if kodak dies

bfffer · 10-02-2011

Tom what will you use to replace tri-X?

i am sooo worried i bought 20 rolls today and starting a Tri-X M2 month.

valdas · 10-02-2011

ilford, rollei, fuji... i've actually never used tri-X (maybe should try before it 's gone) ...

batterytypehah! · 10-02-2011

I agree, alternative B&W options should be available for quite some time. I really don't like the outlook for color, though. Including movie stock.

mwooten · 10-02-2011

I will guess that the film division would be sold (or spun off) to another entity. Not being an expert on the subject, but management says that the film division took its big hit because of lower demand and the rise in silver prices.

NickTrop · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwooten

I will guess that the film division would be sold (or spun off) to another entity. Not being an expert on the subject, but management says that the film division took its big hit because of lower demand and the rise in silver prices.

I keep reading on various threads that film prices (including color) are increasing because of silver prices but I always thought color film doesn't use silver, does it? Thought it was dye-based.

mwooten · 10-02-2011

When a thread appeared in RFF last week concerning Kodak I went and looked through Kodak's latest 10Q. On page 36 (I think) in the notes the management give the reason as being, in part, based upon the price of silver.
As far as how color film works, I really don't know if silver is used or not.

Dante_Stella · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickTrop

I keep reading on various threads that film prices (including color) are increasing because of silver prices but I always thought color film doesn't use silver, does it? Thought it was dye-based.

The silver is bleached out during processing.

Dante

tunalegs · 10-02-2011

I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.

The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die. Whether it would be the same or not if somebody else picked it up - who knows... Kodak has already changed and revised the formula a bunch, so a new manufacturer may not care too much about how it is made.

I would be more worried about something like Endura Metallic VC, that aren't likely to get pick up, or have no rough equivalent.

willie_901 · 10-02-2011

Think about all the photographs recorded by humans word-wide in the past 60 days with any sort of camera in any sort of medium.

Now, how many of those photographers have ever heard of Tri-X? The answer is: hardly any.

Since 2000 film has been slowly but surely transitioning into a niche product for a very small percentage of the global photography market. If Kodachrome died, so can Tri-X.

All you can do is delay the inevitable. Freeze as much Tri-X as you can. Over the years modify your development technique to offset the inevitable fogging from cosmic-ray exposure.

Roger Hicks · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.

The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die. Whether it would be the same or not if somebody else picked it up - who knows... Kodak has already changed and revised the formula a bunch, so a new manufacturer may not care too much about how it is made.

I would be more worried about something like Endura Metallic VC, that aren't likely to get pick up, or have no rough equivalent.

Any emulsion technician. Ask 'em.

It WOULDN'T be the same.

Even when you move a coating machine, and use the same formulae and the same people to run the machine, it's extremely difficult to get an emulsion absolutely the same as before. Ilford found this when they moved to Mobberley, and the most recent update of Tri-X coincided with a move to another machine at Rochester. As I said elsewhere, it's very like brewing: at least as much art and alchemy as science, even though there's lots of science in it.

Besides, as Willie 901 says, it's not really that important. Until the last revision of Tri-X, my wife (fractionally) preferred HP5. Now she (fractionally) prefers Tri-X. Anyne who believes that their photography will come to a crashing halt if a given product is abandoned should ask themselves a simple question. Which is more important, their film choice or their skill and artistry?

Cheers,

R.

Tom A · 10-02-2011

I would hope that if Kodak goes down, someone would snap up the film division. Films like TriX is still profitable - probably the highest margin of any of their products. It is almost a "generic" name for black/white - really no need for advertising/marketing etc - which saves a lot of money. There is probably a lot of "parent" rolls of it in the saltmines too.
Just in case. I will start adding some more TriX to my current stash of 100 ft spools - and in the worst case scenario - there is XX 0 though I should stock up on that too.
I do hope they survive with a reasonable structure in place. They really put photography in the hands of everybody with the first box-cameras - and with films like TriX - what we know of the 50's and 60's and later is very much captured on that iconic emulsion.
There are other films - but after 50 years with TriX I would really hate to have to learn a new film!

tunalegs · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Any emulsion technician. Ask 'em.

It WOULDN'T be the same.

Even when you move a coating machine, and use the same formulae and the same people to run the machine, it's extremely difficult to get an emulsion absolutely the same as before.

That goes without saying of course.

I was thinking more along the lines of what happened to Agfa.

mwooten · 10-02-2011

My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.

emilsand · 10-02-2011

I just ordered $700 worth of film from Ilford, so I guess that would be my option.

Roger Hicks · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by claacct

Maybe its about time that Tri-X is gone and so is the whole out-dated photography baggage that young photographers are forced to carry today, so we can get on with the business of photography with the means available and save ourselves from the schizophrenia of film and digital.

Possibly, but do you really think there's so little future for digital that all we need is HP5?

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwooten

My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.

That seems to me the second likeliest scenario, with Kodak's staying in business as the likeliest (though I'd not place bets either way). The third likeliest is a simple disappearance, and the fourth is an attempt to re-create the film after a hiatus, Agfa-style.

Cheers,

R.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Possibly, but do you really think there's so little future for digital that all we need is HP5?

Cheers,

R.

He's saying film should go away and people should only shoot digital.

Roger Hicks · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

He's saying film should go away and people should only shoot digital.

Dear Chris,

'Irony' does not mean 'ferrous'.

Cheers,

R.

bwcolor · 10-02-2011

The company will break up in order to survive. Patent sales will be used to finance things. The name, 'Kodak' has real value and will remain attached to whatever portion of the business has the best chance of long term survival. Tri-X will be made for at least the next twenty years. Likely, by a company that purchased the rights and equipment from Kodak. Don't know if it will remain a close imitation of the present product.

Nikon Bob · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwooten

My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.

That would be a best case scenario but there are at least several others. I have seen several Paper Machines dismantled and shipped overseas to foreign buyers when they were obsolete here and uneconomical to run.

Bob

Nikon Bob · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by claacct

Maybe its about time that Tri-X is gone and so is the whole out-dated photography baggage that young photographers are forced to carry today, so we can get on with the business of photography with the means available and save ourselves from the schizophrenia of film and digital.

That might be a bit harsh but also a possible future reality that is becoming more apparent every year. There is no reason the two mediums can't and should not coexist except for the fact of increasing unprofitably of film production as it now exists. Even if having a choice causes some schizophrenia, that is preferable to having no choices at all.

Bob

tunalegs · 10-02-2011

Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?

bfffer · 10-02-2011

i guess i could only shoot more when there are still film.

Nikon Bob · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs

Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?

Personally I am not concerned that film will disappear altogether but will become hugely expensive to buy and use from fewer and fewer production sources. If all Kodak film were to disappear, as tragic as that might be to some, there are still several other sources for similar film products. What is the big panic? I would worry when the absolute last source of production of film shuts down permanently.

Bob

Kolame · 10-02-2011

Never shot Kodak b/w-film, because Agfa (APX as Retro), Ilford and Efke serve me fine. But I always sticked to Kodak, when shooting color, so I hope, Kodak will go on. After Fuji just leaving us only with Acros 100 and Neopan 400 for 135, I hope Kodak lasts as a "big one". Everything else would be a huge problem for the analog photography.

I don't know, how to distribute my money, as I want to serve Ilford, which have everything in their product-line, for US, the PHOTOGRAPHERS (classic emulsions in speed range from ISO 50 to 400 and tabular-grain-films from ISO 100 to 3200 as well as chemicals and paper, no company else does that!), but also I wanna shot my beloved APX and Kodak (for color). (Don't care so much about Fuji…)