Some Kodak film to "Retire"

[john romano]

<p>I have to agree with Kelly.</p>

<p>If sales of these films were great, and produced profit for Kodak, or any other company, then these films would not be discontinued. Senior management of a public corporation has certain duties to its shareholders. That's the plain fact. If they're losing money on a product line, and can't make it profitable because sales volumes are so low, they have to cut it.</p>

<p>Still, I'm saddened by Tri-X 320 in rolls being discontinued. I wish it wasn't so. A sign of "progress"? Digital is the method for the current generation.</p>

<p>Heck, I still miss the old 6049 Tri-X, and Super-XXX.</p>

<p>The best thing to do in my opinion, is to buy a good chest freezer and load it up. </p>

[sd_woods]

<p>Good lord Bruce what age are you? Man up</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>I think Bruce has a solid answer and point. Why would anyone consider supporting any company that does not support them.</p>

<p>Anyway, X is not been discontinued and threads like this are useless and a waste of time.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>RE; "Why would anyone consider supporting any company that does not support them."<br /> <br /> So if Sherwin Williams drops a poor selling paint color; do you damn them and not buy any other products there; ie other mainstream colors?<br /> <br /> (1) Thus if you the paint color to be dropped is puke purple pink; and a tiny fraction of folks gets upset; do you boycott them for all time?<br /> <br /> OR (2) do yOu want the production of the poor selling "puke purple pink" paint to go on; and this welfare cost tacked on to a mainstream color like Navajo White?.<br /> <br /> This is the issue; do want *all the stuff* you buy each day in life to cost more; to support the company's money losing other products?</p>

<p>Companys that do this then loose sales to other businesses that are better run; if there is more than one player in the game.<br /> <br /> Film is a perishable product; like beer.<br /> <br /> You want ACME to still sell Billy Beer or Velveda Film at a loss; and subsidized by other profitable products.<br /> <br /> Support of a product involves actually buying it.<br>

SUPPORT= YOU BUYING IT!<br>

<br /> CUSTOMERS ARE DROPPING THE SUPPORT; YOU ARE AT FAULT.<br>

<br /> IF THERE IS ENOUGH SALE VOLUME; THESE PRODUCTS WOULD STILL BE SOLD.<br /> <br /> ****There has to be enough sale volume of Space Food sticks, Velveda Film, Cheaties Cereal to support the actual productions costs.<br /> <br /> Sadly this concept was understood 10 thousand years ago; but is rocket science today with today's welfare state.<br /> <br /> Folks want the caveman to sell some weird food that is hard to make/hunt/find; is perishable; and fewer and fewer folks want. At some point the product gets dropped.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>If you really don't believe me give Chuck Lang at Kodak a call.</p>

[a._valerio]

<blockquote>

<p>People, people, this is a rumor. When someone posts "a contact told me" that is simply someone that is insecure and needs attn., please do not feed into rumors like this and there will be plenty of time to post your feelings on these issues when and IF the Orig. Mfr, in this case Kodak, puts out a press release with facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please do not attack the original poster with such accusations. He does not need this sort of negativity.</p>

<p>There already is a press release on Kodak's site stating that TXP is being discontinued in 120 and 220. Do not say there has not been a release. The OP has linked to it. I suggest reading it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Posts like this help no one and many more times then not, they are empty rumors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not an empty rumor. Again, TXP is being discontinued in roll film sizes. Therefore, there is no more b&w film of any type by any manufacturer that will be available in 220 format after the current TXP sells out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, X is not been discontinued and threads like this are useless and a waste of time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, Tri-X 320 in roll film sizes is indeed being discontinued. Saying it has not been, and saying that everyone here is wasting their time--now that is most surely a waste of your time. Why fight it? Kodak isn't lying to us. They really are discontiuing TXP in roll film sizes. Arguing that Kodak has not done what they said is going to get us nowhere. They've made their decision, and nothing will likely change it.</p>

[a._valerio]

<p>Plus-X...now that is a rumor at this point. There has been no discontinuation of Plus-X. Same for P3200. It's not being discontinued...yet. I agree there is no sense in wasting time talkng about Plus-X or P3200 until there is an official decision made by Kodak. Until then, they are current products. (P3200 has, however, been short-dated lately).</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>220 came out when I shot weddings for awhile; I got a 220 back for my C3 TLR for more shots. Where was always a small subset of 120 film emulsions sold in the 220 format. Some films never were every even made in 220 at all. Since most wedding are now shot digital; since many 120/220 labs are gone; it is easy to see why 220 will die off. If one takes the millions and millions 120 cameras were made; only a tiny subset came in 220 too.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Valiro, I was speaking to this, learn to read, whenever someone writes "A contact of mine ......" it is always a B.S. rumor and should never be posted nor read. I read this statement correctly.</p>

<p>"A contact of mine confirmed that the 4X5 size is staying. He also told me that Plus-X may be gone in the future."</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Call 1-800-242-2424 option 19 and ask to speak with Chuck Lang.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>I'll do better then that, I'll contact the Kodak Investor relations on Monday and let them know that Mr. Lang should NOT be making statements like "Plus-X may be gone in the future"<br>

I'll post what they tell me on Monday afternoon.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Well, All films "May be gone in the future" and the world "may end in the future". What's wrong with someone saying that something may go away?</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Apart from the inability to buy a certain film type or size there is the issue of people not liking to be told that can or can't do something. I have a good supply of replacement bulbs for my enlargers and slide projector. When incandescent bulbs can no longer be sold, someone might find a way to hook up an LED or fluorescent bulb to an old enlarger. I prefer having the original bulb. If photo paper is no longer available then my enlargers will either be converted into copy stads or donated to a museum. If it does stay available then I will be able to make prints.<br>

There were many threads on apug about Ilford making 220 film again. Ilford thought it would be too expensive to set up for 220 again. As long as the master rolls are still beng coated there might be another way. Many years ago Ilford sold 35mm spools with fresh film wrappd in foil. In a darkroom or changing bag you would remove the used film from one of their old heavy cartridges and slip in the new spool. If we could buy a roll or film (not on a spool) which had the correct width and length for 220 we could live without frame or film name markings. The film could be sold in kit form along with leader and trailer paper and some rubber bands. The leader and trailer paper would have an adhesive strip about half an inch wide with a peel-off piece of wax paper or plastic. A little jig would allow us to insert the end of the film, peel off the wax paper and press the paper strip onto the film. The rest would just involve some winding. The exact thickness of the leader and trailer paper would not be as critical as that of the paper for 120 film because all 220 backs assume there is no paper behind the film. The only potential problem with this set-up is that some 220 film is or was coated on a thinner stock than 120 film. I still have some HP5 220 (not HP5+) in the freezer. The Ilford 220 film was thinner and less rigid than the Kodak 220 film. I eventually had to get wide spaced Nikor stainless steel tank/reel sets to make working with 220 easier. The kits I propose might be made by Ilford but I wouldn't expect Kodak to be interested. If this dosn't work I will have to make my own jig for cutting down wide rolls of Kodak microfilm. This might give me an EI of 20 rather than 320 but I could at least still enjoy using my 220 equipment a little longer. </p>

[silverscape]

Patrick,

 

The problem with it is that if someone is a representative of Kodak, people might assume they are speaking FOR Kodak and not just their opinion. So if he said "Plus-X might be gone in the future" that makes it sound as if Kodak might be thinking about discontinuing Plus-X in the near future. When you work for a company, you have to be very careful about what statements you make. If it's just his opinion, then he should have made it clear that it was just his opinion.

 

I agree with Tom. I think a few of us should call Kodak.

 

And for all those people that keep saying "well, Kodak won't sell a film if they can't make a profit from it" or "just keep buying it and they will keep making it"....what if you are already buying and using as much film as you can afford? 90 percent of the black and white film I use is Kodak Plus-X. What more can I do?!

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Patrick, if you really can't see how both the kodak's employee's statement is completely uncalled for and you posting him as a contact I'm not going to take the time and teach you.<br>

I've saved this page to present to Kodak because we simply do NOT need anyone from Kodak posting such nonsense on the internet. When kodak feels it's time to discontinue a product they will release a press release. The biggest problem with "posters" on the internet is that they need to feel important, informed and try to present themselves as knowledgable in the photography community. This always proves to be not only wrong but most of the time causes trouble for the company by now having to take the time and answer such silly and unfounded rumors. They don't need their own employees making such statements.<br>

Again, I'll post what the kodak PR folks have to say about this on Monday.</p>

[a._valerio]

<p>This thread is actually a child thread of a much larger original thread that has been burning over at apug for several days now.</p>

<p>Edit: Link to original thread: <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/71265-some-kodak-b-w-film-deletions.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/71265-some-kodak-b-w-film-deletions.html</a></p>

<p>If anyone thinks this thread is bad, wait until you read the original thread at apug.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, I'll post what the kodak PR folks have to say about this on Monday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does this really have to be reported? It may not be the best thing to do as it could have nagative ramifications.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Valerio, do you have a link?</p>

[a._valerio]

<p>Tom:</p>

<p>I just gave you the link. As you will see, this was hastily handled by Kodak. Some of the film types may already have run out. Others, like P3200, they may deny.</p>

<p>Note: the original poster of the apug thread (Martin Reed) is a Kodak dealer. He possibly even wasn't supposed to post this stuff publicly, who knows...but I and many others are glad that he did.</p>

<p>It was not until after the thread started burning that Kodak came out with the offical statement!</p>

<p>So that says to me they are possibly watching us. Why call another thread (this one) to their attention and risk getting dealers, distributors, and Kodak employees in trouble? We, the photographers, may not have known about this until much later had it not been for such people as Martin Reed and Patrick Mont's contact at Kodak.</p>

[silverscape]

Ok guys, to be fair, Patrick is just a kid and there's no need to jump on his case. He wasn't trolling or just trying to stir things up. He's a regular here.

 

But still, Patrick, I really wish you hadn't said that about Plus-X. If that was just that guy's opinion or a rumor he heard somewhere, it would have been better to just not say anything at all. That just needlessly worries people. Like I said, I use Plus-X all the time. It's my favorite black and white film. And really, I think it's the only option for a low speed Kodak B&W film. If it ever did disappear, I don't think there would be any other option for some of my really old cameras that have a slow shutter. Or at least, not any Kodak B&W films. I would have to go to Ilford.

 

And if anyone at Kodak IS watching these forums...let me make this absolutely clear to them. I love film, and I use film almost exclusively. 99.99 percent of the pictures I take right now are with film. And most of the films I buy right now are Kodak. I buy as much film as I can afford, and I've bought a ton of Tri-X and Plus-X. I recommend Kodak films whenever I can. I've been spreading the word about Ektar 100 whenever I get the chance, to everyone I think would be interested in film photography. I have done my part as an amature photographer and film user. There is nothing more I can do.

 

There are a LOT of people who are interested in film photography, and they love Kodak. There are literally THOUSANDS of groups on Flickr now, just for people who like film photography. And there are countless websites devoted solely to film photography, not including APUG.org and this forum. But it's time for Kodak to get their heads out of their a** and start reaching out to FILM users. They should advertise everywhere that FILM users hang out...APUG.org, Flickr, here, in film photography magazines like Silvershotz, View Camera, etc.

 

Kodak needs to have a bigger presence. There are plenty of film users out there...but Kodak needs to reach out to them. They can't just sit on their butts and cut film stocks whenever it gets a fraction of a percent below their desired profit margin.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Chris; it is sort of *wanting* a local hockey league to say afloat/viable. What keeps the team afloat is actual ticket sales; not folks excited about the team.<br>

<br /> Companies cannot pay workers; the light bill; or taxes with wishes; it requires cash flow from sales.<br /> What keeps film afloat is for customers to buy enough to support the production line.<br>

<br /> One can have a million folks *exited* about a product; if there is nill sales the product tends do die.<br>

<br /> What keeps a product afloat is for customers to get their own heads out of their bums; BUY the actual product; buy enough so the product lives another year. This is BASIC to business; it is a 10 thousand old concept.<br>

<br /> With film its worse that wheelcovers for a old car; film degrades like food or paint; it has a limited shelf life.<br>

<br /> Having excitement about a product is good; IF it actually translates to more sales.</p>

<p>If you travel every weekend to shoot photos at a weekly event and there are nil sales next year; at some time one must cut ones losses; or support this lossy welfare project.<br>

<br /> In world recession; having products that are margin in profit or negative get looked at more; there is less profits to support this lossy cause.<br>

<br /> Kodaks share price was about 65 bucks in 1973; it went down to 2.22 last year; 6.08 yesterday. Ponder if it is wise to support ill products.<br>

<br /> Film or local teams will still be around if the product is sold; ie films and tickets. One call all one wants; what matters is actual sales.</p>

[silverscape]

But Kelley, that's the thing...all those Flickr groups and websites represent people who ARE buying and using film. In fact, there's even a group on Flickr just for people who shoot Kodak film!

 

 

All the pictures in the group...THOUSANDS of them...were taken with Kodak film. (over 100,000 photos!) So this isn't just people getting interested or excited about it. These are people who actually ARE buying and using Kodak film.

 

And there's even a group, just for Ektar 100:

 

 

What more does Kodak want?!

 

That's why I'm saying maybe the problem isn't that people aren't using the films (they are)...maybe the problem is that Kodak is expecting too much and their goals are too short sighted. They cut a film to save a few quick bucks so their numbers can look good for a quarter, without thinking long term for how that will affect their reputation.

[patrick_mont]

It really was just someone elses opinion I guess and I really should of thought before I wrote it. Sorry for the uproar. I am really going to let my mind think instead of my typing fingers.

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Hi Patrick, big fan of you here, young film shooter that you are. Lesson numero uno on the net......rumors...don't be "That Guy"...<br /> Number two, Kelly Flanigan and A. Valerio have pretty much nailed it. I understand this because I run my own business too. Things are changing, the photo world we know and love has changed and not entirely for the better, thank technology and the internet for that. So we all adapt, we stock up, we cull it down to what we really want to use. I read the thread on APUG, it's a doozy but a good doozy, it clearly shows people on a trampoline of conclusions jumping their hearts out. <br /> Kodak will likely nix more drastically underperforming products, if they don't, then it is all at risk. I have no idea as to what those are or when that could happen, I put my effort into shooting, not speculating. This is a lean and mean economy and our neighbors are not going to play nice or play by red white and blue rules if you know what I am getting at. So instead of bashing Kodak, how about some of us call that number and ask them how do we foster better communication with them and the rest of the photo world? Kodak is committed to making film, but not all the film that a robust photo-centric economy supported 10 years ago. <br /> This is all still in transition with a dollop of "Great Recession" added for good measure. So you have to think in broader terms, and if you can take the time to respond to this thread, then you can take the time to give Kodak and call and help them chart the course of OUR Kodak, not just theirs, the shareholders or yours in particular. <br /> Become the champion of the cause and the solution, not the problem...</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I was at Unique Photo in Fairfield, NJ half an hour ago to pick up some TXP 220. They have 52 pro packs left.</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>I think that the second-hand information that Kodak is looking at getting rid of Plus-X is probably correct. Certainly they have already dropped it in sheet film sizes. My own personal opinion is that Kodak would rather that everyone use the Tmax films and color negative film. I don't think that Kodak slide film will be around for very much longer. A company that can't deal with niche markets and small-scale production is doomed to failure in a declining film market. I think there are other companies more worthy of our support. In any case, it's my money, and my favorite format that they dropped, and I'm not going to be spending my money on Kodak products. The rest of you can do as you please.</p>