 Toni Vincent |
B&W photographic paper I just spoke to a Kodak B&W Rep who confirmed what I had heard on the radio which is that Kodak is discontiuing all B&W photographic papers. I like using their Polycontrast RC (8.5 x 11.5)paper for contact sheets. He said the market dictates their decisions. I'm sure Ilford is just thrilled but back at the ranch, now I'm concerned about the status of their chemicals. He said that at this time we have no plans to discontinue B&W films or chemicals. I said, "FILMS?! I hope not, I love T-Max." The Rep said everyone at Kodak was stunned at the news. He also said that there is about a 6 month supply of paper around and that it has about a 2 year shelf life. Can refrigerating paper extend the shelf life? Regards, Toni Vincent
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Lea Guinn |
Toni, I believe you can, but for how long I don't know. When I was in the Navy, we put film and paper in the freezer. But I'm not sure how long you should keep it in there? Hope this helps!!! mlg
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Photo District News: Kodak Announces End of B&W Paper Production :-( But you can't really blame them as people just aren't buying enough of it to make it worthwhile. Sales are declining 25% a year.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
P.S. Kodak Pub.#30: Care and Storage of Photographic Materials.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Toni Vincent |
Thank you for the Press release article and the storage instructions & suggestions. :o) Toni
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I really agree with Jon - one can't fault Kodak for trying to survive. But, have any of you wondered, as I have, what Kodak's business strategy was when they surrendered the lead to Fuji in film and digital - as suggested in any number of magazine articles and the NY Times. I remember when Kodak took the lead in promoting 110 film. Of course, the 110 negative was small and acceptable, large prints could not be made. The 110 Failure. Then came the APS system, which Kodak espoused. Of course, while it's still around to some degree, there were/are the problems. The film was hard to find [on my trip to Italy several years ago, it just wasn't available.] The negatives continued to be too small. SLR manufacturers, with the exception of Minolta, didn't jump on the bandwagon. And, as to the the three format option: well, most folks were pretty quick to wise up to the fact that a cropped picture [landscape mode] didn't really give a wider view and, didn't change the perspective. But, it was marketing hype. Kodak now backs digital. That's either good or bad news. The great debate over which is best will continue, but if companies like Kodak, a large part of the film business, obviously, stops making film [as it has slide projectors and, now, B&W paper,] can the demise of film-based photography be anticipated? I think we can all answer that question easily! As one who's trying to get back to B&W photography, I'm discouraged by this decision. I don't know if BP members have noticed, but there has been a small resurgence in B&W. But, Kodak's decision is sure to kill a goodly portion of that interest. And, while some may say you can produce great B&W pictures with your computer, I haven't seen those successes in recent state-wide print competitions in New Jersey that I've attended. Time will tell whether B&W joins 110, APS, Polaroid and other technologies as distinct dinosaurs in the mass marketplace. Of course, for the pros. . .
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Re - APS, that wasn't something that Kodak did on its own. Fuji was also in on it. It was a smaller format because their research showed that that's what most people wanted in their cameras (though obviously not advanced amatuers and professionals). It was simpler for consumers to load/handle, and the electronic information recorded by the camera on the magnetic strip automated processing/printing. The major camera makers were also on board. Virtually all had APS point & shoots. Canon (EOS IX, IX Lite) and Nikon (Pronea) both joined Minolta in making APS SLRs. Where APS failed (IMHO) is that the benefits to the consumer were only marginal but the cameras, film, and processing cost significantly more than 35mm.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||