If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
: In article , David Nebenzahl : wrote: : On 10/3/2004 3:00 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: : : In article , "Magdalena W." : wrote: : : U?ytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" : : The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to : be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary : upgrades" and spend it on film. : : And he was damn right too :-) I just need a bigger fridge, because mine : is stuffed to the limits. Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-) : : I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs are such : fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of my favorite films (Pan-X, : KM 25, and now Tech Pan.) : : I'm sure such a boycott would be at least as effective as the famous "gas-out" : boycott of recent memory. We all know how great an effect *that* had on gas : prices. : You miss the point. It's not about penalizing Kodak, but rather not : investing *MY* photographic efforts in film products that Kodak will : not support long term. dak will support films that there is a market for. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
: In article , David Nebenzahl : wrote: : On 10/3/2004 3:00 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: : : In article , "Magdalena W." : wrote: : : U?ytkownik "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" : : The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to : be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary : upgrades" and spend it on film. : : And he was damn right too :-) I just need a bigger fridge, because mine : is stuffed to the limits. Mainly with Tri-X, Neopan and Astia ;-) : : I'm in fact considering boycotting Kodak, since their CEOs are such : fricking idiots and have discontinued too many of my favorite films (Pan-X, : KM 25, and now Tech Pan.) : : I'm sure such a boycott would be at least as effective as the famous "gas-out" : boycott of recent memory. We all know how great an effect *that* had on gas : prices. : You miss the point. It's not about penalizing Kodak, but rather not : investing *MY* photographic efforts in film products that Kodak will : not support long term. dak will support films that there is a market for. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Fohl wrote:
"BBarlow690" wrote in message ... The real issue isn't to buy more, it is to use more. Maybe we should each declare one day a week a Newsgroup Free Day, and go ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ HERESY! Heaven forbid! Actually he is right...... W |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Fohl wrote:
"BBarlow690" wrote in message ... The real issue isn't to buy more, it is to use more. Maybe we should each declare one day a week a Newsgroup Free Day, and go ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ HERESY! Heaven forbid! Actually he is right...... W |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote in message ...
I really like some of Kodaks E6 films, for certain applications. The maker of the E6 films that I really loved (Scotchchrome 1000) have gone out of the film business entirely, unfortunately. Oh well, I don't shoot E6 anymore anyway. Agfa 1000-speed E6 is no more either. Tim. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
I just got the Sept 18th edition of AP (a British magazine) and there was an interesting guest editorial in it. The author suggested that if you wanted monochrome films to continue to be produced, you should avoid spending your money on "illusionary upgrades" and spend it on film. The author is, in many ways right, this doesn't apply only to monochrime films. Suppose your film maker S for a moment, you need to make 200 Hectares of a film, to be worth setting up the line and do a production run. It costs you $150,000 in materials and labour to do the manufacturing run. Now you have one film that a production run takes 4 weeks to get out the door, another one takes 4 years. Are you going to continue a film, where your paying interest on the costs for an average of 2 years? Not when money is tight, so you decide to discontinue that product, and use the production time to make more of the other one. W |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Shoppa" wrote
The maker of the E6 films that I really loved (Scotchchrome 1000) have gone out of the film business entirely, unfortunately. I thought that was Ferrania, though it seems they only make a 100 these days. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Hey, if William Henry Jackson could do it successfully under the most difficult circumstances (in the wilderness or on the tops of 13,000 foot mountains with no food or water for plate processing), it can't be that hard today :-) And a second take on this -- Jackson was using, IIRC, wet plates, which means he was also carrying along a full darkroom for coating and sensitizing as well as developing, including both collodion (only slightly less explosive than guncottong) and ether (the only solvent common prior to the 20th century that would dissolve collodion). And the plates he created weren't even orhtochromatic, they were as blue-sensitive as graded printing paper. No thanks, I'd rather deal with mercury vapor. I'm simply talking about photographing difficulties using plates vs. film in a less modern era than our own. Jackson, btw, continued to photograph beyond his survey days and used lots of dry plates and later film... ...And continuing to have film means not walking away from the only film company still producing B&W that looks likely to still be in good shape this time next year. Okay, I don't like the product line contraction, either -- but in the face of falling demand, it's inevitable, That's not why...and it's BS. Large format photography is NOT in the "falling demand" category at all. And large or small plenty of people use film. As Kodaks own Daniel Carp has himself said and well knows, there are 250 million 35mm film cameras out there (US alone.) Heck, the last trip I was on (with a bunch of college students) those using digital had constant problems, including a whole trips worth of pictures lost due to failed storage cards. Those shooting film had no such problems. And as soon as people realize, like these students did, digital is unreliable as far as permanent photos go they'll go back to film. Question is, when will kodak start making an effort to market film to those 250 million camera owners as the better choice and save their own market? and the specialty items like Tech Pan pretty well have to be the first to go. Sounds like you actually might work for Kodak... Ilford, OTOH, is dropping *all* sheet film, last I heard, someone want to confirm this? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Hey, if William Henry Jackson could do it successfully under the most difficult circumstances (in the wilderness or on the tops of 13,000 foot mountains with no food or water for plate processing), it can't be that hard today :-) And a second take on this -- Jackson was using, IIRC, wet plates, which means he was also carrying along a full darkroom for coating and sensitizing as well as developing, including both collodion (only slightly less explosive than guncottong) and ether (the only solvent common prior to the 20th century that would dissolve collodion). And the plates he created weren't even orhtochromatic, they were as blue-sensitive as graded printing paper. No thanks, I'd rather deal with mercury vapor. I'm simply talking about photographing difficulties using plates vs. film in a less modern era than our own. Jackson, btw, continued to photograph beyond his survey days and used lots of dry plates and later film... ...And continuing to have film means not walking away from the only film company still producing B&W that looks likely to still be in good shape this time next year. Okay, I don't like the product line contraction, either -- but in the face of falling demand, it's inevitable, That's not why...and it's BS. Large format photography is NOT in the "falling demand" category at all. And large or small plenty of people use film. As Kodaks own Daniel Carp has himself said and well knows, there are 250 million 35mm film cameras out there (US alone.) Heck, the last trip I was on (with a bunch of college students) those using digital had constant problems, including a whole trips worth of pictures lost due to failed storage cards. Those shooting film had no such problems. And as soon as people realize, like these students did, digital is unreliable as far as permanent photos go they'll go back to film. Question is, when will kodak start making an effort to market film to those 250 million camera owners as the better choice and save their own market? and the specialty items like Tech Pan pretty well have to be the first to go. Sounds like you actually might work for Kodak... Ilford, OTOH, is dropping *all* sheet film, last I heard, someone want to confirm this? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote:
Gregory Blank wrote: Or you could just coat the glass with some colloiden nitrate and fume that. In article , Donald Qualls wrote: snip interesting stuff on plates... Point being, however (back to original topic), if enough people boycott film producers, we hasten the day when film isn't produced any more. I'm merely talking about going to Kodak's competitors. Like I said, Kodak needs to wise up. They've been consitently moving towards marginalizing their film and photo products/services in favor of digital, which does not make a profit for them. It's all about stocks, rather than being committed to being a company that offers photographers good products and good services which will in fact keep them in business. Kodak is simply letting the film end of their business slide instead of making an effort to market to the millions of people who would otherwise buy film instead of digital IF kodak made the marketing effort. Tech Pan was a beautiful film. It produced simply classic curves and outstanding pictorial results, and Kodak has very few black and white film offerings left. I can't even get Plus-X in 4x5 anymore (another good film.) It appears Kodak won't be happy until they've eliminated virtually all choice and variety in their film offerings and we're all shooting T-Max (decent film though it be...) like a bunch of cloned rabbits. Why? CEO and stock related decisions. Come to think of it, all they have left for me to shoot _is_ T-max or tri-x... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
darkroom wannabe | EC | In The Darkroom | 59 | September 4th 04 01:45 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |