Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,609   Online: 743
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Has anyone been able to get this yet, apart from Kodak samples?

    Thanks,
    Helen

  2. #12
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Well, even this good bit of news, Kodak somehow managed to screw up. The way the majority of the film community has been (rightfully) crapping on them lately... they do this how???!!! Quietly???!!! Well, thats good for them - shhhhh, hope no one finds out! God forbid this stuff actually sells and/or plays a part in bringing back some film customers! I do not get this incompetently ran, mismanaged, directionless and bumbling giant of a company.
    Way to go, Big Yellow Braintrust.

    Peter.

  3. #13
    edz
    edz is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by gnashings
    Well, even this good bit of news, Kodak somehow managed to screw up.
    How? By developing and delivering state of the art films? For Kodak its a pedestrian affair which they've been doing for over a century.

    Do you think they'd be better served by hyping their new film products? Kodak, firstly, has never been terribly good at hyping their films and, secondly, they are not a little piss-in-the-pot company like the B&W snake oil film vendors that frequent these forums to hype their meagre offerings. Kodak is a public traded company with billions of USD turnover--- alone nearly 3 billion in the first quarter of this year--- and over 1 billion (yes, that's billion folks) in cash. Film is widely viewed as if not obsolete and fading technology then unsexy by the market. Its not about income base but belief. Look at Google and before it Yahoo, Red Hat, AOL, Netscape etc. and all the other "hot tech stocks". Its not their job to fight the mindset of Wall Street but to work within its and their own institutional contraints.

    For Kodak to survive the current market they must send the right signals and that's right now "Digital" or go the way of George Eastman. Why do you think they appointed an ink-jetter from HP to CEO?

    Kodak will continue to make and sell films as long as people purchase them. And these films will be good since Kodak knows--- better than perhaps any other company on the planet (including Fuji)--- how to make good films. Its their income base and what's special about Kodak.. but hush.. don't tell anyone.. its not good for their reputation...
    Edward C. Zimmermann
    BSn R&D // http://www.nonmonotonic.net

  4. #14
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by edz
    .... they are not a little piss-in-the-pot company like the B&W snake oil film vendors that frequent these forums to hype their meagre offerings.
    I, for one take offense to this. Who the hell are you to judge who is a "piss-pot" company and who is not?

    Alright .. you have your opinions and are entitled to them ... but that is NOT a justification for a sweeping condemnation of those sponsoring, or attempting to make available to this community, CHOICES in film.

    Do you actually mean to suggest that Ilford ... who have exhibited their concern for us and our preferences, wants and needs - time and time again - is a "snake oil" company?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  5. #15
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    One question ... How is Kodak's "800" - and that DOES refer to film speed - any FASTER - or slower than anyone else's ISO 800 film?

    Are they suggesting that Fuji's PRO 800Z is of another ISO speed ... or that their's is..? ... or are they trying to deny PRO 800Z exists?

    Memo to self ... Don't listen to Kodak's sales pitches.
    Last edited by Ed Sukach; 06-18-2006 at 07:32 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Clarifiying and simplifying
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  6. #16
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gnashings
    Well, even this good bit of news, Kodak somehow managed to screw up. The way the majority of the film community has been (rightfully) crapping on them lately... they do this how???!!! Quietly???!!! Well, thats good for them - shhhhh, hope no one finds out! God forbid this stuff actually sells and/or plays a part in bringing back some film customers! I do not get this incompetently ran, mismanaged, directionless and bumbling giant of a company.
    Way to go, Big Yellow Braintrust.
    I'm not sure what all the critique is about. How was this introduced "quietly"? Just because you guys didn't hear of it? Sorry, but who made you king with the right to know first? Oh, and just a question: Could YOU manage Kodak - a multinational billion dollar organization with a diverse product line any better?

    I didn't think so.

    I know that's harsh, but look, Kodak has done some supreme blunders in terms of strategy, but the rhetoric and posturing from the masses is a bit much as well, IMNSHO.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  7. #17
    edz
    edz is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I, for one take offense to this. Who the hell are you to judge who is a "piss-pot" company and who is not?
    Companies with questionable coating done (perhaps) in Southern and/or Eastern Europe on machines that were considered industrial junk over 30 years ago and with a total manpower that's less than the cleaning staff of the Kodak company cantina in Rochester but pretending to be "world players" I call piss-pot..

    Kodak, by contrast, has the most state of the art coating on the planet, has significant intellectual property and research assets. The technologies that on a given day Kodak sets aside in their dustbin are light years beyond anything they could ever dream of..

    Its like comparing Boeing to Revell.. wel not really.. Revell is a significant player in their market.. they don't make and don't claim to make jets.. well, only modell ones..

    Kodak is a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate--- and the leader, btw., in digital imaging technolgies. More than 1000 times as many direct jobs (and significantly more indirect and subcontractor) hand on what Kodak does... if it makes the stock market happy or not..
    Edward C. Zimmermann
    BSn R&D // http://www.nonmonotonic.net

  8. #18
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    On the one hand, Fuji change the name of NPZ to Pro 800Z without changing the emulsion and on the other hand Kodak make another improvement to Portra 800 and signify it by another small change in the box design.

    I know that this reflects more on the two retailers than on Kodak, but neither B&H nor Adorama acknowledge the existence of the new emulsion - including the film buyer at B&H. But hey, who could be expected to read the new product news from PMA whether in print or on the web? Presumably both A and B have large stocks of 800-2.

    As far as the speed goes, the small print in Kodak's blurb is that the new Portra has 'Best in class underexposure latitude' and I believe that's true. Like 100UC, the box speed is not based on toe speed - I chose 100UC because it could be a 160 film if you judged by the characteristic curve alone. If you compare the characteristic curves of 800Z and Portra 800 you will see that Portra 800 has a significantly higher toe speed than 800Z, and this corresponds with my experience of the two films.

    The 18% Status M red aim density (0.80 for 800Z and 0.85 for Portra 800) is achieved at a lower exposure for the Portra 800 than for 800Z. There isn't as big a difference in this value as there is for the toe speed, but it is still there: ie it takes less exposure to achieve the manufacturer's recommended density for a midtone with Portra 800 than it does for 800Z. I believe that Kodak are justified in claiming that Portra 800 is the fastest pro film with '800' written on the box, and that is one of the reasons why I use more Portra 800 than 800Z.

    Best,
    Helen

  9. #19
    digiconvert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cannock UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    809
    Images
    51
    Why all the negatives from what appears to be two entrenched positions re Kodak and the rest of the world. The film buying public is declining not growing so breaking up into smaller cliques will not do anyone any good.
    I have used portra 400 and found it to be a good film, I like Fuji transparencies but have recently been impressed by Kodachrome 64, I use Efke film whuich is repackaged FP4+.
    All of the film manufacturers are doing us a favour by investing in a declining market so lets give praise where it's due. As to 'piss pot' coaters in southern/eastern europe I believe a Mr Eastman once had a fairly small 'piss pot' company, only the market will decide if these new companies will succeed or fail-it's called capitalism !

    Just my few pennies !

  10. #20
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by edz
    Companies with questionable coating done (perhaps) in Southern and/or Eastern Europe on machines that were considered industrial junk over 30 years ago and with a total manpower that's less than the cleaning staff of the Kodak company cantina in Rochester but pretending to be "world players" I call piss-pot..
    Interesting. You did not differentiate: Those "pi...." (- I'm not going to use that term - it is utterly class-less) - you lumped into one generality; Those that post here ... and Ilford *IS* one of those that post here.

    Let me ask again: Do you think that Ilford is one of those that belong in your condemnation - Or does one have to evaluate each by geographic location, and number of employees?

    Personally, I do NOT like Kodak's products ... no matter how big and market-dominating they may be. If others do -- all well and good.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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