More Kodak film being discontinued *updated*

Update: Kodak contacted me to clarify that those are not product discontinuations, just packaging changes:

Kodak is only ceasing one line, Elite Chrome. The rest are all simply packaging and catalogue listing changes, which is not such an unusual procedure. As long as photographers purchase and use Kodak’s film in sufficient quantities and demonstrate their commitment to film that way, we will be able to continue manufacturing the film.

More Kodak film is being discontinued (in connection to my previous post):

  • Tmax 400 120 in single rolls
  • Tri-x pan 120 400 in single rolls
  • Elite Chrome 100/36
  • BW400cn/24 three packs
  • Gold 200/24 four packs
  • Max 400/12 single roll
  • Max 400/24 four packs


This entry was posted in Kodak. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Paul Lim

    oh no! i shoot film….

    • Herman Hermit

      “i shoot film”

      and if you continue to do so, you’ll be able to continue doing so.
      it is kind of a reverse chicken & egg situation.

      remember that film & related products are still a > $1 billion business for kodak, and is actually profitable.
      with that said, the earnings for the segment are not stellar and the revenue is certainly not increasing, but with that kind of money spent every year someone *will* provide the product.

    • Please hear the facts straight from us at Kodak. We are NOT discontinuing the films listed . We are only changing some of the packaging quantities of them. That’s it.

      As reported in the British Journal of Photography last Friday:

  • Spleen

    Oh no! It’s the end.

  • fruck i just started to love the film :S

  • Sam

    I’m hoping that they hang on to 135 (35mm) film for a while, I’m just getting in to shooting it, especially Tri-X 400.

  • Tri-X 400 (12o) is my favorite B&W film because it pushes REALLY well, and has great contrast.

    I am assuming they will still be selling 5 packs…

    • Bei Lang Ni

      Yes, they are selling 5 rolls per packs for TMAX400 and TriX 120, so Kodak stops the packing on single roll. Also, Kodak is just stopping the production of those 12 exp and 24 exp 135 film but keeping the 36 exp film.

  • This sucks, TMax 400 has been my B+W film of choice for years…

  • Anon

    WOW. Screw you. They aren’t discontinuing any film, just changing the way they package it. Use your brain……film is not dead.

    • and why is that?

      • Anon is right. The only film there that is actually being discontinued is Elite Chrome.

        They have stopped selling single packaged film, mostly because any big camera shop like B&H that sells film, nearly only buys the pro packs (5 packs) and so if you order just one pack online, they often just split up a pro pack and send you one roll.

        Film will never die. This article is simply designed to troll people and insight emotional reactions.

      • Alfons

        Elite Chrome 100/36 – Ok, this film might be dead?

        Medium format (120):
        Tmax 400 120 in single rolls – Still availeble in packages of five
        Tri-x pan 120 400 in single rolls – Still availeble in packages of five

        I quess these are 135:
        BW400cn/24 three packs – only applys to 24 eposure rolls. 36s will roll on.
        Gold 200/24 four packs- only applys to 24 eposure rolls. 36s will roll on.
        Max 400/12 single roll- only applys to 12 eposure rolls. 24s and 36s will roll on.
        Max 400/24 four packs- only applys to 24 eposure rolls. 36s will roll on.

        Nice job making hasty conclusions admin.

        • Alfons

          Plus, I would like to say that all these 135 discontinued film PACKS are more consumer oriented products, which have been sold in all kinds of package sizes to appeal different customers.

          The professional films used by most film afficianados have always had less options in the size of packs. (single, 5, 10 and bulk packs, usually).

          • the Chris

            + Elite Chrome 100/36 is just the consumer version of the Ektachrome 100, so you can still get the film (which is a great film, btw). Its just that film photography consolidates, the volume products aren’t volume products anymore by past standards.

            Don’t panic.

      • UseFilm

        Nikon stopped D700 production! I’m sorry but digital photography is dead!!!

        • Peter

          What! Digital photography is dead? I didn’t even know it was alive! I’ve seen people walking around with those auto digital street scanner machines… but I didn’t realise that was what people were calling photography.

          • UseFilm

            Well said! :-)))

  • Eric

    Meh… the move to pro packs makes more sense. Film at Kodak still brings in a lot of revenue and even if kodak and fuji both stopped making any film efke, foma, or ilford alone could continue on with B&W film and paper and chemistry for all eternity, all three of those companies are more then capable and mostly currently do produce the entire range of black and white film products.

  • Albert

    No!!! Just when I started doing film. If Kodak goes down I hope some company can at least pick up their patents or factories to continue their products.

  • Here go my savings into film purchases.

    • Btw, film is NOT dead. Only Kodak is pissing off their customers.

      • Anon

        as usual lol.

        BTW there will always be Harman/Ilford. They are not going anywhere. Neither is Fuji. Kodak has some serious financial troubles as a company, and hopefully it does not affect their production of films. I am confident that if they went under, a resurgence similar to what happened with Polaroid and The Impossible Project will take place.

  • Matt

    Please change the title, admin. : / This is bullshit.

    • Pikemann Urge

      Amen, Matt. That title almost made me not pay attention the the ACTUAL STORY. Bloody hell. A better headline: ‘Kodak changes how it sells multi-roll film packs’. Yes, that’s lame, but it took me only 20 seconds. But damn, it’s more accurate than the current headline which is usually found in the gutter press.

    • Banksie

      Yeah, I agree. It’s really misleading to title it that way and to even post it as such. It sounds more like the National Enquirer or the NY Post. It’s unprofessional.

      Film is far from dead although Kodak may be close to death. But nonetheless, their film line is profitable and all they are doing is cleaning out the closet right now and reducing some of the product line that won’t help them survive. And even if they do die as a company, the film division will be sold off just like they recently sold off their Image Sensor Solutions to Platinum Equity. The sensor division was profitable but they cleaned house and sold it. They’ll be doing more selling as time goes by. And the selling off of assets doesn’t mean the products are dead, but simply that Kodak needs cash and is under internal restructuring (they’ve spent tons of cash recently focusing on their digital printer division.)

      Kodak introduced a new Portra emulsion just last year based on the 16mm/35mm Vision line of motion picture film. They’ve narrowed their color negative film selection down to Ektar and Portra and that’s all we really need anyway. In the old days we would stick to only one or two emulsions that worked for us; having a dozen choices was a bit too much and really unnecessary.

  • ‘/1nc3nt

    My personal oppinion:

    Kodak is dying. If nothing significant happens, before we all die we will not see any film nor any digital technology coming again from Kodak. Kodak will die because they are to big and rely heavily on one medium, film.

    Fuji is like always the competitor of Kodak. If Kodak goes down, their lifetime desperado to be number one will be fulfilled. Prepared to live with Neopan and Velvia.
    BTW: Fuji is still producing new film Cameras, but only in 120 format. Hasselblad new H4 has film back, same for Phase One. For me it means: Adieu 135 film!

    Don’t forget ILFORD is still around and will likely survive due their small company size and relatively nurturing niche market.

    Last but not least chinese film makers, Lucky. They are bad, but ‘bad’ for Holga-fanatics.

    Personally I recommend play 120 film if you still want to be in the game and stop buying stupid Lalilala M Film Bodies. They become soon old rusted metals without market price anymore!

    I am

    • UseFilm

      Fuji makes 135 film cameras too but only for Japan market. :-(((

    • Aldo

      Kodak is not dying, some divisions of Kodak are in danger. Kodak film still division is a successful division for Kodak.

  • broxibear

    I don’t think film is dead.
    Yes, it’s dying but it’s not been disconnected from life support just yet.
    For up to date information about which films are being discontinued, and stock levels of those that have been discontinued, I suggest contacting They’re based in London and know everything worth knowing about film, paper, chemicals etc.

  • I will miss the two buck packs of 400 Ultramax 24. They were the mainstay of my camera testing.

  • i stopped using film when i stopped shooting in the mid 1990’s 15 years later i switched to digital to tell you the truth i don’t miss it i just got rid of my slide projector, carousels and all unwanted slides from all the years of shooting, i am experimenting with different software, paper and learning things i never knew when i shot film especially when printing my own

  • Aldo

    Film is dead? please….. give me a break…. since always Fuji and Kodak were optimizing their production based on the market. Those film there are hardly being sell right now, all that film is still being made, what are they ending is specific packages, like Kodak Gold 200 24exp… the most popular 36exp product will still be sell…

    Kodak for instance introduced a new line of Kodak Portra film and I didn’t seen you guys mentioning that.

    Are you guys being paid to put this kind of tittle? Or it’s just the conclusion of a total dumb writer?

  • Aldo

    I can totally see now that PhotoRummors has an agenda…
    It’s pretty clear for me, PhotoRunmors doesn’t make money with film, let’s kill film then… right? that’s how it works.

  • SZRimaging

    Won’t miss anything on that list. As long as they still have some of their others, it’s of no concern.

  • Nick

    film is dead is being overused in headlines.. for no reason. digital still is miles away from being as good as film. digital has it’s positive and negative side for some subjects or jobs.. just like film. but you still can’t compare the two.. just my opinion

    • Aldo

      Yes, that’s exactly it.
      For years I’ve been reading headlines like this one. It’s also interesting to notice that those who use these kind of headlines are people/companies who are being commissioned for selling digital, like PhotoRummor does. Since film is not a business for them, and since whoever wrote this article evidently don’t use film as I do everyday, then it’s just easier to came out with a stupid article like this one.

    • CHD

      Nick, you seriously think digital is miles away from being as good as film?? We’re all entitled to our opinions but I completely disagree. I actually like the look of film, and shoot it occasionally with a Contax G2. With that said, if you don’t process/print your own film it’s a crap-shoot depending on where you take your film in. There are fewer and fewer good labs out there that can deal with film on a CONSISTENTLY high level. Scanning film and slides is a major pain in the rear, and don’t even get me started on the benefits of working with a pure digital file in Photoshop.

      Anyway, all I know is that I’m more than happy with the files from my 5D2 (and my M8), and I would put them up against film any day. I too think that film is far from dead, if anything it’s making a resurgence in the last couple years as so many have been exposed to photography thanks to the DSLR. For most of us like myself though that grew up shooting film….I far prefer digital and just do the film thing as an occasional lark.

      • Nick

        My point was to make clear that film is not dead. I said.. digital has it’s positive sides.. and also negatives. If you are more than happy with the digital file from your Canon that’s great. In some occasions I’m also happy with that file. But when there is a chance that I need to make large prints for example.. my choice would be a medium or large format camera.. or a G2 makes great scans too.. I can’t rely on digital. Large prints don’t look good at all.
        I’m not going to spend much time on this reply because this could be an endless discussion. everybody has his own preferences.. and in this case mine is film.
        My point here wasn’t that I dislike digital.. it was “film is dead is being overused in headlines.. for no reason.”

  • JBerardi

    Film isn’t dead, it just smells funny.

  • Chrisq.

    film will never die because people are going to want pictures that actually look sharp printed poster size without sharpening filters.

    • CHD

      Chrisq what are you shooting with that you can’t make poster sized prints from digital?? I guarantee my 5D2 will out-resolve any 35mm format film you have. If you’re going to say you shoot 6×7, than there’s the digital medium format that out-resolves that too, if you can afford it.

      The thing is though, if you actually print big like I do you would know that there is a lot more that goes into a quality big print than just resolution/detail. In my opinion the colour accuracy and other factors all contribute to the print quality. An another thing, why do you refer to sharpening filters disparagingly?? If sharpening is done correctly it does not adversely effect image quality. In fact, when shooting digital you always add sharpening, and the type /amount varies depending on the intended output.

      You guys sound like a couple of crankie old-timers, stuck in your ways:)

      • Anon

        Hah….I’m 20 years old…

        My $40 Olympus Stylus Epic is sharper than your $2000 5D mark II and $1100 24-105mm f/4 L lens. Bummer.

        • DigiFilm

          Haha, that’s funny because it might be true!

        • CHD

          Anon, ha ha you’re very funny:) First of all, I don’t use the 24-105, I like primes in most cases. Also, your Olympus Stylus is a fixed 35mm lens, so you’re pretty limited there:)

          Seriously, no one is telling you not to shoot film…but face the facts that it’s a niche market. It’s funny that it’s largely the younger people defending film….all I have to say is, been there done that. Also, for at least the second time I’ll say it again….there is more to image quality than just sharpness/resolution for enlargements. (Even though I stand by my claim that the 5D2 will out resolve 35mm film.

      • Peter

        Yeah? Try and find yourself a 5 x7 or 8 x 10 sensor, and even if you could, most would not afford it. But you can get the film option super cheap. But a warning… it does require some work… which might not suit a lot of the modern point and shoot “photographers”.

      • Pikemann Urge

        I guarantee my 5D2 will out-resolve any 35mm format film you have. If you’re going to say you shoot 6×7, than there’s the digital medium format that out-resolves that too, if you can afford it.

        Actually, you are not correct. The 5D2 is a great camera and it approximately matches Ektar 100. However, Ektar has its obvious limits. At ISO 3200, the 5D2 is obviously sharper than VISION3, but not by too much. At least with digital cameras you don’t have to change film to change ISO.


        As for MFD vs MF: you are quite mistaken. Anyone who thinks that MF film (the finest grained ones) is out-resolved by digital backs doesn’t know how to scan.

        Caveat: you do need a good scanner, but you don’t need a drum scanner either.

      • Nick

        you must be making a living from selling or promoting digital cameras.. I’m 24 btw.. and I’d want to bet on it that your 5d2 won’t out-resolve Anon’s Olympus..
        and digital medium formats don’t out-resolve the film ones either..
        I’m going to stay quiet now because I’m getting really ashamed of joining this discussion

        • CHD

          Nick, I know you’re only 24 and it’s cool to be anti-establishment and say shoot film instead of digital. Heck, it comes in handy to have that Olympus Stylus stuffed in your pocket while you’re smoking your blunts with your bros at the Occupy Wallstreet party…er I mean protest.

          At the end of the day though…it’s a niche market and it’s slowly dying. Millions of people are switching to digital for a good reason, and it’s not just convenience. Shoot what you like, I could care less. In the end all that matters is what you’re happy with.

        • CHD

          Nick, you may find this of interest:

          The comparison is between 645 digital and 8×10 film….large format. I’m not saying that the IQ180 digital back is a realistic option for many of us (certainly not for me), but the quality IS better.

          • DLR

            the luminous landscape guy is a tool, he is the same guy that claimed a canon D30 (3mp dslr circa 2001) out resolves 35mm film. The story is always the same,he claims to be unbiased but the tests are always garbage.

          • DLR
          • CHD

            Hey DLR, maybe you should read your own link….the guy clearly states: ‘It is inescapable that the D30 produces sharper, better looking images than the scanned film combination at sizes up to about 10 X 13″. Larger than this 35mm wins, but it isn’t till above 11X15″ or so that this starts to become obvious.’

            So, how exactly is that saying that the D30 was better than film for enlargements?? He doesn’t, he just says that the digital looked better at 10×13 or less.

            Of course the article I was referring to was the IQ180, an 80 megapixel back….which is a whole different story. The whole point is, a lot has improved since 2000.

  • John R.

    haha– you guys are funny…
    So Kodak decided to suppress some of their packages than aren’t being sold as much while keeping the most successful ones and you decided to call this the end of film?

    Film is not dead. In fact, film has been experimenting a comeback for a few years. More and more people are using it now, specially in the amateur/artistic market.

    Also it’s clear you guys have no idea about market. This article has no relation to the other post. Kodak Sharing Services has nothing to do with film. They are separated divisions, in fact, Kodak Sharing Services is a digital service, not film.

    Film division for Kodak is very profitable.

  • CTL

    I’m not going to say anything that hasn’t been said already when I say that the title of this article is completely misleading. It just bears repeating. This article is garbage.

  • R. Jackson

    Film isn’t going anywhere. It’s just not a product for the masses anymore. You’ll still be able to get excellent film stocks. All this story shows is that Kodak’s decades of mismanagement is finally about to sink the company, but I seldom use Kodak stocks for anything and haven’t for decades.

    I’ll take Ilford HP5+ over Tri-X any day of the week. And Fuji’s Velvia, Astia and Provia stocks are far superior to Kodak’s stocks.

  • I can have an opinion, right? You may or may not like it, but this is my opinion, there are many others like it, but this one is mine…

    • seamuis

      yea, you’re entitled to one, just as much as we are entitled to saying your opinion is ridiculous, especially when your ‘opinion’ is framed in such a way as to be taken as fact, backed by some sort of evidence. then it turns out that you can’t even understand properly what is being discontinued. you got called you out, and rightfully so.

    • Aldo

      so… Photo Rumors is about opinion… wow, I thought it was some kind of blog about photography to keep inform people about the latest news… thus, I expected it to be serious and professional, but I was wrong, it’s just about opinion, like all the other thousand of blogs written by teenagers with no idea about what are they writing.

      Thank you for clarifying this. Next time I read something at I’ll be knowing it’s just the opinion of somebody, not a serious article.

    • Banksie

      Here are other opinions. And by people whose opinions have a lot more weight and importance than a ‘rumor’ website……..

    • DLR

      try not to pass an opinion off as fact.

  • Anonymus Maximus

    Film is dead like a Dodo!

    I still like to shoot some rolls in one of my old loved Cameras. But I am convinced that the end will be more rapid than many imagine. End in this sense means that it will become a 100% niche product, which needs to be ordered on-line, and you will not find any stock in any store in town. (Or even in the country if you live in a smaller one.)

    Convenience of digital shooting and processing has always beaten film from day one. (I had my own lab and made my own processing solutions from raw chemicals at some point.) Easy repeatibility and consistence of process are equally on the side of digital. Quality in even the cheapest current low price DSLR beats film clearly by a mile.

    Just have a look at the DxO Film effect pack 3.1. That is an eye opener. Compare what kind of artificial noise and quality degrading has to be employed to actually get DOWN to the level of film and the beloved look of our favorite emulsion.
    (That is not meant sarcastic, I still love the look of my favorite films. )

    Film is strictly for the nostalgic, the artful masters of the chemical craft, and the artsy fartsy. Personally I think I will opt for the nostalgic pigeon hole and shoot film at least once a quarter with whatever material is left .

    • DLR

      To bad DXO film pack is Not Film. Maybe you should try making some comparisons with Real thing, instead of some software engineers emulation of it.

  • Joeysmallwaood

    Kodak can cease production of film and it wouldn’t matter one bit. There are so many other film choices out there.

    Kodak got clunked out of the film business decades ago by Fuji.

    But, the admin should no better than to invoque misinformation as opinion.

  • Vitor
  • Chris Blackhurst

    Stupidest headline ever. No, film is not dead, as there is still plenty around (try the film is dead argument with Ilford, ffs). Nope – not dead, but it will become a very expensive luxury – which is fine with me.

  • R. Jackson

    You may have noticed Google’s logo today was an homage to Louis Daguerre, whose birthday was on November 18, 1787. Daguerreotype isn’t even dead. There are still people doing Daguerreotype photography even though using mercury vapor to process a latent image is a terribly unhealthy way to deal with the development process. There are people doing Calotype and Cyanotype. There are quite a few people these days who specialize in Collodion processes.

    All of those methods of making images were effectively obsolete well over a hundred years ago, but people keep using them. Film probably has at least another century left in it, as well. It just won’t be something that everyone on the planet who wants to take photos has to use anymore and that’s something Kodak has never really learned to accept. Their stock has been pummeled of late and there’s probably more than a slight chance they’ll completely implode soon, denials notwithstanding. But there are other film companies that have embraced a smaller, more devoted market for their product.

  • TT

    I wonder why so many people liked and twitted this post – I guess only the “complainers” left comments here. Yes, film is dead – maybe not right now, but very soon. Just because you worked with film for 20 years doesn’t mean anything.

  • DavePrime

    Lets have a look at what real film looks like compared to digital here. Both Film and digital have their place, their own look, their own positives and negatives. They are both high quality and capable of very large prints. Film wins in the latitude and color department for me as well as having minimal post processing. Also there still isn’t even a true medium format digital sensor available so if you want to shoot medium format digital you are stuck with an overpriced $10k-40k
    (and beyond $$$$)crop sensor. I can’t understand why anyone would want to spend that kind of money on a crop sensor medium format back when they could shoot 2000-8000 rolls of 120 for the same price, not mention that their digital back will obsolete in 3 years if it still even works. Buy Kodak and SUPPORT AMERICAN JOBS, buy used film cameras and support American small business. Personally I shoot both, I like digital, but I LOVE film. What ever you use, go out and shoot.

  • OzBaz

    I live a city of one million people in Australia. Film has declined but the prolabs are still busy. My lab does traditonal black and white once a week and they are getting a bit overwhelmed with the amount of work they are getting. They do E6 runs daily and C41 runs several times a day. Film use will probably stablize at a certain level but it will never be the king of photography that it once was. It is a long way from dead yet. Who can predict the future? In a 100 years from now we might take pictures direct from our brain!

    • Banksie

      I also live in a major metro region and we have numerous high end service bureaus that process film, offer quality drum scans, and produce FujiFlex and various Lightjet prints. I personally use both film and digital and most of my work is a hybrid. Sometimes it originates on film and is scanned, or sometimes it’s captured digitally and then printed as a photochemical analog exhibition print.

      No one necessarily prefers digital images over film, it’s just that it’s much easier to work with digital. You have no ‘waiting time’ and you can do it at home. That’s really why it’s become so attractive. And digital has certainly made images quickly accessible in a culture that uses images as a big part of their language. And it definitely has increased the commerce of images.

      Digital reproduction today is the epitome of what Walter Benjamin was dealing with in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” back in 1936. Later in 1972, John Berger argued that “For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free.”

      It’s interesting that places like Bostick and Sullivan and Photographers’ Formulary are both still healthy businesses. Film will no doubt be part of the ‘alternative processes’ category in the very near future (or maybe it actually is already.) My students come to class ready to work with their latest digital cameras, but when I lecture on the history of photography they get excited and want to experiment with film and the wet darkroom. In today’s world people sometimes do miss the ‘craft part’ of life and the process of making something with their hands.

  • DigiFilm

    Why post a picture of a product that’s not what the story is about?

  • Pikemann Urge

    Even though I stand by my claim that the 5D2 will out resolve 35mm film

    It out-resolves Portra 400 and maybe matches Ektar 100. The evidence is quite clear on those two points. The great thing about DSLRs is that you can turn the gain up on the sensor without adding too much noise into the signal.

    BTW I like both media.

  • Back to top