Buy film, not equipment.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
an interesting guest editorial in it. The author suggested that if you
wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid
spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, C.T.O. GW&T Ltd., Jerusalem Israel
g...@mendelson.com g...@gwandt.com
IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Magdalena W.
Użytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
> The author suggested that if you
> wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid
> spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film.
I just need a bigger fridge, because mine is stuffed to the limits.
Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
Regards,
Magdalena
Tom Phillips
<bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs
are such fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of
my favorite films (Pan-X, KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
If I have to, I'll use glass plates coated with my own
emulsion. Screw Kodak and I hope they read that...
O.K. rant over :-)
--
Tom Phillips
BBarlow690
Maybe we should each declare one day a week a Newsgroup Free Day, and go
photograph instead of cruising the 'net? Or make a solemn, kept promise to
ourselves that we will each find a way to make twice as many negatives and
prints next year as this year?
Kodak, et al aren't going to keep materials in production just because we (me
included) moan about them going away. The problem, as stated so well so long
ago, is us.
Excuse me, gotta go make some 8x10 negatives!
Best to all,
Bruce
Jytzel
And they will discontinue the rest sooner or later. Support Ilford. In
my opinion they have better products and they need you!
Gregory Blank
of 8x10 Delta 100.
I really like some of Kodaks E6 films, for certain applications.
In article <d08a6abc.04100...@posting.google.com>,
jyt...@netscape.net (Jytzel) wrote:
> And they will discontinue the rest sooner or later. Support Ilford. In
> my opinion they have better products and they need you!
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Donald Qualls
> In article <cjof7h$hiq$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, "Magdalena W."
> <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>
>>Użytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
>>
>>>The author suggested that if you
>>>wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid
>>>spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film.
>>
>>And he was damn right too :-)
>>I just need a bigger fridge, because mine is stuffed to the limits.
>>Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
>
>
> I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs
> are such fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of
> my favorite films (Pan-X, KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
By which you mean, because you can no longer get some films you liked,
you'd like to hasten the demise of all films?
> If I have to, I'll use glass plates coated with my own
> emulsion. Screw Kodak and I hope they read that...
At least I have cameras suitable for this -- a couple competent,
reliable plate cameras from the 1920s and 1930s, originally made for dry
plates. I don't, however, look forward to trying to make panchromatic
emulsions of reasonable speed and then get them to stick to glass; if it
comes to that it might turn out to be simpler to go all the way back to
Daguerreotypes.
--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
David Nebenzahl
> In article <cjof7h$hiq$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, "Magdalena W."
> <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>> Użytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
>>
>>> The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to
>>> be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary
>>> upgrades" and spend it on film.
>>
>> And he was damn right too :-) I just need a bigger fridge, because mine
>> is stuffed to the limits. Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
>
> I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs are such
> fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of my favorite films (Pan-X,
> KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
I'm sure such a boycott would be at least as effective as the famous "gas-out"
boycott of recent memory. We all know how great an effect *that* had on gas
prices.
--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.
- Noam Chomsky
Tom Phillips
Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > In article <cjof7h$hiq$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, "Magdalena W."
> > <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Użytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
> >>
> >>>The author suggested that if you
> >>>wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid
> >>>spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film.
> >>
> >>And he was damn right too :-)
> >>I just need a bigger fridge, because mine is stuffed to the limits.
> >>Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
> >
> >
> > I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs
> > are such fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of
> > my favorite films (Pan-X, KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
>
> By which you mean, because you can no longer get some films you liked,
> you'd like to hasten the demise of all films?
No. By which I mean Kodak has shown they could give
a rat's ass for anything. Kodak could do very well
as a company just making and selling film, which is
what they're good at. It may be a smaller company,
but viable. Instead, the morons have always sought
to get into areas that made little profit for the
company. Sure, it's a business, but the dimwits at
Kodak have consistently shown they have zero loyalty
to the film market that has kept the company in
business for over 100 years and even less loyalty to
the photographers who have loyally supported Kodak.
As a photographer, I can't and won't invest my labor
in film products I can't be assured will be there even
2-3 years from now. Tech Pan was one of my favorite films.
It's an **irreplacable** film. It was one of Kodak's best
films ever. Kodak should wise up. It's they who are
killing their own film market.
> > If I have to, I'll use glass plates coated with my own
> > emulsion. Screw Kodak and I hope they read that...
>
> At least I have cameras suitable for this -- a couple competent,
> reliable plate cameras from the 1920s and 1930s, originally made for dry
> plates. I don't, however, look forward to trying to make panchromatic
> emulsions of reasonable speed and then get them to stick to glass; if it
> comes to that it might turn out to be simpler to go all the way back to
> Daguerreotypes.
Well, reasonable may be relative. I shot KM 25 and Tech Pan
at ISO 20 for years...
Hey, if William Henry Jackson could do it successfully
under the most difficult circumstances (in the wilderness
or on the tops of 13,000 foot mountains with no food or
water for plate processing), it can't be that hard today :-)
Besides, I'm sure there will be someone who continues to
make film and dry plates.
--
Tom Phillips
Tom Phillips
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 10/3/2004 3:00 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:
>
> > In article <cjof7h$hiq$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, "Magdalena W."
> > <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> Użytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
> >>
> >>> The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to
> >>> be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary
> >>> upgrades" and spend it on film.
> >>
> >> And he was damn right too :-) I just need a bigger fridge, because mine
> >> is stuffed to the limits. Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
> >
> > I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs are such
> > fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of my favorite films (Pan-X,
> > KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
>
> I'm sure such a boycott would be at least as effective as the famous "gas-out"
> boycott of recent memory. We all know how great an effect *that* had on gas
> prices.
You miss the point. It's not about penalizing Kodak, but rather not
investing *MY* photographic efforts in film products that Kodak will
not support long term.
--
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls
>
> Besides, I'm sure there will be someone who continues to
> make film and dry plates.
You haven't shopped for dry plates lately, have you? AFAIK, there's one
company on Earth still making them, a factory in Russia; a British
distributor with a business model similar to J and C Photography in this
country was, last I checked, in negotiation with them to purchase a lot
of plates -- I recall the price was to run around $8 per plate in 9x12
cm size, plus shipping from England, with a minimum order of 100 plates.
Out of my league...
For a lot less than $8 per plate, I can buy Schott 2 mm glass precut to
9x12 cm size, chemically silver it, sensitize it with iodine and bromine
vapor, and have modernized Daguerreotype plates on which to experiment
with developing in modern chemicals instead of mercury vapor. I could
pay back the investment for fuming boxes and other necessary equipment
long before I'd go through that 100 plate minimum order -- and the
images I'd produce would be much more memorable and saleable, if I'm so
inclined, than a glass plate negative or ambrotype equivalent.
Donald Qualls
> Hey, if William Henry Jackson could do it successfully
> under the most difficult circumstances (in the wilderness
> or on the tops of 13,000 foot mountains with no food or
> water for plate processing), it can't be that hard today :-)
And a second take on this -- Jackson was using, IIRC, wet plates, which
means he was also carrying along a full darkroom for coating and
sensitizing as well as developing, including both collodion (only
slightly less explosive than guncottong) and ether (the only solvent
common prior to the 20th century that would dissolve collodion). And
the plates he created weren't even orhtochromatic, they were as
blue-sensitive as graded printing paper. No thanks, I'd rather deal
with mercury vapor.
But I'd still far rather deal with modern panchromatic film in ISO speed
from 100 up. I hate having to calculate reciprocity corrections for a
daylight shot... And continuing to have film means not walking away
from the only film company still producing B&W that looks likely to
still be in good shape this time next year. Okay, I don't like the
product line contraction, either -- but in the face of falling demand,
it's inevitable, and the specialty items like Tech Pan pretty well have
to be the first to go. Ilford, OTOH, is dropping *all* sheet film, last
I heard, and all but their most popular papers; Agfa is pretty much
headed up the same path, from what I've been reading.
I like the Fomapan 100 I shoot in my plate cameras, but I'd rather still
have the option of Tri-X and TMY in my 35 mm and 120 formats -- which
will end sooner than otherwise, if enough people boycott Kodak over the
discontinuation of a favorite niche product.
Gregory Blank
nitrate and fume that.
In article <Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> For a lot less than $8 per plate, I can buy Schott 2 mm glass precut to
> 9x12 cm size, chemically silver it, sensitize it with iodine and bromine
> vapor, and have modernized Daguerreotype plates on which to experiment
> with developing in modern chemicals instead of mercury vapor. I could
> pay back the investment for fuming boxes and other necessary equipment
> long before I'd go through that 100 plate minimum order -- and the
> images I'd produce would be much more memorable and saleable, if I 'm so
> inclined, than a glass plate negative or ambrotype equivalent.
--
Michael A. Covington
"Donald Qualls" <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> You haven't shopped for dry plates lately, have you? AFAIK, there's one
> company on Earth still making them, a factory in Russia; a British
> distributor with a business model similar to J and C Photography in this
> country was, last I checked, in negotiation with them to purchase a lot of
> plates -- I recall the price was to run around $8 per plate in 9x12 cm
> size, plus shipping from England, with a minimum order of 100 plates. Out
> of my league...
Kodak seems to still have some T-Max 100 plates available, I think, though I
haven't actually asked them.
The other place to look for dry plates might be university chemistry,
physics, and astronomy departments. Some of them may have gotten
overstocked decades ago...
Donald Qualls
> Or you could just coat the glass with some colloiden
> nitrate and fume that.
>
> In article <Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For a lot less than $8 per plate, I can buy Schott 2 mm glass precut to
>>9x12 cm size, chemically silver it, sensitize it with iodine and bromine
>>vapor, and have modernized Daguerreotype plates on which to experiment
>>with developing in modern chemicals instead of mercury vapor. I could
>>pay back the investment for fuming boxes and other necessary equipment
>>long before I'd go through that 100 plate minimum order -- and the
>>images I'd produce would be much more memorable and saleable, if I 'm so
>>inclined, than a glass plate negative or ambrotype equivalent.
>
>
I presume you're talking about the sensitizing process for wet plates --
or are you after the collodion dry plate process that failed to fly in
the 1870s because gelatin dry plates were safer and cheaper to make?
Either way, to sensitize the plate you have to first embed sodium
chloride and/or bromide in the collodion, then apply silver nitrate to
form the silver halide in place, because silver halide isn't soluble;
for wet plates, you then have to expose and process before the
collodion's carrier (the ether) evaporates completely, rendering the
collodion impervious to the water that carries the developer; I don't
know for certain how development was carried out on collodion dry
plates, but sensitizing was about the same.
Fuming works on the silver plate for a Daguerreotype by forming the
bromide and iodide directly in place on the surface of the silver; it
won't work with a surface that doesn't incorporate a high percentage of
metallic silver (and even then the surface has to be immaculately clean
-- 80% of the work in making a traditional Dag is in the burnishing of
the silver layer on the copper plate).
Point being, however (back to original topic), if enough people boycott
film producers, we hasten the day when film isn't produced any more.
Sure, that's not likely to be tomorrow, but I'd miss Kodak products even
while I was shooting Foma, Efke, and Lucky -- and who knows how long
Foma and Efke can stay in business without the billion potential
customers who can't afford anything else that Lucky starts with...
Donald Qualls
> "Donald Qualls" <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>
>>You haven't shopped for dry plates lately, have you? AFAIK, there's one
>>company on Earth still making them, a factory in Russia; a British
>>distributor with a business model similar to J and C Photography in this
>>country was, last I checked, in negotiation with them to purchase a lot of
>>plates -- I recall the price was to run around $8 per plate in 9x12 cm
>>size, plus shipping from England, with a minimum order of 100 plates. Out
>>of my league...
>
>
> Kodak seems to still have some T-Max 100 plates available, I think, though I
> haven't actually asked them.
Really? I understood they'd been discontinued as of 2002. Doesn't
really matter; I can't afford $5/plate in boxes of 20 or 25, and the
last of them were 4x5 in any case, not the 9x12 cm I can use.
> The other place to look for dry plates might be university chemistry,
> physics, and astronomy departments. Some of them may have gotten
> overstocked decades ago...
I wonder if I could find a European observatory with a huge overstock in
9x12 cm they'd let go for the hauling? Then all I'd need to do would be
to drive my Ford across the Atlantic, back it up to their dock, and load
-- shouldn't take more than two weeks for the round trip, if I can just
find the on-ramp to the Transatlantic Freeway...
Seriously, and realistically, commercially made dry plates aren't going
to be an option for me; I simply don't have the budget for them. If I
can no longer get sheet film in 9x12 cm, or that I can cut to that size,
I'll have to start making my own -- which, for me, is more likely to run
to Dag on glass than collodion or gelatin plates.
Mark Fohl
"BBarlow690" <bbarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041003083411...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> The real issue isn't to buy more, it is to use more.
>
> Maybe we should each declare one day a week a Newsgroup Free Day, and go
HERESY! Heaven forbid!
Gregory Blank
shy of it being worse stuff than the plates I might make
I'll stick with conventionally made films...Kodak included.
In article <Z898d.19441$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Sure, that's not likely to be tomorrow, but I'd miss Kodak products even
> while I was shooting Foma, Efke, and Lucky -- and who knows how long
> Foma and Efke can stay in business without the billion potential
> customers who can't afford anything else that Lucky starts with...
--
Frank Pittel
: In article <41606130...@but.us.chickens>, David Nebenzahl
: <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: > On 10/3/2004 3:00 AM Tom Phillips spake thus:
: >
: > > In article <cjof7h$hiq$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>, "Magdalena W."
: > > <bag...@111111111gazeta.pl> wrote:
: > >
: > >> U?ytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com>
: > >>
: > >>> The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to
: > >>> be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary
: > >>> upgrades" and spend it on film.
: > >>
: > >> And he was damn right too :-) I just need a bigger fridge, because mine
: > >> is stuffed to the limits. Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-)
: > >
: > > I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs are such
: > > fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of my favorite films (Pan-X,
: > > KM 25, and now Tech Pan.)
: >
: > I'm sure such a boycott would be at least as effective as the famous "gas-out"
: > boycott of recent memory. We all know how great an effect *that* had on gas
: > prices.
: You miss the point. It's not about penalizing Kodak, but rather not
: investing *MY* photographic efforts in film products that Kodak will
: not support long term.
dak will support films that there is a market for.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
The Wogster
> "BBarlow690" <bbarl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041003083411...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
>>The real issue isn't to buy more, it is to use more.
>>
>>Maybe we should each declare one day a week a Newsgroup Free Day, and go
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> HERESY! Heaven forbid!
>
Actually he is right......
W
Tim Shoppa
> I really like some of Kodaks E6 films, for certain applications.
The maker of the E6 films that I really loved (Scotchchrome 1000) have
gone out of the film business entirely, unfortunately. Oh well, I
don't shoot E6 anymore anyway.
Agfa 1000-speed E6 is no more either.
Tim.
The Wogster
> I just got the Sept 18th edition of AP (a British magazine) and there was
> an interesting guest editorial in it. The author suggested that if you
> wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid
> spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film.
>
The author is, in many ways right, this doesn't apply only to monochrime
films. Suppose your film maker S for a moment, you need to make 200
Hectares of a film, to be worth setting up the line and do a production
run. It costs you $150,000 in materials and labour to do the
manufacturing run.
Now you have one film that a production run takes 4 weeks to get out the
door, another one takes 4 years. Are you going to continue a film,
where your paying interest on the costs for an average of 2 years? Not
when money is tight, so you decide to discontinue that product, and use
the production time to make more of the other one.
W
Nicholas O. Lindan
> The maker of the E6 films that I really loved (Scotchchrome 1000) have
> gone out of the film business entirely, unfortunately.
I thought that was Ferrania, though it seems they only make a 100 these days.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > Hey, if William Henry Jackson could do it successfully
> > under the most difficult circumstances (in the wilderness
> > or on the tops of 13,000 foot mountains with no food or
> > water for plate processing), it can't be that hard today :-)
>
> And a second take on this -- Jackson was using, IIRC, wet plates, which
> means he was also carrying along a full darkroom for coating and
> sensitizing as well as developing, including both collodion (only
> slightly less explosive than guncottong) and ether (the only solvent
> common prior to the 20th century that would dissolve collodion). And
> the plates he created weren't even orhtochromatic, they were as
> blue-sensitive as graded printing paper. No thanks, I'd rather deal
> with mercury vapor.
I'm simply talking about photographing difficulties using
plates vs. film in a less modern era than our own. Jackson,
btw, continued to photograph beyond his survey days and used
lots of dry plates and later film...
> ...And continuing to have film means not walking away
> from the only film company still producing B&W that looks likely to
> still be in good shape this time next year. Okay, I don't like the
> product line contraction, either -- but in the face of falling demand,
> it's inevitable,
That's not why...and it's BS. Large format photography is NOT
in the "falling demand" category at all. And large or small
plenty of people use film. As Kodaks own Daniel Carp has
himself said and well knows, there are 250 million 35mm film
cameras out there (US alone.)
Heck, the last trip I was on (with a bunch of college students)
those using digital had constant problems, including a whole
trips worth of pictures lost due to failed storage cards. Those
shooting film had no such problems. And as soon as people realize,
like these students did, digital is unreliable as far as
permanent photos go they'll go back to film. Question is, when
will kodak start making an effort to market film to those 250
million camera owners as the better choice and save their own
market?
> and the specialty items like Tech Pan pretty well have
> to be the first to go.
Sounds like you actually might work for Kodak...
> Ilford, OTOH, is dropping *all* sheet film, last
> I heard,
someone want to confirm this?
Tom Phillips
>
> Gregory Blank wrote:
> > Or you could just coat the glass with some colloiden
> > nitrate and fume that.
> >
> > In article <Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> > Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
snip interesting stuff on plates...
> Point being, however (back to original topic), if enough people boycott
> film producers, we hasten the day when film isn't produced any more.
I'm merely talking about going to Kodak's competitors.
Like I said, Kodak needs to wise up. They've been
consitently moving towards marginalizing their film
and photo products/services in favor of digital, which
does not make a profit for them. It's all about stocks,
rather than being committed to being a company that
offers photographers good products and good services
which will in fact keep them in business. Kodak is simply
letting the film end of their business slide instead of
making an effort to market to the millions of people
who would otherwise buy film instead of digital IF kodak
made the marketing effort.
Tech Pan was a beautiful film. It produced simply classic
curves and outstanding pictorial results, and Kodak has
very few black and white film offerings left. I can't even
get Plus-X in 4x5 anymore (another good film.) It appears
Kodak won't be happy until they've eliminated virtually all
choice and variety in their film offerings and we're all
shooting T-Max (decent film though it be...) like a bunch
of cloned rabbits. Why? CEO and stock related decisions.
Come to think of it, all they have left for me to shoot _is_
T-max or tri-x...
Tim Shoppa
> "Tim Shoppa" <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote
>
> > The maker of the E6 films that I really loved (Scotchchrome 1000) have
> > gone out of the film business entirely, unfortunately.
>
> I thought that was Ferrania, though it seems they only make a 100 these days.
In the US I bought it as Scotchchrome. Haven't seen it since the mid-90's.
Maybe Ferrania made it, but I don't remember seeing "Made in Italy" on
the box.
It is suspicious that Agfa 1000 E6 disappeared about the same time, but
I don't think they were the same film (Agfa stuff didn't "splotch" quite
the same way when underexposed and extreme-push-processed).
Tim.
Donald Qualls
> Donald Qualls wrote:
>
>>Gregory Blank wrote:
>>
>>>Or you could just coat the glass with some colloiden
>>>nitrate and fume that.
>>>
>>>In article <Gh28d.19411$n%3.27...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
>>> Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> snip interesting stuff on plates...
>
>
>>Point being, however (back to original topic), if enough people boycott
>>film producers, we hasten the day when film isn't produced any more.
>
>
> I'm merely talking about going to Kodak's competitors.
Which, as of this time next year, might be Foma, Efke, and Lucky (at
least in B&W). IIRC, Agfa has already dropped sheet film and is cutting
back 120, Ilford is dropping sheet film as part of their
"rationalization" in an effort to become profitable (I don't think it's
going to work; sheet film would have been the last bastion, even after
35 mm and 120 no longer had any professional application) -- which
leaves a couple emulsions from Kodak, one from Foma, no more than three
from Efke, and nothing (AFAIK) from Lucky. Foma sells only in metric
sizes (9x12, 10x15, and 13x18 cm), AFAIK. There are a couple Indian B&W
brands, but none in sheet formats that I'm aware of, and none to my
knowledge sold outside India. Likewise, there are Russian B&W films,
and at least one made in sheet sizes, but only in metric formats.
If you need 4x5, don't want to spend your money at Kodak, and don't find
Efke to do what you want, better fill your freezer with FP4+; you
probably won't be able to get it by next summer.
> Like I said, Kodak needs to wise up. They've been
> consitently moving towards marginalizing their film
> and photo products/services in favor of digital, which
> does not make a profit for them. It's all about stocks,
> rather than being committed to being a company that
> offers photographers good products and good services
> which will in fact keep them in business. Kodak is simply
> letting the film end of their business slide instead of
> making an effort to market to the millions of people
> who would otherwise buy film instead of digital IF kodak
> made the marketing effort.
>
> Tech Pan was a beautiful film. It produced simply classic
> curves and outstanding pictorial results, and Kodak has
> very few black and white film offerings left. I can't even
> get Plus-X in 4x5 anymore (another good film.) It appears
> Kodak won't be happy until they've eliminated virtually all
> choice and variety in their film offerings and we're all
> shooting T-Max (decent film though it be...) like a bunch
> of cloned rabbits. Why? CEO and stock related decisions.
Tech Pan had become so marginal in production that it was taking
multiple years to sell off a single run, even in 35 mm. No public
corporation could justify keeping such a slow selling product on the
shelves, and when it came to redesigning the subbing layer to allow
coating the emulsion in the newer plant, or letting it go when stocks
produced two years ago were exhausted, they made the only decision that
would keep them their jobs.
This isn't a fault in Kodak, it's a fault inherent to the system of
publicly held corporations. Simply put, Kodak's management *must* do
what they've done, or they'll be out of work, replaced by others who
will keep the stock value and dividends up for the stockholders -- who
don't care about photography, only about their retirement funds or
portfolio value.
I predict that it will still be possible to buy a limited selection of
B&W sheet film in any size you like up to 20x24 for the foreseeable
future -- but the cost will much more closely resemble the current
pricing of glass plates (around $8/plate, made in one factory in Russia
when someone buys a full run, some tens of thousands of plates) than the
current levels of fifty cents a sheet in 4x5, because it will be coated
in smaller runs at much higher cost per run. Yes, film will still be a
bit cheaper than plates -- less fallout in manufacturing, the base is
cheaper, and the machinery can be more compact with a flexible base --
but expect to pay $2/sheet or more for B&W 4x5 by the end of the decade,
and look for only two or three emulsions, total, worldwide (and reduced
consistency in those, because the runs will be much less than 10% the
size we're used to from Kodak and Ilford).
> Come to think of it, all they have left for me to shoot _is_
> T-max or tri-x...
Add to that whichever of Efke 25, 50, or 100 is sold in sheet sizes, of
course; I don't recall if Pan F was made in 4x5, but you should still be
able to find FP4+ and HP5+, if you don't dawdle about. And if you're
used to shooting at EI 25 or so anyway, for Tech Pan, you really should
try T-Max 100 in Microdol-X at EI 25 to 50; you might quit pining for
Tech Pan (especially because it's easier to get consistent results with
the T-Max than it ever was with Tech Pan).
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > Donald Qualls wrote:
snip...
>And if you're
> used to shooting at EI 25 or so anyway, for Tech Pan, you really should
> try T-Max 100 in Microdol-X at EI 25 to 50; you might quit pining for
> Tech Pan (especially because it's easier to get consistent results with
> the T-Max than it ever was with Tech Pan).
Like I said, Tech pan produced classic curves. Tmax has,
well, let's just say it produces a curve...
Tom Phillips
BTW, it was _never_ hard to get consistent results with
Tech Pan. Not if you knew the film and what you were doing.
I know people who can't get consistent results with TM.
F.C. Trevor Gale
I have to agree to differ with you on the subject of getting consistent
results using Kodak TechPan: it didn't take me long to get used to it,
and I've done a lot of monochrome work using it. I regard it as easier
to obtain consistent results with then T-max. Always use Technidol
developer, keep to the times you've established for the way you use the
film, and you'll get fine-grained, wonderful tonal-range results. It
really *isn't* a "difficult" film.
Only thing is, I just managed to get a load of TP120 which has an expiry
of 02/2005, of course I put it in the 'fridge and it'll last beyond
that, but now I have to go and find something which will approach the
standard of TP from some other combination of manufacturer and
developer... 8*(
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Like I said, Tech pan produced classic curves. Tmax has,
> well, let's just say it produces a curve...
When T-Max first came out I shot many rolls of it in southeast
Pennsylvania and had wonderful results. I shot them normaly and
developed them in Edwal FG-7. According to the FG7 docs, this would be a
1/2 to 1 stop over exposure.
Due to the "compensating" action of FG7, I always got rich negatives with
both well defined highlight and shadow detail.
Unfortunatley, since the manfacture of FG7 changed hands it is now listed
as containing hazardous substances (which it always had, the specs changed)
and I can't get it here or have it shipped by air. :-(
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, C.T.O. GW&T Ltd., Jerusalem Israel
g...@mendelson.com g...@gwandt.com
IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Donald Qualls
All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
to detail to get good results.
I've never used TP, but I've used microfilms in low contrast developers
for similar purposes; they're nice when everything works, and I have no
doubt that as I use them more, I'll get to the point where everything
works almost all the time. I've never used TMX, either -- I shoot very
little medium speed film; I prefer ISO 400 for practically everything,
and at present shoot Tri-X in 35 mm (because I got a lot of it cheaply)
and TMY in 120 (same reason). I'm likely to change my 120 to Classic
400 when I have money to buy more, because it's cheap, and my budget is
always tight.
Microfilm is cheap, most of it acts a good bit like Tech Pan (except for
lack of enhanced red sensitivity), and it's not going anywhere;
microfilm is still the archival method of choice for a lot of records
because it doesn't require a compatible computer system to read (not to
mention it's likely to outlast any computer medium you can buy, at any
price, and microfilm is cheap). I can get some of the best, Agfa Copex
and Copex Rapid, from various sources in 35 mm and unperforated 16 mm --
marked up by 2-3 additional middlemen -- or I can watch for expired
microfilm on eBay and get it cheap. I can get Copex in 4x5 (sold as
Gigabit Film), albeit it's no longer cheap in that format.
I'm sure some folks will miss Tech Pan, but most will find ways to use
either TMX, Efke 25 or 50, Ilford Pan F (for as long as it lasts) or a
microfilm stock for the same jobs. They'll have to!
Donald Qualls
> When T-Max first came out I shot many rolls of it in southeast
> Pennsylvania and had wonderful results. I shot them normaly and
> developed them in Edwal FG-7. According to the FG7 docs, this would be a
> 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure.
>
> Due to the "compensating" action of FG7, I always got rich negatives with
> both well defined highlight and shadow detail.
>
> Unfortunatley, since the manfacture of FG7 changed hands it is now listed
> as containing hazardous substances (which it always had, the specs changed)
> and I can't get it here or have it shipped by air. :-(
>
> Geoff.
>
Geoff, I don't have any experience with TMX, but TMY looks wonderful
souped in HC-110 Dilution G (1:119 from USA syrup, or 1:29 from stock
solution). I'm certain you can get HC-110 in (I presume) the UK or
Europe, pretty sure it's sold in Oz and New Zealand; Ilfotec HC is said
to be pretty much interchangeable if you can't get the real deal. I
give it fifteen minutes at 74 F (which would be about 20 to 25 minutes
at 68 F/20 C, I'd have to look up the chart on Covington's page to give
an exact conversion), and control contrast with agitation; if I want
more contrast, I agitate every three minutes, or even every minute, for
less contrast I agitate every five minutes or just once, halfway through
the time, after the first minute (first minute constant agitation either
way, of course). Nice compensation to keep the highlights from running
away, good control from what I'd guess (since I don't have a way to
measure) is N-2 to N+1 or so, and a slight boost in speed due to the
long process, about what you'd get for a toe speed increase with a one
stop conventional push, but preserved even at N-2 contrast because the
shadows get the extra development anyway.
BTW, Dilution G controls contrast well enough you can even use it for
document films (Agfa Copex Rapid looks pretty decent at EI 100, much
better at 80 or 64, though it wants a good bit less time than TMY and
minimal agitation).
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> >>Donald Qualls wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tom Phillips wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Donald Qualls wrote:
> >>
> >>snip...
> >>
> >>
> >>>And if you're
> >>>used to shooting at EI 25 or so anyway, for Tech Pan, you really should
> >>>try T-Max 100 in Microdol-X at EI 25 to 50; you might quit pining for
> >>>Tech Pan (especially because it's easier to get consistent results with
> >>>the T-Max than it ever was with Tech Pan).
> >>
> >>Like I said, Tech pan produced classic curves. Tmax has,
> >>well, let's just say it produces a curve...
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, it was _never_ hard to get consistent results with
> > Tech Pan. Not if you knew the film and what you were doing.
> >
> > I know people who can't get consistent results with TM.
>
> All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
> to detail to get good results.
>
> I've never used TP,
Tbis is obvious. It's also obvious you perceive not the
the true market situation. Film markets are shrinking
because digital manufacturers (Kodak among them...) are
marketing digital imaging (drooling as they go...) as a
replacement for film. But they (kodak among them...) don't
tell the public the truth about digital (they lie...) as
an imaging medium and are undercutting the film market by
deliberately competing with it. This is the strategy, and
it's all about stocks and greed, not shrinking demand for
films.
If consumer digital were marketed for what it is, a useful but
limited computer-based imaging medium that does not produce
permanent image records, that does not and cannot do what film
does, and that in fact is not a photographic medium, that digital
"cameras" are scanners that are merely made to look like cameras
and collect interpolated (false) data rather than "film" that
actually records a true permanent image, and that images on film
can literally last forever as opposed to the short life of a
storage card, hard disk, or CD-R -- well they couldn't make as
much profit to cover their investments in producing and
marketing these digital products.
Thus as I say Kodak, by making no marketing effort whatsoever to
inform the average undereducated consumer about the advantages
of recording their images on film, is killing it's own film market.
It's all about the power of advertising.
> but I've used microfilms in low contrast developers
> for similar purposes; they're nice when everything works, and I have no
> doubt that as I use them more, I'll get to the point where everything
> works almost all the time. I've never used TMX, either -- I shoot very
> little medium speed film; I prefer ISO 400 for practically everything,
> and at present shoot Tri-X in 35 mm (because I got a lot of it cheaply)
> and TMY in 120 (same reason). I'm likely to change my 120 to Classic
> 400 when I have money to buy more, because it's cheap, and my budget is
> always tight.
>
> Microfilm is cheap, most of it acts a good bit like Tech Pan
How would you know, never having used it?
Ken Nadvornick
> Thus as I say Kodak, by making no marketing effort
> whatsoever to inform the average undereducated
> consumer about the advantages of recording their
> images on film, is killing it's own film market. It's
> all about the power of advertising.
Hi Tom,
Yes, I agree. From my vantage point, I don't understand the logic behind
this at all.
I was always taught that whatever the competitive situation (sports, games,
business, career skills, etc.) the best chance of success comes when one
plays one's strengths directly against the opponent's weaknesses.
When playing basketball, for instance, if your team is blessed with a pair
of 7+ footers who can dominate inside, it's would be considered a wise
strategy to make certain they get the ball considerably more often than
having a guard constantly shoot from 25 feet out.
Well, analog film technology was Kodak's 7+ footer. They knew this medium
like no one else. They had the technical expertise, the financial resources
and - most importantly - the desire to become the best in the industry at
what they did. And, significantly, they long ago leveraged this knowledge
into a business model that required their customers to continually
repurchase their products over and over, which they readily did. This
recurring stream of income made Kodak fat and happy. The world was good.
Then along came digital photographic technology. The classic example of a
"disruptive technology." And the subsequent sad story is well known to all.
Rather than choose to compete from their position of strength, they chose to
roll over and throw all of their experience and expertise away. One hundred
plus years of hard-earned R&D was trashed. Products and technologies and
people were dumped. Customers were alienated (as you well know).
Why? I guess because they just lost faith in their own technology. Maybe
digital scared them out of thinking straight. Maybe they jumped onto that
peculiarly high-tech bandwagon that says if everyone at the top of the
pyramid doesn't become billionaires in ninety days or less, then they've
failed. Maybe, as some have said, the "widows and orphans" were storming
the pension fund gates with pitchforks. I dunno. But the end result was
that they seem to have convinced themselves that the market for film - their
strength - was going to disappear 100% in the very near future. And there
was *nothing* they could do about it.
Or was there? If the middle 60% of the bell curve is as marketing malleable
as everyone seems to think, then what would have prevented Kodak from taking
a different approach? One that used their strengths of film technology,
massive marketing and advertising capabilities to extol the virtues of film
over digital? Sure, the photographic capture market was splitting, but that
normally doesn't give rise to a totally mutually-exclusive market situation,
does it? Kodak, with that one hundred plus year technology head start,
could have *easily* made the case to consumers that film capture was still
very superior to digital capture in all of the ways we've heard over and
over in this NG. Certainly not all would have agreed, but probably a much
larger percentage would have. That, after all, is the whole reason for the
existence of their marketing division. To convince the market that their
products are superior.
In other words, they could have played their strengths (and those of their
products) against the weaknesses of their digital opponents (and their
products). The digital side, of course, would have done similarly. The
winners would have been those products that proved themselves superior in
the marketplace. To put it succinctly, Kodak could have actually competed.
They could have forced their competition to play the game on their terms.
What? You have no simple, easy to use, viable long term color image archive
method? Gee, we have Kodachrome. What? You can't produce pleasing (and
*we'll* be the ones to define photographically "pleasing," thank you...) B&W
images? We have Tri-X. Check out damn near any B&W magazine photo essay in
the last fifty years for an example. What? You're locked into using the
same camera sensor for every photo, for the life of the camera? Guess what?
Our technology allows our users to change "sensor" types every time they
load another roll. In fact, they get a brand new "sensor" every time they
advance the frame. And by the way, if you happen to not like Kodachrome or
Tri-X, we have dozens and dozens of other choices. Which means you only
need to purchase a camera once, not once every eighteen months. And, the
cameras are only one-third to one-tenth the cost. What a concept.
But instead Kodak chose to dump it all and start from absolute scratch. How
they think they can catch up to and outdo the Sonys, et al. of the world in
the "you press the button and we'll do the rest" digital P&S market beats
me. And the saddest part of all is that with the advent of email, few are
even printing their digital photos and so have no need for Kodak's new lines
of digital consumables. And with the introduction of the camera phone -
complete with built-in "print" distribution technology - Kodak may also end
up losing the camera hardware side of that "you press the button..." market
entirely. Then what? Where will they be then?
Hoping that Nokia doesn't come up with a medical imaging generation of
mobile telephones, I guess...
Ken
Tom Phillips
<registe...@verizon.net> wrote:
The ironic thing is Kodak is actually competing with itself.
It is one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world.
many digital cameras use Kodak sensors. It's bizarre because
as a company Kodak has seemingly split into two different
companies each competing for the same market share. The sad
thing is film was and still is Kodak's bread and butter, and
like you say they are tossing to the wind.
--
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls
>
> Donald Qualls wrote:
>>
>>All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
>>to detail to get good results.
>>
>>I've never used TP,
>
>
> Tbis is obvious.
Tom, I tell you what -- since you obviously have an agenda and would
rather advance it than discuss things rationally, I'll just bow out of
this discussion and go back to shooting and developing film that uses
the same developers and, when handled correctly, produces the same kind
of image quality as the examples I've seen of Tech Pan. Now, where'd I
put my Minolta 16 II before I moved??
Uranium Committee
> "Tom Phillips" (10/6/2004 2:29 PM) wrote:
Kodak's film marketing 'efforts' of late almost seem condescending to
film users. I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said,
'well, if Fuji wants to be the last man standing making film'.....
Pathetic.
If Kodak themselves don't believe in their own products (and they seem
not to) why should the market? Kodak should attack and attack and
attack on the benefits of film.
Ken Nadvornick
> Kodak's film marketing 'efforts' of late almost seem condescending to
> film users. I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said,
> 'well, if Fuji wants to be the last man standing making film'.....
>
> Pathetic.
>
> If Kodak themselves don't believe in their own products (and they seem
> not to) why should the market? Kodak should attack and attack and
> attack on the benefits of film.
Hi Mike,
Perhaps Kodak needs to think hard about the consequences of adding a simple
comma...
"I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said, 'well, if Fuji
wants to be the last man standing, making film'....."
Ken
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > Donald Qualls wrote:
> >>
> >>All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
> >>to detail to get good results.
> >>
> >>I've never used TP,
> >
> >
> > Tbis is obvious.
>
> Tom, I tell you what -- since you obviously have an agenda and would
> rather advance it than discuss things rationally, I'll just bow out of
> this discussion and go back to shooting and developing film that uses
> the same developers and, when handled correctly, produces the same kind
> of image quality as the examples I've seen of Tech Pan. Now, where'd I
> put my Minolta 16 II before I moved??
I'm always rational. I'd challange you to point out
where my posts are "irrational."
What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...
Donald Qualls
>
> What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
> tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
> Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
> understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
> about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
> to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
> corporate profits...
Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
multiple years to sell off a single production run, and they'd need to
redesign the film to accomodate coating on the equipment now available
(because they consolidated B&W production and it's all coated on the
machinery that makes TMX and TMY now), and it's just not cost effective
to do so? Or do you think Kodak has, for mysterious reasons of their
own, pushed the entire world photography market to the point where only
a handful of pictorial photographers and a few hundred amateur
astronomers were still using Tech Pan, just so they could arrange to
push it into the ravine with the other rusting hulks?
Kodak still coats and sells similar emulsions -- their microfilm
business is healthy and profitable, last I heard, and Imagelink HQ,
based on my experience, produces image quality very similar to what I've
seen in Tech Pan from others, including the ability to enlarge almost
without limit (though it doesn't have the same sensitivity curve as TP,
it is at least orthopanchromatic if not fully panchro -- it records
reds, for certain, but I don't recall offhand how the red response
matches up to that for green). They don't, AFAIK, sell Imagelink films
in cine perforated 35 mm (the kind you'd be used to using in a 35 mm
still camera), in other roll film sizes, or in sheet formats (unperfed
16 mm and unperfed 35 mm only, AFAIK); unlike Agfa, Kodak's microfilm
division doesn't seem to cater to personal microfilming with general
purpose camera equipment. But the capability exists, still, to produce
a film much like Tech Pan if there were sufficient demand to pay for the
development work.
Apparently, Kodak's management doesn't see that demand.
Telling me it's market manipulation is exactly the sort of "irrational"
comment I was referring to; you're seeing a conspiracy in place of
simple (or not so simple) market forces. I don't like Kodak's B&W
product line shrinkage any more than the next guy; I dislike digital for
good technical reasons, and shoot film almost exclusively. I am,
however, capable of seeing that they won't keep a line open just for me,
or even for me and a few thousand of my closest photographic buddies --
we just don't have enough clout to influence that kind of production
capacity. Smaller companies will have to fill the gap, and they'll
never have the capital to pursue having 6-7 almost-redundant B&W
emulsions the way Kodak and Ilford have done in the past. Of course,
it's the almost redundant ones that are still available, because they
sell well, and the unique one that's going, because it doesn't. Go figure.
Uranium Committee
Donald hit this squarely on the head. Tech Pan has never been a big
seller, and is difficult to use. It's no big loss.
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
> > tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
> > Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
> > understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
> > about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
> > to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
> > corporate profits...
>
> Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
> multiple years to sell off a single production run,
Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
kodak from making and selling it *before*.
As far as digital manipulation of the market, I've
posted this opinion elsewhere.
Kodaks managemernt is full of it, and has been for
quite a while.
Tom Phillips
Uranium Committee wrote:
>
> Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<Xru9d.52954$ci3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
>
> Donald hit this squarely on the head. Tech Pan has never been a big
> seller, and is difficult to use. It's no big loss.
You know so little yet talk so big.
Tech Pan was _never_ a big seller, ever. Not since day
one npor was it intended to be. That never stopped Kodak
from making it. As I keep saying, it's NOT a demand issue.
You should really learn something about the film and it's
history, not to mention photography in general, before
shooting your mouth off...
Frank Pittel
: Donald Qualls wrote:
: >
: > Tom Phillips wrote:
: > >
: > > What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: > > tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: > > Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: > > understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: > > about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: > > to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: > > corporate profits...
: >
: > Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
: > multiple years to sell off a single production run,
: Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
: kodak from making and selling it *before*.
How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the problem
that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
make it anymore.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Uranium Committee
> Uranium Committee wrote:
> >
> > Donald Qualls <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<Xru9d.52954$ci3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> > Donald hit this squarely on the head. Tech Pan has never been a big
> > seller, and is difficult to use. It's no big loss.
>
> You know so little yet talk so big.
>
> Tech Pan was _never_ a big seller, ever.
That's what I said.
> Not since day
> one npor was it intended to be.
I agree.
> That never stopped Kodak
> from making it. As I keep saying, it's NOT a demand issue.
No, it's a demand/cost of re-building issue. They CANNOT make it
anymore as it was originally formulated. Same with Kodachrome 25. To
do so would require reformulating a new film. Same with Kodachrome 25.
Other films HAVE been reformulated and re-introduced (Tri-X, Plus-X,
etc.). Their sales volume made it econmically feasible to do so. This
is no the case with Tech Pan. It's that simple.
> You should really learn something about the film and it's
> history, not to mention photography in general, before
> shooting your mouth off...
I have used it, but I found it of very little value for my kind of
work.
Donald Qualls
>
>
> You know so little yet talk so big.
Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
reflexively angry response.
Please, don't feed the troll.
Tom Phillips
Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.
Frank Pittel
Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
past.
Uranium Committee
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You know so little yet talk so big.
>
> Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
> this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
> business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
> reflexively angry response.
I agreed with you, so what's the problem?
The Wogster
Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
and process the images digitally.
I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
manner.
So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
coulds be scanned using a scanner.
W
Frank Pittel
They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
That's the only way that they can survive.
: I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
: equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
: can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
: digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
: manner.
: So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
: have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
: made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
: that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
: coulds be scanned using a scanner.
That's a very good idea. I'm very close to moving from the "wet" darkroom to the
"digital" darkroom. It's going to be a while before digital capture can compete with
4x5 and large film capture.
Tom Phillips
Kodak is killing it's own film market. markets are
*developed*, they just don't happen.
This is what you and Don Qualls fail to understand about
what's going on. George Eastman knew this very well...
Tom Phillips
Donald Qualls wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You know so little yet talk so big.
>
> Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
> this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
> business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
> reflexively angry response.
>
> Please, don't feed the troll.
He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
Michael A. Covington
"The Wogster" <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hNH9d.37140$jj2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
> equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it can
> be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process digitally
> because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg manner.
>
> So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still have
> the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be made
> compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film that
> could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but coulds be
> scanned using a scanner.
Actually it would not be hard to maintain conventional printability.
The C-41 black-and-white films come to mind. They are easier to scan than
conventional black-and-white films because of (IIRC) less maximum density;
also, infrared techniques for identifying dust and scratches work on these
films, but not conventional black-and-white.
Michael A. Covington
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:5_idnVZGrq4...@giganews.com...
> : Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
> : push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
> : Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
> : cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
> : and process the images digitally.
>
> They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move
> towards that.
> That's the only way that they can survive.
Right. It would not be good to be profitable but doomed, like a good
buggy-whip maker in 1940...
> That's a very good idea. I'm very close to moving from the "wet" darkroom
> to the
> "digital" darkroom. It's going to be a while before digital capture can
> compete with
> 4x5 and large film capture.
Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
introduced at Photokina! It's compatible with their medium format lens
system.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market. The fact is that digital
imaing is the future of photography. Within ten years film will be a niche market.
If Kodak is going to survive it has to face that reality and adjust it's business
plan to move into digital.
: This is what you and Don Qualls fail to understand about
: what's going on. George Eastman knew this very well...
I would bet that George Eastman would be moving full speed into the diital world.
The market for film is shrinking rapidly and it's rate of decline is increasing
every day.
I know you don't want to hear that it but unfortunatly it's the reality of the
world we live in.
: >
: > : I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> There's also the problem
>that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
>make it anymore.
It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
and as base ages.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
>In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
>past.
>--
Actually they already have. They hold an incredible number of
patents none of which collect an hourly wage, need a place to work or
have to contend with regulations such as those provided by the EPA.
Frank Pittel
He is being fed by the attention. The nature of the attention is irrelevent.
While I don't think this will work the only way it will work is if everyone
joins in.
Frank Pittel
: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > There's also the problem
: >that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
: >make it anymore.
: It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
: the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
: emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
: that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
: and as base ages.
My understanding is that there was an issue with the base and the interaction between
the base and the emulsion. I got this from kodak so the truth may vary. :-)
Personally I never used the film and had no intentions of ever using it. The lack of
sales of the film bear out that I'm not the only one that don't use it.
John
wrote:
>Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
> push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
>Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
>cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
>and process the images digitally.
Sorry but they are aiming at the larger market. The
snapshooter. They buy about 20,000 computers a day here in the USA and
the sales reps often add a digital camera as an incentive.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
>That's the only way that they can survive.
Companies like Kodak don't have to follow trends exactly. They
can create markets just as they have with their developments in
digital.
John
wrote:
>> Please, don't feed the troll.
>
>He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
He hasn't listened yet.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
Atlanta.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
> "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> > It's going to be a while before digital capture can
> > compete with 4x5 and large film capture.
Never happen. Pixels can't get that small.
> Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
> introduced at Photokina!
Oh gee, and my 4x5 negatives only have 20 times that resolution....
Tom Phillips
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
It's called the power of advertising. Or in Kodak's
case the lack thereof.
> The fact is that digital imaing is the future of photography.
The fact is it's not photography at all. If you think so
you should start posting in the digital ngs. Or like Covington
spout digital misinformation nonsense.
> Within ten years film will be a niche market.
> If Kodak is going to survive it has to face that reality and adjust it's business
> plan to move into digital.
>
> : This is what you and Don Qualls fail to understand about
> : what's going on. George Eastman knew this very well...
>
> I would bet that George Eastman would be moving full speed into the diital world.
> The market for film is shrinking rapidly and it's rate of decline is increasing
> every day.
Hey Frank, what I meant was Eastman understood the power
of advertising to create a market for a product. That's
what he did. The fact is Kodak is/has abandoned its film
market. That's why the film market is shrinking and that's
what I mean and what you "can't understand."
> I know you don't want to hear that it but unfortunatly it's the reality of the
> world we live in.
In ten years I'll be shooting film and you probably still
won't understand how altering development times changes
effective film speeds, most likely. Of course, when you
change effective speeds with digital all you get is
degraded image quality and noise...
I can't force understanding on people who insist
on the herd mentality (digital or otherwise.) Silver
hailides is a superior pictorial imaging medium. Period.
Tom Phillips
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Donald Qualls wrote:
> : >
> : > Tom Phillips wrote:
> : >
> : > >
> : > >
> : > > You know so little yet talk so big.
> : >
> : > Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
> : > this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
> : > business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
> : > reflexively angry response.
> : >
> : > Please, don't feed the troll.
>
> : He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
>
> He is being fed by the attention.
You should talk...
Tom Phillips
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
> : On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
> : <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> : > There's also the problem
> : >that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
> : >make it anymore.
>
> : It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
> : the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
> : emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
> : that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
> : and as base ages.
>
> My understanding is that there was an issue with the base and the interaction between
> the base and the emulsion. I got this from kodak so the truth may vary. :-)
Nonsense. I talked to kodak film engineers going way
back about tech pan. Never heard of such.
> Personally I never used the film and had no intentions of ever using it. The lack of
> sales of the film bear out that I'm not the only one that don't use it.
Likely you would not know how to use it.
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:23:20 -0500, Frank Pittel
> <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> >They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
> >That's the only way that they can survive.
>
> Companies like Kodak don't have to follow trends exactly. They
> can create markets just as they have with their developments in
> digital.
My point exactly.
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:42:42 -0600, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Please, don't feed the troll.
> >
> >He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
>
> He hasn't listened yet.
true. But I felt better saying it :-)
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
> <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
>
> Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
> Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
> years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
> Atlanta.
Forget it, John. Like you aptly said about the troll
> He hasn't listened yet..
Gregory W Blank
Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> George Eastman knew this very well...
Is that why he offed himself ?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Donald Qualls
> Frank Pittel wrote:
>
>>How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
>>problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
>>the equipment to make it anymore.
>
>
> Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.
No, you're right, Kodak is making quite a lot of money on film in
general. The point was about Tech Pan in particular. How long should
they continue to carry a product that loses money every time they make a
batch, and how much development money should they put into the
alterations necessary to coat that money-losing product on the equipment
now available (same machinery that makes TMX and TMY)?
Basic points: it now takes longer than two years to sell off a single
production batch of Tech Pan in any given format (and 35 mm, 120, and
4x5 must be made seperately, at least at the coating step, because
they're coated on three different bases). Kodak takes a loss for every
roll that expires in their warehouse. They spend money continuously to
cold-store the film both before it's cut and packaged and between
packaging and shipping to distributors. Kodak closed the plant where
Tech Pan was last made, has sold off the machinery (for scrap, most
likely; there isn't much market for well-used film coating machines
these days, I'd guess), and would need to make significant changes
(read, spend a lot of money) to make Tech Pan again on the machinery now
in use for other B&W emulsions (Plus-X, 400TX, 320TXP, TMX, TMY, and TMZ
P3200 are now all coated in the same plant, apparently, at least in the
USA).
If in fact Kodak is using profit from film to carry digital (presumably
in hopes of digital becoming profitable before they run film completely
into the ground), it makes even less sense to continue to prop up a film
that loses money. A public corporation simply can't justify that unless
the product in question is so closely tied to the corporate name and
image that discontinuing it would cause significant loss of market
volume on other products (can't think of an example offhand, because I
don't follow corporate operations in any detail, generally).
I personally don't have much use for a film that has to be shot at EI 25
(or up to EI 80 or so if I futz around with exotic development); I
tolerate it in my 16 mm cameras because I don't have access to anything
much better (I now get EI 100 with Copex Rapid), but for my money, with
modern materials, ISO 100 is almost too slow; I *like* using one film
from daylight to well lit interiors, over the whole range my meters work
(Gossen Sixtomat and the internal meter in my Spottie, both drop off at
about the level of a kitchen with two 75 W bulbs in the overhead
fixture, around EV 3 or 4 on ISO 100), hand held with a fast lens. I
dislike needing a tripod on a camera that doesn't have a cable release
socket (all Minolta 16 models), and I'm willing to accept some grain in
shots from a 10x14 mm negative as the price of having a robust, fully
manual camera I can carry in my shirt pocket all the time (and afford).
If I could get TMX and TMY already cut in 16 mm, and get one of those
emulsions in 9x12 cm, I'd never need anything but Plus-X, Tri-X, TMX and
TMY.
Your mileage may vary, but it won't bring back Tech Pan, because Kodak
isn't going to spend development money to continue losing money on every
production run. It's as simple as that, and while I dislike a lot of
what they're doing with/to film, I can't disagree with this decision.
--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.
Donald Qualls
>
> markets are
> *developed*, they just don't happen.
>
> This is what you and Don Qualls fail to understand about
> what's going on. George Eastman knew this very well...
>
I'm certain he did. That's why he pushed "everyman" photography when
the accepted wisdom was that photography was too difficult, complicated,
and expensive for Aunt Mabel to be able to take pictures. That's why he
spent money on film technology when the smart money was on improving
glass plates. That's why he created dozens of film formats and then
dropped the cameras that used them after finding which ones gained
acceptance -- and, of course, eventually dropped the film for those
obsolete cameras after sales dropped off. Tried to buy 122 film lately?
Large format on a roll, and Kodak's cameras for it were quite good; it
used to be pretty popular. Hasn't been made in about 30 years...
I agree with Frank on this one; George would have had Kodak pushing for
digital fifteen years ago, making cameras that would out-compete the
Sony Mavica (and yes, losing money on them initially) back when storing
images on a diskette right in the camera seemed like a sane method --
except George would have found a cheaper way to store the images, or one
with much more capacity, that would have required spending a little more
money with Kodak every so often, but not so much as to drive customers
to other suppliers -- I'm guessing a form of write-once storage would
have filled his bill.
I don't like what digital is doing to film, because I like film -- I
like the smells of a darkroom, I like handling the film and paper, I
like being able to see the image the camera made with my eyes instead of
having to use a bunch of machinery just to look at the picture. I like
the feel of doing it myself instead of depending on a bunch of software
I couldn't write in a couple years of full time, even if I were still up
to date with modern programming tools. But I don't hold any illusions
that film isn't becoming a niche market; I just hold out hope I won't
get priced out of it and have to take up a cheaper hobby (again), at
least within my lifetime (40-50 years, max, barring significant
developments in life extension).
Donald Qualls
>
> "Michael A. Covington" wrote:
>
>>"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>It's going to be a while before digital capture can
>>>compete with 4x5 and large film capture.
>
>
> Never happen. Pixels can't get that small.
I think I recall hearing that about the feature size needed to make the
300 MHz Pentium II chip (about five years ago). Now we're on Pentium 6,
overclockers running liquid cooled chips at 4 GHz; we can put a GB of
RAM on a single module of a physical size that used to hold 64 MB. Yes,
there's a physics limit to how small you can make the components on an
IC -- we're not there yet, though that limit is in sight (another couple
generations, call it five to eight years). By then we'll be able to put
around 60 MP on an APS size sensor (i.e. the same ones in most DSLRs);
still not really competitive with 4x5 (which goes several hundred MP at
4000 ppi), but beyond the limits of film at 6x4.5 and competitive with
6x7 -- you can only make dye clouds or silver grains so small, too. The
limitation at that point will be the lenses -- we'll need a lens with
about 3x the resolution of the common high quality lenses currently
available in 35 mm formats to do justice to that kind of sensor. And of
course those cameras will cost $20k or more when they first come out...
>>Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
>>introduced at Photokina!
I've heard it's around $12,000, but isn't actually available for sale
yet, even in Japan. And that's the same pixel count as the current top
of the line DSLRs that use 35 mm compatible lenses, with a similar zoom
factor from 6x4.5 to what we get with DSLRs compared to 35 mm film;
they've just spread the pixels a bit on a larger chip, and mounted it in
a body compatible with the Mamiya 6x4.5 system.
>
> Oh gee, and my 4x5 negatives only have 20 times that resolution....
Yep, large format is probably going to be safe for a long time, because
there are limits that can't be exceeded (based on the sizes of atoms,
tunneling thresholds, etc., you can't make chip features smaller than X
or the chip just won't work, not matter how you find a way to actually
make the features that small; if you want a smaller device, you need to
make it work some other way than CMOS electronics at 1.3 V -- and the
bigger you make a chip, the more nearly impossible it is to get one
without defects that make it unusable; the physically largest image
sensors ever made are only about 6x6 cm, and they cost a couple million
dollars each, as bare chips). There's some gain to be had by making
sensors that can be joined edge to edge, but that pushes costs up, too,
and has other limitations.
Makes me love my 9x12 cameras even more, and lust after a good 4x5...
Donald Qualls
For his psychology, that's feeding him. Like a child that writes on the
wall with a crayon *because* he knows it will get him screamed at an
paddled (but at least not ignored), he gets what he wants when you tell
him to shut up, rather than to simply ignore him.
If you feed him, he'll keep coming back for more. If you quit feeding
him, he'll eventually go away.
dr bob
"Donald Qualls" <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:HxR9d.54772$ci3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> >
> > "Michael A. Covington" wrote:
> >
> >>"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> >>Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that
Mamiya
> >>introduced at Photokina!
>
> I've heard it's around $12,000, but isn't actually available for sale
> yet, even in Japan. And that's the same pixel count as the current top
> of the line DSLRs that use 35 mm compatible lenses, with a similar zoom
> factor from 6x4.5 to what we get with DSLRs compared to 35 mm film;
> they've just spread the pixels a bit on a larger chip, and mounted it in
> a body compatible with the Mamiya 6x4.5 system.
>
Well, as I have no need for instant gratification, when the digital world
comes in with the equipment I would need to produce an 11x14 print at the
same resolution, acutance et cetera, that I can presently get with a used
4x5 ($150) with a couple of good lenses ($400). printed with a used enlarger
($200) with a good lens ($250), total = $1000, I'll consider buying in.
Until then it'll be "smell the fixer". I love the smell of fixer in the
morning. It smells like - creativity.
Truly, dr bob.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: >
: > John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
: > : On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
: > : <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: > : > There's also the problem
: > : >that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
: > : >make it anymore.
: >
: > : It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
: > : the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
: > : emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
: > : that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
: > : and as base ages.
: >
: > My understanding is that there was an issue with the base and the interaction between
: > the base and the emulsion. I got this from kodak so the truth may vary. :-)
: Nonsense. I talked to kodak film engineers going way
: back about tech pan. Never heard of such.
Take a look at their announcement of discontinuation.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.jhtml
: > Personally I never used the film and had no intentions of ever using it. The lack of
: > sales of the film bear out that I'm not the only one that don't use it.
: Likely you would not know how to use it.
Why do you say that?
Frank Pittel
: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:23:20 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
: >That's the only way that they can survive.
: Companies like Kodak don't have to follow trends exactly. They
: can create markets just as they have with their developments in
: digital.
The move from film to digital photography is one that can't be ignored. The survival
of the company is at stake. Remember Bell & Howell?? They made the finest movie camera
and projectors on the market. When VCRs cam out they couldn't shift and the huge
company all but died and will never again be what it was.
Frank Pittel
: "Michael A. Covington" wrote:
: >
: > "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: > > It's going to be a while before digital capture can
: > > compete with 4x5 and large film capture.
: Never happen. Pixels can't get that small.
Never say never.
: > Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
: > introduced at Photokina!
: Oh gee, and my 4x5 negatives only have 20 times that resolution....
--
Frank Pittel
??? Does disagreeing with you make me a troll?? Or are you so right that anyone that
could possibly have a different opinion is mentally inferior?? Like most of the people
here I continue to use film for image capture and print on fiber paper in a wet
darkroom. I'm sure that we agree on the movement away from film towards digital.
I suspect the difference between us in this is that I accept that the shift is
inevitable<SP?> and to try and stop it would be like trying to stop the tide by
standing on the beach and push the water back with a broom.
The Wogster
> The Wogster <wogs...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> : Frank Pittel wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : Donald Qualls wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Tom Phillips wrote:
> : > : > : > > What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
> : > : > : > > tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
> : > : > : > > Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
> : > : > : > > understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
> : > : > : > > about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
> : > : > : > > to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
> : > : > : > > corporate profits...
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
> : > : > : > taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,
> : > : >
> : > : > : Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
> : > : > : kodak from making and selling it *before*.
> : > : >
> : > : > How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
> : > : > the equipment to make it anymore.
> : >
> : >
> : > Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
> : > In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
> : > past.
>
> : Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
> : cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
> : and process the images digitally.
>
> That's the only way that they can survive.
I don't know if digital is it though, the problem with digital is that
once I buy the camera, a oouple of batteries and a half dozen memory
cards, my expenses are pretty much over. There are no direct
consumables for digital. What consumables there are, like CD-R's,
Inkjet paper and ink are markets with very heavy competition.
>
> : I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
> : equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
> : can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
> : digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
> : manner.
>
> : So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
> : have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
> : made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
> : that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
> : coulds be scanned using a scanner.
>
> That's a very good idea. I'm very close to moving from the "wet" darkroom to the
> "digital" darkroom. It's going to be a while before digital capture can compete with
> 4x5 and large film capture.
True, a 4x5 scanned at 2400DPI produces a 115MP image, compare that to
the best of digicams, with 8MP and you can see where the quality is.
Another issue, a 6cm x 6cm negative scanned at 4800DPI is 128MP. So
maybe serious photographers should move to MF equipment, only problem
glass for MF cameras is hideously expensive. Other problem, the two
biggest "pro" dealers here in town don't even list new MF equipment on
their websites, and used stuff runs a minimum of 2 large for body, one
lens and back.
One interesting point, nobody seems to make a film scanner that is large
enough to accomodate a 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film. Even flatbeds have
negative lighting that is at most 6x9. There is a real market here, and
nobody seems to want to fill it.
Rather then eliminating all sizes.Another issue, the film makers seem
to want to get rid of sheet film, I think the idea might be fewer sizes.
For example an 8x10 sheet can be cut in the darkroom into 4 4x5
sheets. A 16x20 sheet can be cut into 16 4x5 sheets. So if you made
11x14 and 16x20 then users could cut to fit. I think film manufacturers
want film to fail.
W
John
wrote:
>> : He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
>>
>> He is being fed by the attention.
>
>You should talk...
Chill
John
wrote:
Did I miss some little spat during my absence ?
Frank Pittel
: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
: Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
: Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
: years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
: Atlanta.
All the promotion in the world wouldn't have help the buggy whip makers
in the 1920's
Frank Pittel
John
<sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The point was about Tech Pan in particular. How long should
>they continue to carry a product that loses money every time they make a
>batch, and how much development money should they put into the
>alterations necessary to coat that money-losing product on the equipment
>now available (same machinery that makes TMX and TMY)?
They're not losing any money in the sense that the film
doesn't return a profit. It's just this whole thing about high growth
has stockholders and corporate America demanding an unrealistic ROI.
Really stupid considering most businesses are based on the McDonalds
merchandizing principles.
Just for an exercise, imagine that Kodak ran off a few spools
of 5" wide Tech Pan. They can the reels and store them in a 55F
refrigerated storage facility. Something that I'm sure Kodak has
plenty of.
That film would easily last 25~30 years on storage. They can
ask what they want for the product as it's now a limited production
item. Much like they've done with Azo. Limited sizes and limited
availability = higher pricing and higher profits on lower volume.
Frankly, I don't understand what these companies have a
problem with.Market the products through their websites. Increase the
pricing on products like Galerie and make it in boxes of 100 sheets
only. All sizes. 8X10/100, 11X14/100, 16X20/100. I'd easily pay $2.00
per sheet of 11X14 Galerie if it would help guarantee the availability
and quality that I've come to expect.
What I'd give for I;ford to make me a run of 5X7 Pan F+ !!!!
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
>: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
>: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
>: >I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
>
>: Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
>: Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
>: years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
>: Atlanta.
>
>
>All the promotion in the world wouldn't have help the buggy whip makers
>in the 1920's
Buggy whip makers were dependant on horses and buggies. Film
is not a dependant medium. The 35mm format has survived since its'
invention by Edison in 1889. The only things that film is dependant on
are silver, gelatin, acetate and customer demand.
John
<sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> That's why he created dozens of film formats and then
>dropped the cameras that used them after finding which ones gained
>acceptance -- and, of course, eventually dropped the film for those
>obsolete cameras after sales dropped off.
He invested "seed money" into promoting niche markets that the
public never needed. Much like digital. The 35mm, 120/127, 4X5, 5X7,
8X10 formats were already a standard by 1930. There was no real need
for another format as can plainly be seen today. In fact I really
don't understand why they created the APS standard film smaller than
35mm. They could have added the technology to the 35mm film and
marketed it as "new & improved".
>Tried to buy 122 film lately?
> Large format on a roll, and Kodak's cameras for it were quite good; it
>used to be pretty popular. Hasn't been made in about 30 years...
Umm, 5" rolls were available until about 5 years ago. I have
the Kodak list of products around here somewhere. Also note that 70mm
X 100' rolls of Tri-X are still available.
John
<sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Makes me love my 9x12 cameras even more, and lust after a good 4x5...
I just so happen to have a Speed Graphic that needs a good
home ;>)
Frank Pittel
: On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:01:31 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >John <use...@puresilver.org> wrote:
: >: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
: >: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
: >
: >: Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
: >: Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
: >: years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
: >: Atlanta.
: >
: >
: >All the promotion in the world wouldn't have help the buggy whip makers
: >in the 1920's
: Buggy whip makers were dependant on horses and buggies. Film
: is not a dependant medium. The 35mm format has survived since its'
: invention by Edison in 1889. The only things that film is dependant on
: are silver, gelatin, acetate and customer demand.
A better example would be buggy makers. :-) I do wish that Kodak would do
more to promote film.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>: >They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
>: >That's the only way that they can survive.
>
>: Companies like Kodak don't have to follow trends exactly. They
>: can create markets just as they have with their developments in
>: digital.
>
>The move from film to digital photography is one that can't be ignored. The survival
>of the company is at stake. Remember Bell & Howell?? They made the finest movie camera
>and projectors on the market. When VCRs cam out they couldn't shift and the huge
>company all but died and will never again be what it was.
And hopefully I'm clear that Kodak will never again be the
same. They need to diversify and downsize as fast as possible. They
cannot compete with the combined marketing efforts of Canon, Hewlett
Packard, Dell, Epson and the hundreds of other companies that are
heavily invested in supporting digital imaging.
But ...... (!)
That is not to say that they need to abandon the niche market
of film-based photography. In fact nothing could be further from the
truth. IMO, the time is right for them to make somewhat of a push back
into that market. People have gotten somewhat tired of dealing with
PC's what with their software and hardware needs. It's far easier to
shoot a roll of film and drop it into the lab where someone that is
trained can get great results from virtually any decently exposed 35mm
color negative film.
Letsee, should I shoot digital which will be available
instantly (like a Polaroid) but necessitate that I learn how to use
graphic editors like Paint Shop Pro Studio (the amateur version of
PSP) and then print them on my inkjet printer that uses cartridges
costing around $28 each and still doesn't look as good as a real
photograph ?
The fact is that both have their niche. Digital is great for
emailing or posting to Ebay. Film is best for image quality and
arcival stability. Of course B-&-W film is the best (IMO) for artistic
endeavors.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>: > > It's going to be a while before digital capture can
>: > > compete with 4x5 and large film capture.
>
>: Never happen. Pixels can't get that small.
>
>Never say never.
I concur. 65nm technology is around the corner. Down from the
130nm and 90nm in use for the past 2 years. It's a matter of time
before Intel and others break the 50nm scaling. But that's just
wiring. I don't know about CMOS/CCD's/whatever.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>: >: >I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.
>: >
>: >: Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
>: >: Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
>: >: years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
>: >: Atlanta.
>: >
>: >
>: >All the promotion in the world wouldn't have help the buggy whip makers
>: >in the 1920's
>
>: Buggy whip makers were dependant on horses and buggies. Film
>: is not a dependant medium. The 35mm format has survived since its'
>: invention by Edison in 1889. The only things that film is dependant on
>: are silver, gelatin, acetate and customer demand.
>
>
>A better example would be buggy makers. :-) I do wish that Kodak would do
>more to promote film.
Even so there were numerous reasons (sanitation and comfort
were the two most important though) to supplant the horse as a mode of
transportation . Not that the car was better for the time. Heck, in
1910 the roads were still very poor and most of America wasn't even
reachable by car. In fact the dependability of the horse kept it
around for another 20 years outside of the cities as many found autos
too much work for too little return. Frequent flats, broken gears and
axles and generally less capable than a horse.
Sound familiar ?
Film is more capable and the resulting images more durable.
For now.
John
<f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>I suspect the difference between us in this is that I accept that the shift is
>inevitable<SP?> and to try and stop it would be like trying to stop the tide by
>standing on the beach and push the water back with a broom.
I think you're right in that this is the source of
differences. I personally don't see the migration to digital as
inevitable. I see it as something I've already done for some of my
work but not for my art. It's not an artistic medium for me. It's
work.
Should manufacturers stop producing film and papers I assume
that I will have to coat my own plates as I'm certainly not going to
try to make a quality digital image. And yes, I have a 6MP Fuji
FinePix something-or-other.
Uranium Committee
> Donald Qualls wrote:
> >
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You know so little yet talk so big.
> >
> > Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
> > this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
> > business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
> > reflexively angry response.
> >
> > Please, don't feed the troll.
>
> He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.
Why should I? I know more than you do, after all.
Uranium Committee
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
> <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> > There's also the problem
> >that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
> >make it anymore.
>
> the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
> emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
> that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
> and as base ages.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The new equipment uses
completely different formulations. Rebuilding the film would be
necessary.
Donald Qualls
>
> A better example would be buggy makers. :-) I do wish that Kodak would do
> more to promote film.
Well;, and buggy makers aren't *completely* gone even now -- there are
still markets for well made, modern buggies (the Amish and Hutterite
country across the north to northeast part of the US, ranging even into
Nebraska and Kansas -- many/most Amish communities and some Hutterites
reject innovations like automobiles and continue to use, repair, and
yes, occasionally purchase horse-drawn buggies (though most get very
little use out of a whip, having long ago learned the horse pulls better
from desire to please than from pain).
OTOH, the entire Amish and Hutterite culture probably has just about
enough consumption (given that there aren't many of them, and that
buggies are remarkably durable because they aren't operated at high
speeds and don't have engines to wear out, as well as being repairable
by a competent carpenter and blacksmith) to keep one buggy maker operating.
Film to come to that point -- just enough business, worldwide, to keep
one coating plant operating (probably part time, but at least making
enough to keep the machines up between coating runs), all sales via
Internet, no product stocked locally anywhere. It would be annoying
(run out of film and it'll take up to a couple weeks to arrive,
depending where you are relative to the one remaining vendor), but
livable, if the price doesn't go out of sight.
Problem is, it will. Check what a buggy costs these days -- almost as
much as an economy car, even though it has no engine or transmission and
contains about 50% less material than the corresponding portion of a
modern automobile. Two factors; high fraction of hand labor in
production, and small volume.
Film breaks this analogy, a bit; the making of film, for the most part,
isn't labor intensive at all (at least if there's enough demand to work
the way it's done now). A few people feed and adjust the machinery, and
few more package and ship the completed stock. But you still have to
maintain the machinery year 'round, even if you only run a few batches
of film per year -- and it costs more per unit to make, stock, and ship
a product that sells slowly than one that sells rapidly. In the end, as
film is marginalized, it will cost more, which will tend to reduce sales
still further as the less committed or the less prosperous are forced
out of the market by the price.
All this, of course, assuming film doesn't undergo a renaissance as an
art medium. It's worth recalling that there are more painters (portrait
and landscape type, not house painters) making a living at it now than
there were in 1800, in spite of photography. They had some lean times,
but it's easier to become a working srtist in painting now than it was,
say, 50 years ago. The same thing might happen to photography in spite
of the march of digital. I just hope it doesn't take two hundred years...
Donald Qualls
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:03:35 GMT, Donald Qualls
> <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That's why he created dozens of film formats and then
>>dropped the cameras that used them after finding which ones gained
>>acceptance -- and, of course, eventually dropped the film for those
>>obsolete cameras after sales dropped off.
>
>
> He invested "seed money" into promoting niche markets that the
> public never needed. Much like digital. The 35mm, 120/127, 4X5, 5X7,
> 8X10 formats were already a standard by 1930. There was no real need
> for another format as can plainly be seen today. In fact I really
> don't understand why they created the APS standard film smaller than
> 35mm. They could have added the technology to the 35mm film and
> marketed it as "new & improved".
And he made it back by selling the film (often the same width stock as
another existing format, but with a different backing, framing track,
and in-camera frame mask, a couple times just with a different spool,
like 620). The camera was never the goal, it was film, just like
Gillette made their money on the blades, never on the razors (still do,
I shouldn't wonder, at $2 a refill for a Mach III or whatever their
answer is to that useless "improvement").
And no, other than 16 mm, which was doing very well until Kodak killed
it with the poor quality cameras marketed for 110, there really hasn't
been a need for additional formats, though 35 mm "double frame" was
really a standard in 1930; the Leica that made that standard a standard
(including the cassette, rewind system, etc.) didn't come out until
1929, and the standard didn't have clear market dominance until almost
the start of WWII. There were still cameras being made for Rapid
cassettes and the Karat system into the 1950s (or 1960s -- Olympus had
some Pen single frame, er, half-frame models that used Rapid cassettes,
but I don't recall when they were made). Didn't keep Kodak and others
from introducing them, though -- from 828 (unperfed 35 mm in a roll
back, and only 8 shots on a tiny spool) to 126 (828 updated to 28 mm
square images, and a rapid loading cassette that greatly simplified
things for the thumb-fingered) to 110 and Disk. APS wasn't that big a
surprise to me -- it was Yet Another Attempted Proprietary Format,
intended to sell Kodak (only) film for a while until everyone else got
set up to cut 24 mm film and magnetic coat it on the back, after which
no one at Kodak cared if APS lived or died (but they were prepared to
make film for it for as long as it sold well).
Film has never been all that orderly a market; in fact, the current
situation (127, 126, and 110 all down to one manufacturer each, the
writing on the wall for APS, and everything else not on your list above
long gone) is the first time in the past century there haven't been
multiple choices in approximately the same frame size (127 still more or
less duplicates half frame 120, but that's the only real overlap).
>>Tried to buy 122 film lately?
>> Large format on a roll, and Kodak's cameras for it were quite good; it
>>used to be pretty popular. Hasn't been made in about 30 years...
>
>
> Umm, 5" rolls were available until about 5 years ago. I have
> the Kodak list of products around here somewhere. Also note that 70mm
> X 100' rolls of Tri-X are still available.
And glass plates (T-Max 100 on 4x5) were discontinued only two years
ago. And you can still get a lot of things that aren't on that list --
aero film is sold in long rolls in several widths that can be cut down
to feed odd formats, as long as you have a source of backing paper and
spools, and it's available because there are still surveillance cameras
and users of them that need film (and not just the government, either).
One of the widths is 5" -- all you need to keep a Cirkut running is
spools and backing paper, and a way to measure a long piece of wide film
in the dark. Doesn't mean Kodak is supporting 5" roll film, just that
they're still selling another product for which there's demand, and
which is easily converted. Same thing with 16 mm -- they still sell B&W
movie film in 16 mm, which is usable in most 16 mm cameras (other than
110, which mostly depends on one perforation per frame, a system
originated with 828 in the 1930s); that doesn't mean they're support
Minolta or Mamiya or Rollei 16 mm formats, just that a supported film
can be converted without undue effort.
It's always been about the film. Now, it's about the cameras, because
digital doesn't use up anything you have to go back to Kodak to get.
Maybe if George were still running the place, Kodak would have become
the premiere maker of high capacity batteries in proprietary sizes, so
consumers would have to buy their batteries from Kodak, or accept
shorter life with the "other" brand. In fact, they might well have
bought out Duracell by now...