Kodak did it again - RANT!

axel

Super Member
Well, I just discovered today that Kodak shelved another one of its great products.

Apart from the fact that the big Rochester K is on its way to sort of "force us" to drop the original Kodachrome, apart from the fact that the same big K has ceased all research related to consumer products, well, this time Kodak shelved (among other films) the Technical Pan - one of its most fascinating and versatile film: orthochromatic b/w with a variable contrast/sensibility related to the the developer used in the end. Absolutely NO grain possible and a transparency that makes one forget the images were taken on a film.

A few years back, Kodak shelved the Elite b/w printing paper - the most stunning, thick and rich (in silver) printing paper ever. The reason? Not enough profit. They weren't losing money on it mind you, no, not at all - they weren't making enough on our (professional) heads. The same year the Elite vanished, Avedon published his last full-fledged b/w book which sported an ostensible "all prints made on Kodak Elite paper". Go figure.

One day, I'm afraid soon, some nerdish self-appointed marketing genius will say that... oh! well, even though both have been THE industry standard for the past 40 or 50 years, the Tri-X and Plus-X are getting real old and corny, really, don't you think? Time for some newer superduper film that will rock your socks off and send you to high-tech nirvana - believe me, you need a change!
Sure - Avedon, Penn, Arbus and, err, whatshisname, err, yeah - Lartigue! all made their images on these films, but, hey! who gives a f*%# about those old farts now?!

If you check my professional website (http://www.axeldahl.com), you will see quite a few b/w images - if you like them, I am sorry to inform you that none of them I could do today, or even better ones for that matter - no Elite paper anymore, and now no Technical Pan either.
A strict Kodak user since 1985, it took me almost 10 years to perfect and master those intricate printing/developing processes... The disappearance of the Elite paper was quite a blow when it occured... And now I should drop the 2nd part of my craft because some punk deemed the profits not high enough on that particular film?

Research costs on these films have looooooong since been recovered so it's not a matter of loosing money, especially considering that ALL pros WORLDWIDE use these films DAILY, from the 35mm to the 8x10" format. No, it isn't that - it's just they want more PROFIT. Argh! Shouldn't cornering half of the market for the past 50 years be enough already???
There are currently twenty 4x5" boxes left in Paris - they'll be mine next week (ouch). But then what? I can do about 15 assignements with such a stock.

And what then?

Well, then they will whine and whine even more and wonder why we all wind up shooting on Fujifilm.


I am ANGRY!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
I'm not sure I know what you mean...b&w...orthochromatic...paper...?

Oh, wait, you mean FILM! Like in the old days? Vintage photography??

Sorry, I'm just giving you a hard time! :D I used to do my own developing, too, back a few years. And, I love the Kodak brand. A lot of history there.

Unfortunately, the marketplace has no sense of compassion. Kodak has two choices, go digital or go bankrupt. And they came very, very close to the second one.

I hope they're successful in saving the company, and I hope they're able to be profitable enough to continue to support film as a money-losing subsidiary, but I don't have my hopes up.

But I feel your frustration, sincerely.

Clay
 
I understand your pain, I really do, but as one professional photographer to another I feel compelled to say this: You have to learn to deal with it. Whining is not going to change anything, except make you feel better in the short term. If you want to survive as a professional photographer you have to move on and join the 21st century. No matter how badly you want Kodak to continue Tech Pan, the reality is they cannot do so and survive. As a publicly traded company Kodak has a legal responsibility to maximize its investors' returns, and selling small batches of speciality film to a few professional photographers scattered around the globe will not do that.

I went digital four years ago and have not looked back. I can take a RAW file into PhotoShop and in a few minutes replicate the look of any film you care to mention including our beloved Tech Pan. And if you truly believe that "ALL pros worldwide use these films DAILY" then you've been leading a very sheltered life the last few years. Most of the professional photographers I know switched to digital at the first opportunity and, like me, have no desire to go back to shooting film. My workflow is more efficient, my results are more repeatable, and my expenses are lower.

If you want to keep shooting B&W you still have some choices. Ilford makes some very fine products, including beautiful B&W papers. The Zone VI papers, which may be available only in the US, are the equal of the much lamented Oriental Seagull. Have you ever read in any of Ansel Adams writings examples of him lambasting companies for discontinuing his favorite products? No. He moved on, did his testing, and kept producing beautiful work. John Sexton manages to make exquisite prints from Kodak T-Max 100 film. Maybe you should purchase one of his books and learn his techniques.

If we weren't so far apart I'd come over to your darkroom and show you how to make prints on Ilford paper that equal what you've been doing with your late Kodak paper. What makes me so confident? Experience my friend. I've developed countless rolls and sheets of B&W film by hand, and I cannot even begin to guess how many tens of thousands of B&W prints I've made over the years. Owning a black and white processing lab will teach you a few tricks of the trade.

Move on Axel. Your photographs are beautiful. The skill is within you, not within your tools.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the lensmen who used glass plates regretted the move to flim, or maybe a similar frustration when acetate films were discontinued. I can see your point though. Getting just what you like and now you need to go back to testing.

You could stock up and freezer it, but how much inventory can you afford to store and it will be gone eventually regardless.

www.freestylephoto.biz in Calif. carries many papers, specialty ones inlcuded. Shopped there since the 60's myself and my dad before me. They currently carry Oriental G and VC FB coldtone/warmtone, I used a lot of Oriental graded papers in the 70's when it was cheap. They also carry Bergger, Kentmere, Foma papers. Maybe Kodak's SSFA high-silver art paper would work?

I like Ilford papers, too. Mitsubishi Gekko is perhaps worth a try. Got a few boxes of Arista I'm using for sundry work.

I'm not a fine art printer, so can't speak towards suitability of one paper over another. Just a former journalist/freelancer who kept all his toys. I still shoot an occasional dinosaur on slide flim for the local museum. I seldom print these days, most my silver-based work is involved with archiving dupes of historic photos.

I have some Radiance reversal paper yet, but no B&W Elite. I used it a few times, but for my purposes, PC III, now IV, worked as well.

-Ed
 
Hey now, wining has always worked for me. Boone's Farm Strawbwerry Hill works every time I've drunk it. :) And I think he was more on the road to Rantsville than the trail to Whinetown.
 
Photobitstream said:
I went digital four years ago and have not looked back. I can take a RAW file into PhotoShop and in a few minutes replicate the look of any film you care to mention including our beloved Tech Pan.

I have had Photoshop for years and cant even figure out how to get the red-eye out!! Any hints?!!
 
mg196 said:
I have had Photoshop for years and cant even figure out how to get the red-eye out!! Any hints?!!

Use the Channel Mixer for replicating the look of B&W films. For color films play with the saturation levels. Takes some experimenting, but if you have enough darkroom experience you'll figure it out, and it is pretty cool to see how the different channels (R,G & B) affect the image. After getting the desired contrast and tonal values you can play around with the noise and sharpening filters to simulate different films. More noise = Tri-X. Less noise = Tech Pan. Oversaturation = Velvia. Normal saturation with slightly enhanced green = Kodachrome.

Always work on a copy of the original file, and keep your adjustments in separate layers. That way you can turn the layers off and on to see their effects individually and combined.

Get your flash off the camera for removing redeye. Much easier than trying to remove it in PhotoShop. Better yet, don't use a flash. Flashes produce horribly harsh light. Harsh light = bad photos.
 
Last edited:
Another thing that hastened film's demise was the the thing that made B/W film so pretty-the silver content. Silver is expensive, but more than that, it is a very big environmental no-no-EXTREMELY toxic. Film/photo chemicals have been on the Green's hit list for years-I'd say Kodak was kinda glad to get monkey off their back.-Sandy G.
 
Axel, very,very nice work. As an amatuer shutterbug for more years than I care to think about, I have seen many fine films and paper disappear off the landscape. That is why I went digital and am delighted to see cameras that are able to run in resolutions that of 35mm. Chin up
 
Fisherdude said:
I'm not sure I know what you mean...b&w...orthochromatic...paper...?

Oh, wait, you mean FILM! Like in the old days? Vintage photography??

Sorry, I'm just giving you a hard time! :D I used to do my own developing, too, back a few years. And, I love the Kodak brand. A lot of history there.

Unfortunately, the marketplace has no sense of compassion. Kodak has two choices, go digital or go bankrupt. And they came very, very close to the second one.

I hope they're successful in saving the company, and I hope they're able to be profitable enough to continue to support film as a money-losing subsidiary, but I don't have my hopes up.

But I feel your frustration, sincerely.

Clay


The backlash against digital has already begun. I use film and Ioathe digital images. I own Leicflex cameras and lenses and a Leitz enlarging lens. I have seen digital and it does not compare.
 
Michael Scarpit said:
The backlash against digital has already begun. I use film and Ioathe digital images. I own Leicflex cameras and lenses and a Leitz enlarging lens. I have seen digital and it does not compare.

I've been a professional photographer since 1985. I've developed more than 30,000 rolls and sheets of film, worked at two newspapers, owned a professional B&W lab, shot everything from ribbon cuttings to NBA basketball to music festivals to motor racing to weddings. I switched to digital four years ago and will never go back to film.

There is a comparison, and digital wins for everything but fine art B&W prints, and that is assuming you're shooting static subjects and willing to carry a 4x5 camera and film with you.

i've made 20x30 prints from 6MP digital cameras that blow away any 16x24 I've ever seen from 35mm film.

Does this mean I'm right and you're wrong? Of course not. your methods achieve what you want and my methods achieve what I want. We're shooting different subjects. The 16x20 print of the attached image shows no grain, excellent tonal rendition, and more sharpness than any 16x20 i've ever seen from any 35mm film.
 
Thanks Gary.

I should have added above that I could not have taken this photo on film. I shot it with a Canon EOS D60 and Canon EF 300/4L lens, which is equivalent to a 480mm lens on 35mm film. If I had been shooting film i could not have gotten close enough to the track to frame it this tightly with the 300mm lens (I was only about 50 feet away and the rider was going 95-100 mph at this point), and I could not have been consistent enough with a 500mm lens to make a living. Even with the 300mm lens I only hit about 50 percent of these shots. With my 70-200 lens getting the full bike in the frame I can nail about 90 percent of these, but they don't have the impact of this shot.

The point is using the right tool for the job. I can get shots with digital that I cannot get with film, and when I enlarge them they look better than any 35mm film I've enlarged beyond 11x14. Axel and Michael prefer film, which is fine. Axel's photos are excellent, and he obviously knows what he is doing. I haven't seen Michael's photos, but I'm willing to assume he knows what he is doing. They know how to use their tools and they get excellent results. I know how to use my tools and I get the results I want.

Is digital better than film? For me, yes. For them, no. I have a ton of experience shooting, developing, and printing film; and I prefer digital. Axel and Michael obviously have a lot of experience shooting, printing and developing film, and they prefer film. To each his own. The only thing that matters is the art. They're happy with film. I'm happy with digital. We'd have fun going out and taking photos together.

In the end, it's all about the beer.:beerchug:
 
As an amateur photog my preference is easily digital. I'm not taking artsy shots anyway, so for me just the ability to not worry about the expense of film or having to store rolls of it makes digital a no brainer. The fact that I can then take those images and manipulate them in any manner I choose without bruising the pixels is awe inspiring. Being able to edit in 16bit with photoshop is a God send. I have blown up photo's to poster size from a 6MP camera and I promise you couldn't tell me whether it was film or digital.

Mike
 
Axel, I'm not a photographer, but I'd like to compliment you for the beautifull work you've done. Although I recognise the quality of Photobitstream's photo posted above, but I don't think it's 'better', tonal-quality wise, just different. (I personally don't mind grain and much more prefer it to bad-digital though)
I do have a complaint though for digital photography, is that sometimes it just tends to look like synthesis pictures: (computer drawings like the one below)


synthese.jpg
 
I used to have a darkroom and spent many happy hours there doing my B&W and Cibachromes.
Now, things are way too easy with digital cameras and printing. It makes the old way seem ancient and it hasn't been that long since film was replaced with computer chips. Technology is getting way scary if you ask me.
 
My Grandmother worked at Eastman Kodak back in the early 1940's. My father worked there in the 1950's. My dad always said how it was the best company he ever worked for and regretted ever having to leave and bring us all out west. Eastman Kodak was a big part of our lives in a way. My dad even built a darkroom in the house when we came out to Tucson.
 
Well, I expect that I'll get flamed for this...but I see it as another "jumping on the latest and greatest format" much in the same way the market shifted from vinyl to compact discs, from tube to solid state amplification, (hell, even from mechanical watch and clock movements to plastic quartz movements) only to later regret it. I understand the convenience and versatility of the digital medium (audio-wise and photography-wise) but feel that while both have their attributes, they don't have any soul. Obviously they have their place in the world, but at least give me a choice! (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater)
 
CELT said:
...but I see it as another "jumping on the latest and greatest format" much in the same way the market shifted from vinyl to compact discs, from tube to solid state amplification, (hell, even from mechanical watch and clock movements to plastic quartz movements) only to later regret it. I understand the convenience and versatility of the digital medium (audio-wise and photography-wise) but feel that while both have their attributes, they don't have any soul. Obviously they have their place in the world, but at least give me a choice! (Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater)


The soul is in the photographer, not in his choice of tools.

Digital photography is no more "jumping on the latest and greatest" than motion pictures with sound were simply the latest fad that replaced silent films. It is the next huge leap forward.

Early digital cameras were crude, as were early quartz watches, and, yes, early CD players. As current digital cameras continue to improve, and prices of pro-quality equipment drops, you could make a poster-sized enlargement of a digital picture that would require an 8X10 view camera to match. Without gallons of dangerous chemicals. There is simply no comparison any more.

I do agree with your last statement, though, that at least there should always be a choice. There are still people who wear mechanical watches, because they like the link with past pleasures that antiques can provide. And there will always be photographers who love the process of creating images in that swirling tray of developer. Just because that small few will continue to use film, (as long as it's available), most certainly does not constitute a "backlash" against digital.

Digital has already replaced film, in every single market, from holiday and vacation snapshots to the world's best professional photographers. The fact that there are still a few who are sticking to film is irrelevant. It's over.
 
Having spent a large part of my life as a bench jeweler and watchmaker, equate plastic quartz movements and plastic digi-cameras as toys. While some of them may be cool, I just can't take them very seriously. Give me an old Nikon F or Leica, a Baume-Mercier or Zodiac automatic-wind over the other stuff. The former were well made pieces of machinery. We all have our loves I guess. One of mine is an E. Howard long case clock that keeps time with 30 sec. a week and was made in the mid-1800's. Don't think my plastic quartz Seiko will last that long.
 
Back
Top Bottom