Zeze
http://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/international/701441/Kodak_Das-letzte-Foto-ist-geschossen?_vl_backlink=/home/index.do
Life without Tri x 400 is possible, but still :(
Gerd
Oh, maybe someone will come along and buy the patent
and keep the film going.
If ADOX doesn’t do it, maybe a Chinese company will. It
wouldn’t do them any harm to have the know-how
to produce decent films.
MirkoBoeddecker
Maybe someone will come along and buy the patent
I’ve read that quite a few times in various forums now.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
There is no ‘patent’ for TRI-X. There is absolutely nothing intangible that one could buy (even if Kodak wanted to sell it) to then use to make TRI-X afterwards.
This is also independent of cultural background or geographical location (Chinese, German, American).
Anyone can produce TRI-X, anywhere.
To do so, we need:
- A few vats with special mixers, heat, cooling, electricity, darkness, a building
- 1 crystal formation expert
- 1 emulsion expert
- 1 coating expert
- A host of chemical-technical assistants with lots of small pots, stirrers and hand squeegees (OK, China would have a head start here)
- Access to an electron scanning microscope (the university round the corner)
- Silver nitrate
- Potassium bromide, possibly a few other salts
- High-purity gelatin
- Access to a synthesis for stabilisers (off-the-shelf to start with)
- Access to a synthesis process for sensitiser (off-the-shelf initially)
- A sensitometer
- A densitometer
- A spectrograph (you can make do with improvised equipment)
- A small packaging facility to produce functional samples
- Access to a casting machine
...and one to two million euros for wages and consumables.
After one to two years, we can then produce TRI-X – or rather, a film that you cannot distinguish from a TRI-X, as it behaves like a TRI-X in all measurable and perceptible parameters.
Kodak has already paid out these millions over the last 70 years (or when was the first TRI-X released again?).
If we leave everything untouched in Rochester and the team carries on working as they are, this cost is eliminated.
If we change just one small thing in the well-established process, all the formulas become virtually redundant.
Very well. We’re done, 2 million euros poorer, and the first TRI-X rolls off the production line. We work highly efficiently, comparable to Kodak, on modern machinery and produce batch sizes that cover the expected sales for one year at a time.
We coat it, we cut it, we punch holes in it, we sign it, we reel it, we package it, we put it on the shelf and proudly upload a picture to our website.
Then we add up all the costs of producing the film (pure variable costs) and look online to see what a comparable film from a competitor costs, only to realise that we can’t even earn on each film what we would need to calculate as a risk premium for failures that are likely to occur.
Not to mention recouping the start-up losses. Regardless of whether they were moderate, high or very high (in China, of course, it’s cheaper).
Conclusion: We don’t need the Chinese to keep shooting with TRI-X, but rather a price increase commensurate with the circumstances, or a fool with a lot of money (or a return to the analogue photography market of the 1990s, in which case we’d solve the price problem through volume).
In both cases without the fool, Kodak could simply carry on as before...... ;-)
Companies of Kodak’s calibre do not go bankrupt for technological reasons, but for commercial ones.
I am aware that Perez is cutting back on film and investing heavily in digital, but we should not delude ourselves.
I think that, in the worst-case scenario, Kodak will spin off the business areas that are profitable.
That would then raise the question of whether black-and-white is profitable or not.
I can’t answer that, as there are too many technical applications involved.
However, I can’t imagine that producing TRI-X at a net retail price of €2.59 is supposed to be profitable in the long term.
I simply don’t understand why Kodak can’t manage to charge €3.50 for the world’s most famous film, despite consumers’ high price sensitivity.
Then everything would be fine and the chimneys could be smoking again.
Instead, they’re letting the market dictate their fate and going bankrupt.
Best regards,
Mirko
peterkrumm
In other words: the materials we use are bound to become more expensive (or will they?) if we are to continue using them. Barring any clearance sales. It’s not a pleasant prospect, but it’s up to us, the market, to decide.
Peter
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Peter,
Exactly. But what I also wanted to say was that we’re not talking about astronomical sums.
Whether a manufacturer makes a profit or a loss (or, in other words, survives or goes under) often hinges on only modest changes in the retail price. But as consumers of black-and-white film are generally incredibly price-sensitive (I built my company on this price sensitivity, capitalising on it, so to speak: ‘Photographic supplies at attractive prices from Eastern Europe’ – that’s what FOTOIMPEX stood for for many years), manufacturers repeatedly fail to achieve the sales figures in this market that they need to survive.
A more sustainable, holistic approach would be desirable here. But when I read through what’s being written about this in other forums, I have little hope.
Best regards,
Mirko
piu58
Life without Tri x 400 is possible, but still :(
I’d like to share a slightly different thought here. I’ve been invited a few times to test films and developers. I’d never used most of them before.
I’m fairly convinced that you can achieve almost any visual effect with any film/developer combination. The few differences can be compensated for in the darkroom. If a film breaks down, then your own experiences, that ‘feel for it’, go down the drain – but that’s about it.
What is the ‘unique’ aspect of a (classic) film?
- Speed and grain. No one can work magic here; all films in the same sensitivity class are ~equally brilliant. Outliers only exist on the downside.
- Sensitisation. There are indeed differences here; this cannot be easily compensated for. Emphasised red speed, or extremely low red speed right up to orthochromatic film – this can only be approximated with a standard Pan film if you use filters. But then you lose speed. In this respect, however, TriX was nothing special, not much different from the other standard 400-speed films.
- Thin-layer vs. standard layer thickness with mixed grain. This is primarily a question of precise exposure if you are using a thin-layer film. The classic 400-speed films are not thin-layer films. They are similar in this respect too.
What is usually claimed – such as particularly harmonious grey-scale reproduction – can be controlled very well during the development process. The most important thing is to accept the speed that the film actually has. Regardless of what is written on the packet. Perhaps this is where the biggest difference between the films lies: in the degree of speed deviation. Quite a few people try desperately to get at least what is printed on the packet. If this deviation is half a stop more than that of a competitor, the result will be significantly worse under these circumstances. However, if you accept the actual speed, all avenues to the desired grey-scale reproduction are open.
Since we’re unlikely to have this film for the rest of our lives, we must learn to work with the film and the developer. Approaching a new material must be done rationally. There’s probably no getting around that.
AchimBauer
Hi Mirco,
Does that mean Kodak could have survived on 55 cents, and that Forte would still be around at 55 cents per roll? When I think back to my analogue days, apart from when I was travelling, I could barely manage more than five rolls a month, and that was the absolute limit.
So 5 times 55 makes 275 cents, that’s 2 euros 75 cents.
When I think about how petrol prices have risen in recent years, and yet people still drive with their foot to the floor, revving the engine unnecessarily, usually with just one person in the car, and that with the ski box on the roof in summer just so everyone can see they’re going skiing.
And when you consider how expensive smoking has become and how few people have given it up, what’s 2 euros and 75 cents a month? Especially when you think about what those good old Orwo black-and-white films cost these days. They’re being offered on eBay for 87 euros (excluding postage, which I think is 13 euros) for a pack of ten 35mm rolls with 26 exposures, with an expiry date somewhere around 1992, and they’re actually finding buyers.
Apparently, something’s only worth anything once it’s no longer available.
But for black-and-white photographers, the range is still well-stocked, unlike with slides. As for black-and-white films, of the original manufacturers, only Orwo and Forte have gone for good; Fuji still has its full range on the market in the UK, Kodak isn’t bankrupt yet, Ilford wouldn’t have carried on if there were no future for it, and Agfa is set to live on in ADOX. And there are materials on the market that didn’t exist before, such as Forte, Lucky and Shanghai. A variety I could only dream of in the past, because growing up in a small town I only had Agfa and Ilford to choose from.
I myself am one of those people who really have nothing to spare, but paying 55 cents more for the film will be worth it to me when I get back into the darkroom, no matter what material I use; that’s also a decision I’ll have to make soon.
But the decision as to what my standard film will be certainly won’t be based on price, despite my tight budget, because I take photos to do something for myself, and I can only do that as long as I can get hold of film – and that should be worth 55 cents to everyone.
Regards, Achim
MirkoBoeddecker
Does that mean that Kodak could survive on 55 cents, and that Forte would still be in business at 55 cents per film?
Hello Achim,
I can’t give a blanket answer to that.
Of course, it all depends on the other circumstances, particularly where we stand on the efficiency scale for each individual production site.
Generally speaking, the situation is such that manufacturers of photographic products are, unfortunately, very vulnerable to market price pressure.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, during the heyday of analogue photography, film was more expensive relative to income than it is today. We now have the exceptional situation where, despite significantly lower demand and higher unit costs, the product is cheaper.
This situation cannot be healthy.
How did this come about?
In the heyday of analogue photography, production capacity and demand were reasonably balanced. If a competitor lowered prices, their sales volume increased until they reached the limits of their production capacity.
The remaining demand shifted to the slightly more expensive manufacturers, and everything went round in a circle. A functioning market.
In the early 2000s, however, demand slumped so rapidly that all manufacturers slipped into sales volume ranges that caused them major unit cost problems in production, because the equipment was operating below optimum capacity. In this situation, it was worth influencing the now existing pure cut-throat market through price offers in such a way as to return to larger batch sizes in order to get production costs under control. It was therefore more lucrative to sacrifice margin than to accept increases in unit costs, which would have resulted from the reduction in sales volumes had one not used price to wrest market share from others.
Buyers quickly realised this and exploited the situation. Thus, one manufacturer after another lost
both their price levels
and their volumes.
The consequences are well known: the industry has exhausted all its reserves (see share prices) and prices are at an unrealistic level. Manufacturers are all operating at the very lowest price limit. If they were to drop just a little further today, they would immediately incur unit losses.
(This downward price trend must be viewed in relation to inflation and income trends. Two years ago, it was briefly interrupted by speculatively inflated silver prices, but this did the manufacturers no good, as only increases in material costs were passed on).
Given the situation described above of ‘operating at the limit’, an extra 50 cents per film, right at the bottom of the supply chain, would mean a tenfold increase in gross profit.
I’m sure that would help :rolleyes:
At Forte, for example, a film price increase would have had only a minor effect simply because 90% of Forte’s turnover came from paper.
But of course, you can apply the same calculation to paper as well.
Best regards,
Mirko
piu58
The Agfa bankruptcy in 2005 and the resulting mass production of APX 100 placed a heavy burden on film sales. At the time, Agfa converted all its existing stock into this film, as it was cheaper than disposing of it. Afterwards, incredible quantities hit the market, and at very low prices. I bought both roll films and 35mm films for just over €1.50 a roll. Nobody can compete with that.
35mm films are still available today, with these last few boxes being particularly cheap. New production is still being affected by this. And when it’s finally all sold, photographers will still have strategic stocks stored away in their cupboards. Things are unlikely to return to normal for the manufacturers for another two or three years. We’ll see what the films cost then. Not less than 3 euros a roll, I reckon – more like 4 euros.
thomas_l
Hello!
That’s an interesting point: what would happen with colour photography? I’m thinking, for example, of the Kodak R3 process – the chromogenic Diadirect paper, which was actually much cheaper than the exorbitantly expensive Ilfochrome. Of course, I’ve no idea what the demand is like these days, but if direct processes really were to disappear, that would be a great shame.
Best regards, Thomas
matthias28
Hi,
......who knows what the future will bring.
I used Rodinal for a long time because, with Agfa films, it always delivered the result I’d already pictured in my mind.
Other films and developers weren’t bad either, but they weren’t quite what I was used to.
That’s surely much more to it than that.
Now, at last, there’s a Rodinal replica and I’ve recently started using ADOX film.
And lo and behold: the films come straight out of the can just as I’d imagined them beforehand.
Personally, I’m waiting to see when Tetenal stops producing its E6 chemicals. That would be a disaster for me, because alongside black-and-white, slide film is still the ultimate. Preferably in medium format, which is still affordable.
Because even the most expensive digital cameras can’t match that to this day; in my opinion, they have an unpleasant colour balance...
Vinyl records are back on the market too. Just like Polaroid instant film....
... and if analogue photography does end up becoming a bit more expensive. So what? After all, these are photos to last a lifetime.
gurkensaft
Hi everyone!
Of course, I’m not exactly queuing up to pay more for a film either.
But if, the moment I put the money on the counter, I already get the feeling that the pricing is so favourable to me that I have to worry the manufacturer won’t be able to sustain it in the long run, I’d rather pay a bit extra.
There is, of course, a limit...
But in return, I’ll (in theory) have just as wide a choice in the long run as I do at the moment.
Even though I enjoy being in the lab, I don’t fancy having to constantly adapt to new materials.
I’d rather spend my time behind the camera.
For that reason, I haven’t even bothered with some materials where long-term or even medium-term supply wasn’t guaranteed, or I’ve only dabbled in them out of interest.
“What a shame, it was so good” is something I’ve said more than once...
The future of the industry is, after all, largely in the hands of the end consumers.
Being stingy isn’t always cool!
But I’m certainly not alone in this opinion.
As far as I’m concerned, the manufacturers are welcome to know that.
Best regards,
Torsten
AchimBauer
Hi Torsten,
No, being frugal is great – brilliant, in fact – it’s just that the message is being misunderstood.
If you work out what it costs to replace your camera kit because your outrageously expensive specialist lenses no longer fit – since the manufacturer completely overhauled everything when switching to digital – and with the ever-faster system changes (I fitted my darkroom lights last week – one is at least 50 years old and still works; I can’t get a memory card for a two-year-old digital camera because it can’t handle the current file sizes) – if you look at the prices for really good photo printers larger than A4, and the prices for ink that retains its colour reasonably well, and then you look at what the silver-free printer paper costs and the quality you get, then you can certainly say that paying 50 cents more for film is penny-pinching, as it saves you a lot of investment. But whether that matters now or not, this week’s Backnanger Kreiszeitung reported that Kodak is now officially talking about insolvency unless fresh capital comes in soon, and the printing business isn’t providing it at the moment, as companies outside the photography sector – such as Epson, Lexmark and HP – were quicker off the mark.
Regards, Achim
mdeutgen
Achim has put into words thoughts that I share.
I find it disconcerting that, with the advent of the digital age, the lifespan of technical devices has plummeted dramatically. In the past, you would buy an analogue camera and use it to take photos for a lifetime. Of course, over the years there have been ‘one-hit wonders’ with systems like Disk and APS (let’s give APS the benefit of the doubt: it went head-to-head with digital and was bound to lose), but with 35mm and roll film, you actually had a mature and timeless system.
The problem is that nobody can make any money from it today, and anyone with good equipment isn’t going to rush out and buy a new one. To me, however, it seems today as though manufacturers just want to make money from the fact that, because certain components are no longer available, you simply have to ‘buy new’ – the best example being the memory card Achim mentioned. A modern 35mm film still fits into a pre-war Leica or any other 35mm camera.
And a few words on the topic of “stinginess is cool”. This phrase is not only hackneyed, but in my view also “complete nonsense”. If, on the other hand, someone says they shop cost-consciously and look at the price-performance ratio, that’s more accurate. I, too, am cost-conscious, but “stinginess is cool” gives me the impression that people want everything to be as cheap as possible at any cost. And in my view, that’s nonsense. Sometimes the slightly more expensive option turns out to be the cheaper one in the long run – some people can do the maths, others never learn.
Achim put it so well at the start of his post about lenses: why buy new when I have a system that works? I’m currently experiencing this myself with 35mm transparency film. Manufacturers are scaling back their ranges; Fuji has moved away from amateur film, and Kodak has just announced it. What’s more, Gera has just raised its prices significantly – in my view, they’ve simply doubled. Nevertheless, I will continue to treat myself to transparency film in future; with my annual consumption of fewer than 20 rolls, I’m nowhere near the point of pain, even if Provia 100F now costs a tidy 10 euros. Rather than spending money on a DSLR equivalent to an OM2, along with the lenses, and a projector that can hold a candle to a Pradovit, I’d rather spend more on the transparency films and their development.
And no one has given much thought to the issue of archiving digital data either. Why do you think so many hospitals now expose their digital X-rays to film? Because it’s such a simple and cost-effective way to meet the requirement of archiving for over 30 years – that’s hard to achieve with home-burned CDs, which become ‘perishable’ after about seven years.
Martin
gurkensaft
Good evening, everyone.
I’m glad to see I’m not entirely on my own here.
Price awareness, low- and high-quality products, and above all, affordable products. That’s exactly what it’s all about.
What is worth how much to me?
(For me personally, analogue photography generally has a higher value than digital photography in a direct comparison. For example, for the reasons you mentioned regarding electronic half-lives. But that’s just a side note.)
Otherwise, I can’t contribute much to the digital discussion.
We do have a reasonably decent ‘point-and-shoot’ camera in our household, but it’s generally only used for online purposes.
That makes sense here.
Partly because of the archiving problem Martin mentions.
Although, as someone who struggles with digital technology, I already fail at the self-discipline required for adequate (multiple) archiving.
I haven’t yet got round to the idea of backing up my film strips twice, as is customary (necessary?) in the digital sector...
But back to the original topic:
I hope that, as there will obviously be further changes amongst the manufacturers of analogue materials in the future, these changes will proceed slowly enough to give our market time to adapt.
(in this case
e.g. the sale of individual Kodak divisions / a break-up in the event of insolvency)
I’m still optimistic, as although the market has shrunk significantly in a very short space of time, it clearly still exists!
I’ve also come across a few cases among my acquaintances where people are either returning to film or (quite young) even switching from digital cameras to film.
In other areas, people are also returning to tried-and-tested things.
Such as the vinyl record mentioned by tth.
Photographic products are being kept alive / revived (Polaroid or, as mentioned by the host here, Mcc, Polywarmton, Apx..)
Of course, the film market will flourish in terms of variety when frustrated photographers switch to relatively ‘future-proof’ materials following multiple product discontinuations.
It’s a shame about the great products (Cibachrome, Forte films, etc.), but the decline will eventually stop and the market will stabilise.
If manufacturers or retailers are/become flexible, as some are already doing in an exemplary manner, I’m delighted and happy to support that!
Regards, Torsten
Wolf_XL
...I have rather mixed feelings about Kodak... On the one hand, Kodak, in its delusions of omnipotence, tormented the photography world with formats the world never needed (Instamatic, Pocket, Disc); on the other hand, I would really miss the TMax, Tri-X and HC-110... Unfortunately, I see a very bleak future for Kodak...
The fact that analogue photography is receiving less and less attention in the business world is, in essence, understandable. Our economy, which is purely focused on growth, simply struggles to come to terms with a profession as sustainable as analogue photography. When you consider that, for example, I’ve been using many of my darkroom tools for over thirty years, it’s hardly surprising that the manufacturers of such equipment are finding themselves in increasing difficulty due to a lack of demand...
We ‘analogue’ types shouldn’t kid ourselves – our ‘heyday’ is simply over and won’t be coming back. And I wouldn’t give a penny for the former ‘big names’ in the photography business. At some point, their shareholders will demand a return – and if that doesn’t materialise, the unprofitable photography division will either be shut down completely or shrunk beyond recognition. My motto these days is “buy German”… On the one hand, Foto Impex, Spur, Moersch and Maco have exactly the right scale for the shrinking market – and on the other, they’re run by people who still have a reference to analogue photography…
Zeze
Wow, things really got going here :)
Mirko: Thanks for your posts; they’re all fascinating to read.
Best regards,
Dieter
