Buy film, not equipment.

Tom Phillips wrote:


: Donald Qualls wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: corporate profits...
:
: Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's taking
: multiple years to sell off a single production run,

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

How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the problem
that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
make it anymore.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
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.

That's what I said.

Not since day
one npor was it intended to be.

I agree.

That never stopped Kodak
from making it. As I keep saying, it's NOT a demand issue.

No, it's a demand/cost of re-building issue. They CANNOT make it
anymore as it was originally formulated. Same with Kodachrome 25. To
do so would require reformulating a new film. Same with Kodachrome 25.
Other films HAVE been reformulated and re-introduced (Tri-X, Plus-X,
etc.). Their sales volume made it econmically feasible to do so. This
is no the case with Tech Pan. It's that simple.

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

I have used it, but I found it of very little value for my kind of
work.


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.

Tom Phillips wrote:



You know so little yet talk so big.

Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
reflexively angry response.

Please, don't feed the troll.

--
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.

Frank Pittel wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

: Donald Qualls wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: corporate profits...
:
: Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
: taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,

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

How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
the equipment to make it anymore.

Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.

Tom Phillips wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Donald Qualls wrote:
: :
: : Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: : tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: : Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: : understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: : about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: : to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: : corporate profits...
: :
: : Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
: : taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,
:
: : Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
: : kodak from making and selling it *before*.
:
: How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
: problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
: the equipment to make it anymore.

: Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.

Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
past.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Donald Qualls wrote in message .com...
Tom Phillips wrote:



You know so little yet talk so big.

Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
reflexively angry response.


I agreed with you, so what's the problem?

Frank Pittel wrote:
Tom Phillips wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Donald Qualls wrote:
: :
: : Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: : tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: : Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: : understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: : about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: : to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: : corporate profits...
: :
: : Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
: : taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,
:
: : Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
: : kodak from making and selling it *before*.
:
: How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
: problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
: the equipment to make it anymore.

: Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.

Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
past.

Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
and process the images digitally.

I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
manner.

So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
coulds be scanned using a scanner.

W

The Wogster wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : : Donald Qualls wrote:
: : :
: : : Tom Phillips wrote:
: : :
: : : What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: : : tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: : : Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: : : understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: : : about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: : : to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: : : corporate profits...
: : :
: : : Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
: : : taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,
: :
: : : Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
: : : kodak from making and selling it *before*.
: :
: : How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
: : problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
: : the equipment to make it anymore.
:
: : Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.
:
: Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
: In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
: past.

: Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
: push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
: Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
: cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
: and process the images digitally.

They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
That's the only way that they can survive.

: I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
: equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
: can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
: digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
: manner.

: So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
: have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
: made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
: that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
: coulds be scanned using a scanner.

That's a very good idea. I'm very close to moving from the "wet" darkroom to the
"digital" darkroom. It's going to be a while before digital capture can compete with
4x5 and large film capture.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote:

The Wogster wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: Tom Phillips wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : Tom Phillips wrote:
: :
: : : Donald Qualls wrote:
: : :
: : : Tom Phillips wrote:
: : :
: : : What seems somewhat irrational is getting advice about
: : : tech pan from someone who never was a tech pan affectionado.
: : : Now, I'm not offended by any means, I just think you don't
: : : understand the issue. It's not about market demand. It's
: : : about market manipulation. Tis always been so when it comes
: : : to the availablity of consumer products vs. short term
: : : corporate profits...
: : :
: : : Tell me how it's market manipulation to reach a point where it's
: : : taking multiple years to sell off a single production run,
: :
: : : Tech has _always_ been that way, and it never stopped
: : : kodak from making and selling it *before*.
: :
: : How long should Kodak lose money making the film?? There's also the
: : problem that they could no longer make the film since they don't have
: : the equipment to make it anymore.
:
: : Kodak is losing far more profits on digital, not film.
:
: Like it or not digital is the future while film is the present and the past.
: In order for Kodak to survive it needs to invest in the future not cling to the
: past.

: Kodak needs to find what it's strongest profit generators are, and then
: push those to generate the highest profit for the smallest cost.
: Currently I think that the biggest potential is in the area of
: cross-over shooters. People like me, I shoot film, then scan the film,
: and process the images digitally.

They also need to determine where the future of photoraphy is and move towards that.
That's the only way that they can survive.

Kodak is killing it's own film market. markets are
*developed*, they just don't happen.

This is what you and Don Qualls fail to understand about
what's going on. George Eastman knew this very well...


: I shoot film for a couple of reasons, portability, reasonably priced
: equipment that isn't obsolete by the time I get home, and the fact it
: can be stored relatively permanently in a small space. I process
: digitally because I find it easier to process the images in a Wysiwyg
: manner.

: So a line of films could be designed that are easy to scan, but still
: have the long term storage abilities of AgBr. Especially if it could be
: made compatable with digital ICE type equipment. This might mean a film
: that could not be printed with convential enlarging equipment, but
: coulds be scanned using a scanner.

That's a very good idea. I'm very close to moving from the "wet" darkroom to the
"digital" darkroom. It's going to be a while before digital capture can compete with
4x5 and large film capture.
--

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Donald Qualls wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:



You know so little yet talk so big.

Ssshh, Tom, even when he's agreeing with me, you're feeding him with
this stuff. I posted a rational argument based on economics and
business sense; he posts inflammatory statements intended to provoke a
reflexively angry response.

Please, don't feed the troll.

He's not being fed. He's being told to shut up.