Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,245   Online: 725
      
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 151
  1. #101
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,292
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    I apologize for being blunt.
    It has nothing to do with being blunt, Noel. It has everything to do with yet another example of trying to prove the truth of a proposition by using reverse inference. That can't happen.

    It's the logical equivalent of claiming that the Antarctic glaciers melted and millions of people worldwide were driven from their homes and drowned in the ensuing floods, all because Johnny's mom drove him to school last Thursday in a gasoline-burning automobile. Had she made him walk to school, those damned glaciers would still be there.

    One can successfully argue upward from the many specific instances to a single generalized conclusion. But one can't reverse that direction and argue downward that the generalized conclusion is the root cause proof of any one of the specific instances. That's what you are trying to do. That's why your cause-and-effect lines don't meet.

    All companies need to make a profit. We all know that. We are not ignorant. But telling me "companies need to make a profit" tells me absolutely nothing about the feasibility of manufacture of the IR film in question. And implying that as the primary reason for the discontinuance of that IR film is a blatant attempt at reverse inference.

    What you are saying is that companies need to make a profit, Efke couldn't make that profit by manufacturing IR film, so Efke went out of business.

    As if there were no other aggravating circumstances. Except that there were. Read this post by someone with intimate knowledge of the Efke crash-and-burn. No mention whatsoever of IR film as the specific aggravating circumstance.

    And still, none of the above addresses the base question posed by Nathan earlier, and subsequently echoed by me.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  2. #102
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,292
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    And in defense of Ken's slightly testy response...


    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    I just get frustrated when these threads seem to produce the sentiment "It's hard, and therefore IT CAN NEVER BE DONE BY ANYONE EVER AND YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS WHO THINK PRODUCTS JUST HAPPEN BY MAGIC!!1!!one!!". OK, I exaggerate a little, but really only a little.
    It's worse even than that. This sentiment is usually expressed regarding things that have already been successfully done in the past. Given that context, how people can, with a straight face, logically claim absolute impossibility today, is maddeningly beyond me. (Especially when that message is delivered under cover of authority.)



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    Well, it's not like we were asked to pick a price; I think most of us assumed they were charging what they needed to! (And in defense of Ken's slightly testy response, I'm pretty sure most of us were already aware that the company needed to make a profit. I also suspect they didn't last for 65 years without noticing that themselves.

    We do know that to bring an emulsion to market similar to Efke 100, he and Adox had to evaluate the price, and CHS II 100 ended up being quite a bit more expensive than its ancestor---but not outlandishly so, and we outside observers necessarily don't know how much of the cost increase came from where.

    If he turned up with an Adox IR820 with a price similarly scaled up relative to the Efke version, I think plenty of people would be excited---but "plenty" is defined in terms of the market for infrared film, which of course is small.

    -NT
    I think the your 1st assumption was the problem in shrinking market and a deep recession the little guys were bound to suffer given their local market was hard hit and currency was shifting and they may have had EEC standards to deal with.

    Lots of our light factory estates are ghost towns.

    But a major problem to an antique coating machine probably a death blow anyway.

    I note there was a comment about their QA earlier and repeated web gossip can do a lotta damage to a small guy. All my purchases were perfect, ISO was good, etc.

    They may have had a large market to develop the IR film for.

    Id try Adox if I were you but probably too late even restarting production with a new coater and the same staff might have killed the IR film some of the chemicals may have been contrabanded as well.

    Making film is a black art...

  4. #104
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,022
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post

    I just get frustrated when these threads seem to produce the sentiment "It's hard, and therefore IT CAN NEVER BE DONE BY ANYONE EVER AND YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS WHO THINK PRODUCTS JUST HAPPEN BY MAGIC!!1!!one!!". OK, I exaggerate a little, but really only a little.

    -NT
    Interesting statement in the face of my post, and rather "blunt" if I may say so.

    But, we have seen many many manufacturing operations and have seen the pricing on many things from soup to nuts so to speak, but not film. Interesting that so many seem to have opinions here on something they have never done, never seen done and never studied in depth due to the lack of textbooks.

    There are texts and courses explaining how to make automobiles, paint, carpeting and a variety of other every day objects, but none on analog film and paper making. (except for one two minor texts) Yet, you offer your comment with emphasis. Well, I know a bit about the EFKE coating operation and a bit about what is going on in the industry. Don't discount my comments, please.

    PE

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post




    It's worse even than that. This sentiment is usually expressed regarding things that have already been successfully done in the past. Given that context, how people can, with a straight face, logically claim absolute impossibility today, is maddeningly beyond me. (Especially when that message is delivered under cover of authority.)



    Ken
    HiKen

    Eastmann coated film in 19th century knowing he was going to corner an enormous market by bringing film photography to the masses, he was repeating an experiment done by a third party, to commercialize it.

    Doing a new film type cause of contrabanded material on a different machine with different people is still sufficiently difficult that you are going to need several attempts.

    Each try is expensive and potential sales volume pitifully small and decreasing. These two make the task impractical not impossible...

    The impossible people took over an operating Polariod factory but their 1st product was not a shadow of Polariods and their current product still is a lesser thing. But the kids think it is magic.

    They knew that there was a niche market ie available cameras and the c41 labs were dropping like they had the black death.

    Far IR is too impractical to borrow money for. Crowd funding might be possible if enough people are rich. But it would be risky.

    You would have to put your wallet where your mouth is.

    Basically we have killed a supplier and we need to resuscitate him but we have waited too long for the CPR to work, that is my take, but ask Adox they may even have tbe IPR already.

    Noel

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,277
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Yet, you offer your comment with emphasis. Well, I know a bit about the EFKE coating operation and a bit about what is going on in the industry. Don't discount my comments, please.
    I appreciate your patience and I plead guilty to a little bit of rhetorical venting. :-) Actually, your post didn't paint with nearly so broad a brush as that---I read it basically to say "experiments are expensive", which is a perfectly reasonable and relevant statement.

    But obviously, whatever the obstacles were, Efke *were* able to climb over them at one point, and it's not like the knowledge of how they did it died with the coating machine. Some posts, partly including your own, seem to assume that it should be obvious to everyone that nothing can be salvaged from those mortal remains---that an Adox or a Ferrania, or I suppose some future "IRmpossible Project", self-evidently *can't* pick up the recipe that Efke were using and try to run with it.

    And I agree with Ken that the arguments for that proposition are not in evidence; that it would be technically hard we can all grant, that specific scenarios like Ilford "SFX 820" are out we can grant, and that some amount of up-front R&D costs would pose a feasibility risk we can grant. But new emulsions do happen, including from small operations like Adox---why is it so putatively obvious that IR sensitivity specifically presents insurmountable challenges, not just for Ilford but for all possible actors?

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,277
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Basically we have killed a supplier
    How do you conclude "we"? Personally, I bought a bunch of Efke stuff at the prices they were charging for it; if those prices killed the supplier, I think it counts more as a suicide.

    It's a shame---I would have paid significantly more for some of those products, and I think the market interest in their final runs of material suggests others would have too.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,820
    The 'we' was cause I bought 100 or more cassettes really cheap and did not worry that it was close to production cost until they had passed away.

    My appreciation is you did the same hence 'we'.

    Have you looked at Ilfords SFX price and spectral response?

  9. #109
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    The 'we' was cause I bought 100 or more cassettes really cheap and did not worry that it was close to production cost until they had passed away.

    My appreciation is you did the same hence 'we'.

    Have you looked at Ilfords SFX price and spectral response?
    And if you had "worried" you'd have done what, sent them a check for some extra money without being asked?

    To the extent the demise could be blamed on the price being too low Nathan is right, it was more of a suicide.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,277
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    The 'we' was cause I bought 100 or more cassettes really cheap and did not worry that it was close to production cost until they had passed away.
    But what's the alternative? Send donations? I'm not trying to be obstinate or facetious here, I just don't understand how you rationalize blaming the customer when the supplier underprices.

    Have you looked at Ilfords SFX price and spectral response?
    I haven't looked at the price lately, but the spectral response poops out much lower than the Efke film did. See the compared curves at http://www.digitaltruth.com/products...d_film_010.php, for instance.

    Rollei reaches higher, but as compared to the Efke film, it does it with a very different curve within the IR range and a much lower "cliff" around 780 nm. I've shot the two side by side through an 89B and found them very different; the Rollei film is a stop or two faster but looks less "IR-y".

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin