wish Kodak, if they can't find a way to be profitable in film (it's their own fault!), to sell the formula/emulsion rights to a 3rd party who can produce it sufficient runs to satify world-wide customers .. digital can't touch good black and white film!

 

Kodak has a history of producing some of the best films ever made; Kodachrome (remember the song?) .. you should see what Kodachrome looks like in 4x5 .. but alas, I digress .. Kodak is moving out of the film business .. into what nobody really knows and probably does not need as whatever they are producing is being done competitively by others ..

 

I'm a big fan of Kodak films even though I missed the era of Panatomic and Veripan .. ask some of those old pro wedding shooters if digital has replaced the quality of those emulsions and you'll find some teary-eyed older guy recalling the days his wedding business was more fun, exciting and profitable .. now, he's digital and his quality is compared to Walmart shots ..

 

Hell, if Fujifilm can still make a profit in film .. prototype new medium format film cameras .. that tells you there is a market for those who consider the superiority of film ... I applaud Fuji for making a stand on this issue .. and I will buy that new Fuji medium format folder when it comes to market in late 2008.

 

Oh, yeah, I'll get buy with digital capture .. but not in medium format. My personal stuff will be on film .. I happen to like the look, the process, and the freedom it gives me to take pictures.

 

I do love Kodak films over Fuji for a lot of things. I just am displeased that Kodak has surrendered without a fight.

[terry_m7]

Hi Ron,

 

I'm extremely interested in your knowledge as a former Kodak employee. What exactly is the difference between making the Kodachrome 64, 200 & 25 Emulsions? (Excluding of course differences in Dyes.) What are the specific complications in making K25 & K200 as opposed to K64? Is this Room 13 located in Rochester, and what is unique about Room 13 as opposed to 38? If they can make K64 I just don't get why they can't make K25&200.

 

Setting aside the issue of making Kodachrome, can you identify any problems in making the other Films which have been mentioned like Panatomic-X, Verichrome Pan, Ektar 25, Super XX and Tech Pan? These Films don't have the developing issues related to Kodachrome.

 

When a company is going to invest in a new product, they need to look forward 1 or more years to perhaps finally turn a profit. They cannot always expect to produce a product "on mass" in order to enable a quick profit. This is the problem with modern companies always wanting big profits. Products produced on mass are usually low quality! A company like Kodak needs to be serving its small-scale niche customers with the previously mentioned Films. All that matters is that they can turn a small profit. Small profits over time add up to large profits. These Films will still have a market 50 years from now! Even many photographers who've gone Digital would like to shoot with niche Films from time to time. Many Film photographers are learning Digital simply out of fear over Kodak's seeming non-commitment to Film! Kodak needs to be perpetually committed to Film -- they can't afford to be wishy-washy. Since they don't need to make these Films 12 months a year to serve this small market, some creative thinking is needed to redress this situation. A pre-paid ordering regime would mean that Kodak wouldn't have to store the Films on premises -- they could ship them out as soon as they're made. This is a cost savings to Kodak which equates into higher profit. If they truly want to serve their niche customers, they can. Where there's a will there's a way! We know that they have a will to make money, but they also need to be satisfied with making a small amount of money.

[randrew1]

Terry,

 

I'll try to tackle some of your questions.

 

Differences between K-25, K-64, and K-200: K-200 is the "new" product being introduced in 1985. The others started in 1974. K-200 has t-grains. The other two products have 3D emulsion grains. The emulsions in K-25 and K-64 use the same process technology, but the K-25 emulsions are smaller and lower in iodide. This makes it much easier to dissolve these emulsions in the B&W developer in process K-14. Tiny differences in the emulsion making process translated into big differences in the photographic results. K-25 also had some different spectral sensitizing dyes. One of them had consistency problems. K-25 consistently had problems in manufacturing. During my stint with these products, I had serious problems with about half of the manufacturing orders for K-25.

 

Coating rooms: All Kodak film is currently made in Rochester. Building 29 at Kodak Park had coating rooms 1 through 14. They were never all running at the same time, but I can remember when rooms 3, 8, and 11-14 were all running. Building 38 was a new sensitizing machine with the latest and greatest in process technology. It started production in the early 1990's. Since the process technology was different, films had to be designed to fit the process. When I worked on the start-up of this machine we had four different product reformulation projects that were canceled because they ran into serious problems. It was easier to design new products for the new process and leave old products in their existing machines. When the demand for film hit the skids, Kodak had to close many facilities. By this time, products had to move to building 38 or cease manufacturing. Some made the switch and some didn't.

 

Economics of small running products: Kodak had facilities to produce large volumes of film at low cost. I once played tour guide to a group from National Geographic when they visited Kodak Park. They were the largest single user of Kodachrome. They asked how long it took to coat a year's supply for them. They were surprised when we told them it took about 15 minutes. If you are going to make small volumes of film, the unit cost goes up very quickly. When RG-25 was discontinued, a few of us who were fans of the product did a back-of-the-envelope business case for starting a new company to produce the product. We decided we would have to sell the films for over $20/roll and maintain the existing volume. The total film market has dropped by something like 80% since 2000. With numbers like that, small running product have to go.

 

As I said before, I disagreed with many decisions, but I know they never stopped trying to make money on film.

[DB_Gallery]

http://www.kodachromeproject.com/

 

My site is revamped a bit now to include a more global stance on the campaign to keep

Kodachrome around at least until it turns 75 in a couple years. The forums are on the site

now, but I have to wait at least 8 hours for PHP to be enabled on the server.

 

Once this is up, let's get busy. Let's really get to sharing information about Kodachrome

and igniting a serious "bonfire" of passion that's gets the whole globe shooting this stuff

more and more.

 

I think photography as a craft needs this. I think photographers need a great cause like

this one to be a part of. To me at least, this is a no brainer....

[terry_m7]

Hi Ron,

 

I'm fascinated by this inside information you've provided. Was this new sensitizing process in Building 38 related to the change from Triacetate Base to polyester ESTAR Base? If so I can certainly understand why there would be problems in getting Emulsions designed for acetate to stick to a polyester Base. This problem, combined with the effects of the digital onslaught, is what you call a "son of a b***h". If only the onset of digital had been delayed by about five more years. By that time many more Films would have been converted to the new process. All you can say is DAMN!

 

Do I assume correctly that K64 is Acetate Base? Would you happen to know how much extra cost is involved in producing Acetate over ESTAR? As far as I know, Movie Negative Films are still on Acetate Base, and so I expect Acetate will be around for a while. Designing a new Film from scratch is definitely expensive, and I fully sympathize with Kodak's dilemma in this respect. I don't think that Film sales will really go lower, but since new Film Cameras are hard to find, this has a negative impact. It makes me completely bemused as to why Kodak doesn't at least sell a simple 35mm Snapshot Camera for consumers -- not just the disposable type. If they want to sell Film, they've got to sell Film Cameras! However, I guess this shouldn't be surprising given Perez's giveawayof the Healthcare Unit

[randrew1]

Building 38 can coat emulsions on any support: acetate, ESTAR, or paper. That was not an issue.

 

Kodachrome has always been on acetate. Motion picture prefers acetate for negative films because Estar is too strong. A jam can ruin a camera. There have been many discussions over the years regarding switching color neg still films to Estar. The argument used to be that there were 50,000 minilabs in the world that had knives that were designed to cut acetate. I've been away for a couple years. The only thing I know for sure is that there are fewer minilabs today.

 

In general, Estar is less expensive than acetate, but I doubt Kodak has the capacity to switch all remaining film products to Estar. If they had to build new facilities, then the incremental costs would be much greater.

[walter_degroot]

wow enlightening.

as I said a while ago could kodak spin off an "enterprise" to produce lower volume film like panatomic-x supper xx ( is it bergger that sells a similar film) and verichrome pan?

 

sometimes the size of a company prevents it from doing things.

the IBM PC was a division outside of the IBM Corporate Structure.

it had to be that way or we might still be waiting for the first IBM PC 64k motherboard!

 

How big are Ildford and the eastern european film companies?

 

Although its way beyond anythinbg I could think or plan about, Dynachrome

was a early Kodachrome clone, though not the very best film,. it was not as bad as some others. it was a start up company.

 

I read that the negative film part of polaroid 55pn is really Panatomic-x.

If this is true, kodak is still brewing the emulsion and it would take only a short while to start producing this film again.

Maybe there is just too much "lock-step" mentality to get ANYTHING done.

Maybe too many bean counters and paper shufflers.

In that case sell out to a realtor and rent out the buildings.

 

Some may argue that I don't understand busness and how it is done, maybe so. But I understand "too many excuses" and why people decide that thingks CANNOT be done, why non-technical people make technical decisions and technical people are left powerless.

 

A note to the Caddilac owner: I hear you, the computerized carburator was brought on by congress and greenies-- both of which had never gotten grease on their hands-- to decide what was best for us.

They still want to ride around in air-conditioned luxury.

[teknikal_pan]

Terry, your idea is great, although I question Kodak's interest in film at this point. Their

obsession with digital won't necessarily put them on top of the photographic industry

though, especially as pundits realize that both formats can peacefully coexist.

 

Regarding the old "grain" and "use a larger format issue," let's clarify things. A larger

format can certainly do wonders for sharpness, but the films of today look nothing like

Ektar, Tech Pan or Panatomic X. The beauty of films like Ektar, Tech Pan and Panatomic X

is their unique appearance, in the case of the former two fantastic contrast. Besides, Ektar

and Tech Pan were produced in the 120 format. To those who gripe about "using a larger

format," I encourage you to put Ektar or Tech Pan in your MF system and see how it

compares to other films available on the market today. Sure, Ektar is slow. But most

professionals use tripods anyway! With Tech Pan, you have the versatility of getting

fantastic results at ISO 25, 50 or 100, depending on lighting conditions. I have tack sharp

16 x 20's printed from Tech Pan shot handheld at ISO 50.

 

"Poor sales" of the films translates to lousy marketing and improper production amounts

on the part of Kodak. Naturally, a 25 speed color print film is going to be for a niche

market, as will be a black and white film that requires a special developer.

[teknikal_pan]

By the way, is anybody else amused that the Technidol developer is still widely available

(including at B and H in New York) but that the Tech Pan film is nowhere to be found? (Except

in some of our freezers :)

[DB_Gallery]

Kodachrome 64 is still here.

 

Remove your self from your comfort zone, become the photographer you are able to

become and SHOOT the film!

 

Pick a topic, immerse your self in it and SHOOT KODACHROME!

 

Do something marvelous with this film for crying out loud!

 

You have GOT to get that burning in your gut like I have and do something with it!

 

Seriously folks, is this too intimidating a notion to pursue and it is easier to just continue

on chanting a death march and being tech-heads?

 

Kodachromeproject.com

[Spearhead]

<i>I read that Half of kodak's profit comes from film </i><p>Where did you hear this? Kodak is a public company, one doesn't have to "hear" facts, one can look them up. In this case:<p><i>Digital profits edged up to $146 million from $141 million while earnings from film products slumped 52 percent to $40 million from $83 million.</i><br>Source: AP, January 30, 2008<p>This comes to about 21.5%, which is a really long way from "half." It doesn't help anyone's case to make up numbers.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The annual cost to maintain a film production line is probably a few orders of magnitude higher than folks here can admit; thus it might be like trying to stop a freight train with a BB gun.

[reuben_c]

<i>trying to stop a freight train with a BB gun.</i>

<p>

Hey, why not?

<p>

If <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=526655&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true">THIS "gun"</a> is "as dangerous as a machine gun" then <i>surely</I> a Red Ryder is the equivalent to a Howitzer!

<p>

Cue "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" theme music...