Kodak's photo film production safe for years
Old 02-05-2015   #1
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Kodak's photo film production safe for years

Hello,

very good news today from Rochester:
Because of long-term contracts of Eastman Kodak with the major Hollywood studios, film production is safe for the next years in Building 38, the film manufacturing complex at Kodak.
With these contracts there is the needed basis for photo film production as well, because the production volume of movie film is needed in Building 38 for an economic production there of all film types, including photo film for Kodak Alaris ( all other film manufacturers don't need movie film volume to keep running their production).

Here are the details directly from Rochester:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...wood/22890657/

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #2
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,463
Hi Jan, see this thread discussing same topic. Thanks for additional news link.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #3
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,267
Good news in the short to medium term. I is a shame that Kodak Alaris production is so tied to the movie industry. No right thinking person wants to see such a historic company cease production and the best we can hope for is that there is an upturn in movies shot on film. Unlikely, but it could happen. I have shot Tri-X for years, but just to be sure, I have been using HP5+ as well so that if the worst happens, I have a credible alternative all worked out and ready to switch seamlessly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #4
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
I think it's better kodak production is tied to the movie industry than not. Thanks to the movie industry, we have kodak for a long time to come, and so do they. It's good for everybody.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #5
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
They make the film in one place, Alaris is a seperate company but sells the still film after it's made.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #6
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
I thought Kodak Alaris was a completely separate company? What am I missing here?
Kodak Alaris is a separate entity, but Kodak in Rochester produce the film for them. That is done in the only Kodak coating facility that remains. It is a large scale facility and relies on movie film production to remain economically viable. Hence the importance to Kodak Alaris of movie film demand to remain in business.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #7
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
I don't see movie studios giving up film any time soon, if ever.

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #8
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
I don't see movie houses giving up film any time soon, if ever.

And you would be wrong. Digital is pushing its way in and digital projectors are being installed everywhere. Digital is also easier to distribute.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #9
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
I meant studios by houses, I misspoke. And digital projection is ****, and the theaters don't want to pay for it. Sorry about that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #10
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,962
It all hinges on analog projection, not just motion picture production. One feature film will use at least 2,500 feet of film in the final print. The projection print will match that but consider how many theaters get a projection print and you get the scale of how much Kodak's still 35mm film relies upon the motion picture industry. Considering each 36exp roll is about 5ft long, that's roughly 500 rolls of film. Most photographers are going to expose that much in maybe five years. Once the projection booths go digital past a tipping point where it's too expensive to produce a run of reversal print film, that is when we'll see the big production facility shut down.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #11
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
It all hinges on analog projection, not just motion picture production. One feature film will use at least 2,500 feet of film in the final print. The projection print will match that but consider how many theaters get a projection print and you get the scale of how much Kodak's still 35mm film relies upon the motion picture industry. Considering each 36exp roll is about 5ft long, that's roughly 500 rolls of film. Most photographers are going to expose that much in maybe five years. Once the projection booths go digital past a tipping point where it's too expensive to produce a run of reversal print film, that is when we'll see the big production facility shut down.

Phil Forrest
It does not all hinge on analog projection, although that is undoubtedly important. Camera original is still an important component.

Also, currently, anything originated on digital is being archived on film. I believe both Kodak and Fuji have films specially designed for archiving digital elements. There is no better technology for long-term storage and this is an important market for Kodak.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #12
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolfe View Post
It does not all hinge on analog projection, although that is undoubtedly important. Camera original is still an important component.

Also, currently, anything originated on digital is being archived on film. I believe both Kodak and Fuji have films specially designed for archiving digital elements. There is no better technology for long-term storage and this is an important market for Kodak.
Production and archiving are indeed important but from a standpoint of production print to projection print we're looking at a ratio of 1:XXXXX. I don't have the data on how many screens have converted to digital projection but back in 2012, it was close to 55%. As of December 31, 2012, NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) counted 39,662 screens. If we take a conservative guess and say 50% of those are digital projection, that leaves 19,831. Almost 50,000,000 feet of projection prints per feature film in unlimited release. Granted, these are just figures in the US, but many other theaters in the world have already gone to digital projection as well.
Fuji ceased production in 2013 of all motion picture film stock except for archival purposes.

in 2012, John Fithian, president of NATO called for theaters to "convert or die" with regard to digital projection.

I don't want to seem alarmist with this. The news of Kodak and the motion picture studios coming to an agreement "for years to come" is good. I love film. Grew up with it, learned with it and prefer shooting with it. I'm not naive though in thinking that all is well with the film market and production. If and when Kodak loses the projection side of the motion picture industry, there will be no reason to keep building 38 open and produce runs of film by the mile. It's not just a facility that can be turned on and off as necessary. Like has been said previously, it's become too big.
So, go see movies in analog projection houses!

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2015   #13
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Nobody else is naive either, thanks, but your speculations are just one possible scenario, and as you say the news is good. I'll just keep buying my C41, and enjoying my picture taking. I much prefer that to the alternative, and I seem to be in good company.

Fithian is some variety of shill, apparently, like Chris Dodd, and he only shills for theaters in the US, not the world.

"The trade group heads conceded that 3D hasn’t lived up to its initial hype. “It’s not going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, as people thought at one time,” Fithian says. Dodd adds that while the extra dimension helps in movies such as Gravity and animated films, “when you try to apply it everywhere you get a reaction.” Still, they say the format is here to stay — and could enjoy a resurgence if theaters invest in laser light projectors. The technology “dramatically increases the amount of light you can show on the screen,” Fithian says. And with greater distinctions between whites and blacks “you can make 3D jump off the screen.”

The NATO head says his members understand that as studios increasingly distribute movies on hard drives or via satellite “we’re very close to the end of film in the U.S.” Paramount, he says, has told theater owners that “they’re done with film releases domestically except for Chris Nolan” releases — since he likes films. But Dodd says that theaters unable to afford digital projectors won’t be left in the cold. “They’re sensitive to the fact that they have loyal theater owners” including many that are struggling. “They’re not going to turn down someone…I’ll probably get in trouble for saying that.”"


http://deadline.com/2014/03/cinemaco...prints-704264/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2015   #14
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
I thought Kodak Alaris was a completely separate company? What am I missing here?
As others have already explaind, Eastman Kodak in Rochester is producing the photo films for Kodak Alaris, who is distributing them.
But Kodak Alaris also has its own coating plant in Harrow, England.
There they are producing silver-halide RA-4 color photo paper.
In that factory until 2004 or 2006 also film was produced.
So even if Rochester might have to stop movie film production in some years, there is a chance that then Kodak Alaris is transferring the photo film production to their own plant in Harrow.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2015   #15
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Production and archiving are indeed important but from a standpoint of production print to projection print we're looking at a ratio of 1:XXXXX. I don't have the data on how many screens have converted to digital projection but back in 2012, it was close to 55%.
It is now about 90% in the major markets. So the transition is almost finished.
And Eastman Kodak will not face a further big decline in print film sales. That means there is a really good chance that Building 38 at Kodak can be kept running for a very long time.
And if we see a photo film revival in the next years (Kodak Alaris has already said that their professional film sales are up) that will also have positive effects.

By the way: Lots of cinemas have not scrapped their film projectors, but installed the new digital projectors parallel to the film projectors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2015   #16
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
And you would be wrong. Digital is pushing its way in and digital projectors are being installed everywhere. Digital is also easier to distribute.
Digital has already replaced film -- Kodak lost 96% of its sales.

What this deal represents is an attempt to establish a niche market for motion picture film with studio specific big epic production where high fidelity representation adds to the value of the film. Kodak has also secured deals with independent film makers for the more experimental sorts of uses.

It it works film will hang on in these specialised markets.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2015   #17
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
It is now about 90% in the major markets. So the transition is almost finished.
And Eastman Kodak will not face a further big decline in print film sales. That means there is a really good chance that Building 38 at Kodak can be kept running for a very long time.
And if we see a photo film revival in the next years (Kodak Alaris has already said that their professional film sales are up) that will also have positive effects.

By the way: Lots of cinemas have not scrapped their film projectors, but installed the new digital projectors parallel to the film projectors.
Thank you, for pointing that out. There is absolutely NO REASON why you can't have a dual system -- if the studios support it, which is partly to be determined by the relative success of movies shot on film. There will be higher costs but if audiences can see the difference in the cinematography then shooting and projecting film will continue.

Frankly I'm optimistic now that Kodak is going to be able to continue with this into the foreseeable future. Whether it lasts longer term --I guess that depends on whether the younger generation of directors are still brought into the film culture or not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-07-2015   #18
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
I'm not sure what those people are trying to insinuate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #19
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,462
Hi,

Fascinating to me that this thread is about "film" but I think it's about Kodak's film and sales in the USA. It's almost as if the rest of the world and Fuji don't exist...

I nearly said the same about Ilford but HP5+ did get a mention. My take is that Ilford, Fuji etc need encouraging to strengthen their position and maintain supplies. Also, Kodak might learn something from it.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #20
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,462
Hi,

That's very interesting, thanks.

I've often wondered why Kodak creates such a stir when a film vanishes. I've had a lot of films disappear from the shops etc but it didn't bother me that much. Well, perhaps Agfa did.

It reminds me of a comment from an elderly French friend to the effect that we had a much wider choice of French wines in England than they did in France and as for all the other countries making wine...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #21
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,041
Agfa was a significant loss.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #22
fdarnell
Registered User
 
fdarnell is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
It all hinges on analog projection, not just motion picture production. One feature film will use at least 2,500 feet of film in the final print. The projection print will match that but consider how many theaters get a projection print and you get the scale of how much Kodak's still 35mm film relies upon the motion picture industry...

Phil Forrest
The problem here is that about 97 to 98% of the movie theaters int eh US have converted to digital projection. They get movies on encrypted hard drives. The studios even paid them to convert to digital through a rebate program.

Let's hope theres a lot of "takes" so they'll push a lot of film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-08-2015   #23
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
The very first color prints I made myself were on Agfa paper, printed from Agfa negatives. The appeared in the 1972 Mid America show in the St. Louis art museum/Kansas City art museum.

I have a real fondness for those photos, the piece is still in my print drawer.
I loved the Agfachrome CT18 (ASA 50) from around this same time. It wasn't very fine-grained, but it had a wonderful palette for winter scenes. In the 1980s, I really liked Agfachrome 1000 for windowlight portraiture. It had a soft grain and warmth that worked well for this application.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #24
Drago
Registered User
 
Drago is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 147
If someone could bring Agfa APX back i'll be extremely happy ( not the stuff they sell now, which have nothing in common ). But anyway dreams, sweet dreams It was magic in Rodinal, and on topic - it's sad, really sad. If they are relying on some movie directors to save them. *** ? Kodak are left with Tri-X , one bloody film ( i don't like modern films ala Tmax ) and for color i'd rather go digital, but that's just me
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #25
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 770
The traditional negativity to great film news as usual on this forum.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #26
Drago
Registered User
 
Drago is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 147
I don't think it's negativity. We as customers have a right to be negative. And i don't think that Kodak are going to introduce some new film to make us happy right ? Plus-X wasn't profitable and they just throw it in the trash. Was there something wrong with it ? No. So if the movie business goes completely digital, which will happen eventually according to this Kodak will be gone ? Now that's negative
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #27
Filzkoeter
stray dog
 
Filzkoeter's Avatar
 
Filzkoeter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin - Germany
Age: 33
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drago View Post
If someone could bring Agfa APX back i'll be extremely happy ( not the stuff they sell now, which have nothing in common ).
Adox Silvermax is 95% APX100
They also nearly relaunched a APX400 emulsion, but according to Adox it makes no sense at the current market situation as the price couldn't be competative enough.

(as far as I know Adox bought Agfa machinery and know-how when Agfa closed down, so they have all the Agfa technology for emulsion making)
__________________
-Miko

- flickr -
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #28
Drago
Registered User
 
Drago is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 147
but it's available only in 35mm
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #29
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMur12 View Post
Agfa was a significant loss.

- Murray
They are there, even in "triple shape" now, and we can benefit from that:

1. Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium is producing films: We can use them as Agfa Copex Rapid, Rollei RSD, Rollei Retro 80S, Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei IR, Rollei Retro 400S.

These films have not been available for us ten years ago. So the situation is indeed better for us now concerning these films.

2. Former Agfa engineers from Agfa in Germany bought the essential Agfa machinery from the Leverkusen plant and built a complete new, modern photo and film factory in Monheim, Germany:
www.inoviscoat.de
They are producing lots of different photo film products now, color and BW. They are producing for other brands.

3. Adox has also bought know-how and machines from Agfa Germany, and is continuing production of some of their products.
For example MCP and MCC photo paper. And Adox Silvermax (an improved Agfa APX 100).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #30
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drago View Post
but it's available only in 35mm
You may have a look at Adox CHS 100 II, too.
Excellent film.
Currently available in 35mm and sheet film.
120 format roll film will be introduced this March / April.

It is also a film which looks outstanding as BW reversal film. Projected on a screen this film looks awesome!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #31
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drago View Post
I don't think it's negativity. We as customers have a right to be negative. And i don't think that Kodak are going to introduce some new film to make us happy right ? Plus-X wasn't profitable and they just throw it in the trash. Was there something wrong with it ? No. So if the movie business goes completely digital, which will happen eventually according to this Kodak will be gone ? Now that's negative

Well, you're crying about kodak only having tri x, and color, which you don't want, and about not having plus x, which wasn't profitable for them. It would be pretty unusual for kodak to produce plus x only so they can sell it to you at a loss. But that's what you want. Plus some other New film 'to make us happy'.



I'm happy to shoot film, everyday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwWEhSYVN3E
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #32
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
 
rbiemer's Avatar
 
rbiemer is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cortland, NY
Age: 59
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdarnell View Post
The problem here is that about 97 to 98% of the movie theaters int eh US have converted to digital projection. They get movies on encrypted hard drives. The studios even paid them to convert to digital through a rebate program.

Let's hope theres a lot of "takes" so they'll push a lot of film.
The small local theater near me (Old Forge, NY) had no choice in whether to go digital or not, the owner was told that there would be no distribution other than digital. And what ever rebates may have been offered were not enough to offset the cost for the 6 screens he has. There was an ongoing fundraiser for his--and many other Adirondack theaters promoted by "Go digital or go dark." posters, etc.
His take on the switch was that digital projection probably isn't as "good" as a new projection print but it would be good enough. And the major problem he sees coming up will be when the projector breaks/malfunctions in some way. He could fix/maintain his film projectors but wasn't so confident for the new ones.
Rob
__________________

You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
--Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #33
Drago
Registered User
 
Drago is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 147
I'm not crying about anything. I use other brands of film and am quite happy I use kodak chemistry, which i like. Maybe it's still "profitable" for them, so let's hope they don't wake up some day and refuse to make it anymore When you'r in a niche market, you have to be smart and Kodak almost went bankrupt. Just to be clear - i'm not a hater and i want them to continue producing films, but you can't deny that they are relying on some 20th century fame, Tri-X included
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-09-2015   #34
VertovSvilova
Registered User
 
VertovSvilova's Avatar
 
VertovSvilova is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
The traditional negativity to great film news as usual on this forum.
I think it's great news in today's film manufacturing environment (and one that I have no control over.) It's the glass half full or half empty sort of thing. I'm happy to hear that film makers are so adamant about using film as their medium, and that they have such clout.

I like what Kodak has to offer right now (Portra films are fantastic as is Tri-X and T-Max.) And lamenting over what's no longer available is non-productive. Go out and buy and use film. And consider writing to the majors (studios) about how much you like film produced motion pictures.......
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2015   #35
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
They are there, even in "triple shape" now, and we can benefit from that:

1. Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium is producing films: We can use them as Agfa Copex Rapid, Rollei RSD, Rollei Retro 80S, Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei IR, Rollei Retro 400S.

These films have not been available for us ten years ago. So the situation is indeed better for us now concerning these films.

2. Former Agfa engineers from Agfa in Germany bought the essential Agfa machinery from the Leverkusen plant and built a complete new, modern photo and film factory in Monheim, Germany:
www.inoviscoat.de
They are producing lots of different photo film products now, color and BW. They are producing for other brands.

3. Adox has also bought know-how and machines from Agfa Germany, and is continuing production of some of their products.
For example MCP and MCC photo paper. And Adox Silvermax (an improved Agfa APX 100).
Sorry, but I've forgotten that the Agfa chemistry (both color and BW) is also in permanent production:
Color chemistry is produced by Saal (they also refurbish and make parts for all Agfa mini labs)
http://www.saal-group.com/en/home/

And the Agfa BW chemistry (Rodinal, Atomal, Sistan, Neutol etc.) is now produced by Adox with the original formulas.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2015   #36
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,132
This just posted on FB by La Vida Leica.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...consumers-john
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2015   #37
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
This just posted on FB by La Vida Leica.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...consumers-john



That wasn't convincing!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2015   #38
Solinar
Analog Preferred
 
Solinar's Avatar
 
Solinar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
This just posted on FB by La Vida Leica.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...consumers-john
Let me clarify things for the young Mr. John in Singapore and his much better paid predecessor, who never invested a penny towards downsized manufacturing facilities - that could do smaller production runs profitably - the Kodak brand is all about the recording and displaying of images.
__________________
- Andrew in Austin, Texas -

35mm Gear Bessa R, Leica II, - IIIg, - M2
Just for fun 35mm Gear a Kodak Retina IIa, a Rollei 35 S, plus an Oly 35RD and a Voigtlander Vito II
Modern Medium Format Fuji GW 690III
Vintage MF Folders a Voigtländer Perkeo II and Bessa II, 2 of them - a ZI Mess Ikonta 524/2 - plus an Agfa Super Isolette & a Record III
Digital a D300 and a D700 with some primes - still going over a decade later

"Who spilled the Dektol on the bathroom carpet?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-20-2015   #39
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solinar View Post
Let me clarify things for the young Mr. John in Singapore and his much better paid predecessor, who never invested a penny towards downsized manufacturing facilities - that could do smaller production runs profitably - the Kodak brand is all about the recording and displaying of images.
+1 !

And for us photographers the relevant information source concerning Kodak Alaris is most probably here:

http://kodakalaris.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Alaris.htm

http://www.kodak.de/ek/DE/de/Kodak_Alaris.htm

https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:45.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.