Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,477   Online: 959
      
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 113
  1. #91
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    Why should my thanks be meaningful to Kodak? After all...I'm just a thick-headed, evenings-and-weekends, got-no-sense hobbyist suckling at their charitible teet. I just take what I'm given and back away slowly, bowed at the waist.

    We can't all be heroes like you.
    Considering that those words came from someone about 20 years old, doing all of this work at his own expense, I would put a lot of stock in his words and actions.

    Karl is taking the world of analog in hand and doing more than most people twice his age, and he deserves the kudos for it, not mockery.

    I might add that he is doing it while trying to maintain a scolarship at a nationally known university. And no, he is not a relative.

    But I hope he does get his dream job at EK, at least as a co-op this summer. Maybe being a photo engineer in analog photography will vanish by the time he graduates, but I sincerely hope it does not.

    PE

  2. #92
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    I reallize I've been unusually vocal here these past few days. It's just that I am getting particularly fed up with people that specialize in B&W hobby photography here expecting the amount of emulsion they consume in evenings and weekends is significant, whilst abandoning film for commercial work.
    There are tonnes of divas, drama queens and prima donnas here Karl. Tonnes.

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

  3. #93
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    To: FilmIs4Ever

    I won't do a copy of either of your posts because they are long.

    But they are very well thought out and I am very much in agreement with you.

    Thank you for adding a "real user" perspective here.

    I'd like to see folks like Art and PE comment on what you have to say. Because you've said some very important things!

    Regards,
    George

  4. #94
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Considering that those words came from someone about 20 years old, doing all of this work at his own expense, I would put a lot of stock in his words and actions.

    Karl is taking the world of analog in hand and doing more than most people twice his age, and he deserves the kudos for it, not mockery.

    I might add that he is doing it while trying to maintain a scolarship at a nationally known university. And no, he is not a relative.

    But I hope he does get his dream job at EK, at least as a co-op this summer. Maybe being a photo engineer in analog photography will vanish by the time he graduates, but I sincerely hope it does not.

    PE
    I'm mocking *him*? I found his whole tone incredibly insulting. I don't need schooling from him. I've worked for newspapers and I've worked commercially and I know a little bit about the value of both analog and digital and I have my own views as to whether customers owe gratitude to vendors or vice versa. I stand by my sarcastic response and Karl should be a little more respectful of a community of photographers that will likely be the last folks using analog when they're back to coating plates themselves. I don't think artists and hobbyists can keep film profitible but we're going to be the only ones to care whether it survives or not when it's down to the fuzzy end of the lollipop stick.

    That said, I greatly admire him for what he is *doing*. I just don't need the high-handed tone.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  5. #95
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    Sorry I seem to have offended you, but your tone did seem mocking to me, but then I have met Karl personally and know the extreme effort he is putting into analog photography, most of it unknown to APUG members.

    I think that we need more government, wedding and commercial photographers to support analog photography if it is to be taken seriously enough. All of us here, patting each other on the back over our photos is fine, but a major commercial studio telling Kodak to shove digital would get their attention real quick, I assure you.

    When I worked at the Cape, in the early 60s, my photo budget for film and paper was about $50M. If I had been in this fray and had been able to attract Kodak's attention, you bet Perez would have called us on the phone.

    AAMOF, we had a regular Kodak office in Orlando, and regular visits from Kodak, Dupont, Ansco and a host of others trying to sell us their photo products. Things are no different today. If a big account goes digital, then Kodak sees that, but if they switch back to analog, or use a combination, then that will get their attention.

    After all, when analog motion picture started to fall off, courtesy of Lucas, Kodak moved towards digital MoPic, but when the pendulum swung abruptly back Kodak upped the ante with a new film and a host of new analog MoPic products. Sales are going up slightly there.

    While at the Cape, there was a discussion about whether to use color negative or color reversal printing. I mentioned that there was a question of how large a print we could get from either. They took one of the frames from the Atlas launch I posted in both reversal and negative back to Rochester and a few weeks later I had a 20x40 print of each in crates and framed in the Tech Lab lobby for demo purposes.

    Money talks.

    All of us APUGGERS put together using what film we do could not add up to that $50M contract in the 60s which would be worth about $500M in todays dollars. Even so, a few $1M customers putting out the word to Kodak that they like analog would be a powerful weapon on our behalf.

    PE

  6. #96
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I agree with you.

    All of us do what we can and yes...in most cases, that doesn't represent anything that would get Kodak's attention. I know that. I get that. Because losing my business is meaningless to Kodak, I try to direct my business to companies where retaining my business is not meaningless.

    The decade I spent working at newspapers began before there was so much as a flatbed scanner in sight and ended after the darkrooms were literally removed. I know what happened and I think I understand the significance of this transformation on both the publishing and photographic industries. I'm not blind to it.

    Karl isn't going to reclaim photojournalism for film. If he can somehow become one of those 1M customers of which you speak, more power to him.

    Frankly, I don't see the point in belittling the people here for being modest customers.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  7. #97
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    I don't feel that either Karl or I were belittling people who are modest customers. I'm a modest customer now myself.

    I think that inherent in our comments was the problem of influence, even of a group of modest customers, not a tone of anything but that.

    After all, I was in an extreme position of power, wrt the photographic industry when I was at the Cape. So, I have now seen both ends of the spectrum as few people have and I can comment authoritatively from both ends of the spectrum of photo users.

    With 18,000 members on APUG, using 1 roll of film / day, that is nearly 7 million rolls of film per year. Kodaks and Fujis current production of most films is far more than that, and the production of each is higher than Ilford mainly due to color and motion picture.

    I remember a comment from a friend who was talking to the head of Nat Geog photography who was the biggest single user of Kodachrome in the entire world. This was 20 or more years ago. He asked my friend how long it took Kodak to produce all of that Kodacrhome and my friend did a small calculation and said "about 15 minutes".

    Does that give you an idea of how much film was produced? How fast it is produced? And, more importantly two factors; how much it has fallen off (with about 10 machines idle at Kodak, all of Agfa gone and etc) and how small APUG is wrt Kodak and Ilford both?

    With about 10 machines idle at Kodak (IDK how many at Fuji), Agfa gone, Forte gone, the remainder at Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and Kentmere among others can supply the entire world in analog products and still worry about over capacity.

    So, the bottom line is that we are somewhat powerless (18,000 strong though we may be) in the face of the huge consumer market yet remaining. That is the huge tail wagging this dog. In spite of this, and what Perez said, Kodak is still doing R&D on analog products.

    PE

  8. #98
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I apologize for being over-sensitive. I appreciate your patient response.

    I'd like to think that APUG and other communities of affinity that orbit the world of film-based photography aren't the totality of the consumer market but rather, a vocal and highly-motivated sampling of a larger whole. If I'm right about that, the collective voice while not big in the scope of things you describe, is probably the best hope most of us have for carrying any weight with the manufacturors that we depend upon.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  9. #99
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I apologize for being over-sensitive. I appreciate your patient response.

    I'd like to think that APUG and other communities of affinity that orbit the world of film-based photography aren't the totality of the consumer market but rather, a vocal and highly-motivated sampling of a larger whole. If I'm right about that, the collective voice while not big in the scope of things you describe, is probably the best hope most of us have for carrying any weight with the manufacturors that we depend upon.
    Actually, on a similar thread here a week or so ago, someone opined that APUG might be seen at places like Kodak as representing the "radical fringe" of film users!

    If there's any truth in that, it's no wonder Kodak won't respond here.

    Remember, unlike Ilford, Kodak (and Fuji, for that matter) are public companies and comments made on fora such as this could have serious consequences both on share prices and from market regulatory agencies.

    Something to keep in mind when folk laud privately-held Ilford here for being "vocal" and decry Kodak for being "unresponsive".

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    snip snip Frankly, I don't see the point in belittling the people here for being modest customers.
    Perhaps jstraw, you might be feeling belittled as a modest customer of Kodaks' because as you publicly state :
    "I last set foot in a darkroom in 1995 and last shot film in 2001." :-O

    Filmis4Ever makes a good point. And further, if there's one way to hasten the loss of a superb range of materials that Kodak still manufacture for their modest customers, it would be to garnish a following to badmouth them to the largest online group of users. no?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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