stunsworth Posted August 28, 2013 Share #1 Posted August 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) End of an era... Kodak discontinues colour reversal films, puts an end to a 77-year heritage- BJP mobile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here Kodak end production of reversal film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CalArts 99 Posted August 28, 2013 Share #2 Posted August 28, 2013 fwiw, Kodak had announced this well over a year ago. I really like E100G and still have 40 rolls of 35mm and 140 sheets of 4x5 in the freezer. Once it's gone there will still be Fuji Provia (hopefully ) Agfa also sells Precisa 100 which is made by Fuji for them (I believe it's Provia emulsion.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 29, 2013 Share #3 Posted August 29, 2013 Yeah it is old news but I read the comments. This last one (below) is pretty off the mark considering that sticking with film for so long was what did Kodak in. (E.g. not coming up with a new revenue stream that could keep the large company solvent.) And this is posted by a guy who hasn't shot reversal film for decades. I could make the same "moral" argument that Kodak should keep making dye transfer material for the handful of people who might want to use it. How much are they supposed to lose to do this? I guess a successful company could have a few items they support at a loss to keep some happy or maintain a tradition. Kodak couldn't do this any longer despite having a very long tradition of supporting the photographic community and the larger community too. Time moves on and companies do need to make a profit or they will be gone. ------------------------------------- They only see profit Unfortunately this fever for money is universal among manufacurers. They want only for them, even pennies. They are extremely selfish. They don't participate in the society they live in, unless the arrows of more fortune are toward'em. They don't even respect so many people that have for decades trading with them and helping them to have the name they have today. So, for a moral point of view, and also from a social and philosofical view, there's just a matter of obligation for them to have continued to produce reversals. Detail: I don't use them for decades now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted August 29, 2013 Share #4 Posted August 29, 2013 sticking with film for so long was what did Kodak in. Although don't forget that Kodak is still very invested in film. It's the motion picture industry that keeps Kodak in film. They didn't let go of that part of the business. And that's what has kept Kodak still photography films on the market (KPP will now distribute and sell still photography film made by Kodak as part of the debt obligation deal.) They know it's profitable to remain in the motion picture side (and especially now that Fuji has pulled out.) And they will remain in it until (and if) the movie industry stops using film altogether. The reason we still have Kodak still film products today is because of the motion picture industry. And the motion picture industry prefers to archive on film and why Kodak recently introduced new 'asset protection' films for archiving. And they are the only company in the world producing print release films (although I suppose that may likely end when every theatre in the world is set up to use DCP.) Film continues to be part of Kodak's business but just not directly in the still film sales and distribution side of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 29, 2013 Share #5 Posted August 29, 2013 Film continues to be part of Kodak's business but just not directly in the still film sales and distribution side of it. Yes, but Kodak is now a much smaller bankrupt business ($19M market cap) as a result of not replacing the reduction in revenue from a decline in film sales. The motion picture industry will not have to stop using film for it to become unprofitable to manufacture. It just has to decline past some critical point... just as with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, and various other films. But all I was getting at is the idea of criticizing a company for not continuing to make unprofitable products. I see that Kodak Wratten 3 inch filters sell for around $30 today. That may make them profitable. They were about $.75-$1.25 back in the early 70s. I have stacks of them yet I couldn't even give them away. So my guess is that they are not selling many at $30. Meanwhile various tiny cheap devices can shoot 1080P video today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted August 29, 2013 Share #6 Posted August 29, 2013 The end point is related as well to the production costs not just the demand. The machines and product required to produce film are large, very, hence so is the base cost. I often see film related to Vinyl LP production and an assumption that film will be "saved" in a similar way. The equipment to produce the LP is on a scale many times smaller. Film cannot be produced in an 'artisan" in a shed way. (I acknowledge we may revert to coating plates individually, well you may ) “Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 29, 2013 Share #7 Posted August 29, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah it is old news but I read the comments. This last one (below) is pretty off the mark considering that sticking with film for so long was what did Kodak in. (E.g. not coming up with a new revenue stream that could keep the large company solvent.) Alan, if it were not for film Kodak would have collapsed much sooner - film & chemical sales were propping the company up as they remained profitable whilst their other enterprises were not. Film didn't 'do Kodak in' - but you are correct that it was their failure to make a profitable business from their adventures in digital imaging, cameras, printers etc. which brought their demise. Yes film sales declined but imagine if Kodak had remained a 'film only' business and trimmed their operations down in line with the market, they'd probably still have a profitable business today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 29, 2013 Share #8 Posted August 29, 2013 imagine if Kodak had remained a 'film only' business and trimmed their operations down in line with the market, they'd probably still have a profitable business today. A trimmed down film only business might be profitable at the basic operating level but the company would probably have still been brought down by the pension liabilities accrued during their fatter years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 29, 2013 Share #9 Posted August 29, 2013 True. The still film side of the business is now owned by the UK pension fund. Quite what that means in terms of production and sales we have yet to find out, but clearly they must intend to continue the business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted August 29, 2013 Share #10 Posted August 29, 2013 Kodak had a lock on film for medical imaging. That disappeared as the medical industry switched to digital. I get CT scans, x-rays and MRI results on a CD to give to my doctor, who slips it into his desk monitor. No film involved, from initial image to readout. (Yeah, I'm at an advanced age where I've had those scans. :-) ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.