Buy film, not equipment.

"Tom Phillips" (10/6/2004 2:29 PM) wrote:

Thus as I say Kodak, by making no marketing effort
whatsoever to inform the average undereducated
consumer about the advantages of recording their
images on film, is killing it's own film market. It's
all about the power of advertising.

Hi Tom,

Yes, I agree. From my vantage point, I don't understand the logic behind
this at all.

I was always taught that whatever the competitive situation (sports, games,
business, career skills, etc.) the best chance of success comes when one
plays one's strengths directly against the opponent's weaknesses.

When playing basketball, for instance, if your team is blessed with a pair
of 7+ footers who can dominate inside, it's would be considered a wise
strategy to make certain they get the ball considerably more often than
having a guard constantly shoot from 25 feet out.

Well, analog film technology was Kodak's 7+ footer. They knew this medium
like no one else. They had the technical expertise, the financial resources
and - most importantly - the desire to become the best in the industry at
what they did. And, significantly, they long ago leveraged this knowledge
into a business model that required their customers to continually
repurchase their products over and over, which they readily did. This
recurring stream of income made Kodak fat and happy. The world was good.

Then along came digital photographic technology. The classic example of a
"disruptive technology." And the subsequent sad story is well known to all.
Rather than choose to compete from their position of strength, they chose to
roll over and throw all of their experience and expertise away. One hundred
plus years of hard-earned R&D was trashed. Products and technologies and
people were dumped. Customers were alienated (as you well know).

Why? I guess because they just lost faith in their own technology. Maybe
digital scared them out of thinking straight. Maybe they jumped onto that
peculiarly high-tech bandwagon that says if everyone at the top of the
pyramid doesn't become billionaires in ninety days or less, then they've
failed. Maybe, as some have said, the "widows and orphans" were storming
the pension fund gates with pitchforks. I dunno. But the end result was
that they seem to have convinced themselves that the market for film - their
strength - was going to disappear 100% in the very near future. And there
was *nothing* they could do about it.

Or was there? If the middle 60% of the bell curve is as marketing malleable
as everyone seems to think, then what would have prevented Kodak from taking
a different approach? One that used their strengths of film technology,
massive marketing and advertising capabilities to extol the virtues of film
over digital? Sure, the photographic capture market was splitting, but that
normally doesn't give rise to a totally mutually-exclusive market situation,
does it? Kodak, with that one hundred plus year technology head start,
could have *easily* made the case to consumers that film capture was still
very superior to digital capture in all of the ways we've heard over and
over in this NG. Certainly not all would have agreed, but probably a much
larger percentage would have. That, after all, is the whole reason for the
existence of their marketing division. To convince the market that their
products are superior.

In other words, they could have played their strengths (and those of their
products) against the weaknesses of their digital opponents (and their
products). The digital side, of course, would have done similarly. The
winners would have been those products that proved themselves superior in
the marketplace. To put it succinctly, Kodak could have actually competed.
They could have forced their competition to play the game on their terms.

What? You have no simple, easy to use, viable long term color image archive
method? Gee, we have Kodachrome. What? You can't produce pleasing (and
*we'll* be the ones to define photographically "pleasing," thank you...) B&W
images? We have Tri-X. Check out damn near any B&W magazine photo essay in
the last fifty years for an example. What? You're locked into using the
same camera sensor for every photo, for the life of the camera? Guess what?
Our technology allows our users to change "sensor" types every time they
load another roll. In fact, they get a brand new "sensor" every time they
advance the frame. And by the way, if you happen to not like Kodachrome or
Tri-X, we have dozens and dozens of other choices. Which means you only
need to purchase a camera once, not once every eighteen months. And, the
cameras are only one-third to one-tenth the cost. What a concept.

But instead Kodak chose to dump it all and start from absolute scratch. How
they think they can catch up to and outdo the Sonys, et al. of the world in
the "you press the button and we'll do the rest" digital P&S market beats
me. And the saddest part of all is that with the advent of email, few are
even printing their digital photos and so have no need for Kodak's new lines
of digital consumables. And with the introduction of the camera phone -
complete with built-in "print" distribution technology - Kodak may also end
up losing the camera hardware side of that "you press the button..." market
entirely. Then what? Where will they be then?

Hoping that Nokia doesn't come up with a medical imaging generation of
mobile telephones, I guess...

Ken

In article xk49d.9979$1g5.6547@trnddc07, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:

"Tom Phillips" (10/6/2004 2:29 PM) wrote:

Thus as I say Kodak, by making no marketing effort
whatsoever to inform the average undereducated
consumer about the advantages of recording their
images on film, is killing it's own film market. It's
all about the power of advertising.

Hi Tom,

Yes, I agree. From my vantage point, I don't understand the logic behind
this at all.

I was always taught that whatever the competitive situation (sports, games,
business, career skills, etc.) the best chance of success comes when one
plays one's strengths directly against the opponent's weaknesses.

When playing basketball, for instance, if your team is blessed with a pair
of 7+ footers who can dominate inside, it's would be considered a wise
strategy to make certain they get the ball considerably more often than
having a guard constantly shoot from 25 feet out.

Well, analog film technology was Kodak's 7+ footer. They knew this medium
like no one else. They had the technical expertise, the financial resources
and - most importantly - the desire to become the best in the industry at
what they did. And, significantly, they long ago leveraged this knowledge
into a business model that required their customers to continually
repurchase their products over and over, which they readily did. This
recurring stream of income made Kodak fat and happy. The world was good.

Then along came digital photographic technology. The classic example of a
"disruptive technology." And the subsequent sad story is well known to all.
Rather than choose to compete from their position of strength, they chose to
roll over and throw all of their experience and expertise away. One hundred
plus years of hard-earned R&D was trashed. Products and technologies and
people were dumped. Customers were alienated (as you well know).

Why? I guess because they just lost faith in their own technology. Maybe
digital scared them out of thinking straight. Maybe they jumped onto that
peculiarly high-tech bandwagon that says if everyone at the top of the
pyramid doesn't become billionaires in ninety days or less, then they've
failed. Maybe, as some have said, the "widows and orphans" were storming
the pension fund gates with pitchforks. I dunno. But the end result was
that they seem to have convinced themselves that the market for film - their
strength - was going to disappear 100% in the very near future. And there
was *nothing* they could do about it.

Or was there? If the middle 60% of the bell curve is as marketing malleable
as everyone seems to think, then what would have prevented Kodak from taking
a different approach? One that used their strengths of film technology,
massive marketing and advertising capabilities to extol the virtues of film
over digital? Sure, the photographic capture market was splitting, but that
normally doesn't give rise to a totally mutually-exclusive market situation,
does it? Kodak, with that one hundred plus year technology head start,
could have *easily* made the case to consumers that film capture was still
very superior to digital capture in all of the ways we've heard over and
over in this NG. Certainly not all would have agreed, but probably a much
larger percentage would have. That, after all, is the whole reason for the
existence of their marketing division. To convince the market that their
products are superior.

In other words, they could have played their strengths (and those of their
products) against the weaknesses of their digital opponents (and their
products). The digital side, of course, would have done similarly. The
winners would have been those products that proved themselves superior in
the marketplace. To put it succinctly, Kodak could have actually competed.
They could have forced their competition to play the game on their terms.

What? You have no simple, easy to use, viable long term color image archive
method? Gee, we have Kodachrome. What? You can't produce pleasing (and
*we'll* be the ones to define photographically "pleasing," thank you...) B&W
images? We have Tri-X. Check out damn near any B&W magazine photo essay in
the last fifty years for an example. What? You're locked into using the
same camera sensor for every photo, for the life of the camera? Guess what?
Our technology allows our users to change "sensor" types every time they
load another roll. In fact, they get a brand new "sensor" every time they
advance the frame. And by the way, if you happen to not like Kodachrome or
Tri-X, we have dozens and dozens of other choices. Which means you only
need to purchase a camera once, not once every eighteen months. And, the
cameras are only one-third to one-tenth the cost. What a concept.

But instead Kodak chose to dump it all and start from absolute scratch. How
they think they can catch up to and outdo the Sonys, et al. of the world in
the "you press the button and we'll do the rest" digital P&S market beats
me. And the saddest part of all is that with the advent of email, few are
even printing their digital photos and so have no need for Kodak's new lines
of digital consumables. And with the introduction of the camera phone -
complete with built-in "print" distribution technology - Kodak may also end
up losing the camera hardware side of that "you press the button..." market
entirely. Then what? Where will they be then?

Hoping that Nokia doesn't come up with a medical imaging generation of
mobile telephones, I guess...

Ken

The ironic thing is Kodak is actually competing with itself.
It is one of the largest sensor manufacturers in the world.
many digital cameras use Kodak sensors. It's bizarre because
as a company Kodak has seemingly split into two different
companies each competing for the same market share. The sad
thing is film was and still is Kodak's bread and butter, and
like you say they are tossing to the wind.

--
Tom Phillips

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
to detail to get good results.

I've never used TP,


Tbis is obvious.

Tom, I tell you what -- since you obviously have an agenda and would
rather advance it than discuss things rationally, I'll just bow out of
this discussion and go back to shooting and developing film that uses
the same developers and, when handled correctly, produces the same kind
of image quality as the examples I've seen of Tech Pan. Now, where'd I
put my Minolta 16 II before I moved??

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message news:xk49d.9979$1g5.6547@trnddc07...
"Tom Phillips" (10/6/2004 2:29 PM) wrote:

Kodak's film marketing 'efforts' of late almost seem condescending to
film users. I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said,
'well, if Fuji wants to be the last man standing making film'.....

Pathetic.

If Kodak themselves don't believe in their own products (and they seem
not to) why should the market? Kodak should attack and attack and
attack on the benefits of film.



Thus as I say Kodak, by making no marketing effort
whatsoever to inform the average undereducated
consumer about the advantages of recording their
images on film, is killing it's own film market. It's
all about the power of advertising.

Hi Tom,

Yes, I agree. From my vantage point, I don't understand the logic behind
this at all.

I was always taught that whatever the competitive situation (sports, games,
business, career skills, etc.) the best chance of success comes when one
plays one's strengths directly against the opponent's weaknesses.

When playing basketball, for instance, if your team is blessed with a pair
of 7+ footers who can dominate inside, it's would be considered a wise
strategy to make certain they get the ball considerably more often than
having a guard constantly shoot from 25 feet out.

Well, analog film technology was Kodak's 7+ footer. They knew this medium
like no one else. They had the technical expertise, the financial resources
and - most importantly - the desire to become the best in the industry at
what they did. And, significantly, they long ago leveraged this knowledge
into a business model that required their customers to continually
repurchase their products over and over, which they readily did. This
recurring stream of income made Kodak fat and happy. The world was good.

Then along came digital photographic technology. The classic example of a
"disruptive technology." And the subsequent sad story is well known to all.
Rather than choose to compete from their position of strength, they chose to
roll over and throw all of their experience and expertise away. One hundred
plus years of hard-earned R&D was trashed. Products and technologies and
people were dumped. Customers were alienated (as you well know).

Why? I guess because they just lost faith in their own technology. Maybe
digital scared them out of thinking straight. Maybe they jumped onto that
peculiarly high-tech bandwagon that says if everyone at the top of the
pyramid doesn't become billionaires in ninety days or less, then they've
failed. Maybe, as some have said, the "widows and orphans" were storming
the pension fund gates with pitchforks. I dunno. But the end result was
that they seem to have convinced themselves that the market for film - their
strength - was going to disappear 100% in the very near future. And there
was *nothing* they could do about it.

Or was there? If the middle 60% of the bell curve is as marketing malleable
as everyone seems to think, then what would have prevented Kodak from taking
a different approach? One that used their strengths of film technology,
massive marketing and advertising capabilities to extol the virtues of film
over digital? Sure, the photographic capture market was splitting, but that
normally doesn't give rise to a totally mutually-exclusive market situation,
does it? Kodak, with that one hundred plus year technology head start,
could have *easily* made the case to consumers that film capture was still
very superior to digital capture in all of the ways we've heard over and
over in this NG. Certainly not all would have agreed, but probably a much
larger percentage would have. That, after all, is the whole reason for the
existence of their marketing division. To convince the market that their
products are superior.

In other words, they could have played their strengths (and those of their
products) against the weaknesses of their digital opponents (and their
products). The digital side, of course, would have done similarly. The
winners would have been those products that proved themselves superior in
the marketplace. To put it succinctly, Kodak could have actually competed.
They could have forced their competition to play the game on their terms.

What? You have no simple, easy to use, viable long term color image archive
method? Gee, we have Kodachrome. What? You can't produce pleasing (and
*we'll* be the ones to define photographically "pleasing," thank you...) B&W
images? We have Tri-X. Check out damn near any B&W magazine photo essay in
the last fifty years for an example. What? You're locked into using the
same camera sensor for every photo, for the life of the camera? Guess what?
Our technology allows our users to change "sensor" types every time they
load another roll. In fact, they get a brand new "sensor" every time they
advance the frame. And by the way, if you happen to not like Kodachrome or
Tri-X, we have dozens and dozens of other choices. Which means you only
need to purchase a camera once, not once every eighteen months. And, the
cameras are only one-third to one-tenth the cost. What a concept.

But instead Kodak chose to dump it all and start from absolute scratch. How
they think they can catch up to and outdo the Sonys, et al. of the world in
the "you press the button and we'll do the rest" digital P&S market beats
me. And the saddest part of all is that with the advent of email, few are
even printing their digital photos and so have no need for Kodak's new lines
of digital consumables. And with the introduction of the camera phone -
complete with built-in "print" distribution technology - Kodak may also end
up losing the camera hardware side of that "you press the button..." market
entirely. Then what? Where will they be then?

Hoping that Nokia doesn't come up with a medical imaging generation of
mobile telephones, I guess...

Ken

"Uranium Committee" wrote:

Kodak's film marketing 'efforts' of late almost seem condescending to
film users. I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said,
'well, if Fuji wants to be the last man standing making film'.....

Pathetic.

If Kodak themselves don't believe in their own products (and they seem
not to) why should the market? Kodak should attack and attack and
attack on the benefits of film.

Hi Mike,

Perhaps Kodak needs to think hard about the consequences of adding a simple
comma...

"I have communicated with Kodak insiders that have said, 'well, if Fuji
wants to be the last man standing, making film'....."

Ken

Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:


Donald Qualls wrote:

All true -- TMX isn't the same film as TP. Both require some attention
to detail to get good results.

I've never used TP,


Tbis is obvious.

Tom, I tell you what -- since you obviously have an agenda and would
rather advance it than discuss things rationally, I'll just bow out of
this discussion and go back to shooting and developing film that uses
the same developers and, when handled correctly, produces the same kind
of image quality as the examples I've seen of Tech Pan. Now, where'd I
put my Minolta 16 II before I moved??


I'm always rational. I'd challange you to point out
where my posts are "irrational."

What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...

Tom Phillips wrote:

What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...

Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
multiple years to sell off a single production run, and they'd need to
redesign the film to accomodate coating on the equipment now available
(because they consolidated B&W production and it's all coated on the
machinery that makes TMX and TMY now), and it's just not cost effective
to do so? Or do you think Kodak has, for mysterious reasons of their
own, pushed the entire world photography market to the point where only
a handful of pictorial photographers and a few hundred amateur
astronomers were still using Tech Pan, just so they could arrange to
push it into the ravine with the other rusting hulks?

Kodak still coats and sells similar emulsions -- their microfilm
business is healthy and profitable, last I heard, and Imagelink HQ,
based on my experience, produces image quality very similar to what I've
seen in Tech Pan from others, including the ability to enlarge almost
without limit (though it doesn't have the same sensitivity curve as TP,
it is at least orthopanchromatic if not fully panchro -- it records
reds, for certain, but I don't recall offhand how the red response
matches up to that for green). They don't, AFAIK, sell Imagelink films
in cine perforated 35 mm (the kind you'd be used to using in a 35 mm
still camera), in other roll film sizes, or in sheet formats (unperfed
16 mm and unperfed 35 mm only, AFAIK); unlike Agfa, Kodak's microfilm
division doesn't seem to cater to personal microfilming with general
purpose camera equipment. But the capability exists, still, to produce
a film much like Tech Pan if there were sufficient demand to pay for the
development work.

Apparently, Kodak's management doesn't see that demand.

Telling me it's market manipulation is exactly the sort of "irrational"
comment I was referring to; you're seeing a conspiracy in place of
simple (or not so simple) market forces. I don't like Kodak's B&W
product line shrinkage any more than the next guy; I dislike digital for
good technical reasons, and shoot film almost exclusively. I am,
however, capable of seeing that they won't keep a line open just for me,
or even for me and a few thousand of my closest photographic buddies --
we just don't have enough clout to influence that kind of production
capacity. Smaller companies will have to fill the gap, and they'll
never have the capital to pursue having 6-7 almost-redundant B&W
emulsions the way Kodak and Ilford have done in the past. Of course,
it's the almost redundant ones that are still available, because they
sell well, and the unique one that's going, because it doesn't. Go figure.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls wrote in message .com...

Donald hit this squarely on the head. Tech Pan has never been a big
seller, and is difficult to use. It's no big loss.

Tom Phillips wrote:

What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...

Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
multiple years to sell off a single production run, and they'd need to
redesign the film to accomodate coating on the equipment now available
(because they consolidated B&W production and it's all coated on the
machinery that makes TMX and TMY now), and it's just not cost effective
to do so? Or do you think Kodak has, for mysterious reasons of their
own, pushed the entire world photography market to the point where only
a handful of pictorial photographers and a few hundred amateur
astronomers were still using Tech Pan, just so they could arrange to
push it into the ravine with the other rusting hulks?

Kodak still coats and sells similar emulsions -- their microfilm
business is healthy and profitable, last I heard, and Imagelink HQ,
based on my experience, produces image quality very similar to what I've
seen in Tech Pan from others, including the ability to enlarge almost
without limit (though it doesn't have the same sensitivity curve as TP,
it is at least orthopanchromatic if not fully panchro -- it records
reds, for certain, but I don't recall offhand how the red response
matches up to that for green). They don't, AFAIK, sell Imagelink films
in cine perforated 35 mm (the kind you'd be used to using in a 35 mm
still camera), in other roll film sizes, or in sheet formats (unperfed
16 mm and unperfed 35 mm only, AFAIK); unlike Agfa, Kodak's microfilm
division doesn't seem to cater to personal microfilming with general
purpose camera equipment. But the capability exists, still, to produce
a film much like Tech Pan if there were sufficient demand to pay for the
development work.

Apparently, Kodak's management doesn't see that demand.

Telling me it's market manipulation is exactly the sort of "irrational"
comment I was referring to; you're seeing a conspiracy in place of
simple (or not so simple) market forces. I don't like Kodak's B&W
product line shrinkage any more than the next guy; I dislike digital for
good technical reasons, and shoot film almost exclusively. I am,
however, capable of seeing that they won't keep a line open just for me,
or even for me and a few thousand of my closest photographic buddies --
we just don't have enough clout to influence that kind of production
capacity. Smaller companies will have to fill the gap, and they'll
never have the capital to pursue having 6-7 almost-redundant B&W
emulsions the way Kodak and Ilford have done in the past. Of course,
it's the almost redundant ones that are still available, because they
sell well, and the unique one that's going, because it doesn't. Go figure.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...

Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
multiple years to sell off a single production run,

Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
kodak from making and selling it *before*.

As far as digital manipulation of the market, I've
posted this opinion elsewhere.

and they'd need to
redesign the film to accomodate coating on the equipment now available
(because they consolidated B&W production and it's all coated on the
machinery that makes TMX and TMY now), and it's just not cost effective
to do so? Or do you think Kodak has, for mysterious reasons of their
own, pushed the entire world photography market to the point where only
a handful of pictorial photographers and a few hundred amateur
astronomers were still using Tech Pan, just so they could arrange to
push it into the ravine with the other rusting hulks?

Kodak still coats and sells similar emulsions -- their microfilm
business is healthy and profitable, last I heard, and Imagelink HQ,
based on my experience, produces image quality very similar to what I've
seen in Tech Pan from others, including the ability to enlarge almost
without limit (though it doesn't have the same sensitivity curve as TP,
it is at least orthopanchromatic if not fully panchro -- it records
reds, for certain, but I don't recall offhand how the red response
matches up to that for green). They don't, AFAIK, sell Imagelink films
in cine perforated 35 mm (the kind you'd be used to using in a 35 mm
still camera), in other roll film sizes, or in sheet formats (unperfed
16 mm and unperfed 35 mm only, AFAIK); unlike Agfa, Kodak's microfilm
division doesn't seem to cater to personal microfilming with general
purpose camera equipment. But the capability exists, still, to produce
a film much like Tech Pan if there were sufficient demand to pay for the
development work.

Apparently, Kodak's management doesn't see that demand.

Kodaks managemernt is full of it, and has been for
quite a while.



Telling me it's market manipulation is exactly the sort of "irrational"
comment I was referring to; you're seeing a conspiracy in place of
simple (or not so simple) market forces. I don't like Kodak's B&W
product line shrinkage any more than the next guy; I dislike digital for
good technical reasons, and shoot film almost exclusively. I am,
however, capable of seeing that they won't keep a line open just for me,
or even for me and a few thousand of my closest photographic buddies --
we just don't have enough clout to influence that kind of production
capacity. Smaller companies will have to fill the gap, and they'll
never have the capital to pursue having 6-7 almost-redundant B&W
emulsions the way Kodak and Ilford have done in the past. Of course,
it's the almost redundant ones that are still available, because they
sell well, and the unique one that's going, because it doesn't. Go figure.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Uranium Committee wrote:

Donald Qualls wrote in message .com...

Donald hit this squarely on the head. Tech Pan has never been a big
seller, and is difficult to use. It's no big loss.

You know so little yet talk so big.

Tech Pan was _never_ a big seller, ever. Not since day
one npor was it intended to be. That never stopped Kodak
from making it. As I keep saying, it's NOT a demand issue.

You should really learn something about the film and it's
history, not to mention photography in general, before
shooting your mouth off...

Tom Phillips wrote:

What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
corporate profits...

Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
multiple years to sell off a single production run, and they'd need to
redesign the film to accomodate coating on the equipment now available
(because they consolidated B&W production and it's all coated on the
machinery that makes TMX and TMY now), and it's just not cost effective
to do so? Or do you think Kodak has, for mysterious reasons of their
own, pushed the entire world photography market to the point where only
a handful of pictorial photographers and a few hundred amateur
astronomers were still using Tech Pan, just so they could arrange to
push it into the ravine with the other rusting hulks?

Kodak still coats and sells similar emulsions -- their microfilm
business is healthy and profitable, last I heard, and Imagelink HQ,
based on my experience, produces image quality very similar to what I've
seen in Tech Pan from others, including the ability to enlarge almost
without limit (though it doesn't have the same sensitivity curve as TP,
it is at least orthopanchromatic if not fully panchro -- it records
reds, for certain, but I don't recall offhand how the red response
matches up to that for green). They don't, AFAIK, sell Imagelink films
in cine perforated 35 mm (the kind you'd be used to using in a 35 mm
still camera), in other roll film sizes, or in sheet formats (unperfed
16 mm and unperfed 35 mm only, AFAIK); unlike Agfa, Kodak's microfilm
division doesn't seem to cater to personal microfilming with general
purpose camera equipment. But the capability exists, still, to produce
a film much like Tech Pan if there were sufficient demand to pay for the
development work.

Apparently, Kodak's management doesn't see that demand.

Telling me it's market manipulation is exactly the sort of "irrational"
comment I was referring to; you're seeing a conspiracy in place of
simple (or not so simple) market forces. I don't like Kodak's B&W
product line shrinkage any more than the next guy; I dislike digital for
good technical reasons, and shoot film almost exclusively. I am,
however, capable of seeing that they won't keep a line open just for me,
or even for me and a few thousand of my closest photographic buddies --
we just don't have enough clout to influence that kind of production
capacity. Smaller companies will have to fill the gap, and they'll
never have the capital to pursue having 6-7 almost-redundant B&W
emulsions the way Kodak and Ilford have done in the past. Of course,
it's the almost redundant ones that are still available, because they
sell well, and the unique one that's going, because it doesn't. Go figure.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.