Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,859   Posts: 1,583,126   Online: 860
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,878
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by msloane
    I'm surprised at the negativity of this thread. Who knows what most company's will do considering that in today's era strong term results are the most important. The point of a petition is too show that there might demand. If enought people sign it and a company responds than great and if not who cares.

    mike
    I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.

  2. #22
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.
    I don't think it is as much negativity as it is reality, As has already been mentioned, the equipment is expensive to produce the product, with the way things are in this highly un-settled market, I am glad to have something to put in my medium format camera as this seems to be an area that is really suffering, if we as traditional photographers can mount a real run at getting a company to produce the product, more power to us, but it would, as I said, have to be one hell of a commitment to keep them doing it.

    Good luck, but again, I am glad to still have some film to shoot, let alone demanding a product that is not a strong possibility right now and perhaps not in the future. I mean, come on, look at this thread as an example, this website has almost 10,000 members and since this thread was started, with my second reply, there is only 21 message posted, to me, this shows a trend in the commitment of the community for this particular product...go figure..

    Dave

  3. #23
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,878
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Satinsnow
    I mean, come on, look at this thread as an example, this website has almost 10,000 members and since this thread was started, with my second reply, there is [sic] only 21 message posted, to me, this shows a trend in the commitment of the community for this particular product...go figure..

    Dave
    Yes, I'd say it shows that not all 220 users here feel the need to enter into a debate because of a simple announcement that those who wish to do so may go to a certain URL and sign a petition for the product. I think it also shows that several thousand 120 users have the decency and good will not to attack traditional photographic products others use, just because they don't see the need for them personally.

    Personally, I only see the need for one kind of ground glass, but that's just me . . .

  4. #24
    Fintan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    2
    Photographers should be supporting fellow photographers who are trying to save or re-instate their favourite products.

    Should everyone want to save their own favourite product?
    Are we really that selfish?
    Will bickering among ourselves achieve anything?

    Off topic, this thread is not a great welcome to Philippe, I do apologise Philippe.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Fuji and Kodak already have machines. They must since they produce the product.

    The problem is you kill 220 and some people will ditch film. It's wishfull thinking to believe they will just switch to 120. 220 isn't cheaper and it's not easier to find then 120. So it's reasonable to believe most of the big users of 220 aren't doing it out of boredom. I bet most are already facing pressure to switch to digital. So you can expect them to just move on. Some of the 120 users who are borderline will see it being a sign of things to come. They'll switch.

    Okay you say not bad. Well think about it. Each roll of 220 sold uses the same film and spool that 120 uses. The users of 220 tend to use alot of film per person. Having those users drop out means the 120 users will now have to use more film to make up for the lost sales.

    Will you? Are you willing to use more film? Are you able to?

    Think about all that 46mm film that used to be sold for bulk uses. Didn't matter to most of us right? When those users dropped out of the film market I bet each one represented much more then one average 35mm shooters life time of film. Oops film sales are down. Need to cut back. Keep cutting back and soon enough you'll have nobody left.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    My message just got added to the middle of the thread not the end. :rolleyes:

  7. #27
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    Yes, I'd say it shows that not all 220 users here feel the need to enter into a debate because of a simple announcement that those who wish to do so may go to a certain URL and sign a petition for the product. I think it also shows that several thousand 120 users have the decency and good will not to attack traditional photographic products others use, just because they don't see the need for them personally.

    Personally, I only see the need for one kind of ground glass, but that's just me . . .
    Okay Chazzy,

    Have at it, throw rocks if you want, I am not saying I don't support them, I am saying it will take a heck of a committment, looking at the economic side of things is all.

    Personally, I have not seen any attacks here, just some realistic postings about the economics and reality of the situation.

    And really, when it comes down to it, I have the right to post my opinion as the next guy, I am sorry you don't agree with it, you have the right to your opnion as well, and I don't agree with it, that is the way it works.

    Also, there is really only one type of ground glass, that is glass that is frosted on one side in order to resolve an image on it to provide focusing. This can be achieved a couple of different ways, grinding, sand blasting and acid etching.

    Now there are a few different types of enhanced viewing screens consisting of plastics, wax an other various items. Now these are really not ground glass.

    Myself personally Also think there is only a need for one type of ground glass! LOL

    Dave

  8. #28
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,485
    Images
    20
    Fuji would seem like the most likely supplier of B&W 220. They offer a fairly wide selection of color films, neg and slide in 220. I didn't notice whether Acros or Neopan 400 is available in 220 at B&H, but do they make it for the Japanese market? If they do, it might just be a matter of finding a distributor willing to handle it in other parts of the world.

    Another attraction of 220 that I don't think has been mentioned here, is that it is potentially sharper than 120, because it lacks the paper backing. (Zeiss did some testing along these lines some years ago, though the results are not without controversy).

    Would I use 220 if more of it were available? Well, my Bronicas have switchable 12/24 backs, so if I were traveling more with my Bronicas these days, I'd shoot TXP in 220, because I like TXP and it would be convenient, but truth be told, I usually travel with 4x5" or larger, and I'm not using the Bronicas as much as I used to. I wish my 6x17 back took 220, but it relies on the red window. My Perkeo II and Superb are both 120 cameras, and I don't have any 220 backs for my Linhofs, though I suppose that if more B&W films were available in 220, I might be tempted to get one. They aren't a rarity on the used market, but they aren't very common either. If I were to sign the petition, I probably couldn't account for more than 15 rolls a year, if that.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #29
    Daniel Lawton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    474
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy
    I agree. I never expected that the announcement of a petition on behalf of a traditional photographic product, particularly on this website, would result in a rush of people desiring to kill the product instead of saving it.

    I guess I must reiterate that I have no desire to see any product killed off but rather I want a healthy film industry. It's not negativity nor is it my desire to be rude to the author of this thread. There will always be a niche product with a small customer base but that doesn't necessarily mean a company will be able to financially support it. I don't think a petition is necessary since the 220 film that is available is apparently selling like bathing suits in the middle of January, and that tells Ilford, Kodak and Fuji all they need to know. If manufacturers were to invest capital on diversifying and increasing 220 production only to have 75% of it expire on store shelves, how would that help the film using community as a whole? Apparently this isn't something you can just make a little bit of and then sell it sporadically. It would cost a substantial amount of money from the film companies and despite a loyal following who may sign a petition, I doubt there are enough consumers out there to make it worth while. All the emulsions are available in 120 and I think we should focus on preserving what is left before we call for a company like Ilford to invest in possible lame duck products in the economically hostile digital era. Its tough enough to keep the current products from becoming extinct. Lets try and stop the loss of papers and complete emulsions all together before we try to preserve an extra few frames on a 120 roll. If you want to influence the manufacturers, all of you should buy all the 220 you can get. If this doesn't send them a message then its because there just isn't any demand.

  10. #30
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    I agree Daniel,

    If we look at this in the big picture, as I heard the machine to produce 220 film costs in excess of 1 million dollars...now lets break down possible income, based on just the members on this wesite, if all of the members were to commit to purchase 5 rolls of 220 film over the next 12 months, that at wholesale would sell for say $3.00 that would be an income of $150K return on just the investment in the machine, that does not take into account the man power you have to pay for, let alone the upkeep, electicity and the numerable other problems that come along over the course of a production run, that is 50 thousands rolls of film! at on average is 30 shots per roll...

    It is not I don't support the effort, but in order for a company to make money, and after all, that is the reason for being in business, they would have to sell a few million rolls of this film!..

    I, As Daniel, don't want to see anything go away, but have to look at the big picture, I would rather have something to shoot that a factory puts its heart into, than not have anything at all..

    Not a bash against keeping a traditional product on the market and not a negative, just a reality, even in it heyday, the 220 format was never the most popular selling film, and now that the times have changed.

    I just hope we keep having something to shoot in our medium format cameras..

    Dave

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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