New films shown at ICIS by Fuji and Kodak

[HerrBremerhaven]

I see the mention of roll film only, maybe because the paper backing provides a nice barrier. A question for Photo Engineer is whether it would be possible to place test samples in Readyload packets. I think Readyloads could provide the protective barrier in a way that 120 roll film accomplishes, and it would give a larger film area for testing. This pre-packaged testing would eliminate problems in film loading. I look forward to your comments. Thanks!

Ciao!

Gordon

[Photo Engineer]

Originally Posted by r-s

I can forsee all sorts of innovative applications for something like this as a general purpose (i.e., "slower") film.

How's this sound: A camera that "develops" the film, frame by frame, as it's wound. You snap the shutter, then the film advances to the next frame. As it advances, it's passed over a "hot rod" that processes it -- and, right after it's processed, it's scanned, using a "fax-row" type linear sensor array.

This was proposed in the 60s and the 'hot rod' as you call it was actually built. It was a small rectangular plate about the size of 1/2 35mm frame.

In the final analysis, film was used with a monobath web rather than a thermal process to produce the B&W images sent back from the early space probes. At that time, film was better than digital in the camera, and digital scanning was the only way to send the data back to the earth.

There are many patents and publications out there on thermal color. I have actually done a bit of this myself. But, asking the pundits about this, they say "why bother as digital can do it as well or better". And, as I said above "Besides, digital is what the customer wants" - ho hum.

That is not my opinion, BTW or I would not be here on APUG or doing the work I'm doing personally.

PE

[r-s]

Originally Posted by wirehead

I'm betting that 4x5 is the easiest. Heat a skillet on the stove to the correct temperature (accomidating heat loss for cooling), take it into the darkroom, drop film onto skillet, wait, remove film with tongs after time has been reached.

Thing is, you'd need to use a very heavy cast-iron skillet (smooth bottom, the old-fashion kind, the older the better -- they were thicker and heavier in the old days). Then, you'd want to heat it up to something a tad over your target temperature, and remove it from the heat, to give it enough time to "even out" the inevitable temperature gradients. Even so, you're still apt to get a bit of uneven development.

Ultimately, if you're going to go down that route, best bet might be to buy a nice even block of steel, and mount it with small standoffs (to prevent heat from bleeding off), and run some tests to determine how long it takes to come up to temp.

If its thick/heavy enough, it'll have plenty of thermal mass to enable it to stay at the desired temp, and, have nice hotspot-free coverage.

I'm thinking that for even development, you'll need to either use a big heavy piece of metal (gold would be best), to ensure that thermal mass evened out the heat distribution -- or, use a small "fax-type" heater, and pass the film over it. (In the latter case, you'd only need to ensure even heat over a short, narrow piece of metal -- ideal for portable applications -- but, transport rate would become critical.)

Originally Posted by wirehead

I'm betting that, were this to have come out 5 years ago, Kodak would be marketing it with a little Polaroid-35mm-like tabletop processor.

You got that right!

If anything, I'd think the idea (today) would give some of "the suits" the willies just thinking about it. ("Each one of these we sell is one less potential customer for a digital P&S!")

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

r-s;

Are you out in left field or what? It isn't a product.

Of course it's a product.

It's not in production, it's not being marketed, and it would undoubtedly need some refinement, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a product.

Before they coated that test run, it was a concept. After they coated it, it was a product. An experimental product? Sure. But, a product nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

To start with, you don't run a test with a hostile audience. That audience or person is not and cannot be objective.

Not sure what you're implying there, but the reality is that no one is objective.

No one!

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

They are trying to find out if this material should become a product. And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference, but to a site like APUG or Photo Net.

Aside from the fact that we've already established the fact that it is a product, there's a small problem with your argument above. That is, they didn't go "to a site like APUG or Photo Net". YOU did! You are not Kodak -- and Kodak is not you.

And that "bunch of engineers at a conference"? That IS where they went!

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately?

I'm a writer, not a salesman. But, in a former life...

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

I think it is you who is unaware of the reality of things.

Let's don't go all existential on me, alright?

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

It is an uphill struggle to get analog photographic information out to the trade and out to the customer via the press. There is no great press interest and no great trade or magazine interest. And, the reason is that there is no great customer (consumer) interest.

You hit 'em with "Fine-grain ISO 25,000 film, dry-process, NEW from Kodak!" and you'll have their attention. You'll have front cover of every "general" photography magazine, and you'll probably even get coverage in digital mags too. ("What are the implications for digital photography?")

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

It resides here on APUG with its 12,000+ memebers and other associated sites to carry analog forward without anger or vituperation, but rather in cooperation with each other.

Then why didn't they bring it here?

Remember, Kodak does not equate to You.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

You are fully justified in criticizing Kodak when they err, and they have committed some real errors, but I think this diatrabe of yours was not justified. You are just as wrong to say that Kodak is always wrong.

This is where you stop being funny.

Do not put words in my mouth, OK?

I don't do that to you, and I expect reciprocal treatment.

If you cannot counter my logic on the points, then please don't haul out a strawman and accuse me of saying things I never said.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

There is right and wrong on both sides. In this case, IMHO, Kodak tried to do the right thing.

You already said that the right thing would have been to take it to venues like this place -- which they didn't. YOU took it here, not them. They took it to the aforementioned conference -- and to quote you, "And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference..."

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Since this was their first time doing something like this, give them credit for trying and understand that they may do it better - or not do it at all in the future.

This was the first time Kodak ever tried to evaluate interest in an innovative new product prior to deciding whether or not to put it into production?

Who knew!

LOL!

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Their future approach is likely to be based on what they read here. I assure you that this thread is being followed by people at EK. They don't need abuse for what they might view as a valiant effort at a new approach.

And, speaking solely for everyone else in the world (If you're going to speak for Kodak, then I might as well speak for the rest of the world, no? LOL!), the last thing WE need is this wink wink nudge nudge cloak and dagger nonsense.

Taking at face value Kodak management's on-the-record statements about "the all-digital Kodak" that's planned for the future -- as well as recent insinuations about the possibility of splitting up the company (see below) -- if I had to venture a guess, I'd guess that this product is perceived as a threat, rather than a blessing, using the apparent logic that dictates that anything that "helps digital" is good, and anything that "helps traditional" is bad -- because "traditional competes with digital".

Here's the "see below" stuff:

'What's Kodak's Strategy?' (excerpted)

[SIZE=1]Investors are putting pressure on troubled companies like Time Warner and Knight Ridder to split themselves up or sell out entirely. Are you under similar pressure?[/SIZE]
I don't feel that pressure yet. But I will do what is best for shareholder value. I believe the [total] value of the parts of the company is bigger than the current [valuation].

Please try not to be so defensive, and so argumentative. It IS possible to discuss things without being compelled to turn every topic into a need to defend the honor of the Eastman Kodak Company. It IS possible to engage in discussion -- sometimes maybe even including the mention of Kodak -- without looking for ways to act offended over anything that falls short of slavish worship of the company.

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

But, asking the pundits about this, they say "why bother as digital can do it as well or better". And, as I said above "Besides, digital is what the customer wants" - ho hum.

That is not my opinion, BTW or I would not be here on APUG or doing the work I'm doing personally.

PE

Hey, see? We can agree on something!

[Photo Engineer]

Just a quick response to r-s.

1. This form was not given out at the conference.

2. I did not unilaterally post the form here, I was asked to post it. I did not initiate the 2 threads on photo net with this same subject, but I did add the form in a post there.

3. Kodak has never gone to customers before with new film or paper concepts in the form of experimental coatings. They have given pre-production samples to members of the press - meaning photo magazine editors and writers. Kodachrome 400 was killed by the magazine editors and writers by their ho-hum attitude towards it when given samples back in the 80s.

4. I do not speak for Kodak in any way whatsoever and never said I did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

5. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion.

6. Hit them with a 25,000 speed film and what do the members of the press say? Probably this... "Kodak dilutes its intensive digital effort with meaningless obsolete research in the field of analog photography". (again, I would not agree with this attitude but it is probably close to what they would say)

7. A product is something salable and manufacturable both, and it must give a useful result. This thermal film may not have all of those attributes in its current form. See my example of Ektar 25 above. They chose to ignore one of these rules hoping to solve manufacturing problems later on, but they didn't and had to remove the product from the market.

8. Since you seem to be a writer and salesman, you don't know much about the problems involved in research, development and production of a new product from a concept. Among other things, even though this was coated and demonstrated, many things such as keeping of the raw stock and the final images have to be studied before it can become a valid product. That is one reasson to get it out there for some testing before it is sold. See 7 above.

9. Exchanges like this do nothing to enhance either of us, nor the reputation of APUG, but I felt that it was necessary to clarify some points, especially regarding your statements regarding my relationship to Kodak and those about this thermal material being a product or not, and my reasons why it is not.

PE

[roteague]

Thanks for sharing it PE.

[dmr]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately? Ever try to sell a new analog product lately?

If those analog products would generate some display ad revenue, they would listen! {meow!} <semi grin>

[dharris22]

I teach B & W photography at the College of So MD & am interested in obtaining either 4x5in sheet film or 120/220 roll film of the new Kodak 24K film.
How now, brown cow?
Dick Harris dharris 22 jon-r@tqci.net

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

1. This form was not given out at the conference.

Come again?

From your post, this thread, 05-09-2006, 09:06 PM:

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

One of the inventors handed out PREORDER FORMS at the ICIS meeting soliciting orders from potential customers

The provenance of "the form" seems fairly obvious to me from that reading. If history has changed since you posted that entry, I'm all ears.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

2. I did not unilaterally post the form here, I was asked to post it.

Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion. In the post ref'd above, you initiated mention of "the form" in this thread, and then said: "I will scan in the form after the ICIS meeting is over".

That sounds kinda "unilateral" to me, but then again I never really got into that whole "what 'is' is" thing, so maybe it's just too nuanced for me to grasp. (That noise you hear is the sound of some slack being cut -- for you, by me.)

Yet, all of TWO posts later (actually, only "one" post, not counting yours!), you submitted this text: "Unless I see interest in the advance order form from Kodak for the new high speed film, I will not go to the trouble of scanning it in and posting it."

Sounds not only unilateral, but downright pushy! (Not to mention more than a tad offended at the lack of... well, at the lack of any immediate replies.)

It was after you posted that, that Lachlan Young and wirehead and probably others said that they'd like to see the form. This was after two posts by you, a bit pedantic and a bit miffed, the second of the "I'll take my marbles and go home" variety. So, you flogged it until you got someone to "request" it.

And you've got the chutzpah to call ME a "salesman"? LOL!

BTW, I also noticed various posters complaining about the lack of any in-depth information on this product.

Before departing from the topic of your having been (ahem) "asked" to post it here, I'd be remiss if I did not point out that it wasn't KODAK who did the asking.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

3. Kodak has never gone to customers before with new film or paper concepts in the form of experimental coatings. They have given pre-production samples to members of the press - meaning photo magazine editors and writers. Kodachrome 400 was killed by the magazine editors and writers by their ho-hum attitude towards it when given samples back in the 80s.

I seem to recall having heard somewhere of at least one batch of Kodachrome 100 that was handed out to at least some folks who were mere photographers. I don't recall any ho-hummery about it, though.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

4. I do not speak for Kodak in any way whatsoever and never said I did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please. You've made numerous factual utterances about what what they're doing (i.e., "I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read."), and so forth. Do you really want me to dig through the various statements you've made in the role of a quasi-insider/spokesman? I am not inclined to do so. Please don't say that I must. We both know they're there, as do all the other readers. This is silly. If you're going to deny something, then at least get a handle on the concept of "plausible deniability." To deny something that is obvious in the selfsame context in which he denial is issued, well, it's just silly.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

5. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion.

6. Hit them with a 25,000 speed film and what do the members of the press say? Probably this... "Kodak dilutes its intensive digital effort with meaningless obsolete research in the field of analog photography". (again, I would not agree with this attitude but it is probably close to what they would say)

As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion -- and then, you gave your opinion. I gave mine earlier, and I shan't belabor it other than to say that we differ on this point.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

8. Since you seem to be a writer and salesman

Not again, groan....

To quote me, this thread, above, "Today, 05:47 PM": "I'm a writer, not a salesman". [emphasis added]

I think you need to take a break from this stuff.

I KNOW that I need one!

Bye!