Buy film, not equipment.

"The Wogster" wrote in message
...

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.

Actually it would not be hard to maintain conventional printability.

The C-41 black-and-white films come to mind. They are easier to scan than
conventional black-and-white films because of (IIRC) less maximum density;
also, infrared techniques for identifying dust and scratches work on these
films, but not conventional black-and-white.

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...

: 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.

Right. It would not be good to be profitable but doomed, like a good
buggy-whip maker in 1940...

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.

Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
introduced at Photokina! It's compatible with their medium format lens
system.

Tom Phillips wrote:


: 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.

I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market. The fact is that digital
imaing is the future of photography. Within ten years film will be a niche market.
If Kodak is going to survive it has to face that reality and adjust it's business
plan to move into digital.

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

I would bet that George Eastman would be moving full speed into the diital world.
The market for film is shrinking rapidly and it's rate of decline is increasing
every day.

I know you don't want to hear that it but unfortunatly it's the reality of the
world we live in.


:
: : 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
: -------------------
:

--




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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

There's also the problem
that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
make it anymore.

It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
and as base ages.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:39:14 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:


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.
--

Actually they already have. They hold an incredible number of
patents none of which collect an hourly wage, need a place to work or
have to contend with regulations such as those provided by the EPA.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Tom Phillips wrote:

: 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.

He is being fed by the attention. The nature of the attention is irrelevent.
While I don't think this will work the only way it will work is if everyone
joins in.
--




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

John wrote:
: On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:25:53 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:

: There's also the problem
: that they could no longer make the film since they don't have the equipment to
: make it anymore.

: It's actually not that complicated. Once you have the formula,
: the emulsion can be made up relatively easy and cheaply. Binding the
: emulsion to the base is somewhat challenging as you need to be sure
: that the emulsion will not lift from the base as the film is processed
: and as base ages.


My understanding is that there was an issue with the base and the interaction between
the base and the emulsion. I got this from kodak so the truth may vary. :-)

Personally I never used the film and had no intentions of ever using it. The lack of
sales of the film bear out that I'm not the only one that don't use it.
--




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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:11:27 -0400, The Wogster
wrote:

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.

Sorry but they are aiming at the larger market. The
snapshooter. They buy about 20,000 computers a day here in the USA and
the sales reps often add a digital camera as an incentive.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:23:20 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

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

Companies like Kodak don't have to follow trends exactly. They
can create markets just as they have with their developments in
digital.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:42:42 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:

Please, don't feed the troll.

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

He hasn't listened yet.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email