Buy film, not equipment.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.

Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
Atlanta.


Regards,

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

"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message

It's going to be a while before digital capture can
compete with 4x5 and large film capture.

Never happen. Pixels can't get that small.

Although I'd like to know more about the 21.5-megapixel camera that Mamiya
introduced at Photokina!

Oh gee, and my 4x5 negatives only have 20 times that resolution....

Frank Pittel wrote:

I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.

It's called the power of advertising. Or in Kodak's
case the lack thereof.

The fact is that digital imaing is the future of photography.

The fact is it's not photography at all. If you think so
you should start posting in the digital ngs. Or like Covington
spout digital misinformation nonsense.

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.

Hey Frank, what I meant was Eastman understood the power
of advertising to create a market for a product. That's
what he did. The fact is Kodak is/has abandoned its film
market. That's why the film market is shrinking and that's
what I mean and what you "can't understand."

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

In ten years I'll be shooting film and you probably still
won't understand how altering development times changes
effective film speeds, most likely. Of course, when you
change effective speeds with digital all you get is
degraded image quality and noise...

I can't force understanding on people who insist
on the herd mentality (digital or otherwise.) Silver
hailides is a superior pictorial imaging medium. Period.

Frank Pittel wrote:

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.

You should talk...

Frank Pittel wrote:

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. :-)

Nonsense. I talked to kodak film engineers going way
back about tech pan. Never heard of such.

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.

Likely you would not know how to use it.

John wrote:

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.


My point exactly.

John wrote:

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.

true. But I felt better saying it :-)

John wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:57:57 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

I don't understand how Kodak is killing it's film market.

Simple. Complete lack of promotion. You used to see a heavy
Kodak presence at nearly every large social event. Not for about 8
years now. The last time I saw them at an event was the Olympics in
Atlanta.


Forget it, John. Like you aptly said about the troll

He hasn't listened yet..

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

George Eastman knew this very well...

Is that why he offed himself ?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Tom Phillips wrote:

Frank Pittel wrote:

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.

No, you're right, Kodak is making quite a lot of money on film in
general. The point was about Tech Pan in particular. How long should
they continue to carry a product that loses money every time they make a
batch, and how much development money should they put into the
alterations necessary to coat that money-losing product on the equipment
now available (same machinery that makes TMX and TMY)?

Basic points: it now takes longer than two years to sell off a single
production batch of Tech Pan in any given format (and 35 mm, 120, and
4x5 must be made seperately, at least at the coating step, because
they're coated on three different bases). Kodak takes a loss for every
roll that expires in their warehouse. They spend money continuously to
cold-store the film both before it's cut and packaged and between
packaging and shipping to distributors. Kodak closed the plant where
Tech Pan was last made, has sold off the machinery (for scrap, most
likely; there isn't much market for well-used film coating machines
these days, I'd guess), and would need to make significant changes
(read, spend a lot of money) to make Tech Pan again on the machinery now
in use for other B&W emulsions (Plus-X, 400TX, 320TXP, TMX, TMY, and TMZ
P3200 are now all coated in the same plant, apparently, at least in the
USA).

If in fact Kodak is using profit from film to carry digital (presumably
in hopes of digital becoming profitable before they run film completely
into the ground), it makes even less sense to continue to prop up a film
that loses money. A public corporation simply can't justify that unless
the product in question is so closely tied to the corporate name and
image that discontinuing it would cause significant loss of market
volume on other products (can't think of an example offhand, because I
don't follow corporate operations in any detail, generally).

I personally don't have much use for a film that has to be shot at EI 25
(or up to EI 80 or so if I futz around with exotic development); I
tolerate it in my 16 mm cameras because I don't have access to anything
much better (I now get EI 100 with Copex Rapid), but for my money, with
modern materials, ISO 100 is almost too slow; I *like* using one film
from daylight to well lit interiors, over the whole range my meters work
(Gossen Sixtomat and the internal meter in my Spottie, both drop off at
about the level of a kitchen with two 75 W bulbs in the overhead
fixture, around EV 3 or 4 on ISO 100), hand held with a fast lens. I
dislike needing a tripod on a camera that doesn't have a cable release
socket (all Minolta 16 models), and I'm willing to accept some grain in
shots from a 10x14 mm negative as the price of having a robust, fully
manual camera I can carry in my shirt pocket all the time (and afford).
If I could get TMX and TMY already cut in 16 mm, and get one of those
emulsions in 9x12 cm, I'd never need anything but Plus-X, Tri-X, TMX and
TMY.

Your mileage may vary, but it won't bring back Tech Pan, because Kodak
isn't going to spend development money to continue losing money on every
production run. It's as simple as that, and while I dislike a lot of
what they're doing with/to film, I can't disagree with this decision.

--
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.