Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,751   Online: 889
      
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 48910111213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 155
  1. #131
    thedarkroomstudios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Merchantville, NJ - Metro Philadelphia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    223
    D-76:
    Nacco makes a liquid (and also as 1G powder) concentrate they claim is the same as D-76 as well (aptly named Nacco Super 76). It was a while ago when I tried it here and it seemed the shelf-life or working solution was extremely short.
    Nacco Sensidol can't make up its mind if it wants to be Microdol or HC-110

    (Who knows, Nacco's probably made by the same folks who make Freestyle's )

  2. #132
    derevaun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oly, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    67
    A bit tangential here, but Nacco Super 76 is phenidone based and is more like Microphen in terms of look and dev times. But there is TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary:

    http://www.photoformulary.com/Deskto...ion=0&langId=0

    ...which "duplicates the working characteristics of Kodak D-76 precisely." I haven't used it, but I'm fairly confident PF will produce chemistry to replace (and improve upon) popular soups from Kodak in particular and major products in general. And in any case their more creative stuff is more attractive to me. Same goes for film: I'm comfortable with the idea that someday I'll be so settled on a process that I depend on a single film for my total happiness, but for now I'm having a good time getting to know new films and combinations.

  3. #133
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by DKT
    so it goes
    Ah, any man quoting my favorite author can't be all bad

    Well, I think you raise an excellent point - to many of us, this is a hobby, and we don't know a single factory rep from Ilford or Kodak, etc. Fact is, Ilford has fallen on hard times, and I am sure the nature of theindustry was not the only factor invovled - it just sounds like the paper & chem & film part of it was theonly part that could be slaveged, and perhaps was worth saving, as fromthe sounds of it, they alienated their professional customers long ago.
    And the unfortunate part is, there are jobs and libelyhoods affected by what hobbyists like me only see as a sad inconvenience.
    And I have no doubt that Ilford execs want a bottom line and a bonus as badly as anyother suit in any other company - I am NOT under the impression
    that Ilford is being charitable, I have no misconceptions as to the fact that if they could tell us they were givena papal decree to be God's suppliers of photo equipment, they WOULD make that claim and count the money. But, for whatever reason, they are not misguided enough to not know where their bread was buttered, and likely will be down the road.
    I just don't like to feel like the doggy bag that someone asked for at a restaurant out of politeness for the staff, and conveniently jettisoned as soon as possible. Perhaps its reality that I am having this adverse reaction to, but its my reality, and I don't like what Kodak is saying about it.

    Then again I, too, am ranting...

    Peter.

  4. #134
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    TRI X is unique - I will shoot it in LF till I cant get it. TMAX 400 is also a winner - my handheld favorite for MF - I would hate to loose these emulsions. HP5 is on my shelf and occasionally I use it but it is not my first choice - the grain is mushy to me. I am not sure what the replacement emulsion would be. Other than HP5 and Delta ... I have no use for APX400 - I don't know if that will be around either. I am just not trying J&C Classic but not the 400 yet. Materials are changing and I guess we need to be innovative to get the look we want with different materials.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by derevaun
    A bit tangential here, but Nacco Super 76 is phenidone based and is more like Microphen in terms of look and dev times. But there is TD-16 from Photographers' Formulary:

    http://www.photoformulary.com/Deskto...ion=0&langId=0

    ...which "duplicates the working characteristics of Kodak D-76 precisely." I haven't used it, but I'm fairly confident PF will produce chemistry to replace (and improve upon) popular soups from Kodak in particular and major products in general. And in any case their more creative stuff is more attractive to me. Same goes for film: I'm comfortable with the idea that someday I'll be so settled on a process that I depend on a single film for my total happiness, but for now I'm having a good time getting to know new films and combinations.
    Not sure if people have already discussed it, but it's pretty easy to mix D-76 yourself. In fact, there is a derivative known as D-76H that omits the Hydroquinone and D-23 is an even simpler formula that gives results very close to (in my mind indistinguisable from) D-76.

    These really aren't much more trouble than buying D-76 or ID-11 yourself and you will likely save a little bit of money.

    And you may well be welcoming the cost savings, since as players drop from the film and paper market we can expect both to get considerably more expensive.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    Aldevo, you seem to have the answers. I suspect that there are alternatives other than those that you or i can see. As hard as it may be to believe some of the people running these companies are smart.

    I don't see entering the digital market as a form of diversity. I see it as a very high risk venture. Once Ilford is making money they could buy a biscuit company.
    You're making a good point but I don't see entry into the consumables (paper, inks) market supporting digital photography as a higher risk venture than, say, trying to hold your position in a market that is showing year over year declines in sales of 20% or more. There's no sign of that trend leveling off. Yet.

    Yes, there probably are alternatives. Good ideas are easy to come by but the money to finance them is harder to find.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by blaughn
    Jim, I think their concern is more fundamental than that. Before they get to that sophistication level, they need to have attained a secure standing in their chosen industry.

    Think about the change they are trying to make. Kodak grew up in a high-markup, recurring demand, process manufacturing environment. The film and paper processing was a cash-cow and their challenge was to keep their brand in front of customers. It was a marketing driven, process manufacturing firm with incredible brand loyalty.

    They are now in a consumer electronics industry where the life of an innovative new product is measured in months and where the business requires continual innovation in order to make a single sale. The manufacturing is different, the competition is cutthroat, the margins stink initially and then get worse, consumer loyalty is non-existent and stockholder nervousness is at an all time high.

    Browse this article. My guess is Kodak was caught by surprise by this trend.

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Digit...past-295.shtml

    They needed to cut losses far more quickly than anticipated and my guess is they are probably in trouble already.

    Kodak is a photochemical R&D and supply company - not an electronics technology company. Their brand name carries little weight, and in fact may be a liability in the consumer electronics industry. In your opinion, who are the top ten consumer electronics/computer technology companies. I'll betcha Kodak isn't on your list. That is the problem Kodak faces.

    Stopping production of Black and White paper smacks of a desperation move. They became the #1 digital photography company by cutting prices and profits - not through innovation. They are on the back side of the power curve - having to put more and more energy and money out for less and less profit - just to stay where they are. Shrink the market, miss on a product introduction, rattle stockholder confidence - any one of these will spell disaster. If they do everything right - the will be known as a "me too" market-following has been.

    It's sad.
    I agree with your anlaysis.

    But Kodak has really been in trouble with investors since about 1999. Kodak did much of the ground-breaking R&D in digital in the 80's and early 90's - then hesitated bringing it to market.

    As I've been trying to point out - there are really two things that the entities that lend companies money tend to look at: profitability and cash flow.

    People have a good notion of profitability (though many believe seem stuck on their belief that merely making any money on a product is good enough reason to produce it). They don't have a good notion of cash flow because they don't realize that depreciation of plant, property, and equipment gets added back here. So Kodak could be losing money on a film/paper line and be financially bound to keep producing the stuff because it happens to be getting a healthy stream of cash on its statements from depreciation. Once that depreciation slows, then you get rid of the product line and you take a write-off (you get money towards cash flow).

    This is an awfully hard thing to do. Ideally, you time your exit from the market when depreciation is still healthy but you aren't losing your shirt from an operation profitability standpoint.

    But the market doesn't always (even usually) cooperate. And if you've got a cash flow issue, you may have to take write-offs earlier than expected.

    I think that's what happened here and B&W paper operations were an easy target - if an unfortunate one for us.

    There's been talk of taking some large U.S. corporations (e.g. Maytag) private lately. I wish Kodak could spin-off it's traditional analog photo operations, but that's unlikely as the digital side of the house still needs the cashflow to grow.

    It's sad.

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    That's what I wonder. B&W Paper doesn't compete with digital and they have the machinery,patents,personel, distribution, consumers and brand recognition already in place. Seems like that would be more valuable than a write-off.
    Ask yourself who wants to enter this shrinking market and of those who do, who has the money to do so? And personnel? Who wants to employ Americans or Europeans? We're too damn expensive and the entire world knows that.

    Not even Lucky Films of the PRC is untouched by the delcine in analog photography. They have stated that they will be investing, increasingly, in digital in the future.

    By and large there aren't any patents in effect (17 years in the USA) any more in this market sector. There isn't much in the way of innovation going here anymore, just tweaks here and there. How much are those worth?

    Besides, sometimes you *have* to take write-offs because you need the cash short-term.

    The asking price (always balanced against what a company like Kodak can keep pumping in from the depreciating operations) is going to have to get much lower before this can become a reality. I wouldn't give up hope, but this is probably not likely for some time if at all.

  9. #139
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by gnashings
    Well, I think you raise an excellent point - to many of us, this is a hobby, and we don't know a single factory rep from Ilford or Kodak, etc. Fact is, Ilford has fallen on hard times, and I am sure the nature of theindustry was not the only factor invovled - it just sounds like the paper & chem & film part of it was theonly part that could be slaveged, and perhaps was worth saving, as fromthe sounds of it, they alienated their professional customers long ago.
    And the unfortunate part is, there are jobs and libelyhoods affected by what hobbyists like me only see as a sad inconvenience.
    well that's just it. It's not Kodak or Ilford's fault really. People like me--and well, there about 6 people like me at work--we're at a crossroads. I can't put it in words, but it depresses me. I'm a photographer, it's what I have always done for a living, and I'll be able to use whatever materials or media I have to for the job. I have no problem with digital, I use it now and see benefits actually to it. Like I run E6 at work, and I hate it. If I never have to run another control strip plot again, I'll be in heaven. I felt that way when I had to color print. I hated it. B/W was differnt.

    I'm not all gooey romantic about seeing the print come up in the tray and all that. I've been doing this since I was a kid, and working in labs before I even had a driver's license. The thing I hate about digital--is that I don't have to *think* about what I do with film or paper. It's almost effortless at times, and sometimes it's a boring routine even. But I can do it, and never tire of it.

    I've worked in darkrooms so long--as a photographer, not a lab guy. This is important, because the jobs I have had, have all required me to shoot and then do everything else. Our museum and archives labs, are similar to old newspaper labs in this regard--that was the profession I started in, and saw lot of people forced out of when papers began to go digital almost 20 yrs ago.

    So--see--I have seen this coming. It's taken many years though, to finally get to the little sanctuary I found myself in. I never planned to work as a museum photographer. It just happened, and now after 13 yrs I find myself in a position of uncertainty and anxiety over the future. Much like those backshop typographers at the paper I worked for, who all lost their jobs. Some moved into other positions, but most were laid off.

    So--it's tough. I'm not complaining, I have somewhat the luxury of time compared to others. At work---we can control our destiny so to speak, but what it will take will be for us to bite the bullet,, and admit that we'll have to lower our personal standards a bit to adjust.

    It's the loss of craft that's killing me, I hate to say it because I know it sounds trite. Kodak's news just sparked it all off. A guy I work with hasn't slept hardly a wink sine that news came out. I'm telling you--we take the news in a different way. It's the feeling of gloom, that everything we learned in college, and have made a living at, is now about to end.

  10. #140
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    It will be interesting to see where the market, both the consumers and the suppliers, eventually stabilize. I was at Pearl Paint yesterday and it seems that users of virtually every creative medium are being adequately supplied and the store was busy mid-day and mid-week. I wouldn't even want to go there on a weekend.

    There will always be people who believe "If you want a picture, use a digital camera, If you want a photograph, use an analog camera." Just look at all the snobby, elitists that turn up on this site
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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