earleygallery Posted August 30, 2012 Share #141 Posted August 30, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) A stronger Ilford might introduce more film sizes (like 127 for my baby Rollei, now that Efke won't bs available). Who knows, they could even consider reintroducing what has to be one of the nicest colour print systems ever, Cibachrome. The saving grace for Kodak will probably be the prospect of movie film sales for anyone thinking of buying them, but I think I'd rather see them throw in the towel now and allow Ilford and others to thrive, rather than limping along and still enjoying the lions share of the Market. A selection of smaller players is better than one giant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here Kodak to sell its Film and Paper business [merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
StS Posted August 31, 2012 Share #142 Posted August 31, 2012 Best way to do that is by buying their products! Maybe you'd like to suggest a forum discount while you're talking... This could be helpful to boost sales, a roll of Tri-X sells for 3.95 EUR over here, while the HP5 sells for 5,83 EUR. I'm not in photography to save money, but this is quite a gap. Ilford would be like a time trip for me, when I was a child, a typical birthday present from one of my aunts would be Ilford films and papers. FP4 and HP5 were already around back then... Concerning Kodak, there was an article in the Economist* some time ago, where they argued, that Kodak's mistake actually was to try to make money in digital photography, where there is not very much money to be made. They compared Kodak to Fuji, who saw their core competency in chemicals and shifted their core business to other chemical businesses. Most of the pictures these days are probably taken on mobile phones and are viewed on computer or TV screens. Mobile phone cameras and point-and-shoot cameras are dominated by high-volume, very low-margin players. So, apart from serious amateurs and professionals, there is no money to be made any more in mass market photography. Stefan *since I cite them quite a lot, I should add, that I do read other papers, but most of them not in English... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 31, 2012 Share #143 Posted August 31, 2012 Bought a Tri-x 'brick' from AG Photographic just the other week (@ £3.96 per 36exp) and will continue to do so as long as it keeps rolling off the production line. Unfortunately, deep freeze space is limited so in the interest of maintaining domestic harmony, I have to limit myself to one brick at a time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 31, 2012 Share #144 Posted August 31, 2012 Bought a Tri-x 'brick' from AG Photographic just the other week (@ £3.96 per 36exp)... £3.69 at Mathers... Mathers of Lancashire - Kodak TRI-X 400 35mm 36 Exposure Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 31, 2012 Share #145 Posted August 31, 2012 I paid £3.99 per roll for my HP5+ from there yesterday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #146 Posted August 31, 2012 This could be helpful to boost sales, a roll of Tri-X sells for 3.95 EUR over here, while the HP5 sells for 5,83 EUR. I'm not in photography to save money, but this is quite a gap. Ilford would be like a time trip for me, when I was a child, a typical birthday present from one of my aunts would be Ilford films and papers. FP4 and HP5 were already around back then... Concerning Kodak, there was an article in the Economist* some time ago, where they argued, that Kodak's mistake actually was to try to make money in digital photography, where there is not very much money to be made. They compared Kodak to Fuji, who saw their core competency in chemicals and shifted their core business to other chemical businesses. Most of the pictures these days are probably taken on mobile phones and are viewed on computer or TV screens. Mobile phone cameras and point-and-shoot cameras are dominated by high-volume, very low-margin players. So, apart from serious amateurs and professionals, there is no money to be made any more in mass market photography. Stefan *since I cite them quite a lot, I should add, that I do read other papers, but most of them not in English... This is quite true. Kodak's mistake was moving away from their core competencies (film, chemicals, etc.). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 31, 2012 Share #147 Posted August 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) £3.69 at Mathers... Mathers of Lancashire - Kodak TRI-X 400 35mm 36 Exposure Film Thanks for the heads-up. At £3.79 a heck of a lot cheaper for Acros 100 to boot. AG charge £4.85! Grumble, grumble. Prices noted and website bookmarked for my next order... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 31, 2012 Share #148 Posted August 31, 2012 This is quite true. Kodak's mistake was moving away from their core competencies (film, chemicals, etc.). Kodak's digital sensor business was quite good, too. Part of the rationale for Kodak to expand was to placate the American quarterly report. They are a publicly owned entity. The stockholders, and therefore the company leadership, only cared about nudging up the points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #149 Posted August 31, 2012 Kodak's digital sensor business was quite good, too. Part of the rationale for Kodak to expand was to placate the American quarterly report. They are a publicly owned entity. The stockholders, and therefore the company leadership, only cared about nudging up the points. But unlike film, cameras companys could make their own sensors. kodak would not have a big makrt to themselves for long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 31, 2012 Share #150 Posted August 31, 2012 But unlike film, cameras companys could make their own sensors. kodak would not have a big makrt to themselves for long. Most camera companies do not make their own sensors. The big four are the rarefied group. Kodak's sensors are famous for what they do, and they do it well. Kodak was a pioneer in digital sensors. Their patent licenses should be a clue. FWIW, it is Kodak (now Truesense) sensors on Mars that bring you the pictures from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 31, 2012 Share #151 Posted August 31, 2012 May I point out that Kodak did not even use Kodak sensors in the last models of DSLRs they produced. They bought Creo and continued using Dalsa chips in Creo's Leaf backs. There will be plenty of business school studies on what went wrong at Kodak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #152 Posted August 31, 2012 May I point out that Kodak did not even use Kodak sensors in the last models of DSLRs they produced. They bought Creo and continued using Dalsa chips in Creo's Leaf backs. There will be plenty of business school studies on what went wrong at Kodak. Basically, everything that could. bad bad bad bad bad bad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #153 Posted August 31, 2012 Basically, everything that could. bad bad bad bad bad bad kODAK WAS FIRST ON THE MARKET WITH DSLR: Kodak DCS 600 and 700-series battery and charger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted September 3, 2012 Share #154 Posted September 3, 2012 One more trip to New York, and I should be done my last 100 rolls of TMY-2. But what to replace it with? In neat Xtol, this film has the grain structure close to a 100-speed emulsion, but with a true box speed rating. Any suggestions on anything that comes close to the smoothness of TMY-2 in 400 speed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 3, 2012 Share #155 Posted September 3, 2012 Any suggestions on anything that comes close to the smoothness of TMY-2 in 400 speed? Ilford Delta 400? Similar 'T' grain technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted September 3, 2012 Share #156 Posted September 3, 2012 Thanks Steve. I've used Delta 400 in 120, but never tried it in 35mm. I'll give it a go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted September 3, 2012 Share #157 Posted September 3, 2012 It appears, that Lexmark are pulling out of the inkjet printer business due to difficulties to compete against the larger competition by HP and Canon and due to people now storing most of their documents on smartphones instead of printing. Another business model gone by the tide of events.... Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 3, 2012 Share #158 Posted September 3, 2012 Who knows, they could even consider reintroducing what has to be one of the nicest colour print systems ever, Cibachrome. I'm might be wrong but I think Cibachrome is/was a product of the Swiss former owner of Ilford. I don't think Harman (the company created from the management buyout of the Mobberley film manufacturing arm when Ilford went bust, and the manufacturer of the films still sold under the Ilford brand) has any involvement in the colour print technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 3, 2012 Share #159 Posted September 3, 2012 Incidentally, when the recent Kodak news broke last week I thought of buying some extra Portra 400 to put in the freezer. I initially went to Kodak's own online store to get some but decided to give them a miss when I found they are asking £12 per roll. Maybe a sign of the future? Fortunately, there are other suppliers of this fine film who can supply it (for now) for around six quid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted September 4, 2012 Share #160 Posted September 4, 2012 It appears, that Lexmark are pulling out of the inkjet printer business due to difficulties to compete against the larger competition by HP and Canon and due to people now storing most of their documents on smartphones instead of printing. Another business model gone by the tide of events.... Stefan Yes Kodak may have real trouble in the consumer printer market. But Kodak is also in the commercial printing business along with pre-press and packaging. I am not qualified to comment on their possibilities in these markets but many are predicting retrenchment in commercial printing too. Although Kodak's printers might play into such a scenario if they are more flexible "cheaper to run" solutions - I really don't know. Perez keeps saying that their prospects are growing despite increasing losses. He seems to have convinced some that he sees light at the end of the tunnel. Kodak stock is under a quarter so for $100 one could make a 400 share bet on his vision. Few seem to be doing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.