Qualex is GONE!

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Douglas in the early 1950's one could shoot 4x5 Kodachrome; in the 1940's in came in 11x14".<br>

Folks whined when Kodak dropped sheet Kodachromes in the mid 1950's for Ektachrome; there were even lawsuits.<br>

The peak in transparency sales occured several decades ago.</p>

<p>In early 1960 one had high speed ektachrome at an asa of 160; 400 if pushed; kodacolor was just 80 then; once it was 50; then once 25.</p>

<p>Color print film didnt get as fast as slide until the later 1970's; today color print is faster.</p>

<p>A random sampling of folks average amateurs who have and do shoot slides and movies shot the most say in the 1960' and maybe 1970's ; its really not shortsided to notice a 4 decade long drop in reversal films; its like saying its shortsided that most folks do not use B&W TV's anymore; or if one notices that man landed on the moon; or if one notices that gasoline cost more than 30 cents per gallon.</p>

<p>The drop in reversal film sales has been going on for 4 decades now; once every dime store and drug store had Kodachrome and Ektachrome.</p>

<p>Its not rocket science that as film reversal film production drops processing labs die off; its a many decade old trend.</p>

<p> </p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>Trashing your legacy and still profitable film buisness for the sake of competing in the super saturated low end digital point and shoot/inkjet printer business is not shortsighted?I think they could do better with some fresh management.I think Jeff got it right with his last post.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>John-What is the name of the lab that you own?</p>

[nicholas_rapak]

<p>Douglas, what you and most other people have to realize is that George Eastman's dream was that of a world where everyone owned a camera. Right now the photo technology of the day is digital. It would be counterintuitive <em>not</em> to sell cheap, crappy digicams to the unwitting consumer. After all, what was the first Kodak camera? <br>

P.S. I am not saying that Kodak should abandon film altogether. On the contrary, I think that Kodak should "finish what they had started" and sell film until the last film camera drops off of the face of the earth.</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>Nicholas,<br>

Are you saying we in photography have descended into the same living hell that popular music (should we still term it as music?),plotless movies,trash TV,bottom feeder news media,crumbling infastructure,clueless government,hapless manufacturing,inept health care,good food etc,etc, has?Digital has succeeded in doing what Polaroid attempted to do decades ago - any dumbo with a index finger can become a world class photographer?Man,when I look around these days is sure doesn't seem to be working very well at all.Isn't technology wonderful.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Douglas, I'm glad you're staying with Kodak film. I can understand your anger with Kodak management though, and I think your reasoning as to their motivation is as correct as anything I can come up with..</p>

<p>Yes, that Elite look is something special.. It's probably the main reason I bother to post on the whole subject of film- I'd hate to lose this great product. As I think we talked about before, I use the pro version just because I got such great results right from the start that I'm afraid to rock the boat. I don't shoot a huge amount, as time and access to subject matter is limited, so I guess I rationalize the extra cost, but I don't think it's too bad in the scheme of things. And I've tried the others, like Velveeta, and even K-64, but I agree the new Kodak E-6 is the best; the only thing that came close was my brief use of K-25 before it was pulled. And, of course the 100 speed is way different..</p>

<p>After shooting my first two rolls of B&W, Kodak T-Max 400, I'm now in love with yet another film.. just blown away with this stuff! I intend to shoot them both as much as possible, along with some Kodak 400 speed print film. </p>

<p>I just went to Kodak's corporate website to double-check what I said before about how profitable film still is to them, and this seems to be confirmed by their most recent quarterly results. I'm certainly no financial expert when it comes to Kodak's numbers, but at least for this most recent quarter, the earnings (the bottom line!) for film, though declining, still dwarfs their other divisions. Also, I think there is some overlap in relation with film use in the other two divisions, in that many of us film shooters print with ink jets, etc..</p>

<p>At any rate, even when going by strict segment divisions: Earnings from the Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group were $77 million; Graphic Communications Group: $33 million; Consumer Digital Imaging Group: $23 million.</p>

<p>Film is still very profitable for them it seems.. It's a mystery to me why they do not support it with advertising.. Aren't petroleum costs a factor in film? If so, one would think that with that cost now down (they blamed raw material costs as one factor in the decrease in film segment profits), some money could now be freed up for advertising..?</p>

<p>I can't figure it out, and can only conclude that something is fishy as far as management's skill and/or integrity, goes.. No surprise in that regard, as I think in this 'New Gilded Age' of obscenely excessive CEO entitlement, they should all be reformed, given that their completely unjustified and obscenely high levels of compensation are corrosive to our hard won democratic society. They certainly don't "add value", as they all argued ten years ago, with the Nasdaq at 5000.. They're getting paid 500 times what the average worker receives.. but, why?</p>

<p>I've listened to all of the film/digital capture debates, and after all the song and dance, it's clear to me that film offers a great value/quality/elegance/practicality proposition for at least many of us. Why Kodak's management doesn't at least try to get this message out is very puzzling, given film's present, and with some intelligent support, its future profit potential. </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Yes, I think the the empty suits at the top of Kodak are responsible for their demise as the premier film maker, not the production workers. But yes, sales of all film is off. There are several reasons. </p>

<p>1. The natural progression of things. There was quite the hue and cry when National Geographic changed over from color illustrations to Kodachrome images. But, progress marches on. </p>

<p>2. The folks in the picture business did their damndest to change our picture taking habits so we would buy new digital gear for their profit. Over the years they have also switched us from glass plate to cut film to roll film to 35mm and even to APS, how stylish. </p>

<p>3. The folks in the picture business have dumbed down. They have lied to us. Remember all the claims and even articles in the popular photo magazines that proclaimed that at the 1MP level, digital cameras had exceeded 35mm film quality? If that was true, why have we bought 3, 6, 12 and now 24MP cameras? I remember when 110 film was supposed to equal or be superior to 35mm, then they tried to tell us that the smaller APS film actually gave better enlargements than 35mm. There were plenty of "unbiased" articles in the photo magazines to back up the vendor's claims. A lot of consumers bought into all the BS, and each and every time it was shoveled out to boot. </p>

<p>4. Consumers have accepted BS and the lesser results. "Pro" photographers have sold 2-3MP 11x14 and larger enlargements of portraits, products, etc. and assured their customers to pay a higher price for the increased quality over medium and large format productions (while laughing all the way to the bank). </p>

<p>5. Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all? </p>

<p>6. Qualex. Many people got green faces on their prints. Many people got slide mounts where the hole in the center was not full of film. Many people got nothing back. Some people got something back, but after a Looooooong wait. In my humble opinion (and all my opinions ARE humble) Qualex did more to kill off Kodachrome than film speed. </p>

<p>Kudos to the good folks like fellow Photonetter Ron Andrews who worked on the floor at Kodak making good products better for us photo enthusiasts. Shame on the empty suits. </p>

<p>Hasta la vista, Qualex! You won't be missed. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p><em> Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all?</em><br>

I agree too that film makers have reduced advertising.<br>

BUT where today would one advertise film for a good bang for the buck?</p>

<p>One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears; once all four retailers had 620, 120 tri-x; and even Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Sears in Detroit once sold Nikon F; Nikkormat.<br>

The largest retail store in the USA; ie Walmart thats open many places 24/7 doesnt carry a roll of tri-x or slide film.</p>

<p>These declining film E6 and regular B&W film products are NOT often available anymore from a local store in many areas; its a mail order product.</p>

<p>A Kodak advert for a new wazoo 120 color print film in LIFE magaizine might be effective in the pre Kodapak 1962 era; but then EVERY drugstore carried 120 film; todaya tightly focused advert in Rangefinder magazine might sort of work abit.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Re <i>5. Film manufactures have quit marketing their product. Remember when Kodak had the back cover and often several mid-magazine multi page spreads featuring their various film based products? The film companies drastically reduced their advertising and promotion, then patting themselves on the back, congratulated themselves for their wise decision to save the advertising monies when lower sales resulted. Were they as wise as they think or is there some relationship between advertising and sales levels? If not, why advertise at all?</i></p>

<p>I agree too that film makers have reduced advertising. BUT where today would one advertise film for a good bang for the buck? One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears; once all four retailers had 620, 120 tri-x; and even Kodachrome. Sears in Detroit once sold Nikon F; Nikkormat. The largest retail store in the USA; ie Walmart thats open many places 24/7 doesnt carry a roll of tri-x or slide film. These declining film E6 and regular B&W film products are NOT often available anymore from a local store in many areas; its a mail order product. A Kodak advert for a new wazoo 120 color print film in LIFE magaizine might be effective in the pre Kodapak 1962 era; but then EVERY drugstore carried 120 film; today tightly focused advert in Rangefinder magazine might sort of work abit.</p>

[ben_hutcherson]

<p>"One cannot buy tri-x at Walmart or Walgreens or Kmart or Sears"<br>

It wasn't too long ago-maybe a month ago-that I walked into a local CVS Pharmacy for some cheap print film, and noticed that they also had Tri-X in stock. I bought a couple of rolls to hopefully encourage them to continue stocking it.<br>

Perhaps a year ago, I was able to get TMAX 400 at Walmart. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.</p>

[john_castronovo]

<p>Thanks for asking Patrick, the lab is Tech Photo & Imaging in Fairfield, NJ. You can see us at www.techphoto.net</p>

[shalom_septimus]

<p>John, do you do 70mm C41? I've got a couple of rolls of respooled 116/616, and I can't find anyone local who can develop & print it for me. Fairfield isn't exactly local, about a half hour drive for me, but I'll take a run out there if you can do that...</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Mr. Burke, I think you make some good points, as does Kelly. Yes, film sales are off, but from the figures I see from their most recent financial report, Kodak's profits from film still dwarf those from their other products. In fact, when the other two main divisions' profits are added together, they are still less than those from film.. This is from their 3rd quarter report. I'm no financial expert and don't want to draw too much of a conclusion from this, but still..</p>

<p>Also, regarding your point #1, that it is "the natural progression of things". I'm not so sure at all.. I tend to look at film photography and digital capture as two separate technologies, but maybe I'm wrong.. I think it is much more due to your point #2.</p>

<p>I think Kelly has an excellent point in that even if the manufactures of film were to advertise, where? I'm afraid maybe that's the main answer to what I was asking.. I simply wish there was a way for them to get the word out, if they had the will, but don't have the answer.. I remember 15 years ago, when I became interested in photo, someone with more experience warning me not to pay too much attention to the ads in my photo magazines as, "they will constantly make you think that you need new equipment". After reading Kelly's thoughts, it hit me that I haven't subscribed to a single photo magazine for years, mainly because of the bombardment of ads, which of course now are for digital equipment, and because the articles seemed to be too focused on technology. (If anyone can recommend an excellent substantive photo magazine w/ few ads, I'd appreciate it.) </p>

<p> </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Hi, Kelly...<br>

<br />Yes, where to advertise? One of the problems is that once you reduce or quit your advertising program folks that follow your ads (yes, some do, especially Kodak's who would often make "how-to" tips part of their ads) no longer look for them. I'm glad that I do not have to put a career on the line guessing, but I think I'd try the photo magazines, especially in the EU and orient. Canon, Fuji, Nikon etc. all advertise there and must get some bang for their buck. I'd do whatever it took to make sure the magazines also did a flattering show and tell article on my wonderful new product.<br>

<br />Hi, Jeff Z...<br>

<br />You again made a good point about Kodak's revenue percentages. I read an earlier post about that from you. That is one of the reasons I wrote as I did...Kodak certainly has the revenue from film sales to support advertising. Some business people feel that advertising is only warranted when sales support it. Others feel that advertising is most necessary when sales don't support it to help create a sales situation. Some feel that more advertising budget is warranted when sales are falling off in order to stem the tide. Kodak is certainly in the first and second category. I feel that if they don't start soon, they will have to make a decision as to whether to consider the second category.<br>

<br />Kodak just released Ektar 100, one of the best print films on the market. I tried to buy a second brick but B&H was out. How did that happen? What were Kodak's marketing geniuses thinking. Did they grossly underestimate the market partly because they don't listen to their customers? Did the sales rep who has the B&H account not bother to track sales from one of Kodak's largest retailers and who furthermore cater to Pro and "Advanced Armatures" which is Kodak's target market for a film like Ektar 100? If the marketing weenies did underestimate the demand, even though it was the talk of the film using forums, can't they play catch-up and push ahead another production run to keep the enthusiasm up for continuing sales before delighted users get discouraged and switch back to Reala or some other Fuji product whereby they loose the market section forever?<br>

<br />I think the top suits at Kodak went to business school with the top suits in the auto industry. Are we all familiar with the term "empty suit"?<br>

<br />Tom<br>

<br />P.S. Jeff Z... I'm not formal at all. I recently changed my Photonet name from Tom Burke as there was another with the same name and "9" icon behind his name. Recently I began getting remarks about his posts.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Hi Tom, <br>

I think your ideas make sense for advertising in the overseas markets, but am still frustrated and perplexed that they don't seem to try hard at all to reach the many people here in N. America who still use and very often prefer film, and of course, the potential film users.. At the same time, as I mentioned, I don't have an answer as to how and where to reach these potential buyers, either..</p>

<p>Again, the Pro Film division people at Kodak are not at fault, in my experience. They've been absolutely great with phone support, have sent literature, and even discount coupons. But, it seems to me that they are largely unsupported in the overall strategy of business at Kodak..</p>

<p>I tend to think that Wall Street, and its emphasis on relatively short term profit, and the obscenely high levels of executive compensation based on these foolish short term goals (i.e., options, in addition to crazily high salaries), definitely figure prominently.. Also, the "group think", that digital imaging is the "only" way..</p>

<p>One reason I mentioned previously that I think of film as a separate imaging technology, is your example of the new Ektar. Film is a great and proven method of capturing images, which still has room to run as evidenced by this great new emulsion, and Kodak has been coming out with these great products fairly consistently, in spite of everything!</p>

<p>No offense intended at all, but I have to take at least partial issue with your characterization of the auto industry execs, but mainly with what I view as our almost national overall view on this particular industry, which is unfair, in my opinion. I'll be the first to agree that something is drastically wrong at the top levels of almost every major corporation in the U.S., especially with the outlandish, obscenely high compensation levels which are totally unjustified by the"free market" methodology which these executives frequently like to espouse. Rather, it is an ultimate "good 'ole boys and girls club" behind this, along with the specialist agents who advocate for them in contract negotiations. Top executives in large companies now get approximately 500 times what the average worker gets; the historical ratio was about 25 to 1, up until around 1980, when the gap first started widening.</p>

<p>In regards to the auto industry though, what I'm getting at is something that was spelled out very well in a recent Newsweek article. Basically, the 'Big Three' have for decades now, been at a very unfair competitive disadvantage, and I'm not sure any executive leadership could have helped- only our government could have stepped in, in my view.. While the Big Three were saddled with outlandish obligations to their union workers, both present workers and with retirees, the many foreign car companies which set up shop in the states beginning about twenty years ago in about nine of our southern "right to work" (i.e., non-union) states, did not have this ongoing, and huge expense. These states, where companies like Toyota and BMW originally landed, and now many more are located, extend from S. Carolina over to Kentucky and Tennessee, and down to Texas. They were often given huge tax incentives to settle there, and again no union to deal with, and no retiree legacy costs.. This arrangement has been hugely beneficial to these states' economies. This is why their almost entirely Republican senators vetoed the bailout for the Big Three- it was based on their constituents' self-interest. Despite coming out with well respected, world-class cars in recent years, the Big Three cannot overcome this financial "legacy burden" that their competitors neatly side-stepped..</p>

<p>Again, nothing personal at all, as the polls indicate that most Americans have little pity for the auto industry, and blame its executives. While I'm sure they are probably not the greatest, I do think that there is little they could have done without concessions from the union for both present and past contractual obligations, and/or have the government level the playing field with their competitors.. And I'm not anti-union either. This is just a very sad situation that I feel strongly about, but have no direct or indirect monetary interest in.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The seeds of the legacy burden issues of the auto industry got planted roughly in the later 1960's early 1970's timeframe. As the sick joke goes; Detroit is a health care company that also makes cars. "General Motors, in the span of twenty years (1985 to 2005), went from 811,000 employees to only 324,000, giving GM 2.5 retirees per active worker"<br>

<br /> The main advertising I really from Kodak is tweaking the consumer C41 films boxes at Walmart; placing disposables with cute packaging in the checkout areas.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p><a href="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/jobs-bank-500-million-annual-cost-to.html">Update: </A>So while the Big Three spent close to $500 million over the last year for idle "workers" in the "Jobs Bank," Honda built a brand new factory in Indiana for about the same amount of money ($550 million).</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ok since Qualex is gone does this mean the "Film Bag Service" at Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, Savons is gone; fractured; farmed out to others?</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>WalMart and Walgreens will still send out because they use Fuji's services. Qualex is only Kodak.</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p> I was wondering how many nonjapanese photographic film or auto factories were built on japanese soil over the past 50 years?How many imported cars (I'm talking nonjapanese models) are sold in Japan each year?Kodak film?The stench get worse the closer you get to the truth on this issue.Please,supply me with some solid facts and accurate numbers.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUST4445320080313">U.S. manufacturers have in the past blamed import and currency restrictions while Japanese automakers have countered that they just didn't make good small cars.</a><br>

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUST4445320080313">About 8.3 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in Japan in 2006 were imported, compared with a peak of 10.6 percent in 1996.</a></p>

[john_magoon]

<p>Folks,<br />What you all fail to realize is that Qualex was never setup as a profit center. In fact, the division consistently lost money, even during the good times. Kodak was willing to absorb the losses to keep the Kodak brand of film prominently displayed in the thousands of retail outlets it serviced. When film sales declined, this business model was no longer sustainable.</p>

[david_elliott3]

<p>As a Photolab Supervisor for CVS, I will not miss qualex processing. Their delivery schedule was a work of bad fiction, thier processing quality sucked, and their store support people ranged from disintersted(on a good day) to downright nasty (typical). I have lost count of the number of free and reduced one hour processing vouchers i have had to give out over the years for either pisspoor prints from qualex or qualex delivering some poor sods film straight to the twilight zone</p>