tony_duda

<p>Peter, have you heard of color negative film, or can you see the world of traditional photography only in black and white?</p>

<p>What mail order labs has anyone used recently to process their APS film? Have you been happy with the results?</p>

<p>APS did have some things going for it; I found the mid-roll change feature helpful. I still have some Agfa, Fuji and Kodak APS film tucked-away in the freezer but, when it's gone, it's gone, unfortunately. I still have some Fuji F100, which I believe was the emulsion the first 35mm Reala was based on. It had finer grain than their D100. I have Nikon Pronea 6, Nikon Pronea S, Minolta Vectis S-1 and Canon EOS iX SLRs, but they're soon to be paperweights. Not that I acquired them because I thought APS was going to be successful; the writing was on the wall fairly early on after APS made its debut. I just thought they were (and still are) very cool beasts. The one thing I did find was that Fuji's first generation APS film seemed much better than Kodak's, especially the 400 ISO. The exception was Kodak's 100 ISO, which was a fine. Once Kodak improved their Advantix film, it was on par with Fuji's, if not a bit better. I want to use the cameras again, but I have mixed feelings about doing so. I guess it's my way of delaying the end.</p>

<p>"What's good about them" is that their quality is fantastic. As for their prices, it's no longer the 1990s. The days of super-cheap processing gradually disappeared and are now almost gone because there is no longer economy in volume for labs. The Darkroom's prices are competitive, and certainly not "high" considering the new reality. Yes, you still have price leaders such Walmart or Clark Labs, but they're hardly professional quality, and are unreliable at best, although Walmart's (Dwayne's) E6 is still one of the last great bargains. Costco has been closing more and more of their labs. The reality is that analog photography, at least as far as film and processing, is more expensive.</p>

<p>I'm 54, but maybe that's too old to understand the lure of Lomography? Maybe I'm just too old to 'get it'? My generation was always interested in the sharpest lenses, the finest grain films, etc. Then along comes the Lomographers that seem to want to do everything possible to degrade their images, a complete 180, and at a relative steep price. Certainly they could further degrade images from an already crappy, cheap digital point and shoot or phone cam, and not have the expense of processing? Hey, but if it keeps the film machines rolling, I'm all for it :-)</p>

I can't say that I understand the point of Lomography; using toy cameras with inferior plastic lenses, expired film, then often

cross-processing that film in chemicals for which it was never intended seems a rebellion against technology, but perhaps

that is the point. It's certainly not my thing, but anything that keeps people interested in film is a positive.

Why so defensive? I do not have to explain my motivation to you regarding my question. There is no motivation other than

I find it interesting. Please, if you do not like my question, just ignore it; you do not have to participate in the discussion. If another member asks a question that is within

the context of a particular forum, how does that negatively affect you? Apparently, some members have found it an

interesting question, as they have already shared their thoughts. True, this is an analog and digital photography website,

but my question was posted in the correct forum.

Yes, it matters to me, and possibly many other members of this site. This is the "Film and Processing" forum and, just as

some members still post (and rightfully so) about Kodachrome, we do not have to limit ourselves to films that are still in

production. I thought is was an interesting question, and that other members, with their many years of insight as both

consumers and in the film manufacturing end, could shed some light on. Every industry has a history; I'm very sorry that you disagree.

<p>The color negative/slide film manufacturing world is in a much different place than it was just a few years ago. Agfa still makes a few color emulsions for Rollei, but it's out of the consumer film business, at least under it's own name. Ferrania (if it still exists) no longer makes film. Konica-Minolta abandoned all photography-related business. That leaves us with an extremely ill Kodak and a fairly healthy Fuji still in the game.</p>

<p>I remember reading a comment some years ago that Agfa, Ferrania and Konica were considered second-tier manufacturers. In other words, their film technology was always a few years or more behind Fuji and Kodak. In retrospect, I am wondering if that actually was the case, or just public perception because they didn't have the global market share of Fuji and Kodak? I know some members on this site have worked for these companies, and I assume they occasionally had to take a closer look at competing products as part of their jobs. I'm asking for opinions or thoughts, whether you were on the consumer or manufacturing end of the chain.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Only one reason: they didn't sell enough of it to make it profitable. I understand there was some raw material shortage issue with Neopan 400 which has now been resolved. I don't know if the same problem affected Neopan 1600 or was a factor in Fuji's decision.</p>

My opinion, for what it's worth... I don't see Kodak's film division selling in any way,

shape or form. I honestly believe the company is simply going to fade to black, with

maybe some assets sold along the way to partially satisfy creditors. The name will live on through licensing

agreements, pasted on all sorts of related and unrelated products, as the Polaroid

name has. Why would there be any other outcome? Antonio Perez has been CEO since

2005, and has shown over the years that he completely lacks the skills to be in that

position. It amazes me that he's still there, unless shareholders and the board have just

given up and accepted what now is inevitable. Agfa, Fuji and Konica have all survived

through smart management, merger, or both. There is absolutely no reason why Kodak

could not have been thriving today, especially given its technical expertise, patent

portfolio and worldwide name recognition. Digital didn't kill Kodak; unbelievably bad

management did.

Sadly, Antonio Perez hasn't exhibited the skills to manage a lemonade stand, no less

Eastman Kodak. I fear not only is he one of many inept CEOs the company has

suffered, he will also be the last. I really do see the remainder of the company being

sold off piecemeal, and Kodak becoming just a meaningless, licensed name like

Polaroid. I hope I'm wrong, but things certainly appear to be heading in that

direction.

So there we have it; the 'plan of the week' from Mr. Perez on how Kodak will emerge

from Chapter 11 as a successful company. If it happens (and I certainly hope it does) it

will be despite him. First, consumer inkjet printers were going to save the company.

Ooops...that didn't happen, but he continues to throw money at it. He stated many

times that Kodak was committed to film as long as it is profitable. While film sales are

obviously nowhere near what they once were, it is still the only profitable division

within the company. Well, more hollow words from Mr. P, as the division is now up for

sale. Digital cameras? Bailed on them, not seeing even slightly into the future and

realizing there would soon be no reason for 'Joe Consumer' to carry two cameras; a

Kodak and a cell phone able to match the features and photo quality of the lower-end

Kodaks. With their vaunted digital imaging patent portfolio and Mr. P's own claim of

the company's "digital imaging know-how", did he set the ship in the direction of

producing more advanced digital cameras to rise above the cell phones as the other

camera manufacturers have? Nope. After investing truckloads of money, he just bailed.

Perhaps the rear bumper of his limo should have a big green sticker that reads,

"WWFD?"

True, Kodak did have kiosks in place, but they spent a vast amount of money and resources in the mistaken belief that the

average consumer would prefer to make prints at home, hence their printers targeting that market. Most printer

manfacturers don't make money on the hardware in that price segment, instead making profits on inks. Kodak's brilliant

idea? Sell lower-end printers to compete at the price point of other manufacturers comparable models, but undercut

them on ink. The problem with that strategy? Where, then, were they going to make a profit in connection with their

consumer inkjet printer business?

To be fair to Antonio Perez, Kodak's string of poor business

decisions started long before he became CEO. No one could stop

the digital onslaught and film's decline. That being said, he has

certainly turned out to be the wrong man to put at the helm,

totally miscalculating the speed in which digital would become

dominant. Instead of utilizing the company's strengths, he

decided to take a much-weakened Kodak in the ridiculous direction of becoming a major player in inkjet printers, where much more

established players had the advantage of years of in-house

capabilities, technologies and market share. Not to mention that,

unlike Fuji, Kodak once again failed see the future and

understand that most consumers would simply prefer to take

their memory cards to a kiosk at Walmart or a chain pharmacy to

get prints made.

<p>Unfortunately, Ferrania is out of the film business. The stuff on eBay is from their last production runs, so when it's gone, it's gone. I don't know if they even made film in the 120 format; possibly years ago, but I don't believe they did in recent years (I may be wrong about that). If so, it's probably so scarce that it would be very difficult to find. My guess is that if it's not available in eBay, it's probably not available at all.</p>

<p>I'm so sorry for the alarm. You're right, Tim, I must have been on the Kodak store page...my error. It certainly wasn't intentional to stir up fears. However, with all the bad news coming from Kodak, it wouldn't have shocked me.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if I've come a bit late to the party and this has already been discussed, but I went to Kodak's website and only saw Portra 160 NC (which I thought had been discontinued along with VC in favor of the new emulsion just named Portra 160) and Portra 800 listed. The new emulsion has already been kicked to the curb? The 400 as well? They were wonderful! While I'm not a "pro", I used them for a wedding this past summer and was blown away.</p>

<p>It was marketing, not for technical reasons, and was initiated by Kodak. Their marketing research indicated that consumers wished they had "just a few extra shots" on a 20 exp. roll, as they sometimes felt that 20 wasn't quite enough when photographing the usually family events. So, in the late '70s, Kodak ditched 20 exp. rolls and replaced them with 24. Fuji, Konica and Agfa immediately followed Kodak's lead. I remember reading this explanation in one of the photography mags about the time of the transition. I'm sure someone was also making money from it but, of course, they would never mention that :-)</p>

<p>To the best of knowledge, Kodak never supplied film for CVS's house brand. It was always manufactured by Konica. When they left the film business, Fuji took over as the supplier.</p>

<p>Glenn, there are the "new" Centuria color negative films (not Konica) found on Ebay that many people claim is repackaged Kodak Gold. A Japanese company called DNP is now using the Centuria name. I guess they must have bought the rights from Konica when they left the film business. This company does not manufacture film, it's only a distributor. I believe the box states "Made in USA, Finished in Mexico" or "Packaged in Mexico"...something to that effect. If that's the case, it would be Kodak.<br /><a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DNP+Photo+Marketing+Launches+'CENTURIA+Film'+Series+of+Color+Negative...-a0162305433">http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DNP+Photo+Marketing+Launches+'CENTURIA+Film'+Series+of+Color+Negative...-a0162305433</a></p>

<p>Sakura and Konica were one and the same. Ferrania is somewhat scarce in the U.S., but can be found if you look hard enough.</p>

<p>Sure, Nicholas. I'm supposed to go back in on Saturday to pick-up some IR film that they are processing, so I'll ask.</p>

<p>Larry, no, the Superia 200 does not say 'Made in the USA", but does appear to be packaged for the U.S., as it does not have the different look of the packaging graphics that the film does (did?) for other countries. They do have the generic Fuji 100 that does have that "look". Again, this is very strange, as Superia 200 has been gone for quite a while from Fuji's U.S. site, replaced by the generic 200 that places like Wal-Mart sell. Same with Kodak Gold 100. If I remember correctly, Kodak first discontinued the 36 exp. rolls in the U.S., and later the 24. The film was removed from Kodak's U.S. site, but this place has a lot of it, both 24 and 36 exp., in the carded display box with the yellow and red flowers. I don't remember the exact exp., but it was well in to 2012. I bought some Reala a few months ago, as the rumor was that it may be discontinued. No one was sure, as Fuji hadn't (and still hasn't) bothered to set the record straight. Those rolls were dated 1/2012. The ones I bought a week ago were dated 5/2012, so it seems new stock is being shipped.<br>

On a completely different note, if anyone likes Kodak HD 400 that only seemed to be available at CVS in the U.S., they'd better stock up. I noticed that my local CVS had it on clearance, so I imagine it's being discontinued?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My local photo shop, which is probably one of the most well-stocked shops I've ever been in, always has many boxes of fresh-dated (exp. late in 2012) 35mm films that I thought had been discontinued. They are continually restocking their shelves, as they told me they sell and process tons of film. These include Kodak Gold 100, Elite Chrome Extra Color, Fuji Reala, Superia 200 (not the generic 200 stuff Wal-Mart sells), in both 24 and 36 exp. loads. The weird thing is that these do not appear to be "grey market", but made for the USA. My question...haven't these films been discontinued? They have disappeared from the manufacturer's U.S. web sites. I thought they were gone?</p>