Kodak perpetrating fraud? you decide
Dan Carp
merely their consumer Kodacolor film, repackaged with a professional garb,
and of course, professional price.
As was their Ektapress line, as was their Vericolor HC/Ektacolor
5124/6124/8124 line.
The only color negative films actually designed for actual professional
applications are their Portra line, and they are designed from a set of
fundamental research components largely controlled by their consumer
division.
You would think the logical investment strategy in R&D would be to design
professional grade products and water them down for low price consumer
needs. But I can assure you fear and imcompetence prevail, and the consumer
division gets to wield the bulk share of profits in the company, at the
expense of professionally oriented divisions, and crediblity in
professionally oriented markets. The professional divisions must indeed
water up consumer products and technologies. And this is in no way limited
to film oriented products. The consumer division will just not let go of
the reigns on any architecture consideration.
One need only look at kodak's website to see how amateur oriented they are,
and how obscure other divisions are hidden in a pull down menu.
I don't think Fuji and Konica operate on too much differently of a
paradigm, but you can clearly see Agfa is becoming the innovator with its
professional graphics stronghold as evident by kodak crawling and begging
to OEM outsource their laser zeta printer designed with Durst/Dice. I'm
curious to see how many portrait labs buy this printer from kodak when they
can buy it from Agfa/Durst/Dice. I guess if I was in the market, I would at
least ask what each was charging. How much is kodak willing to lose on this
to prevent Agfa/Durst/Dice from getting into a market they have taken for
granted for so long they have even started selling them consumer products
labeled as professional?
Is radical protectionism all a stockholder can expect?
I'm willing to answer all your inquisitiveness about how kodak R&D works on
this newsgroup.
Tony Parkinson
news:2OTII3NB37577.4327314815@Gilgamesh-frog.org nothing much worth
reading
What's up Dan ? Get fired by Kodak and take a job with Agfa ?
maf
the current line, the emulsions have changed somewhat. Do you have any
information about this?
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:2OTII3NB37577.4327314815@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:KmNB9.2$bh6....@news.uswest.net...
> I assume that with introduction of Kodak's new B&W films to replace most
of
> the current line, the emulsions have changed somewhat. Do you have any
> information about this?
Kodak claims no change in photographic properties, once you adjust the
development time.
hogarth
< ...snip...>
>
> I'm willing to answer all your inquisitiveness about how kodak R&D works on this
> newsgroup.
Can you tell us why Kodak refuses to sell Tri-X 4x5 sheets in readyload format? Seems like
all the R&D is done for readyloads - they already sell a number of films in that format.
Why do they refuse to sell their best selling B&W film in readyload?
What *is* up with that?
Donald Sanders
> Kodak's Supra line of high saturation Professional color negative films, is
> merely their consumer Kodacolor film, repackaged with a professional garb,
> and of course, professional price.
Didn't Kodak pretty much acknowledge this when they introduced
Royal Supra film?
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020924-11.shtml
Hasn't Kodak consistently maintained that the difference between
professional and consumer films was often one of aging? (Consumer
films are released a little on the "green" side and expected to fully
"ripen" as they age. Pro films are released at the optimum point and
then refrigerated to keep them there.)
What's the big deal?
<snip>
>
> I'm willing to answer all your inquisitiveness about how kodak R&D works on
> this newsgroup.
I understand that Kodak can coat several layers at once. Why
can't they teach the auto manufacturers how to put several layers of
paint on at once?
maf
> news:KmNB9.2$bh6....@news.uswest.net...
> > I assume that with introduction of Kodak's new B&W films to replace most
> of
> > the current line, the emulsions have changed somewhat. Do you have any
> > information about this?
>"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
> Kodak claims no change in photographic properties, once you adjust the
> development time.
>
No exactly. Kodak said (with a carefully worded statement) you won't
"notice" any other changes. But many have reported changes, especially in
the CI. It is absurd to believe that a 20% change in development time has
nothing to do with changes in the emulsion.
Besides, I don't care what Kodak marketing claims, I want to know the truth.
maf
> wrote in message
> What's up Dan ? Get fired by Kodak and take a job with Agfa ?
>
So what if he lost his job at Kodak? As long as he is telling the truth, who
cares why he is posting? At the very least, it is interesting to hear
another perspective than the usual BS from Kodak marketing. You can decide
for yourself who you want to believe.
Tony Spadaro
vote is for the latter. Anyone this incensed about "fraud" who then only
comes up with some professional films being the same film as some amateur
films.
A Lot of professional films are exactly the same as the amateur version
except they are kept cold to prevent further aging - it is mostly so catalog
photographers can produce a very consistant colour throughout projects that
may take weeks or even months.
So is this guy Don Corp a fraud? I tend to think so, but you may believe
anything you wish.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:KVQB9.15$bh6....@news.uswest.net...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HLRB9.64348$ku2.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> But is he telling the truth or is he just another brain damaged troll?
My
> vote is for the latter. Anyone this incensed about "fraud" who then only
> comes up with some professional films being the same film as some amateur
> films.
I was wondering the same thing. Why is it "fraud" if amateurs get good
film? Is Kodak obligated to sell inferior film to amateurs?
The only professional/amateur film pair that I use a lot of is Elite Chrome
200 a.k.a. Ektachrome E200. I can't tell the difference between the two,
even under extreme conditions (astrophotography). Of course the aging is
reportedly different, but I tend to ignore that difference too, since I'm
not doing roll-to-roll color matching.
Dan Carp
>format? Seems like
>all the R&D is done for readyloads - they already sell a number of films
>in that format.
>Why do they refuse to sell their best selling B&W film in readyload?
>
>What *is* up with that?
couple factors
1) there is a constant battle to keep B&W around altogether, consumer
division has no use for it, don't fool yourself that chromogenic B&W is not
an attempt to eliminate multiplication of systems requirements and a
focusing on their status quo synergies, there is a very minimal R&D B&W
contingent that is just barely holding on, and they have little role in the
chromogenic products
2) simply not enough market to give them a profit margin with their big and
slow corporate fat culture
3) B&W is one of these very specialized product lines that could result in
a considerable number of product numbers if they let it, each product
number has some SADA (sales, advertising, distribution, administration =
corporate fat) associated with it, something the bean counters can get
their arms, but a very short sighted metric, simple top down pressure
cronyism on the consumer division's side, and corporate fat
exactly the reason you don't see them sell it at simply the price/profit
ratio it needs to be sold at, there are philosophical barriers designed to
ensure such cronyism, the more professional products, the more SADA, the
more suits to compete with the consumer division
Dan Carp
let's just say that although you can only guess at my motives, my interests
are plainly there for you to see, and in a common forum, the real question
to ask is whether we have common interests, ad hominem attacks would seem
to indicate otherwise, perhaps you are one of the breed that likes to be
coddled by kodak, as opposed to being responded to by kodak, if I was to go
ad hominem I would have so say there was artistic and competency
implications of such
Dan Carp
you pay a professional price,
the marketing of a consumer product under professional trade dress with
professional price is blatant fraud
Dan Carp
>the current line, the emulsions have changed somewhat. Do you have any
>information about this?
ask yourself if you got more grain at a given speed, or more speed at a
given grain
or ask yourself why they changed grain metrics in tech publications so you
couldn't do this comparison
the root of this is emulsion efficiency, of which kodak has not been the
innovator and has been playing catch-up to Fuji, for the past 2 decades
and you know the shit didn't really hit the fan until Fuji came out with a
400 speed film with equivalent grain as kodak's 200, a full stop more
efficiency, and even then they were fat and slow about responding until
Fuji came out with 800 speed films with competitive grain, almost a 2 stop
emulsion efficiency advantage
ask yourself why kodak won't use standard grain metrics enabling you to
judge speed/grain issues objectively
exactly who wouldn't use a faster film at the same grain? or a better
grained film at the same speed?
kodak's research part of R&D has always been contracted out by the business
units (consumer, professional, graphics, etc.), consumer having the largest
pot has always had the biggest pull, and since they are satisfied with 4x6
print sizes, things like emulsion efficiency have taken a back seat, to say
nothing about issues surrounding dye stability which the consumer division
could care less about, , with which professional had to fight tooth and
nail in order to get resources to fight the exposure Wilhelm made, the
implications of such cronyism and feifdomism are tremendous upon every
aspect of of the company
this wouldn't all be that bad, but recently the development part of R&D has
been taken away from the business units in the 90's and relegate to
contract status too, this means the people who are paid to think about
systems aspects, are not tied financially to the systems, but left somewhat
under consumer division control once again
very consumer-ish attitudes prevail in ALL real overarching architectual
commitees, including software and equipment, and professional groups ARE
relegated to watering up consumer architectures as opposed to consumer
groups watering down professional architectures
clear fear and incompetency
Dan Carp
>Royal Supra film?
no, they got cocky
the makrting of consumer films in professional trade dress, at professional
price, is blatant fraud, and they have done this for so long that they
think they can be casual about it
Dan Carp
>film? Is Kodak obligated to sell inferior film to amateurs?
no, but it is clear fraud to sell consumer films to professionals, under
professional trade dress and at professional price
ZeuS
(Dan Carp) wrote:
Why? others do it as well. The differance is, as already posted, the
storing/shipping difference. I扉e also read that the "better" films
are cut from the middle of the produced film, the cheaper at the ends.
Spare parts for cars are made in the same factory, even if it says
Volvo or any low-price chains name. The differance is that the
"original" Volvo spare parts are made when the tools are new and
fresh, after some thousends parts, they label the part different. Now
the tools can be something like 0.001 mm wrong, but for 99% of the
parts it doesnæ„’ matter.
For 99% or so of the costumers it doesnæ„’ matter if the filmæ„€ color
differs a little bit between the rolls, but for a pro that uses 10
rolls for one job it make a whole lot af difference
--
ZeuS
mailto:zeus_...@pcparty.com
Gregory W Blank
films are considered consumer.
Rarely shoot 35mm any longer.
In article <1H4QAK093757...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Dan Carp) wrote:
> let's just say that although you can only guess at my motives, my interests
> are plainly there for you to see, and in a common forum, the real question
> to ask is whether we have common interests, ad hominem attacks would seem
> to indicate otherwise, perhaps you are one of the breed that likes to be
> coddled by kodak, as opposed to being responded to by kodak, if I was to go
> ad hominem I would have so say there was artistic and competency
> implications of such
--
Photographic website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
maf
My
> vote is for the latter. Anyone this incensed about "fraud" who then only
> comes up with some professional films being the same film as some amateur
> films.
> A Lot of professional films are exactly the same as the amateur
version
> except they are kept cold to prevent further aging - it is mostly so
catalog
> photographers can produce a very consistant colour throughout projects
that
> may take weeks or even months.
> So is this guy Don Corp a fraud? I tend to think so, but you may
believe
> anything you wish.
Since you admitted above that the professional films are often the same as
the amateur ones (except for cold storage), and that is basically what he
said, I don't understand why you think what he said is fraud. It may not be
of much interest to you, but not everyone knew that. He also invited us to
ask other questions that may be of interest.
Tony Parkinson
> >What's up Dan ? Get fired by Kodak and take a job with Agfa ?
>
> let's just say that although you can only guess at my motives, my
interests
> are plainly there for you to see, and in a common forum, the real
question
> to ask is whether we have common interests, ad hominem attacks would
seem
> to indicate otherwise, perhaps you are one of the breed that likes
to be
> coddled by kodak
>
connected with your inane blatherings.
What I do find interesting though is your use of a fake email adress.
One wonders why you do that if you are telling the truth and therefore
have nothing to fear or hide. Then again, you may be just another
troll
Jeff Novick
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
hogarth
>>Can you tell us why Kodak refuses to sell Tri-X 4x5 sheets in readyload format? Seems
>>like
>>all the R&D is done for readyloads - they already sell a number of films in that format.
>>Why do they refuse to sell their best selling B&W film in readyload?
>>
>>What *is* up with that?
>
>
> couple factors
>
> 1) there is a constant battle to keep B&W around altogether, consumer division has no
> use for it, don't fool yourself that chromogenic B&W is not an attempt to eliminate
> multiplication of systems requirements and a focusing on their status quo synergies,
> there is a very minimal R&D B&W contingent that is just barely holding on, and they have
> little role in the chromogenic products
>
>
This isn't an R&D question. The Readyload format has already been developed and tested and
is in the field with other films. They don't have to develop anything but the design on
the wrapper.
> 2) simply not enough market to give them a profit margin with their big and slow
> corporate fat culture
>
>
It's the same market that Tri-X has now, but if they put it in readyload format, they can
sell it for twice the price. They would probably sell more Tri-X, but they certainly
wouldn't sell less.
> 3) B&W is one of these very specialized product lines that could result in a
> considerable number of product numbers if they let it, each product number has some SADA
> (sales, advertising, distribution, administration = corporate fat) associated with it,
> something the bean counters can get their arms, but a very short sighted metric, simple
> top down pressure
>
>
It's not a new product line. It's Tri-X, in a new package.
> cronyism on the consumer division's side, and corporate fat
>
> exactly the reason you don't see them sell it at simply the price/profit ratio it needs
> to be sold at, there are philosophical barriers designed to ensure such cronyism, the
> more professional products, the more SADA, the more suits to compete with the consumer
> division
Not to be naive, but I really don't see what the consumer side would care. It's not like
it would take shelf space away from comsumer products at the retail level - my retailers
stock no large format film of any kind. I have to mail order all of it.
It's not a product that competes with consumer in any way, shape, or form.
What kills me is that they won't even take it as a special order, and I offered to buy
10,000 sheets. They just said that it didn't fit their marketing plan.
My daddy told me, when a customer tries to give you money, you should take it. Seems
pretty basic to me, but they must not teach this at MBA school.
Dan Carp
my friend this is not only a civil court issue, fraud is a criminal offense
in most of the countries they manufacture in, let alone market in
they will win the civil game all day if photographers go it one at a time,
only a class action law suit presents the concept of long term patterns
perpetrated upon masses to a judge and presents the vaibility of punitive
civil action
as soon as a class action law suit is architected, I will indeed sign my
name, and I would testify in a criminal proceedings
show me a lawyer and/or district attorney willing to pursue this
Dan Carp
its a new product number,
granted this case requires little R&D, but it does have nonzero
manufacturing and SADA costs
>Not to be naive, but I really don't see what the consumer side would care.
the only way bean counters can relate SADA to income is by tracking product
numbers
(SADA = sales, advertising, distribution, administration)
any new product number incurs SADA
and SADA is to the large part composed of people who make decisions
the more professional SADA, the harder it is for consumer SADA to effect
its architectural control
any professional SADA is an affront to consumer control
and I guess the issue I'm trying to get across is such architectual
feudalism has gone so far as to result in causality with respect to ethical
responsibilities towards customers
>What kills me is that they won't even take it as a special order, and I
>offered to buy
>10,000 sheets. They just said that it didn't fit their marketing plan.
>
>My daddy told me, when a customer tries to give you money, you should take
>it. Seems
>pretty basic to me,
they certainly have the choice to offer products at a profitable return, I
think you said it well yourself, don't underestimate marketing plans, a new
B&W product number flies in the face of strategies to phase black and white
out
>but they must not teach this at MBA school.
they teach something at MBA schools, and its called "how to control mass
consumer mentality", I personally think such crosses the line of ethics,
and it does manifest itself when said company is trying to parlay its
customer base to the tune of establishing monopolistic architectures, and
you know as long as said architectures remain in the interest of the
customer, there is no transgression, ask yourself whether repackaging
consumer films in professional trade dress, and charging you professional
prices, is in your best interest,
how far do you trust sneaks, and do stockholders really want to invest in
sneaks, you'd expect a little more strategy than sneaky underhandedness
from such an established icon,
blue chip behavior?
and what credit rating can be extended to sneaks?
Tony Spadaro
probably a crazy, instead of a disgruntled employee looking ofr some
revenge.
You have offered no proof of these charges and it has been pointed out
to you several times that you allegations are baseless to begin with.
I don't waste my time with nutcases. Bye bye.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:DJOOTNCZ3757...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Tony Spadaro
emulsions then it prolly does not matter to you which you are using. Buy
amateur film and be done with it. You don't actually need the pro film, and
in fact have no more use for it than the other 99.999 % of photographers -
myself included - who don't buy the pro versions.
Film stored and shipped "ripe" and kept at that stage is worth more to
someone who's work must be held to very high standards of colour fidelity.
If you needed professional film you would know this. If you read much about
potography you would know this. If you don't know this then you don't really
have a complaint - you simply have not taken the time to get the facts. No
fault to Kodak, Fuji, Agfa or any manufacturer.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:yFUB9.482$bh6.1...@news.uswest.net...
Dan Carp
my assertions are easily verifiable and corraboratable,
someone could do a very easy microphotographic comparison to see if the
layer structures are similar
someone could do a complete imaging systems analysis (sensitometry, LIK,
reciprocity, granularity, speed, dye absorption, spectral sensitivity,
interimage, etc.) to verify similarity
someone could do an extractive chemical analysis of components
someone could do a simple photo shoot comparison, and see if you are
getting anything for the price differential from the consumer labeled
product
someone could ask kodak and see what kind of answer they are willing to
extend, and if you are buying a lot of this the answer might be interesting
someone who doesn't get a satisfactory straightforward answer that
justifies the price differential, could call a district attornery and have
kodak subpeoned to answer such a question
>I have a gut feeling that you are serious -- meaning I think you're
>probably a crazy
there are some objective means to determine this besides analyzing me
>I don't waste my time with nutcases. Bye bye.
suit yourself, if you're happy paying professional prices for consumer
products fraudently paraded as professional products, I guess I must admit
I have nothing to offer you
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
> If you are unaware of the actual differences between pro and amateur
> emulsions then it prolly does not matter to you which you are using. Buy
> amateur film and be done with it. You don't actually need the pro film,
and
> in fact have no more use for it than the other 99.999 % of photographers -
> myself included - who don't buy the pro versions.
Right, I don't know if you were responding to me, but I use the pro versions
only for reasons of availability (e.g., at one time I had a bulk roll of
Ektachrome 200 Professional; the amateur version was not available in bulk,
at least locally).
> Film stored and shipped "ripe" and kept at that stage is worth more to
> someone who's work must be held to very high standards of colour fidelity.
> If you needed professional film you would know this. If you read much
about
> potography you would know this.
Ah, I think you're not actually talking to me, because as I said, I
understand the main advantage of pro film to be roll-to-roll color matching.
You can get lots of rolls from the same emulsion, stored under controlled
conditions to preserve the match, and aged so that no further aging is
expected before you use it. As I indicated, with E200 I found no difference
in speed, grain, or reciprocity, nor did I expect to.
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
> > You have offered no proof of these charges
>
> my assertions are easily verifiable and corraboratable,
>
> someone could do a very easy microphotographic comparison to see if the
> layer structures are similar
The question is not just whether there is a difference -- it is also whether
Kodak *claims* there is a difference.
And if so, is the claimed difference anything other than controlled aging
and storage?
Dan Carp
>are cut from the middle of the produced film, the cheaper at the ends.
you wish the consumer division cared that much about professional markets,
I can assure you the professional product is run at the end of the consumer
runs
and besides, coating uniformity is a lesser issue compared to the design
criteria that makes these consumer films
CONSUMER strategic planners and CONSUMER systems engineers specify the
customer requirements for these films
these CONSUMER requirements are researched and developed by dedicated
CONSUMER teams
and the resultant product is manufactured to CONSUMER tolerances
then ....
they are packaged and sold in one dress and at one price to CONSUMER
customers
and, they are repackaged and redressed and sold at a higher price to
PROFESSIONALS with the fraudulent representation that these are
PROFESSIONAL products
let's talk about consumer product requirements for a minute:
dye stability? they don't think reprints are significant enough to improve
this
grain? 4x6 print size
flesh reproduction? not at the expense of bright objects
Perhaps you miscount the financial aspect of consumer products. Let me tell
you what they have been doing the last couple decades:
- a feeble incomplete attempt at matching Fuji's speed/grain advantage,
that does have implication on manufacturing cost
- DIR/DIAR type dye couplers to increase saturation of primary colors
- no attempt to answer Wilhelm's expose on their lack of commitent to dye
stability, reprints are too low for them to consider this a priority
- COST REDUCTION, that most frequently defects technical goals
- COST REDUCTION, that most frequently defects technical goals
- COST REDUCTION, that most frequently defects technical goals
- PACKAGING AND MARKETING CHANGES
- PACKAGING AND MARKETING CHANGES
- PACKAGING AND MARKETING CHANGES
- PACKAGING AND MARKETING CHANGES
- PACKAGING AND MARKETING CHANGES
- lots of non-productive busy work to make it look like they are doing
other things
and you wonder why they have had so many R&D layoffs while marketing and
management has increased, THEY HAVE A VERY FAT MIDDLE, WHICH IS SOFT AND
PRIME TO STICK AT, they hired Fisher as an outsider to try to address this
and he pretty much gave up on the idea and quit, and a consumer division
crony took his place
Dan Carp
>in fact have no more use for it than the other 99.999 % of photographers -
>myself included - who don't buy the pro versions.
trying taking a competitive portrait quality picture of fleshtones with
consumer film
for that matter compare even the new Portra to Vericolor, wait a minute,
they discontinued Vericolor so you can't (because it has 1000mg/sqft silver
as opposed to 300-400ish with the new films, that's 3x manufacturing
savings that could have been given to you in grain or speed)
consumer films are optimized for pleasing color in the eye of a consumer,
not accurate color, and certianly not pleasing color in the eye of a
professional
and there are other issues besides color reproduction
- dye stability of consumer films IS NOT A DESIGN CRITERIA, they are
designed for single immediate printing, and with so few consumer reprints,
there is no consideration for the long term
- latent image keeping, professionals shoot and process their films
quicker, this has implications upon color reproduction
- grain is optimized for 4x6 prints, anything else is traded off for speed
or manufacturing cost savings (silver)
Dan Carp
I beg to differ, I used no address, that's a little different than faking
an address
>One wonders why you do that if you are telling the truth and therefore
>have nothing to fear or hide. Then again, you may be just another
>troll
let's just say I've planted a little seed of thought, and am willing to
water that seed should people take interest in it
Dan Carp
>Kodak *claims* there is a difference.
well said,
and the packaging differences (PROFESSIONAL VS CONSUMER) and price
differentials (PROFESSIONAL VS CONSUMER) amount to such a claim
Tony Parkinson
> >use of a fake email adress
>
> I beg to differ, I used no address, that's a little different than
faking
> an address
>
hide
> >One wonders why you do that if you are telling the truth and
therefore
> >have nothing to fear or hide. Then again, you may be just another
> >troll
>
> let's just say I've planted a little seed of thought,
the only thought you planted in my mind is "What a daft wazzock"
> and am willing to
> water that seed should people take interest in it
>
Maybe you should change the tinfoil in your hat first
Dan Carp
>hide
no, there is a difference between hiding and not revealing where you are,
the former entails a certain effort I'm not taking, the latter entails not
taking a certain effort
for instance, your child puts on headphones and listens to music, and
doesn't answer when you call, he's not hiding, he's ignoring
I've just put on a certain handy set of headphones that relieves me of some
undesireable background muck, and I must say the music is pleasant
>you (are a) a daft wazzock
>Maybe you should change the tinfoil in your hat first
well perhaps it is more palatable that I am a heretic, than you being a
fool of swindlers operating under the auspices of the status quo, or worse,
a fool of the status quo itself
is repackaging consumer film and parading it as professional product, at
professional prices, the kind of thing we should accept as the status quo?
I know the difference and act accordingly, exactly who is daft here?
maf
film. The new version is said by Kodak to require about 20% more development
time. What are the differences, and what was the motivation for the changes
(including chnages to most other B&W films).
I am only talking about regular B&W films, not C-41 based B&W films.
Tony Spadaro
where the logic is usually stored. Next month he will be talking about the
saucer-people sending him messages through his fillings.
Basically he is your standard web cupcake. I'm pretty sure Kodak will
survive his class action lawsuit, and Agfa will probably survive his
commendations.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message
news:3dd87...@nopics.sjc...
Tony Spadaro
madness. You prolly have him killfiled and I prolly should too.
BTW - I haven't done it myself as it's a speed I don't normally use, but
on the 35mm forum there was someone who did a comparison between Fuji Provia
F 400 and the other new 400 slide film they put out recently
(reala-superia-I don't know, but there was some belief that it was the same
film in an amateur version). At any rate, he came to the conclusion that
they were different films, with the cheaper one being grainier. I don't know
how he tested, or if he was just using charts, or what.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message
news:3dd87462$1...@nopics.sjc...
Jeff Novick
down if you don't want to listen to him? Just skip his posts.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZD1C9.119196$dn3.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Tony Spadaro
never question what they say. And when you do they say "Everything I've said
is PROOOOOOVEN!" But they never have the actual data, or the article was in
Watchtower or there is a government baddie sitting on the report, etc.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tL1C9.99$RO4.69...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Tony Parkinson
> I have a gut feeling that you are serious -- meaning I think
you're
> probably a crazy, instead of a disgruntled employee looking ofr some
> revenge.
> You have offered no proof of these charges and it has been
pointed out
> to you several times that you allegations are baseless to begin
with.
> I don't waste my time with nutcases. Bye bye.
>
come back negative
Tony Parkinson
> That's what he knows -- shit. Most crazy guys seem to make sense
if you
> never question what they say. And when you do they say "Everything
I've said
> is PROOOOOOVEN!" But they never have the actual data, or the article
was in
> Watchtower or there is a government baddie sitting on the report,
etc.
>
8^)
Dan Carp
>film. The new version is said by Kodak to require about 20% more development
>time. What are the differences, and what was the motivation for the changes
>(including chnages to most other B&W films).
let's follow the money (silver) trail
- 20% more development time
- no additional grain at given speed
- no additional speed at given grain
- convenient change in published granularity metric to defect casual
deduction of such
someone took 20% emulsion efficiency away from you, and charged you the
same price, and tried to confuse you about such, and defect future
comparisons back
what was the motivation? they simply believe they can get away with it
they'll tell you the difference is because they have switched to their new
professional coating facility, finished about 10 years ago, and then
relegated to simple paper manufacturing because no one wanted to pay for
technology transfer of the professional film products to that facility
BUT THERE IS NO EMULSION EFFICIENCY DESTRUCTOR IN THE NEW MACHINE, they
could have made it at the same emulsion efficiency,
do a silver extraction of both new and old and you will see EXACTLY what
they did
someone got some wise ideas about silver laydown versus development time
along the way
now I will say the new machine enables tighter quality control, but if they
take away the quality, what value is control?
is it a rational motivation? by no means in the overall scheme, but in the
scheme of consumer division control of market architecture, its just the
kind of thing you would expect, cutting corners in products deemed to be
riskable
maf
> wrote in message > no address, fake address, it doesn't matter, you are
still trying to
> hide
>
That is complete BS. Lots of people (including myself) don't use their real
email address to avoid spam.
Dan Carp
>come back negative
you know what? its bright and early Monday morning, eastern standard time,
and I have a song for kodak management, especially the fat and soft middle,
not that they're thinking of coming in at a reasonable time, doing any work
right away, or doing any work at all, that is until customers and
stockholders give them a good kick in the ass:
Bah-da bah-da-da-da
Bah-da bah-da-da-da
Bah-da bah-da-da-da
Monday, Monday, so good to me
Monday mornin', it was all I hoped it would be
Oh Monday mornin', Monday mornin' couldn't guarantee
That Monday evenin' you would still be here with me
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, sometimes it just turns out that way
Oh Monday mornin' you gave me no warnin' of what was to be
Oh Monday, Monday, how could you leave and not take me
Every other day, every other day Every other day of the week is fine, yeah
But whenever Monday comes, but whenever Monday comes A-you can find me
cryin' all of the time Monday, Monday, so good to me
Monday mornin', it was all I hoped it would be
But Monday mornin', Monday mornin' couldn't guarantee
That Monday evenin' you would still be here with me
Every other day, every other day Every other day of the week is fine, yeah
But whenever Monday comes, but whenever Monday comes A-you can find me
cryin' all of the time Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, it just turns out that way
Oh Monday, Monday, won't go away
Monday, Monday, it's here to stay
Oh Monday, Monday Oh Monday, Monday
(Philips, January 1966, The Mamas and Papas)
funny thing, I don't think the 60's and surrealism ever hit kodak, then
again realism apparently hasn't either
maf
> wrote in message news:5K1C9.119197$dn3.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I was replying to someone called "maf" who seems to have bought Carp's
> madness. You prolly have him killfiled and I prolly should too.
>
that not everyone has. I don't necessarily believe that what he says about
Kodak constitutes fraud, but I think the more facts that are available, the
better decisions consumers can make.
Bart van der Wolf
"friend" <me.at...@universe.org> wrote in message
news:8o6htuku2hgptgki4...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2002 09:48:45 -0800, sander...@hotmail.com (Donald
> Sanders) wrote:
>
>
> > I understand that Kodak can coat several layers at once. Why
> >can't they teach the auto manufacturers how to put several layers of
> >paint on at once?
> different material, honey.
I disagree.
It could easily be applied to cars,...... if they were flat.
Bart
Frank Pittel
: Michael -- the guys a certifiable whacko, there is nothing there upstairs
: where the logic is usually stored. Next month he will be talking about the
: saucer-people sending him messages through his fillings.
: Basically he is your standard web cupcake. I'm pretty sure Kodak will
: survive his class action lawsuit, and Agfa will probably survive his
: commendations.
He isn't filling a class action suite. He's waiting for someone else to and
then he might add his name.
: --
: http://chapelhillnoir.com
: and partial home of
: The Camera-ist's Manifesto
: The Links are at
: http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
: "Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
: <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message
: news:3dd87...@nopics.sjc...
:>
:> "Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
:> news:SI9N3ENC37578.2272106481@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
:> > > You have offered no proof of these charges
:> >
:> > my assertions are easily verifiable and corraboratable,
:> >
:> > someone could do a very easy microphotographic comparison to see if the
:> > layer structures are similar
:> (etc.)
:>
:> The question is not just whether there is a difference -- it is also
: whether
:> Kodak *claims* there is a difference.
:>
:> And if so, is the claimed difference anything other than controlled aging
:> and storage?
:>
:>
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Jim Davis
(Dan Carp) wrote/replied to:
>Kodak's Supra line of high saturation Professional color negative films, is
>merely their consumer Kodacolor film, repackaged with a professional garb,
>and of course, professional price.
I find this very hard to believe. I've been using Kodak's Gold 400
consumer films for the past few years, and after trying and scanning
one roll of Supra 400 I am convinced Supra has a grain above no other
film. Gold on the other hand, is pretty normal in grain.
>The only color negative films actually designed for actual professional
>applications are their Portra line, and they are designed from a set of
>fundamental research components largely controlled by their consumer
>division.
I like all of Kodak's skin tones, that's one of the reasons I still
shoot lots of Gold 400. It's a good film. Portra has a smooth grain,
but otherwise lousy colours.
I recently tried a roll of Royal Gold 100 and was also very impressed
by it's fine grain and all around excellent colours. Clearly not
repackaged consumer film.
I will agree that repackaging seems to be big with Kodak. I bought
some 'Super Gold 400' lately that's basically the same old Gold Max
400 in a new box with a different name.
Even given that Kodak's a screwup, I rarely notice any blemishes or
imperfections in any of their films. I don't know if I can say the
same about Fuji. And Fuji might have the edge in grain, but they sure
don't in colour.
Leave it to the little guy though, Konica has really been working hard
on their new films. Now, if I could only get the complete line of
Centuria Super in the stores I'd be happy.
One thing Kodak has been doing is getting all their films to print
basically the same. That might mean their Pro films are now closer to
their consumer films, but then the aging is different, and that's
important to some. It's a bonus to me, since this aging does not
matter and so I can get Pro film cheap.
Tony Parkinson
accusations about major multinational corporations
jtl
Jim has given some evidence contradicting your statement.
Care to tell us EXACTLY what films are the same?
"Jim Davis" <yda...@hkg.odn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:snrhtuk3g2hlhfvhr...@4ax.com...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
crazy. The allegations could be expressed as follows:
(1) Kodak sells Professional films at higher prices than essentially
identical emulsions sold to the mass market.
(2) In the case of some Professional films (such as E200 slide film) Kodak
makes it clear that the film is an almost exact counterpart of a mass-market
film, but with controlled aging, storage, and roll-to-roll matching.
(3) But in the case of color print films, the situation is much less clear;
Kodak does not make it clear how the mass-market and Professional films
match up, or whether there are other differences. Recall that there is a
long tradition of having professional color print films with lower
saturation and contrast than mass-market ones (e.g., Vericolor), producing
distinctly different picture quality.
(4) The effect of (3) is alleged to be that Kodak is selling one product as
two, at different prices.
Now I don't think allegations (3) and (4) would hold up. But they don't
strike me as loony. We should be responding by addressing them rather than
by making fun of Mr. Carp.
Please don't jump on *me* -- I don't know Mr. Carp and am not associated
with him in any way; all I know is what I read in the newsgroups and on the
film data sheets. And please note that I'm trying to articulate his opinion
here, not mine.
Hemi4268
Anybody who has spent 6 years in the study of photography at the school located
just down the street from Kodak known as RIT would know that the main
differences between professional and consumer film products are storage and the
testing of balance control. No news here.
Also, Kodak is not above marketing smoke and mirrors. This happend back in the
mid 60's with the 100, 200, 300 instamatic cameras. All cameras were identical
except for the front lable.
Lasts, the motion picture industry used 85% of Kodak film production or about
1500 Maga feet of 35mm film a year. Second is the 1 hour photo people using
another 15%. The professional grade film coming in at 3% and the medical
people, xrays and such, at 2%. Professional grade film is small potatos
indeed.
Larry
Bill Tuthill
>
>>I was wondering the same thing. Why is it "fraud" if amateurs get good
>>film? Is Kodak obligated to sell inferior film to amateurs?
>
> no, but it is clear fraud to sell consumer films to professionals, under
> professional trade dress and at professional price
Up until recently, the Supra films were sold at lower prices than their
amateur equivalents. If I am not mistaken, Supra 100 ~= Royal Gold 100,
Supra 400 ~= Royal Gold 400, Supra 800 ~= Max 800 GT-3. From introduction
until earlier this year, I could always obtain these Supra films at lower
cost than their amateur equivalents, both locally and mailorder from NYC.
Also, my Supra 800 results seemed less random than Max 800 that friends
occasionally gave me to scan.
By dramatically raising prices, Kodak has returned to the fraud pattern!
;-)
Tony Spadaro
allegations at that.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:294C9.2$qq6....@news.uswest.net...
Jeff Novick
writes well!
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rl2C9.65914$ku2.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Jeff Novick
I don't use Kodak films but one of the posters, Jim, I believe, clearly sees
a difference between Supra 400 and Royal Gold 400 when he scans the film. He
says the grain pattern is different. Any comment?
Jeff
"Bill Tuthill" <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uti6cld...@corp.supernews.com...
Bill Tuthill
>
> Bill, I don't use Kodak films but one of the posters, Jim, I believe,
> clearly sees a difference between Supra 400 and Royal Gold 400 when he
> scans the film. He says the grain pattern is different. Any comment?
I have not used Royal Gold 400 since the emulsion "upgrade" to RC-3, so
I cannot agree or disagree with Jim. However I have certainly noticed
blue-sky grain in my Supra 400 negatives. It's not significantly less
than blue-sky grain in Supra 800, and might be worse than in new NPH 400.
However Supra 400 reacts to underexposure by blacking out (due to high
shadow contrast) while Supra 800 gets really grainy in the shadows.
Maybe Supra 400 has better grayscale or green grain than most films
(it's hard to tell about red given its tendency to blow out).
Constructive question for Dan Carp: what happened to Kodak's multispeed
technology, as perhaps first introduced in PJM? It was touted as 100-1000
speed film and worked best around EI 500, but was DX-coded 640. Anyway,
it was my favorite Kodak technology. I thought PJM went into PJ400 and
was misused by the consumer division in their early Gold Max releases,
which were not true 800 speed films. I was disappointed that Supra 400
seemed a departure from PJM technology. Portra 400UC apparently has
more of that multispeed technology, or perhaps I'm deceived by improved
emulsion efficiency. Am I wrong in any of these statements?
Dan Carp
>>consumer films for the past few years, and after trying and scanning
>>one roll of Supra 400 I am convinced Supra has a grain above no other
>>film. Gold on the other hand, is pretty normal in grain.
Jim, you bring up a good point, the professional films are usually older
generation consumer ones, not the newest, as consumer films get more
optimized, i.e. they are cost cutted to hell and back, professionals have
less use to make of them
>I like all of Kodak's skin tones,
their consumer films have a very distinct organgey result with warmer and
darker skins and sometimes beefy result with paler skins if you print
neutrals correctly, you can get the flesh right if you are willing to
sacrifice neutrals, whereas VPS did allow you both, flesh/neutral fidelity
is the very trademark of a good portrait film
>that's one of the reasons I still
>shoot lots of Gold 400. It's a good film.
at one time color engineering meant only choosing suitable spectral
sensitizing dyes, sensitometry and image dyes, pretty much limiting the
film engineer to some simple quantifiable chemical decisions as to color
reproduction,, and you know such emphasis on fundamentals resulted in VPS
flesh/neutral fidelity,
the newer films have scavenger dyes and wandering dyes designed to boost
development of primary colors, and defect contamination of primary colors ,
the film engineer must work very closely with systems engineers to balance
these with the fundamental factors, since they do have implications on
accuracy, MOST OFTEN it is a matter of trying to get reasonable flesh with
good colors for the consumer films, while flesh and neutrals get a higher
priority on the professional side, variations around such require expensive
image simulation and then expensive coating variation
>Portra has a smooth grain,
>>but otherwise lousy colours.
take a look at flesh/neutral balance on the other films and you will see
what advantage Portra provides
>One thing Kodak has been doing is getting all their films to print
>basically the same. That might mean their Pro films are now closer to
>their consumer films
no it doesn't, the consumer group started a project to make their films
print more similarly on THEIR papers, and the professional group started a
project to make their films print more similar on THEIR papers, the
professional group took it a step further and pursued co-optimization of
the film/paper, but not having any control of the high saturation films,
such co-optimization did not take place, and said high saturation films ARE
designed with consumer paper response in mind
Dan Carp
>1500 Maga feet of 35mm film a year. Second is the 1 hour photo people using
>another 15%. The professional grade film coming in at 3% and the medical
>people, xrays and such, at 2%. Professional grade film is small potatos
>indeed.
you're missing a couple points
1) the above analysis is for 35mm, the bulk share of professionals use
medium formats
2) the professional versions should be higher quality and should demand a
price differential, you can't do an analysis of how much film, you must
analyze the returns on those films
3) while more customers use consumer film, the bigger customers use
professional films, in other words kodak's single biggest customers, are
the long roll professional portrait labs, some spending as much as
$75,000,000 a year, so while you can risk pissing of Joe Blow, and only
lose pittance, if you piss off someone like Lifetouch/Olan Mills/Etc. , you
lose $75,000,000/yr AT A POP, so there is a certain level of placation
justified on financials alone, let alone professional palate, and the
impact of opinion of professional palate onto the consumer palate
Dan Carp
>Jim has given some evidence contradicting your statement.
>Care to tell us EXACTLY what films are the same?
his statements do not conflict with mine, I am saying the professionals
film are merely the consumer films, Jim is saying the professional films
ARE EVEN WORSE than the consumer films
the professional films are older consumer films
Dan Carp
>technology, as perhaps first introduced in PJM?
actually not introduced in PJM/Ektapress, it was introduced in Kodacolor,
and since Ektapress was repackaged Kodacolor, it got multispeed
the concept was an attempt to provide one dummy film for consumers that
they couldn't mess up no matter what knobs they turned on their camera, or
what lighting conditions they encountered, it was a response to Fuji
putting out an 800 speed consumer film with 200 speed grain, kodak couldn't
match the emulsion efficiency, so they used buzzwords instead
> It was touted as 100-1000
>speed film and worked best around EI 500, but was DX-coded 640.
as you know multispeed is really just mid speed, with underexposure and
overexposure latitude, and 100 is really stretching it, not that consumers
use 100 that much any more
>Anyway,
>it was my favorite Kodak technology. I thought PJM went into PJ400 and
>was misused by the consumer division in their early Gold Max releases,
>which were not true 800 speed films.
PJx (photojournalism) films never went into nothing, they were just
repackaged consumer films
> I was disappointed that Supra 400
>seemed a departure from PJM technology.
depends totally on the whims of consumer film customer requirements, which
you know are fluff/advertising oriented and cost conscious
>Portra 400UC apparently has
>more of that multispeed technology, or perhaps I'm deceived by improved
>emulsion efficiency.
just emulsion efficiency, the Portra line is architected by the
professional division
Dan Carp
>>more of that multispeed technology, or perhaps I'm deceived by improved
>>emulsion efficiency.
>
>just emulsion efficiency, the Portra line is architected by the
>professional division
let me expound upon this, while they (professional products) are specified
by the professional division, there is no business unit allocation of
research so, research is driven by the biggest wallet, the consumer
division, the professional division is not only driven to a common
component modality out of financial considerations, but out of desperation
of no other choice
now I'm not suggesting they don't seek synergies, what I am suggesting is
that they create professional capable components, which can be watered down
for consumer application, instead of having the professional division water
up consumer components, AND IF YOU THINK I AM EXAGERRATING IN THE LEAST BIT
ABOUT THE OVERARCHING STRATEGY IN PLACE, YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN, ask
yourself why consumer films are repackaged as professional, instead of
consumer films being watered down professional films
and in the 90's they even took the development end of R&D away from the
business units, resulting in even deeper entrenchment of overarching
consumer division mentality
the result are systems and product architecture teams with consumer imaging
persuasions, IN NO WAY LIMITED TO SENSITIZED PRODUCTS, very rampant in the
equipment and software side as well
ask them why they sent their graphics folks to Connecticut, or better yet,
ask the graphics division why they thought they had to go to Connecticut
Agfa is making the link between professional and graphic applications and
eventual consumer use of such, kodak is selling off their future in such
there is nothing worse than a status quo that is afraid of the future to
such a point that they make stupid decisions about such
jtl
the professional unit) and therefore doesn't fall into this same scenario.
??
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:BOQMGIZY3757...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Hemi4268
>medium formats
You have to be kidding me. There are 3500 theaters nationwide going through at
least 3 features a week containing 10 to 15 thousand feet of 35mm film for each
feature. Just one week the motion picture industry uses up 50000 feet of film
times 3500 theaters or 175,000,000 ft of 35mm film.
Since long roll is 70 mm we will half that to 85,000,000 ft at 5 shots to a
foot. Thats like taking 500,000,000 pictures a week or just about
photographing every person in the US every week, weekend and weekout.
Larry
Dan Carp
>allegations at that.
so the idea that consumer films are fraudently being sold as professional
films, at professional prices, IS SILLY TO WHO?
and the idea that kodak's consumer division controls system and product
architecture to the deficit of the professional division, AND, rational
company strategies and profits and stock value, IS SILLY TO WHO?
silly to someone with no vested interest, or a vested interest in the
continuation of such
methinks you have based your credibility on the credibility of kodak
products and systems and don't want to face the reality that in such a
scenario you can have the rug swept out from under you should there by a
lapse in your dependent credibility, you are trying to crutch up a dinosaur
that is the very epitome of the problems of corporate America
I have a very easy way of getting at the root of this, ask yourself why
amongst all the layoffs kodak has had in the last two decades, why they
NEVER had a reckoning day for management, in fact after these layoffs, ask
them why employment has risen virtually to the same levels, MORE MANAGEMENT
WAS HIRED, MORE FAT, MORE CRONYISM, MORE CORPORATE CULTURE, MORE OVERHEAD,
its a sanctuary for imcompetency and cronyism
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/021112/manufacturing_kodak_5.html
this dinosaur is indeed showing its colors nowadays
let's take a quick look at digital cameras to see just how long kodak will
be a film company and not just an ordinary camera company like Nikon,
Minolta or Olympus, Canon, etc.
an average consumer print is 4x6 at 200 dpi, requiring a 1 megapixel camera
1 megapixel, 1990 = $10,000
1 megapixel, 1997 = $250
1 megapixel, 2002 = $100
when will 1 megapixel equal the price of a cheap 35mm camera? $25-50? the
trend looks like a logarithimetic decay to me, its clearly less than 5
years
we have lesser resolution digital cameras in this price range already, that
give somewhat disk-camera format quality images, which was acceptable at
one time, and certainly acceptable for the price and convenience
and kodak has recently lowered the barrier digital must overcome with its
focus on the smaller format APS system, which sells you less film and less
quality at a premium price and they convinced everyone to buy new minilabs
to accomodate the fools who would buy such swindling
and what of ease of photofinishing? the lesser resolution cameras are
breaking down the systematic barriers, as are the more expensive higher
resolution cameras
kodak's fate is to become a system company, like Agfa, not a product
company, or else it will simply become a camera company, like Nikon
kodak stock =? , outstanding shares=? , value=?
nikon stock= ?outstanding shares=? value=?
loss=?
I think we can predict the fallout of the trend of consumer product focus,
and we should base credit ratings exactly on such, and stock purchase
reccomendations on such
Dan Carp
>the professional unit) and therefore doesn't fall into this same scenario.
>??
it falls less into that scenario, because the customer requirements are put
forth by the professional division, but the company stripped the business
units of their dedicated R&D resources in the 90's, so such resources are
currently prioiritized by the bigger wallet, the consumer division, so the
professional division is forced to implement their requirements from
consumer components, and with people who have consumer persuasions
and I'm not criticising the concept of finding synergies and commonalities,
I am just saying the most logical and profitable approach is to make
professional quality components that can be watered down for consumer
products as opposed to making consumer quality components that can be
watered up for professionals products, AND THE LATTER IS THE OVERARCHING
STRATEGY, simply ask yourself how the mnetality of repackaging consumer
products as professional could arise, as opposed to watering down the
professional products for consumers
the result is product and system archictecture teams vying for the bigger
consumer wallet, and showing loyalties to such, in no way limited to
sensitized products, this mentalilty is rampant in the equipment and
software side as well
Dan Carp
>>through at
>>least 3 features a week containing 10 to 15 thousand feet of 35mm film
>>for each
>>feature. Just one week the motion picture industry uses up 50000 feet of film
>>times 3500 theaters or 175,000,000 ft of 35mm film.
>>
>>Since long roll is 70 mm we will half that to 85,000,000 ft at 5 shots to a
>>foot. Thats like taking 500,000,000 pictures a week or just about
>>photographing every person in the US every week, weekend and weekout.
you know, you'd think off hand that that would be the case, but long roll
professional portrait market customers are bigger accounts in terms of
dollars than motion picture customers, in fact long roll professional
portrait market customers are kodak's single biggest customers, sometimes
reaching $75,000,000 an account
motion picture print film is a commodity item in the mind of that industry,
THE PRICE WAR HAS ALREADY HAPPENED THERE, I don't know if you're aware of
the profit margins there are to play with on film, exactly the kind of
perception kodak fights from happening in their other markets , ever see a
kodak price decrease not predicated by a fuji price decrease? I can assure
you that you will likely not, kodak has a reactive, not proactive, strategy
on such
take a look at the price of motion picture print film, compared to motion
picture camera film, and then compare to professional portrait film, keep
in mind for a long while people like Seattle Film Works, York, etc., made a
nice living respooling kodak motion picture camera film for consumer use
Hemi4268
>professional portrait market customers are bigger accounts in terms of
>dollars
Well 175,000,000 feet of film used a week at even the rock bottom price of 10
cents a foot is $17,500,000 worth of film each week. Now times that by 52 weeks
and your talking $900,000,000 tab.
Now add processing and all the support and it's at least 2 billion dollars in
sales and this is at a still rock bottom price of 25 cents a foot. That film,
processing, labor and all.
Larry
..
Gary W. McIntyre
got laid off with other R&D folk)
> and kodak has recently lowered the barrier digital must overcome with its
> focus on the smaller format APS system, which sells you less film and less
> quality at a premium price and they convinced everyone to buy new minilabs
> to accomodate the fools who would buy such swindling
Originally APS film was to be the same size film as 35mm, but in a drop and
load format. It was Fuji who pushed to have the film smaller, so the cameras
would be smaller. Smaller cameras mean they're easier to take with you,
everywhere.
Kodak did not convince anyone to buy new minilabs... again it was our
partners from the far East... Noritsu this time that would not build the APS
"bridge" systems that Kodak designed (to be sold around $10,000) to allow
existing machines to handle the new format. Noritsu preferred to sell new
machines for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As for your comments about Kodak's use of the Agfa laser print engine...
well, in my opinion that's a really good idea. Agfa makes a great printer
(optical or digital)... something the R&D folks at Kodak could only do with
a Consumer product like Clas-35...
Hope your fight to have your previous employer sued goes up in smoke...
Dan Carp
>cents a foot is $17,500,000 worth of film each week. Now times that by 52 weeks
>and your talking $900,000,000 tab.
>
let's look at your numbers
30 frames/sec, 1.5 hour movie , 35 mm width/frame = around 20,000 feet
print film per movie
3500 theaters = 67 million feet/movie
what is the gross of a film?
$100 million for a very successful movie?
if they spend their whole gross on print film it would be only $1.5 a foot,
do you think they spend 100% of their gross on print film?
a roll of consumer color negative film is about $1per foot,
that would cost them 66% of gross
let's say they spent that much
how many $100 million movies by a SINGLE motion picture studio a year?
get the idea of just about how much they are going to pay for print film
what I said was that SINGLE professional portrait long roll acounts were
the biggest SINGLE photographic customers, Lifetouch, www.lifetouch.com ,
is kodak's single biggest customer, last time I heard they were spending
near $75,000,000 a year
>Now add processing and all the support and it's at least 2 billion dollars in
>sales and this is at a still rock bottom price of 25 cents a foot. That film,
>processing, labor and all.
few motion picture film processors by kit chemistry from kodak, they make
their own from published formulas
Dan Carp
they're not licensing the print engine, they're licensing the whole
printer, take a look at Agfa press releases
>Originally APS film was to be the same size film as 35mm, but in a drop and
>load format. It was Fuji who pushed to have the film smaller, so the cameras
>would be smaller. Smaller cameras mean they're easier to take with you,
>everywhere.
the real story is as follows:
1) in the late 80's, the consumer division hacked out an electronic imaging
participation strategy called project Genesis
2) Genesis alpha was designed to position film as the capture media of
choice, positioning its quality aspects over digital capture such as
resolution, and ease of use, standard film products have become known as
alpha imaging products
3) Genesis beta, photoCD, was designed to make images captured on film easy
to bring into digital systems, and if you paid attention to what they were
doing, they were promoting the image pac standard, not just the
hardware/software/diskmedia, hybrid film/digital products have become known
as beta imaging products
4)Genesis gamma was two toner (xerox like copy products) based color
electrophotographic printers designed to replace high end silver halide
photofinishing printers, like the Clas35, strictly digital products have
become known as gamma imagng products
5) sometime after the concept of delta imaging products came into play,
these were digital products that allow them to have media sales (inkjet
paper, inks, toners, electrophotographic paper, dye sub printer ribbons,
etc.)
what happened to this architecture:
1) the photographic paper and chemical cronies had a livid fit about
electrophotographic printing ensued war, won, and eventually sold the WHOLE
electrophotographic printing business to Danko. so went Genesis gamma
2) they just coudn't keep their eyes on long term enablers very long, and
they made a propreitary closed system out of Genesis beta (photoCD),
DEFECTED the open standards they were trying to promote, priced it
completely outside of expendable income ranges, and publicly crashed and
burned, so went Genesis beta, and so went very much of the consumer
divisions investment in digital, lot's of architectually related projects
went down the drain, such as their ColorSense color management project,
most architectual funding was pulled across the board
3) this left the old school in charge of Genesis alpha, and the same old
school strategies, they ressurected cartridge loading, a good idea, but the
same philosophy with EVERY previous cartridge loaded system
(126,110,disk,etc.) crept right back in, the questions started about what
grain and image structure they could get away with, and you see they ended
with with a 35/25= 40% more rolls of film from each coating event, and 40%
less quality for you, so went the concept of pitting film's quality aspects
against digital, so went Genesis alpha
they muddled in the idea of high volume digital image fulfillment for
awhile, at least in terms of software, and decided they couldn't afford to
make printer's like the Fuji Frontier, so you see consumer division's
latest strategy of providing software front ends for digital minlabs
want to know why they don't make minilabs? kokak made two sets of minilabs
in the early days of minilabs, and one of them had a 90 degree turn in the
paper transport path, after the paper was cut, cut prints were supposed to
turn 90 degrees, and when the paper was subject to high humidity, they
didn't turn 90 degrees very well, customers roared, the equipment guys
blamed the papers guys for making emulsion changes, the paper guys proved
they made no emulsion changes, and then management tired of such feudalism
and set out a dictate, no more minilabs
>Kodak did not convince anyone to buy new minilabs... again it was our
>partners from the far East... Noritsu this time that would not build the APS
>"bridge" systems that Kodak designed (to be sold around $10,000) to allow
>existing machines to handle the new format. Noritsu preferred to sell new
>machines for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
kodak promoted APS at many trade shows side by side with noritsu and the
rest of the industry, they did not have a laizze faire strategy if that is
what you are suggesting, their hopes was that APS would replace 35 mm and
they would reap the returns of the higher price and lower film size, and
such hopes represented themselves in strategies perpetrated upon the market
by the sales force
>Hope your fight ... goes up in smoke...
well, a good day to you to my friend, and may the big yellow thief bring
you all the tidings you deserve
Frank Pittel
:>and silly
:>allegations at that.
Without any evidence it's silly.
: so the idea that consumer films are fraudently being sold as professional
: http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/021112/manufacturing_kodak_5.html
--
Frank Pittel
:>Dan, can you expound on the differences between the old and new TMAX 100
:>film. The new version is said by Kodak to require about 20% more development
:>time. What are the differences, and what was the motivation for the changes
:>(including chnages to most other B&W films).
What are you talking about???
I've been using Tmax100 and Tmax400 for a few years now and find the new
emulsion to be an improvement over the old.
From the film testing I've done on the Tmax100 I changed the film speed rating
from 100 to 125 and the development times are the same. Looking at the
development adjustment chart that comes with the film shows no change for the
Tmax-rs developer -1/4 min for xtol and -1/2 min for d76 and hc-110.
: let's follow the money (silver) trail
: - 20% more development time
: - no additional grain at given speed
: - no additional speed at given grain
: - convenient change in published granularity metric to defect casual
: deduction of such
: someone took 20% emulsion efficiency away from you, and charged you the
: same price, and tried to confuse you about such, and defect future
: comparisons back
: what was the motivation? they simply believe they can get away with it
: they'll tell you the difference is because they have switched to their new
: professional coating facility, finished about 10 years ago, and then
: relegated to simple paper manufacturing because no one wanted to pay for
: technology transfer of the professional film products to that facility
: BUT THERE IS NO EMULSION EFFICIENCY DESTRUCTOR IN THE NEW MACHINE, they
: could have made it at the same emulsion efficiency,
: do a silver extraction of both new and old and you will see EXACTLY what
: they did
: someone got some wise ideas about silver laydown versus development time
: along the way
: now I will say the new machine enables tighter quality control, but if they
: take away the quality, what value is control?
: is it a rational motivation? by no means in the overall scheme, but in the
: scheme of consumer division control of market architecture, its just the
: kind of thing you would expect, cutting corners in products deemed to be
: riskable
maf
> :>film. The new version is said by Kodak to require about 20% more
development
> :>time. What are the differences, and what was the motivation for the
changes
> :>(including chnages to most other B&W films).
>"Frank Pittel" <f...@wizard.deepthought.com> wrote in message
> What are you talking about???
> I've been using Tmax100 and Tmax400 for a few years now and find the new
> emulsion to be an improvement over the old.
>
> From the film testing I've done on the Tmax100 I changed the film speed
rating
> from 100 to 125 and the development times are the same. Looking at the
> development adjustment chart that comes with the film shows no change for
the
> Tmax-rs developer -1/4 min for xtol and -1/2 min for d76 and hc-110.
>
I was mistaken about which way the development time changed. The Kodak
recommended development time for PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film (new version)
is about 20% LESS than for T-MAX 100 Professional Film (old version). I
earlier said it was 20% higher, but it is 20% lower. The new Plus-X film is
about 20% higher than the old version.
These numbers come from the Kodak D-76 data sheet for 1:1 dilution in a
small tank at 20C. The old time was 12 minutes and the new time is 9.5
minutes. You can check this at
www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.jhtml
In my original post, I never mentioned anything about quality, just the
change in development time. I suspect that for a change of that magnitude,
the emulsion has changed. Whether it is for the better or for worse is open
to discussion.
That's what are I am talking about!!!
Gary W. McIntyre
"Dan Carp" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
> >As for your comments about Kodak's use of the Agfa laser print engine...
>
> they're not licensing the print engine, they're licensing the whole
> printer, take a look at Agfa press releases
Yeah, I've seen the RP30... very nice machine...
> the real story is as follows:
>
interesting story about the Genesis project... more than believeable...
great ideas, castle wars and typical corporate mistakes.
> want to know why they don't make minilabs? kokak made two sets of minilabs
I'm aware of the System 20, which had the 90 degree turn... what's the other
one? Are you referring to the 50, which was just the film processor?
You know... you sound like a pretty intelligent guy (ignore the loony posts
here) and you most probably got hosed big time in this last round of cuts
and that's really shitty of them. I honestly don't think your public rant
will prove fruitful, here at least.
I wish you the best of luck in your struggle to find a new career...
Hemi4268
>print film per movie
>
Actually, the projector runs 90 ft a minute. Most movies are five 2000 ft
rolls and some go to 12 or 13 such as Titanic.
A typical print cost is around 50 cents a foot or $5000 a feature This times
3500 theaters, the film release costs is about $17 million dollars per film.
About twice that for Titanic.
Not too bad if the film gross is 100,000,000 but even better if it goes to DVD
and grosses another 400 million. Actually the theater releases are really a
loss leader. The big money is DVD.
Larry
maf
theatres. Obviously the big ones do, but those are in the minority.
Bill Tuthill
>
>>Constructive question for Dan Carp: what happened to Kodak's multispeed
>>technology, as perhaps first introduced in PJM?
>
> actually not introduced in PJM/Ektapress, it was introduced in Kodacolor,
> and since Ektapress was repackaged Kodacolor, it got multispeed
Which Kodacolor film was it that first got such wide exposure latitude?
I used Gold 400 GC-5 and found it had very poor shadow detail compared to
PJM or GC-6, which I believe was introduced after PJM. Gold 200 GB-6
is absolutely terrible for highlight and especially shadow detail, so
I doubt it has more than -2/+3 latitude, although I have not actually
tested it. GC-6 I can believe has fairly wide latitude, but the rolls
I scanned seemed inferior to PJ400 (perhaps this difference was entirely
a transportation and storage issue).
> the concept was an attempt to provide one dummy film for consumers that
> they couldn't mess up no matter what knobs they turned on their camera,
> or what lighting conditions they encountered
That's what I thought, but wasn't this more to obtain a film for loading
one-time-use cameras, rather than as a response to Fuji? By the way,
Fujifilm attained lower grain mostly by decreasing density, which is an
approach that usually leads to narrowing of exposure latitude.
Anyway, thanks Dan. I just wanted to note that I'm not that ticked off
at Kodak's high prices for professional film, because I can buy Fuji
instead. Fortunately for me, and I think unfortunately for Kodak, they
raised prices on the Supra pseudo-professional line just as Fujifilm
introduced NPZ and CZ-5, which are better than Supra 800 in most respects.
With new NPH, Supra 400 has also been surpassed in my view.
What ticks me off a lot more is the discontinuation of unique films,
including but not limited to Ektar/RG 25, Ektapress 1600, Pro 100 PRN,
Kodachrome 25, and perhaps Royal Gold 100 (if Royal Supra 200 sux).
Gregory W Blank
E series films,....I also like the color chemicals
and color paper exclusively ES100/ESW100/& E200 are better but narrowly
(for Color balance and sharpness),
Provia seems a touch more consistant in terms of speed, but I could be wrong.
If you could the consolidate the positive into one company what would it
look like?
Mine would be;
Kodak Color materials "Paper& Chemistry" + Kodak Azo
Ilford BWFilms
Fuji Color slide and negative
Forte BW papers
In article <utl1rs2...@corp.supernews.com>, Bill Tuthill
<ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What ticks me off a lot more is the discontinuation of unique films,
> including but not limited to Ektar/RG 25, Ektapress 1600, Pro 100 PRN,
> Kodachrome 25, and perhaps Royal Gold 100 (if Royal Supra 200 sux).
--
Photographic website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Jim Davis
<ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote/replied to:
>>>I was wondering the same thing. Why is it "fraud" if amateurs get good
>>>film? Is Kodak obligated to sell inferior film to amateurs?
>>
>> no, but it is clear fraud to sell consumer films to professionals, under
>> professional trade dress and at professional price
>
>Up until recently, the Supra films were sold at lower prices than their
>amateur equivalents. If I am not mistaken, Supra 100 ~= Royal Gold 100,
>Supra 400 ~= Royal Gold 400, Supra 800 ~= Max 800 GT-3. From introduction
>until earlier this year, I could always obtain these Supra films at lower
>cost than their amateur equivalents, both locally and mailorder from NYC.
>Also, my Supra 800 results seemed less random than Max 800 that friends
>occasionally gave me to scan.
>
>By dramatically raising prices, Kodak has returned to the fraud pattern!
>;-)
I dunno about that, Bill. I used plenty of Gold 400 and one roll of
Supra 400. That film was way different than any Gold I've ever used.
More contrast and very very fine grain. And it was expensive and hard
to find.
By the way, the new Super Gold 400 I mentioned here in Japan. Well,
it's a slightly different film to the old Gold 400, but is a couple of
good ways. Grain is way down, and contrast is up. Hmm, sounds like
Supra...
Super = Supra?
Jim Davis
(Dan Carp) wrote/replied to:
I must have said it wrong then. I did say they appear to me to be
different films.
Portra, Supra, Royal Gold. compare to Max 400.
Big difference in all these films.
But the Pro films are better in all respects. The amateur films are
also very good.
Unfortunately, Fuji colours pretty much suck.
Konica gets my vote as being lower contrast, fine grain alternatives.
Consistant, good quality, cheap. Get some today.
Jim Davis
(Dan Carp) wrote/replied to:
>
>>I like all of Kodak's skin tones,
>
>their consumer films have a very distinct organgey result with warmer and
>darker skins and sometimes beefy result with paler skins if you print
>neutrals correctly, you can get the flesh right if you are willing to
>sacrifice neutrals, whereas VPS did allow you both, flesh/neutral fidelity
>is the very trademark of a good portrait film
Portra is great at skin tones, and smooth grain. It sucks for nature
shoots, especially blues and greens. This is unlike any other Kodak
film which have great all around colours.
Portraits however, require that smooth skins and blues and greens can
fall where they may.
If portraits photogs don't like this, they can get some NPS.
Jim Davis
<ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote/replied to:
>I used Gold 400 GC-5 and found it had very poor shadow detail compared to
>PJM or GC-6, which I believe was introduced after PJM. Gold 200 GB-6
>is absolutely terrible for highlight and especially shadow detail, so
>I doubt it has more than -2/+3 latitude, although I have not actually
>tested it. GC-6 I can believe has fairly wide latitude, but the rolls
>I scanned seemed inferior to PJ400 (perhaps this difference was entirely
>a transportation and storage issue).
Interesting hearing the emulsion numbers mentioned. Just for the
record, the new Super Gold 400 I tried has this number: GC 400 - 7
And it's just slightly different from previous Gold Max that it could
appear the same. I mentioned it was basically the same film, but after
thinking it over, I have noticed slight improvements in the newer
film.
Frank Pittel
:> :>Dan, can you expound on the differences between the old and new TMAX 100
Sorry for any confusion. I was replying to Dan not you.
Bill Tuthill
>
> I used plenty of Gold 400 and one roll of Supra 400. That film
> was way different than any Gold I've ever used. More contrast
> and very very fine grain. And it was expensive and hard to find.
Supra 400 definitely scans with finer grain than Gold 400-6, but so
does Royal Gold 400.
> By the way, the new Super Gold 400 I mentioned here in Japan. Well,
> it's a slightly different film to the old Gold 400, but is a couple of
> good ways. Grain is way down, and contrast is up. Hmm, sounds like
> Supra... Super = Supra? ... Just for the record, the new
> Super Gold 400 I tried has this number: GC 400 - 7
Interesting. I've heard the new Max 400 in the USA is numbered GC-8,
but have yet to see a roll so numbered. Whenever I encounter amateur
photographers with yellow showing in their P&S film windows, I ask
to see a used film canister, and it's always GC-6.
> And it's just slightly different from previous Gold Max that it could
> appear the same. I mentioned it was basically the same film, but after
> thinking it over, I have noticed slight improvements in the newer film.
The PGI numbers decreased from 49 to 48, an imperceptible reduction
(except for Steve Dunn ;-)