The actual news about Kodak's 320TXP discontinuing

[joshroot]

<p>Just because the other thread was getting kind of long and argumentative, I thought I would make sure people were hearing this news from the horse's mouth:</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263</p>

<p>Also, here is a quote from my Kodak person:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We posted to the web today about the ONLY TWO Tri-X formats that are going away. Here's the link: <br /> <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263" target="_blank">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmAnnouncements.jhtml?pq-path=13319/2300263 </a><br>

Need to be very clear that TXP 320 sheet format and TX 400 availability continues unchanged. These are very strong sellers that our customers and Kodak remain very committed to. <br>

What's being reported on forums needs to be addressed: we're not announcing anything except removal of two small low runner formats of Tri-X - nothing else. Our total TXP 320 -120 & 220 format production is less than 5% of our total Tri-X production, and it's this limited level of photographer and market demand that drive these sorts of difficult decisions. We've talked abut this before. Kodak will continue to offer products where photographer demand makes it a viable offering within our professional film portfolio.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Despite the previous arguments about the accuracy of news from a "contact" or someone's motivation for posting such news, I can assure you that you can take anything I post to the bank. I don't post rumors, someone in my position can't afford to do that. That sort of thing would damage the credibility that photo.net has in the photo industry. I may not post all that I hear or know, but you can be sure that if I do post something, it is accurate. </p>

<p>Well, I should say "accurate at the time I posted it". We all know how the world changes. Remember when Toyota was a brand many thought of as the most reliable?<br /> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>No product stays in production forever. I think the issue for some people is the way we are notified. When a company has a new car coming out it may want to keep that quiet until most of the old models were sold. In the case of a product like TPX 220 there shouldn't have been any worry that by announcing its discontinuance, people would no longer want to buy it. Whether TXP 220 (and TXP 120) make up 5% of Tri-X production or some other percentage there isn't a good reason to announce its discontinuance so close to the time that it will no longer be available. A little extra notice wouldn't hurt. This isn't the first time Kodak announced that a film was being discontinued right before it became unavailable. Is it that much of a secret? </p>

[richard_f]

<p>I think the biggest problem with the TXP 220 discontinuance was that it was the last/only 220 b&w film. For those who liked the emulsion, one thing; for users of 220, an even bigger issue. Any why, most would ask- well, if you are shooting 6X9, 120 yields 8 exposures, then time to change rolls. Do-able, but not as nice as getting 16 frames before changing.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I agree with Jeff on this. What would it cost to give people a chance to stock up? That said, the improvement in TriX 400 has been considerable, so that the 320 emulsion is not really needed anymore. I would not mind seeing the 400 in sheet film.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>It's hard to know in advance if you will be able to sell a whole production run before the "master rolls" start to get too old, because there's hasn't been enough demand to finish the master rolls into rolls of film. A master roll is something like 5000 feet at 46 inches wide. They make several to many at a production run. They then store the master rolls, and cut them up into little rolls and box them up as orders come in. (This is called "finishing".) <br>

Problem is, there's a minimum number of master rolls that it makes sense to make at once. There's a lot of fixed costs to setting up to make them for a particular emulsion and backing, even if they only make one master roll.<br>

If they don't sell all the master rolls before they expire, they lose the money they spent making the master rolls.<br>

If Kodak announces discontinuance too early, they might wind up selling off even less of the last production run than they would have stretching it out until the master rolls are close to expiring. Their goal is to sell as much of the "last run" as they can. Yes, there will be some hoarding when you announce discontinuance of any film. But there will also be a quick drop in the "steady state" demand, as many users will immediately switch to another way of getting their photography work done (switch to 4x5, switch to another film, or switch to digital).</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Thanks for posting that Josh. It's good to read real numbers like TXP only being 5% of the total Tri-X production. That helps put the Kodak financial decisions in perspective. 220 has been dying for a long time now. I sold off my Hasselblad A24 back 8 years ago at a loss. Guess it was better than waiting until now!</p>

[david_l3]

<p>Among other differences, TXP has a finely textured base surface for retouching the negatives. TX 400 does not. Photoshop makes that a moot point for those who scan the negatives. </p>