Kodak in big trouble financially; mounting losses on sales of digital cameras and APS part of the problem
SPECTRUM
gary cruse wrote in article <33dde530....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> Their imaging products are not the
> best in the world. Defend them at
> the risk of your own credibility.
Hmmm. I guess all of Hollywood and all of the other movie manufacturers
are out of line as well. Aren't 98% of the worlds movies made on Eastman
Kodak film ? And can a movie producer afford to remake a scene or even an
entire movie because the purchased the "inferior" Kodak film ? I don't think
you would find any agreement in the movie industry. And I don't really think
it's a matter of opinion with them. They depend on thier films every single
day to deliver . In every way that you mentioned and probably more. The same
as I depend on them for my wedding/portrait/commercial work. I did use Fuji
once.
And PLEASE. Don't quote Ted Koppel in public. It's not decent !
--
Regards,
John S.
Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
1- 908 - 505 - 8393
http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
!! World Field Photographers Association !!
"For the photographer who likes to live large ! "
http://www1.tip.nl/~t487331/frame.htm
Joshua_Putnam
>gary cruse wrote in article <33dde530....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Their imaging products are not the
>> best in the world. Defend them at
>> the risk of your own credibility.
> Hmmm. I guess all of Hollywood and all of the other movie manufacturers
>are out of line as well. Aren't 98% of the worlds movies made on Eastman
>Kodak film ?
Judging by the Subject: and the Newsgroups: lines, this was
posted to all the wrong groups in the first place. As the
Subject notes, Kodak's troubles are mainly with APS and digital
imaging, not film per se, and certainly not with their
bread-and-butter products like standard 35mm films, movie films
or professional films.
In any case they're hardly "in big trouble financially" as the
original poster claimed. Yes, earnings from continuing
operations are below last year's levels, though still above 1995
levels, but the company is profitable and its balance sheet is
stronger than most. The real trouble for the company's stock,
which has taken a beating lately, came from inflated analyst
estimates of earnings growth that pushed the stock unreasonably
high before the earnings release. The company itself hasn't
been predicting earnings much if any higher than last year's.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh
Arved Grass
SPECTRUM wrote:
>
> gary cruse wrote in article <33dde530....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > Their imaging products are not the
> > best in the world. Defend them at
> > the risk of your own credibility.
>
> Hmmm. I guess all of Hollywood and all of the other movie manufacturers
> are out of line as well. Aren't 98% of the worlds movies made on Eastman
> Kodak film ?
Maybe, but does this really matter? Can you compare what's necessary
for the movie industry to your needs? Do use Seattle Film works film to
shoot your weddings?
The still films bear little resemblence to what's used in the movie
industry. I don't think there's even much carry over in the technology
from still to movie or back.
> And can a movie producer afford to remake a scene or even an
> entire movie because the purchased the "inferior" Kodak film ? I don't think
> you would find any agreement in the movie industry. And I don't really think
> it's a matter of opinion with them. They depend on thier films every single
> day to deliver . In every way that you mentioned and probably more. The same
> as I depend on them for my wedding/portrait/commercial work. I did use Fuji
> once.
Yeah, and what didn't you like about it? Was it a modern emulsion, like
NPS or NPH? I have yet to try many color emulsions for my self, but
I've been very happy with the results I've had with Fuji NPS and NPH. I
have yet to shoot some VPS or other Kodak film side-by-side yet to
compare.
I did see some 8x10s of NPH compared to Fuji's Super G 400 and Kodak's
Pro 400 speed film, and I thought the Kodak was better than the Super G
(less contrast, and but better tone seperation). NPH had the best skin
tones, so I'd probably use it for portraits and weddings, but the
non-skin tones (wood furniture, colored clothes, etc) looked better on
the Kodak, so I'd probably use it for commercial work.
The limited color work that I'm doing right now is with Fuji NPH.
- Arved
--
Electronic mail sent to this account are automatically retreived by a
FAX machine, under the definition of Title 47 USC Sec.227 (a)(2)(B).
Therefore, unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address
is in violation of Title 47 USC Sec. 227.
Arved can be reached at "ar...@Fair.Net" and Anna can be reached at
"Yoda...@Juno.Com"
SPECTRUM
Arved Grass wrote in article <33DE68...@heaven.org>...
>SPECTRUM wrote:
>>
>> gary cruse wrote in article
<33dde530....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> > Their imaging products are not the
>> > best in the world. Defend them at
>> > the risk of your own credibility.
>>
>> Hmmm. I guess all of Hollywood and all of the other movie
manufacturers
>> are out of line as well. Aren't 98% of the worlds movies made on Eastman
>> Kodak film ?
>
>Maybe, but does this really matter? Can you compare what's necessary
>for the movie industry to your needs? Do use Seattle Film works film to
>shoot your weddings?
>
Absolutely ! Perhaps it a different film than we use for straight
photography, and sometimes not BTW , but we're speaking of quality here.
Quality that doesn't fluctuate causing color and speed variations whose
effects would be felt all over a long piece of film like a movie.
>The still films bear little resemblence to what's used in the movie
>industry. I don't think there's even much carry over in the technology
>from still to movie or back.
Some of the smaller movie makers still use color negative films for
short run, commercial type films.
>
>
>> And can a movie producer afford to remake a scene or even an
>> entire movie because the purchased the "inferior" Kodak film ? I don't
think
>> you would find any agreement in the movie industry. And I don't really
think
>> it's a matter of opinion with them. They depend on thier films every
single
>> day to deliver . In every way that you mentioned and probably more. The
same
>> as I depend on them for my wedding/portrait/commercial work. I did use
Fuji
>> once.
>
>Yeah, and what didn't you like about it? Was it a modern emulsion, like
>NPS or NPH?
It was one of the amatuer versions.Super G 400. The color balance just
wouldn't print right. I had it developed and printed at a pro lab to which I
sent it back and told them to get the pink out. Thier reply was that I
shouldn't have used the Fuji in the first place. And then tried to CC the
prints but to little effect.
I have yet to try many color emulsions for my self, but
>I've been very happy with the results I've had with Fuji NPS and NPH. I
>have yet to shoot some VPS or other Kodak film side-by-side yet to
>compare.
I think you'll find that when you get dialed in on Kodak, PRN, PMC, PPF
or PMZ that you'll have truer color balancing.
Mitch & Amy
Are Kodak and Silver Pharmaceuticals still of the same lineage?
Cheers,
MItchell
PDJalbert
Kodak retired scientist selling out T grain technology to Fuji didn't help
Kodak's financial posture.
Richard Knoppow
pdja...@aol.com (PDJalbert) wrote:
>Kodak retired scientist selling out T grain technology to Fuji didn't help
>Kodak's financial posture.
It would be interesting to know the source of this story. (I am not
saying it isn't true, but I would like some place to look up the
details). I don't know how much of Kodak's technology is protected by
patent and how much is proprietary these days. Patents run for
seventeen years after which the technology covered becomes public
domain. Trade secrets are good until someone figures out what you are
doing or finds a better way. Selling trade secret information by an
employee or former employee who was entrusted with it is a big-time
crime. He/she can be sued for recovery of the owner's losses and can
face criminal charges. The company buying and using it can also face
serious charges and law suits. If Fuji could be proven to be using
stolen proprietary processes of an American company one would think
the importation of their products into this country would be
jeapordized. Certainly Kodak could demand such action.
It is interesting that Ilford developed something very similar to
T-grain apparently independantly. I rather think that Fuji, which is
a much larger company, is also capable of original research,
especially when it is known that a process is possible.
I suspect that with the analysis methods available to a modern
chemist working for a major photo supplier that the big four don't
have very many secrets from each other.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <19970808042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Jarinb <jar...@aol.com> wrote:
>By the way, I've compared Fuji and Kodak movie films-the fuji holds much
>more color saturation and 'punch'. Some, seeing the projected Fuji film,
>thought they were seeing reversal film.
You mean it has blown-out contrast and ridiculous oversaturation just like
many Fuji films for still photography?
Of course, Kodak is following in this trend as quickly as they can. I sure
do _hope_ it doesn't infect their movie film.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Richard Knoppow
jar...@aol.com (Jarinb) wrote:
>By the way, I've compared Fuji and Kodak movie films-the fuji holds much
>more color saturation and 'punch'. Some, seeing the projected Fuji film,
>thought they were seeing reversal film.
>
>Fuji movie film is becoming more widespread. Many TV shows use it, as well
>as some feature films. Cinematographers also tend to stick to the film
>stock that they know best.
>Just a side note.
>
>
Fuji has been offered as an alternative print stock for theatrical
motion pictures for some years now. There are so many variables in
lab practices that I don't think I could tell which release print
stock was used for a movie just by looking at it.
Jean-David Beyer
If anyone really cares how much Eastman Kodak is in, you might read their
latest Form 10-k, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any
deceit in such a form is a federal offense, so these forms are extremely
unlikely to have misstatements of fact, expecially from a company such
as E.K.Co. The latest Form 10-k is available at URL:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/0000031235-97-000001.txt
It is quite long, but it contains a lot of information that
investors would want to be familiar with before buying or keeping
the stock.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Jarinb
Ray Ford
Gary Gaugler wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 09:34:39 +0900, at <tan...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >>
> >> pdja...@aol.com (PDJalbert) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kodak retired scientist selling out T grain technology to Fuji didn't help
> >> >Kodak's financial posture.
> >> I suspect that with the analysis methods available to a modern
> >> chemist working for a major photo supplier that the big four don't
> >> have very many secrets from each other.
> >good faith of the original poster, but I really have my reservations
> >about it's veracity. From my position here in Japan I follow the
> >Japanese industry fairly closely. Fuji is fully capable of
> >reverse-engineering just about anything in the market without resorting to ill-gotten corporate secrets.
> >
> >Best,
> >Adrian T.
> >Tokyo
>
> I doubt that the Fuji folks are toiling over any Kodak products to emulate.
> Why bother reverse engineering substandard products? There are niches where
> Kodak media serves its users and that is fine. But the niche is very small.
>
> Gary Gaugler
Kodak products fill a small niche? What color is the sky in your
world?
As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label on
Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
emulsions?
Rpf
--
The following is only for spam, and is not personally directed.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227 (a) (2) (b), a computer, modem, or
printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By US
Code Title 47, Sec.227 (a) (2) (b), it is unlawful to send any
unsolicited commercial advertisement to such equipment.
Gary Gaugler
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
e-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com (foils bulk e-mailers)
Note: all prodigy.com domains are filtered out by mail reader
Jarinb
-You mean it has blown-out contrast and ridiculous oversaturation just
----like
-many Fuji films for still photography?
I've never understood why you would want a color film with less color. If
you're going to make a color photograph, make it a -color- photograph.
'Blown out' is a bit of an extreme, wouldn't you say. I would call Kodak
'flat' but opinions are just opinions
Christopher John Woodhouse
In message <33EB6F...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com>
Ray Ford <ray_...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com> writes:
> Kodak products fill a small niche? What color is the sky in your
> world?
> As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label on
> Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
> mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
> emulsions?
> Rpf
> --
> The following is only for spam, and is not personally directed.
> By US Code Title 47, Sec.227 (a) (2) (b), a computer, modem, or
> printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By US
> Code Title 47, Sec.227 (a) (2) (b), it is unlawful to send any
> unsolicited commercial advertisement to such equipment.
If fuji continue to release bad emulsions, why are they so dominant
in the market place? Virtually all my photographic colleagues
(amateur not pro) use Fuji reversal and colour negative material,
even their BW emulsions have a niche in the predominantly Ilford
dominated UK market.
Most emulsions have something to commend them. Their unique
qualities offer different subjective appeal for different subject,
climatic conditions and viewing / repro. I would not call any of
Kodak's, Fuji's, Agfa or Ilford's products 'bad'.
--
regards chris.w...@zetnet.co.uk
NSanborn
In article <33EB6F...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com>, Ray Ford
<ray_...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com> writes:
> Kodak products fill a small niche? What color is the sky in your
>world?
>
> As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label
on
>Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
>mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
>emulsions?
>
>
hmmm..... I find Kodak AND Fuji products to be excellent... Its the ILFORD
films which I find substandard... the point being that substandard is a
pretty vague term to use in a case like whose film is great and whose
isnt. I think there's an awful lot of personal preference involved in
this one!
Cheers,
Nathan Sanborn
ChuckSchuh
Sorry to differ with you,chap,but Ilford Delta 100 is a great film,just as
fine grained wothout all the processing hassles of T-Max.,IMHO. Great
tonal range,too.
Richard Knoppow
chuck...@aol.com (ChuckSchuh) wrote:
I think the fact is that none of the major manufacturers is a slouch
about product quality. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, AGFA all know how to make
first rate produces and how to control product quality although one or
the other may "forget" how temporarily.
Each company had designed its product to appeal to some part of the
market, they are delibrately not the same.
Too often the statement is made that some company's stuff is junk
when what is meant is that it doesn't appeal to the poster or (just
maybe possibly perhaps) that he/she doesn't know how to use it.
Ray Ford
Thank you for stating my point - it's all a matter of taste. I prefer
Kodak's color emulsions to enything else I've tried, and I've tried a
lot. I prefer Ilford over everything else I've tried in black & white,
and again I've tried a lot. This thread has turned into "Kodak and all
their products draw vacuum cause I use Fuji/Agfa/Ilford/Konica/Joe's."
I wrote my last reply with *personally*, trying to stress that
everything we've been saying here has been a matter of taste, even if we
don't specifically say "in my humble opinion".
Good shooting.
Ray Ford
Christopher John Woodhouse wrote:
>
> In message <33EB6F...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com>
> Ray Ford <ray_...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com> writes:
>
> > Gary Gaugler wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 09:34:39 +0900, at <tan...@gol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> pdja...@aol.com (PDJalbert) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Kodak retired scientist selling out T grain technology to
> Fuji didn't help
> > > >> >Kodak's financial posture.
> > > [snip]
> > > >> I suspect that with the analysis methods available to a modern
> > > >> chemist working for a major photo supplier that the big four don't
> > > >> have very many secrets from each other.
> > > >good faith of the original poster, but I really have my reservations
> > > >about it's veracity. From my position here in Japan I follow the
> > > >Japanese industry fairly closely. Fuji is fully capable of
> > > >reverse-engineering just about anything in the market without
> resorting to ill-gotten corporate secrets.
> > > >
> > > >Best,
> > > >Adrian T.
> > > >Tokyo
> > >
> > > I doubt that the Fuji folks are toiling over any Kodak products to emulate.
> > > Why bother reverse engineering substandard products? There are
> niches where
> > > Kodak media serves its users and that is fine. But the niche is
> very small.
> > >
> > > Gary Gaugler
>
> > world?
>
> > As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label on
> > Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
> > mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
> > emulsions?
>
>
> If fuji continue to release bad emulsions, why are they so dominant
> in the market place? Virtually all my photographic colleagues
> (amateur not pro) use Fuji reversal and colour negative material,
> even their BW emulsions have a niche in the predominantly Ilford
> dominated UK market.
>
> Most emulsions have something to commend them. Their unique
> qualities offer different subjective appeal for different subject,
> climatic conditions and viewing / repro. I would not call any of
> Kodak's, Fuji's, Agfa or Ilford's products 'bad'.
>
> --
> regards chris.w...@zetnet.co.uk
Thank you for stating my point - it's all a matter of taste. I prefer
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
Jarinb wrote:
> -You mean it has blown-out contrast and ridiculous oversaturation just
> like many Fuji films for still photography?
> I've never understood why you would want a color film with less color. If
> you're going to make a color photograph, make it a -color- photograph.
> 'Blown out' is a bit of an extreme, wouldn't you say. I would call Kodak
> 'flat' but opinions are just opinions
All,
It seems that folks reading this NG go to an awful lot of trouble to
make adjustments to their processing of black and white materials, both
the film and the prints, varying the developers, solution
concentrations, paper choice, paper developers, split printing, etc.,
etc., etc..., but no one seems to have figured out that 'blown-out
contrast and ridiculous oversaturation' of color transparency materials
can be moderated by slight changes in exposure.
I shoot Fuji Provia (120 size), which the factory rates at 100, at 64
ISO and find the color and contrast to be exceptionally life-like. I had
to do some testing to discover what I liked, but the small expense was
well worth it. In 35mm I like Kodak Elite II 100, rated at 100. It's a
bit more saturated, but I like it. I'm working on some tests for 35mm
Fuji Provia, Astia and Velvia, as well, and fully expect to find that
one or more of these films does not please me at the factory recommended
exposure rating, but that a slight change in exposure will make any or
all a favorite for one type of work or another.
Condemning a film for it's performance without putting any effort into
finding out what makes it tick seems to be a pretty narrow minded way to
work.
My $.02.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Joshua_Putnam
>Jarinb wrote:
>> -You mean it has blown-out contrast and ridiculous oversaturation just
>> like many Fuji films for still photography?
>> I've never understood why you would want a color film with less color. If
>> you're going to make a color photograph, make it a -color- photograph.
>It seems that folks reading this NG go to an awful lot of trouble to
>make adjustments to their processing of black and white materials, both
>the film and the prints, varying the developers, solution
>concentrations, paper choice, paper developers, split printing, etc.,
>etc., etc..., but no one seems to have figured out that 'blown-out
>contrast and ridiculous oversaturation' of color transparency materials
>can be moderated by slight changes in exposure.
I think most people who actually use the films instead of bitch
about them know that you can to some extent alter color and
contrast through exposure to suit the picture you want to see.
As to why people would want less color, why should I want
pictures of a pastel mountain landscape to come out looking like
plastic flowers on astroturf? Sometimes added saturation is
nice, other times I'd much rather have accurate reproductions of
what was really there, or even less color than was originally
there, even black & white. I'm sure that's why the major
manufacturers offer a *variety* of films, negative and
transparency, with a range of saturation and contrast.
(Disclaimer: Not an expert by any means, but usually I know what
I like.)
Ron Frank
According to some most likely inaccurate statistics, but non-the-less published,
Kodak has approximately 75% of the USA market while Fuji has 15%, with the
remaining 10% going to other brands.
The almost exact reverse is true in Japan. What the stats did not publish is how
big each market is, and what the rest of the world is doing.
However why get into these arguments over film. It's getting as bad as My nikon is
better than your cannon. Also I don't see any factual basis for any of the below
statements.
Since Fuji and Kodak are the two largest film makers in the world, they must be
BOTH doing something right. I shoot Kodachrome and Velvia, and find they are both
very strong reversal films, but with different qualities.
I am glad that Kodak has Fuji to compete with, it prevents both companies from
sitting on their collective rear ends admiring past efforts. Instead they are
constantly working at making their products better in an effort to get on top.
That's what is great about competition, the consumer wins!
Ron
Ray Ford wrote:
>
> Gary Gaugler wrote:
> >
> >
> > I doubt that the Fuji folks are toiling over any Kodak products to emulate.
> > Why bother reverse engineering substandard products? There are niches where
> > Kodak media serves its users and that is fine. But the niche is very small.
> >
> > Gary Gaugler
>
> Kodak products fill a small niche? What color is the sky in your
> world?
>
> As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label on
> Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
> mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
> emulsions?
>
> Rpf
> --
NSanborn
In article <33ed658b....@nntp.netcruiser>, dick...@ix.netcom.com
(Richard Knoppow) writes:
>
>>Sorry to differ with you,chap,but Ilford Delta 100 is a great film,just
as
>>fine grained wothout all the processing hassles of T-Max.,IMHO. Great
>>tonal range,too.
>
> I think the fact is that none of the major manufacturers is a slouch
>about product quality. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, AGFA all know how to make
>first rate produces and how to control product quality although one or
>the other may "forget" how temporarily.
> Each company had designed its product to appeal to some part of the
>market, they are delibrately not the same.
> Too often the statement is made that some company's stuff is junk
>when what is meant is that it doesn't appeal to the poster or (just
>maybe possibly perhaps) that he/she doesn't know how to use it.
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>dick...@ix.netcom.com
Yup! this was exactlay the point I was trying to make when I said that I
liked both kodak and fuji but found ilford films "substandard". All that
means is that for *my* working methods and personal opinion on what makes
a good film, I like Kodak and fuji better. What does that say about the
"quality" of those films or of Ilford films? Nothing! I, for one, am
glad that we have more than one film manufactuirer out there!
Cheers,
Nathan Sanborn
Martin Tai
Ray Ford (ray_...@down.with.spam.phoenix.com) wrote:
: >
: > I doubt that the Fuji folks are toiling over any Kodak products to emulate.
: > Why bother reverse engineering substandard products? There are niches where
: > Kodak media serves its users and that is fine. But the niche is very small.
: >
: > Gary Gaugler
: Kodak products fill a small niche? What color is the sky in your
: world?
: As for substandard products, I *personally* would hang that label on
: Fuji. Since another poster claims that Fuji is capable of stealing, I
: mean, reverse engineering, anything, why do they continue to release bad
: emulsions?
Kodak fills only niche !
That is ridiculous.
Kodak still the lion's share of the film market, world wide.
martin tai
Scott Dorsey
In article <EEurxF.EK...@torfree.net> cg...@torfree.net (Martin Tai) writes:
>ChuckSchuh (chuck...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Sorry to differ with you,chap,but Ilford Delta 100 is a great film,just as
>: fine grained wothout all the processing hassles of T-Max.,IMHO. Great
>: tonal range,too.
>
>
> Other good BW film include Agfapan APX 100, 400
>
> For ultimate fine grain and ultimate sharpness, nothing beats
>Kodak techical Pan !
You know, I just don't like the toe of the curve with Tech Pan... I want
more compensation than the Tech Pan/ Technidol combination gives me, although
I do like the fine grain. Has anyone actually managed to get that sort of
effect with the stuff? If so, I would love to hear about it.
I mostly use Ilford Pan-F these days now that Super-XX is gone. The Plus-X
sheet film seems to have a lot of reticulation problems than Pan-F doesn't
have. Yeah, I know, if I kept my temperature control better, I wouldn't have
to worry, but I don't, so I use Pan-F instead.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Martin Tai
ChuckSchuh (chuck...@aol.com) wrote:
: Sorry to differ with you,chap,but Ilford Delta 100 is a great film,just as
: fine grained wothout all the processing hassles of T-Max.,IMHO. Great
: tonal range,too.
Ilford Delta 100 and Pan F plus are all great films.
Other good BW film include Agfapan APX 100, 400
For ultimate fine grain and ultimate sharpness, nothing beats
Kodak techical Pan !
martin tai
sch...@hotmail.com
I read an article in Business Week about Kodak's troubles. The slower
than desired acceptance of digital cameras, the failure of APS, and
fierce price cutting by Fuji has contributed to the problem. Fuji is now
building factories in the U.S. for finishing supplies too (paper,
chemicals).
The film prices for consumer film have gotten ridiculously low. It's like
$1.25 for a roll of 24 exposure Fujicolor 100, in a pack of 4.
Kodak was suprised that there was so little brand loyalty among consumers.
Almost all of Kodak's market share losses have gone to Fuji. 3M, Agfa,
and Konica make a lot of private label film, but few consumers buy it.
What REALLY upsets Kodak, is that Fuji is making big inroads in
professional film (with heavy free sampling).
Personally I'm worried about Kodak for the following reasons.
1. All the professional photographers I've talked to agree that the Fuji
film is better. Most would use Kodak if the two were equal, just to help
a U.S. company, but they won't sacrifice quality. Kodak isn't bad, and it
hasn't gone down in quality, but Fuji has just gotten better and better.
2. As an amateur, I find the Fuji amateur film better. I started using it
because it was so much cheaper.
3. Kodak is counting heavily on digital, and that is the source of their
biggest losses. But digital Cameras have a long way to go before they
reach the mainstream. First they need some super cheap 6 million pixel
CCDs to even begin to rival the quality of amateur film. Then computers
must be pervasive. Hopefully Compaq will continue to drive the low end
down in price. I was pleased to see $1000 with monitor Compaq computers
with the Cyrix Media GX. Even so, will consumers spend $400 for a decent
digital camera, $800 for a PC, $300 on a decent printer, all to get
inferior quality photos. Even if the one hour labs start offering print
services to digital camera users, where is the benefit over film if you
still gotta take it in to get prints? On vacation what do you do with
your digital photos? E-mail them home I guess.
4. Kodak REALLY blew it on APS. APS film is at least 3 times as
expensive as 35mm, and the processing is twice as much (because you
almost have to go to Kodalux because the discount labs don't do APS
because the volume is so small because the film is so expensive). If APS
were only 25% more expensive (as Kodak claims) then it would have been
much more successful. Can you imagine the typical P&Scamera buyer at
Target trying to decide between a 35mm & APS. He looks at the Fuji film
at 4 rolls for $4.99, and the APS at one roll for $4.59, he looks at the
processing costs, and there's no way he'll go APS, even with the cute
index print and the three choices of print sizes.
I bought a Canon Elph cuz I thought it was cool, and I love it. But how
many people spend $300 on a whim like I do? APS was supposed to be mass
market, not niche market.
Kodak better get their act together and get back to basics. They can't
make money by ignoring film in favor of APS and digital.
Brand loyalty and loyalty to U.S. companies only goes so far. Look at all
those poor souls that bought into the Saturn hype and ended up with
mediocre cars at high prices.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
William Laut
.net> <8716893...@dejanews.com>:
Distribution:
sch...@hotmail.com wrote:
:
: [snipped for brevity]
:
: Kodak better get their act together and get back to basics. They can't
: make money by ignoring film in favor of APS and digital.
:
*grin*
While "getting back to basics," maybe Kodak can do some of us a favor and
bring back dye transfer. Not that I'm holding my breath.
William Laut
.net> <8716893...@dejanews.com>:
Distribution:
sch...@hotmail.com wrote:
:
: snipped for brevity]
:
: 4. Kodak REALLY blew it on APS. APS film is at least 3 times as
: expensive as 35mm, and the processing is twice as much (because you
: almost have to go to Kodalux because the discount labs don't do APS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: because the volume is so small because the film is so expensive).
For anyone interested in this, Jobo makes a reel for APS film so that you
can process it in their machines. Standard C-41 process.
Richard Knoppow
wl...@alpha.delta.edu (William Laut) wrote:
>.net> <8716893...@dejanews.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>sch...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:
>: [snipped for brevity]
>:
>: Kodak better get their act together and get back to basics. They can't
>: make money by ignoring film in favor of APS and digital.
>:
>
>*grin*
>
>While "getting back to basics," maybe Kodak can do some of us a favor and
>bring back dye transfer. Not that I'm holding my breath.
>
>
I'm afraid Kodak discontinued it because the market dried up. Most
DT was used to make retouchable originals for photomechanical
reproduction. Most of that stuff is done with computers now (though
not all). One can't really blame Kodak for ceasing to make something
they could not sell enough of to make money on it. Too bad:-(
Scott Dorsey
In article <5tfjvh$c...@alpha.delta.edu> wl...@alpha.delta.edu (William Laut) writes:
>.net> <8716893...@dejanews.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>sch...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:
>: snipped for brevity]
>:
>: expensive as 35mm, and the processing is twice as much (because you
>: almost have to go to Kodalux because the discount labs don't do APS
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: because the volume is so small because the film is so expensive).
>
>For anyone interested in this, Jobo makes a reel for APS film so that you
>can process it in their machines. Standard C-41 process.
I had to process some APS stuff on the fly for someone (long story), and
I took a cheap adjustable plastic reel and used a hacksaw to cut a new
groove in the reel so it clicked into position for APS films no problem.
I have also done this to process 127 film.
Then, of course, you need funny sized negative carriers. It's a good thing
I have lots of black mounting board scraps sitting around the darkroom.
Ray Ford
Msherck wrote:
>
> >Brand loyalty and loyalty to U.S. companies only goes so far. Look at all
> >those poor souls that bought into the Saturn hype and ended up with
> >mediocre cars at high prices.
> >
> >
>
> exception, the Saturn owners I know love the car, feel they got a good
> deal (not overpriced,) are planning on buying another Saturn as their next
> car, and loudly and happily recommend the car to anyone they meet. Again,
> without exception, they praise both the quality of the car and the service
> they get from the dealer. So I guess I don't understand your comment.
>
> This might seem off-topic, but in a general sense I don't think it is. I
> use a lot of Kodak products, both because they are an American company and
> because I'm happy with the quality of the products. Although I shoot 95%+
> black and white and do my own printing, I shoot enough color to have a
> basis of understanding there, too. While Kodak's prices for 35mm and 120
> are higher than Fuji (or Ilford for B&W) they aren't radically so and the
> quality of the materials is, in my estimation, equal. I'm happy enough
> that I'll pay a 10%-15% premium for Kodak film and paper because I realize
> that Fuji is 'dumping' this stuff at or below cost, in an attempt to drive
> the competition out of the market. I like competition, I think it results
> in higher quality, greater innovation, and ultimately more value for me as
> the consumer. But not everyone agrees with that. Fortunately, at this
> point in time we all get a choice and can do what we want. In the early
> days of photography when Kodak was just about the only choice, that wasn't
> the case. I sincerely hope that those days don't return.
>
> M. Sherck
A lot of the opinions expressed in this thread seem to stem from the
old ideas of "Americans Buy American", or "American Products Are ****
Because They Are Made In America". While there are some very real
reasons to like Kodak or Fuji or Ilford or Agfa or Fred's products, in
the end it all comes down to taste.
I've lost count of the times that someone has made sweeping statements
for or against one or the other, myself included. I've read "Every pro
shoots Fuji" - for a fact I know they don't. "Kodak has the majority of
every market" - while I don't know one way or another, I personally
doubt that they have more of the Japanese market than Fuji.
It's a fact that Kodak's stock dropped. Eastman Kodak did not,
however, crash into a ball of flames, taking the NYSE with it. Their
products and quality have not changed drastically in a week. I tried
Fuji and Agfa color films, and I went with Kodak. It's not that I like
Kodak as an entity, quite the opposite, but their color products are the
best *for me*. I use Ilford black and white films not because I really
care about Ilford, but that they work the best for me. To say that Fuji
is evil because you like Kodak products is foolish - you should only say
that because they really are (joke).
A lot of people seem to dislike Kodak because they were told to by
others. A lot of people seem to like Fuji because they were told to
dislike Kodak by others. Pick your products based on what they do for
you, not the color of the box.
As Dennis Miller said, "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be
wrong."