While I fully recognize that the attitude and approach to business these
days is what it is and is not going to change, I also realize that the
attitudes and justifications used to rationalize current business models and
ideologies which come out of the MBA programs are just that ideological
justifications for contemmporary corporate culture and are not essential or
integral to business or to capitalist economies. Prior to the rise of major
conglomerates and corporate organizations which define corporate capitalism,
capitalist business owners and people tended to be seriously involved in the
industry they were in and enjoyed the work and craft they engaged in. They
were interested in the craft, trade, and profession, in the direction it was
going, and how it got there. They were not in it just for the money or just
doing a job.
Not all of use can afford to buy a life supply all at one time. As for your
bet on Tri-X, I do not see it as being irreplacable by digital or so unique
among B&W films as to cause it to outlive other films (color or black &
white). Panatomic X was a very fine graned slow film that was different
from most other Kodak B&W films at the time that they discontinued it. They
just discontinued Pro Copy which was a 4x5 specialty copy film which had no
match among other Kodak
B & W films in terms of flexibility in exposing and developing for
highlights and shadows, directing users to use T-MAX 100 film as a
replacement even though it does not have the same qualities and features. I
would contentd that they are directing users of Pro Copy to use T-Max
because they want to eventually standardize on one B&W film before finally
getting out of the B&W film business; this would allow them to cut costs
with no concern for any difference in quality or features of the films for
different purposes. Earlier they eliminated a B & W film known as
"Commercial" which was used for copying when increased contrast was needed
to handle faded originals; this was even before digital had gotten a good
foothold in the arena of copying of old photographic prints. It was
eliminated not because it was no longer needed but because running too many
different B & W products cut into the bottom line and forcing everyone to
use fewer types of film would increase efficiencies and profits.
>And as long as someone else selling
> Kodachrome would cannibalize their E6 sales, they aren't going to
> sell the rights.
I do not follow the logic of this argument. What difference will it make to
Kodak if they are getting out of both the Kodachrome and the E-6 business,
which is what I take is meant by the articles saying they were planning on
getting out of the film business - including Kodachrome and E-6 - in the
next seven years.
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> It's worth noting it's been about a decade since they abandoned B&W
> chemistry development after bringing out XTOL, but they're still
> milking the cash cow. I'd expect the end of film R&D to proceed
> similarly--as long as it produces an appropriate return on equity
> they'll continue to make film, there just won't be anything new. I'd
> bet on Tri-X outliving Portra--it's less "replacable" by digital.
>
> If they kept producing something that just "broke even", they'd be
> diluting their return on equity, which would hurt their stock
> price--not gonna happen. And as long as someone else selling
> Kodachrome would cannibalize their E6 sales, they aren't going to
> sell the rights. It sucks, but business often does. It's the other
> edge of the sword that brought us all these great products in the
> first place.
>
> If people buy enough to support a product, Kodak WILL keep making
> it--witness Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee's continuing efforts to
> keep Azo paper in production by buying more than they need and trying
> to promote it and sell it when others have mostly given up. Azo
> would've been gone years ago without Michael and Paula.
>
> The alternative is to do what Ctein did with the 3d-matrix film--when
> the axe is announced, buy up a lifetime supply!
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if they would maintain a division that would
>> produce and market not only certain mainstay film products but also
>> certain specialty film products and chemistry - or at least license
>> them out to other smaller companies that might rather than just
>> discontinuing them. Reading between the lines of this article, it
>> reads as if Kodak will be abandoning even their t-max, plus-x and
>> tri-x films as well as their e-6 and c-41 films. Moreover, if they
>> abandon them, they will be abandoning processing papers and
>> chemistries as well. I think we might find Kodak going the road of
>> RCA and become a subsidary of some other company or a conglomerate
>> (RCA is a subsidary of Thompson Electronics these days and not an
>> entity in their own right).
>>
>> filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>>>> From: Laurie Solomon
>>>>
>>>> Actually and interestinglly, according to an article I read in a
>>>> trade magazine here in the US (Professional Photographer, I
>>>> believe), Kodak is abandoning its entire film and film related R &
>>>> D operation over the next seven years. Its plan calls for it to go
>>>> strictly into digital according to the article. I am not sure how
>>>> much of this is fact, how much is speculation, and how much is the
>>>> old "film is dead" and "we will have a paperless society" argument
>>>> that some of the digital industry entrenched writers are inclined
>>>> to make. However, I am inclined to believe that there is a large
>>>> grain of truth in what the article suggests. Over the past
>>>> decade, Kodak has ben turning to CEOs that lead high tech firms
>>>> prior to being recruited to Kodak (H-P's former CEO comes to mind)
>>>> and has dabbled in the digital arena while cutting back on the
>>>> number of knowledgable film specialists in their employ.
>>>
>>> I wish they'd maintain a small division that continued to market and
>>> process certain irreplaceable film products, like Kodachrome. It may
>>> not make them much money, but I would think they'd be able to at
>>> least break even.
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
>> Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
> in the message title or body
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
