Kodak Ends Black & White Paper Production

[Dismuke]

I heard a brief mention of this on the radio yesterday and a web search indicates that it is true.

http://blog.fotolia.com/us/archive/001007.html


From the article:

ROCHESTER, JUNE 16: Ending a century-old tradition, Eastman Kodak Co will soon stop making black-and-white photographic paper, a niche product for fine-art photographers and hobbyists that is rapidly being supplanted by digital-imaging systems.

Kodak said on Wednesday it will discontinue production of the paper, specially designed for black-and-white film, at the end of this year. But the world’s biggest film manufacturer will continue to make black-and-white film and chemicals for processing.

The article goes on to mention that one of the remaining companies to make it just emerged from bankruptcy as did the German film maker Agfa.

Who would have ever thought?

 

[Doctor Strange]

Yeah, we were discussing this over in the "Police Photographers" thread. It's unbelievable! The passing of an era...

 

[Andykev]

How are the prints?

The article refers to the digital process for black & white photography. So it this inkjet type paper, that fades? Anyone who has found a box of good old glossy photos up in grandma's garage will quickly see how well the old photos hold up to time. I have yet to see an inkjet anything not fade and turn greenish.

So what is this process? and I know digital photography is wonderful, but what does it do for the quality on the printing side of things?

 

[Slicksuit]

I think that concern over the durability of digital photography paper is moot; the negative, or master copy, is infinately reproducable with exact fidelity. If the paper isn't so great and fades, oh well, just make another copy. Negatives, especially vintage ones, do degrade and become brittle over time. Copies of pictures can and are made from prints, but the quality pales in comparision.

Manufacturers of digital photo paper claim that their products are 'archival safe' against fading and bleeding. Prints should be kept in a cool, dark place when not in use, as even traditional paper can fade if subjected to direct sunlight.

I personally do not print my photos on an inkjet printer at home, as the processes offered at the store are much cheaper, and I don't have to fiddle with calibrating the printer. It's my opinion that the quality is better, too.

 

[MissTayva]

WHAT?!

No paper, but chemicals? Weird. We'll see how long that lasts... something similar happened more than once in the recording industry with reel-to-reel recording tape.
I myself am not a fan of digital photography. I read an extensive article that even mentions that CDs don't stand the test of time, both data and music (guess which form of recorded music does? Vinyl!) It's more convenient, being able to view the photos immediately... I'm scared to see what's going to happen down the road, though, with digital-origin photographs. I've had some loess than a year old, stored away, that have faded to near nothing! Not to mention-- do you know how fun it is working in a B&W darkroom?!

 

[Slicksuit]

I do have to add that working in a darkroom is pretty cool. I had the chance to do so during a photography class in high school. Chemical development time, burning and dodging, etc. All was enjoyable. The only pain was getting the roll of film on the reel, which had to be done in complete darkness - but it didn't take long to get the hang of it.

As far as digital media goes...CD's don't last forever, yes. An additional problem, though, is ensuring that the media will be accessable to future generations, which requires a commitment to transferring the data to the prevalent standard of the time (when was the last time you saw an 8-track player?). 50 years from now, CD's as we know them now will surely be obsolete. Government researchers state that CD+/- R media has an effective storage of about 50-100 years, given that quality media is used, and a decent storage environment. I would transfer to the newest media at least every 10 years. The current standard of DVD will be surpassed by high-definition (and higher capacity) 'blue-ray' discs in the next few years. Expect the current DVD movies to be eventually replaced by HD-DVDs.

 

[MissTayva]

I do have to add that working in a darkroom is pretty cool. I had the chance to do so during a photography class in high school. Chemical development time, burning and dodging, etc. All was enjoyable. The only pain was getting the roll of film on the reel, which had to be done in complete darkness - but it didn't take long to get the hang of it.

I worked in the newspaper biz for a number of years, and when I first started out, we did everything the old way--paste-up, which meant we developed our own film. I was photo editor, which meant I spent a LOT of time in the darkroom! I hated it once we slowly started making the transition to digital. The first piece of digital equipment we received was a negative scanner... which pretty much meant no more B&W prints. A year later, we went completely digital. Sure, it was more cost efficient... but it was a lost art, in a sense, as far as I'm concerned. I used to love to go through old boxes of 5x7s that were printed throughout the years.

Hell, if anything, the darkroom was a great place to kill time. I liked being in there, as opposed to sitting in the office, trying to LOOK busy just to appease the office manager... haha.

 

[swinggal]

Here here! Black and white photography was a passion of mine and it so sad to this art dissapearing. Digital copies dont last at all. Even the so-clled archiving paper is crappy.

What a sad, sad state of affairs. We are losing so many artforms and ways od doing things of quality...sigh.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Well, I was just down in my parents' darkroom on Sunday printing my latest b/w Minox negatives, so you know that I'm very saddened by this news...

Growing up with my parents as pros, I have logged many thousands of darkroom hours since the 60s, and what started as just the family biz is now a dear love. There's simply no comparison between getting your hands wet in the chemistry, and dodging and burning your prints with those hands, and moving a mouse around on a computer screen and sending stuff to a printer! (My dad, who's been doing this since the 1930s, always says as he watches an image come up in the developing tray, "Even after all the time I've been doing this, I get a charge out of it... It's magic!")

I have nothing against digital photography - it has put the ability to get great images into everyone's hands - but something important is fading away here like a print that wasn't in the fixer tray when you turned on the light. A venerable old technology that was essentially unchanged for so long, and that produced truly archival results...

(I can take one of my dad's WWII negatives and put it in the enlarger and print it effortlessly. Try doing that with your "standard image format" CD-ROM in 60 years! I can also put a 4x5 film holder into our 1949 Graphic View and get a super-detailed, gorgeous negative: do you think that *any* digital camera on the market today will be usable in 50 years?!?)

The one thing that the old photo tech has going for it is that it's straightforwardly mechanical and chemical. As long as folks can machine and repair cameras and enlargers, and as long as boutique operations make film, paper, and chemistry, good old b/w photography will still be with us...

 

[Quigley Brown]

Dr. Strange, I have to disagree with you that digital photography has put the ability to get great images into everyone's hands. You're either a photographer or you're not.

As a photojournalist for the past twenty years I really am fortunate to have experienced the transition from b/w to color to digital. In all those twenty years I forgot to put film in my camera only once! Thank goodness a UFO flown by Elvis didn't land in front of me that day!

 

[Doctor Strange]

I just meant that recent developments in digital photography (and the perfection of point&shoot and autoeverything film cameras before that) allow anyone to make technically proficient images. I absoultely agree that having the *vision* and skill to find the right viewpoint and capture the defining moment is definitely an entirely separate thing, and this level of mastery is still comparatively rare.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Black and white

It's not just the B$W medium - its getting increasingly harder to obtain 120 and 126 roll film. I have pre-war Rollieflexes (one of each size) that used to be the newsman's preferred camera and now I have to approach my photography like the Lone ranger (for our younger readers he used silver bullets he made himself from a mine in Nevada, so he had to be absolutely sure before he shot somebody that they were 'worth a bullet'). Its the opposite of the 'Don't think, just shoot' strapline of those digital 'phone-cam thingies. I hate that!

Alan

 

[Doctor Strange]

Alan, I think 120 film will continue to be available for a quite a while, as there are still lots of pros and serious amateurs with modern medium-format cameras who use it. Emulsion choices will continue to decrease of course, but 120 availability should last about as long as 35mm and 4x5 sheet film.

Any other formats just don't have the market share to merit their manufacture. The specialist boutique companies that currently offer 126 cartridges, 127 rollfilm, 620 rollfilm, etc., will likely all be gone pretty soon. (Minox is still loading cassettes for their subminiature cameras, but I don't know how much longer they're going to be able to continue...)

 

[Alan Eardley]

Roll film

Doc,

Yes, it's the 4x4cm I have the problem with - and that baby Rollie means so much to me. It was given to an Uncle for safe keeping by a German prisoner in Caen in 1944 with a request to return it to him or his family after the war. Unfortunately the address was in Dresden... The neighborhood no longer exists and in spite of numerous attempts we have not been able to contact them. A far as I'm concerned I'm only looking after it until I do. You don't get stories like with a Coolpix.

Alan

 

[Doctor Strange]

Alan, I just checked, and B&H Photo still lists 127 color film (Kodak Portra 160) as being in stock... but for $10 a roll! Ouch. And then getting it developed is a whole other story.

Until recently, they also had Efke 127 b/w (made in Croatia, of all places). I had put a couple of rolls of that through our Yashica 44 a few years back with pretty good results. I guess that's gone for good now.

In any case, you're preaching to the choir here: these old mechanical cameras have *soul* in a way that today's electronic marvels can't touch!

(Hey, I'm sitting here with my 1956 Minox IIIS loaded with Plus-X on my belt. And my 1963 Minox B loaded with Reala is within reach in my bag. Don't leave home without 'em!)

 

[harribobs]

we shouldn't be worried that black and white photography has died because of this, it's alive and well, just being done differently

for my part i've come through a learning curve with digital photography and i love the results, my new nikon still takes the old lenses and the results are pretty damn good even though i say it myself!

to steal another photographers words 'it's not so much about depth of field as depth of vision'

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Kodak has left me scratching my head. They were behind in the Digital market, but now they're trying to play "Catch-up" with Printer Paper and Digital Tools.

... And now they're no longer doing Black And White? One of their staples with a huge following?

 

[cneil]

b&w uPDATE

Update as of Nov. 2005.
Yes, Kodak has stoped all Black and Wite paper production but it is still avalable, How long I do not Know.
Kodak B&W Film is stil in production.
Kodak B&W chemestry is still avalable but many dout how long and are looking for back ups.

Agfa Photo of Germany Has decided to Desove the Company after 138 years.
Nobaody has boght the Paper production or the Chemestrey yet.
Agfa Film has been hard to get for the past year.
They made a great B&W film. True color E-6 film ( Agfa invented color photography with Autochrome in 1911)

Ilfrod of England has Just Emerged from a reorganzing Bankruptsy very storng.
Ilford has always been my favorite B&W Paper sand Film.

Digital photos printed with a Photoprinter like the Fuji Fronteir or the Agfa dLab are Real photos and should last over 100 years with proper care.
Epson archival Inkjet now says that if you use there paper and there ink it is good for 72 years.

The photo world is in upheaveal, I gues I will just have to go back to doing wet plate.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I don't see Kodak getting out of the film and chemistry biz all that quickly. These are stable, profitable areas of the company. They may continue to cut some products, but some will be around for a while. I do think we have seen the end of R&D on traditional photography, though.

Ilford will hang in. Fuji may do more b/w products to fill the market niche. The various little boutique outfits around the world will continue making b/w materials and chemistry for the shrinking community of faithful. Though the choices will continue to narrow, it will be a long time before it becomes really impossible to shoot/develop/print b/w...

But as I observed earlier on this thread, it is a very saddening development. Great materials like Agfapan and Technical Pan are disappearing, and it's hard not to maintain a seige mentality if you're a devoted fan/user of the old tech.

For me, they'll have to pry my old Nikons (etc.) out of my cold, dead hands!

 

[vintageredhead]

This is an end to an era!!! (new here-love this place!)

I am a photographer and I specialize in hand-colored photographs so this is a big disappointment for me! Everyone is stockpiling paper but it will not last long-and we will all be FORCED to use computer programs to do what we have come to love. I hate the idea of not having the smell of oil paint when I am working!! I have always felt I was born at the wrong time-and now I really feel that way!!!
Where's that time machine when you need it??!!!!
Karen (vintageredhead)