Kodak's film business not doing so hot

[Imaginara]

i doubt anyone will be dumb enough to make a combo digi/film 35mm slr at least as unfortunately, digital is the mainstream right now.

However, medium format cameras still shoot both (unless you get a digital only =) by switching between film & digital backs.

 

[Steph]

i doubt anyone will be dumb enough to make a combo digi/film 35mm slr at least as unfortunately, digital is the mainstream right now.

Well, Leica made a digital modul for their R8/R9 35mm SLRs. I don't know if it is still in production though. But, I think you are right; no main stream camera manufacturer is likely to come up with such a device for a 35mm SLR.

 

[Helen B]

Those who complain about the number of good products that Kodak have discontinued tend to forget that they had a far wider range of products than their competitors, and that the products they discontinued were often one-of-a-kind. Some people do not praise Kodak for having kept niche products in production, but they do complain when those products are discontinued, and make no comment about the fact that no other company is rushing to fill the gap.

Now I'd like to hear complaints about Kodak only producing one type (or maybe two types) of B&W film in 220. Does anyone complain that neither Ilford nor Fuji produce any B&W film in 220.

Best,
Helen

 

[usayit]

Digital module for the leica R8 and R9 is no longer in production. Really angered a lot of Leica loyalists. It was decent performer albeit quite expensive but thats normal for Leica. A few (not me) are holding our breaths for the next generation "R" system at photokina.... I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[JC1220]

Kodak could discontinue all film based products and it would affect me in no way. Kodak has no desire to keep any niche product in production that falls below their profit requirements, the most recent case in point was Azo paper, the demand was their, the continued minimum order requirements were being met and exceeded, yet they cut the product anyway regardless of the strong efforts made to keep it around for years by its users based on the promises made by Kodak to do so.

I don't see anyone complaining here about lost products, only that it is unfortunate that we lose them. It’s not worth the time complaining about it, I find replacements that meet or exceed my needs to make the best photographs possible. And, it just so happens I can do that without Kodak, gladly.

It is just the way of film products in general toady: Kodak, Illford, Fuji, etc. It blows when these companies go under or stop producing a great product, but we adapt to new and often better products. Other companies will often fill those gaps like Fotoimpex and Bergger - which is one of the best films available. That is why I encourage people to move beyond Kodak and support some the smaller companies as they are our best hope in continued quality products.

 

[Alpha]

Those who complain about the number of good products that Kodak have discontinued tend to forget that they had a far wider range of products than their competitors, and that the products they discontinued were often one-of-a-kind. Some people do not praise Kodak for having kept niche products in production, but they do complain when those products are discontinued, and make no comment about the fact that no other company is rushing to fill the gap.

Now I'd like to hear complaints about Kodak only producing one type (or maybe two types) of B&W film in 220. Does anyone complain that neither Ilford nor Fuji produce any B&W film in 220.

Best,
Helen

Lack of 220 makes sense. It was largely a staple of wedding photographers, almost all of whom have switched to digital.

Some of the cancellations seem rather senseless, like the move to completely get out of the slow film category. Was it really necessary to get rid of Tech Pan, PanX, and Ektar? Fotokemika I feel certainly deserves praise for taking over the 32 and slower market.

 

[epatsellis]

Not all wedding photographers, many are now charging a significant premium for shooting film these days. Weddings are one area that film has such a clear advantage it's hard to understand why more aren't shooting with it. I've seen far too many weddings where dynamic range exceeds the capability of the sensor, and film can easily handle wide dynamics (12 stops in the case of Portra 160)

erie

 

[Alpha]

I totally agree. I don't necessarily thing digital is the better medium for wedding photographers, it's just what most of them happen to be shooting. A 70mm back loaded with Portra is a thing of beauty.

 

[Chris Sandström]

Agreed - my comment was based on what was stated in the article. Poor management? I'm not sure how many fans Perez has these days....depends on who you ask.

Being CEO for a company which undergoing a technological shift does not make you particularly popular. Shareholders blame you, the fired people blame you, and the popular press keeps telling the story about how the company failed to recognize the urgency of change, when the truth is that you've been working with it for decades.

I agree, the basic fact is that people are not buying film, and Kodak made their profits from film. Please see the link below for more information:

Disruptive Innovation, Kodak and digital imaging

 

[blash]

Not all wedding photographers, many are now charging a significant premium for shooting film these days. Weddings are one area that film has such a clear advantage it's hard to understand why more aren't shooting with it. I've seen far too many weddings where dynamic range exceeds the capability of the sensor, and film can easily handle wide dynamics (12 stops in the case of Portra 160)

erie

I met with a pro wedding photographer once in DC who was well known for his work and the way he put it, yes he knew that by shooting digital he was shooting some lower-quality stuff, but the fact of the matter was that he was able to take his day's shots, run it through a batch job, and be done. As soon as the bride and groom came back from the honeymoon, they were still ooh-ing and ah-ing over the photos and they were happy with it.

For a lot of wedding photographers, why should they offer anything more than what both saves them time and money AND makes the customer happy?

Back on topic - Kodak could go out of business, period and I'd barely feel it. I'd just find something other than HC-110 to develop with - I don't care for Kodak's films.

 

[bhop]

Since this thread was started (9 months ago) Kodak has released new films (Ektar 100, now in 120 size, and I believe, updated their Portra line) I've read on other forums that most of their profits are coming from the movie biz, where 35mm film is still shot for most movies. Kodak's not going anywhere..

 

[epatsellis]

blash,
it really doesn't get any easier than sending film to H&H, getting your proofs back and tossing the bad ones out, in fact, for what H&H charges for high res scans and proofs, I can get the best of both worlds, with little to no post time, and the availability of far better digital files than any Dslr wil produce. Of course I shoot predominantly MF and have relatively large negs to work with as well.

The new films from Kodak over the last year or two have been spectacular, I haven't had a chance to play with the new Ektar, but plan on buying a brick of 120 to try. Supposedly they are easier to scan than the Portra line.

 

[blash]

blash,
it really doesn't get any easier than sending film to H&H, getting your proofs back and tossing the bad ones out, in fact, for what H&H charges for high res scans and proofs, I can get the best of both worlds, with little to no post time, and the availability of far better digital files than any Dslr wil produce. Of course I shoot predominantly MF and have relatively large negs to work with as well.

The new films from Kodak over the last year or two have been spectacular, I haven't had a chance to play with the new Ektar, but plan on buying a brick of 120 to try. Supposedly they are easier to scan than the Portra line.

Which is why you'd be up a creek if someone ever lost your film (cough, USPS, cough). You really need to develop your own film if you shoot professionally.

 

[epatsellis]

Which is why you'd be up a creek if someone ever lost your film (cough, USPS, cough). You really need to develop your own film if you shoot professionally.

As I do, but for most, in house processing is something they wouldn't even consider.