Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,952   Posts: 1,522,743   Online: 934
      
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Somewhat relavent, I ran across a listing of recent patents. Seems Kodak is doing quite a bit that involves commercial printing, though amongst the various listings I see new uses for film as an archive process for digital images, and a few other interesting developments:

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/69...scription.html
    http://www.patentstorm.us/assignees.php?id=17389&page=2

    Obviously, just because a patent is issued does not mean a technology will be implemented. However, I think it is nice that at least some R&D was still being done (2005 by the looks of some of these). I know . . . there is rarely a direct connection between R&D and a marketable and profitable product . . . . . . Anyway, I was pleasently surprised.


    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  2. #82
    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 rely on APUG to provide me with good information to help keep me supplied and to provide a communal, agitating voice in favor of suppliers continuing to serve our needs. I recognize those who are responsive and my alliegance leans evermore in their directions.
    I understand and to some extent agree with your preference for "supportive assurance" from suppliers as is at times posted here.

    But I am certain that relying on APUG (much as I am a devotee thereof) is not a definitive "test" of film supplier commitment.

    I would hasten to note that the only film manufacturer with a direct presence here is Ilford. Speaking only of the "majors", Fujifilm's silence on this site is as deafening as Kodak's!

    We would be filled with hubris to think that the only film makers we should patronize are those who have a direct presence here. While we may well think highly of ourselves, we do not nearly comprise the sum total of film users!

    In fact, if we do, then we're all in deeper sh*t than we thought!

  3. #83
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I'm just saying that Ilford...and J&C, PF, etc., earn points with me by meeting a community of photographers on common ground.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    George: I've continued to hang out on RFF, though the time when I spend far less time there is fast approaching. Nothing wrong, it's just a time thing. And as far as APUG goes, the volume of posts is so high I find it hard to keep up.

    FrankB: Well, that guerilla marketing thing is sort of interesting. It was internal only, then somehow a decision was made to release it to YouTube. I think it's one of the best things Kodak has done, PR-wise, in a long time. But I don't think it has much relevance to the status of Kodak's analogue products. My personal opinion, too.
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'm just saying that Ilford...and J&C, PF, etc., earn points with me by meeting a community of photographers on common ground.
    There's no doubt about it - those guys are an invaluable resource. If the analog photographic products market is going to survive, even as a niche market, we need more people with their dedication.

    PF has been getting all my chemistry orders since 2003 and I always attempt to buy from J&C - if they have my product in stock.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    I'd rather just have a guy on the thread like Ron Mowrey, whom, while wildly speculative about some of the other companies, and overly optimistic about his own former employer, seems to paint a pretty honest picture of the business of Kodak, than a Kodak "yes-man" whose words only pacify and placate as opposed to letting us know what is really going on. They continue to make products that sell?! No sh it! If they don't, then I'd be really worried as a shareholder. I don't care what they say, only what they do. If they want that pompous ass to go around running their company, and sell off their immensely profitable X-ray division, so be it. They knew the jerk before they hired him, and they want to keep employing people and making money, no matter the route that may take. At least they know that still and cine film are still huge moneymakers. Don't forget all of the rolls of RA-4 paper they sell to professional labs across the country. I know color doesn't "count" here, but frankly B&W's been a dead duck (improvement-wise) since the year I was born. We've seen more than two decades of stagnation there now! Howabout T-Max II or III? Howabout Epsilon films from Ilford? Both companies have been at a complete standstill since the mid '80s. Papers were repackaged in different boxes, were there any real differences between Polycontrast II, III, and IV? I almost think Kodak came out with a "new" RC paper, just so the number of it's Polycontrast paper was as high as Ilford's. If people here really cared about the future of film, they'd push for new improved emulsions, high speed emulsion being where the important advances still need to be made. In comparison, how many times has color film been improved since the '80s? four, five? At least three that I know of. If digital starts becoming noticeably higher resolution than film, and the medium format market dies, we're all in deep shi t. If high speed digital motion picture cameras overtake film in that sector, we're likewise in deep sh it. We need to continue to demand relevant R&D, not 25 speed films and 5x7 sheet film and special runs of film. We need to buy a sustained volume of film, preferably large quantities of the same kind, if we want big companies to take us seriously. So stop bitching about Kodak already. They gave Ilford a huge break by exiting the paper market, and that indirectly made you all happy, right?

  7. #87
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,928
    Images
    65
    Karl;

    Thanks for the comment. I would not rule out any new products in the Kodak B&W line. Stand by and keep tuned. (just in case) ........

    PE

  8. #88

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,871
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv View Post
    Wow, Kodak is subscribing to APUG! Who knew?

    That's really good news, thanks a million for posting this, Art.
    I wonder if Perez is blessed with the U.S. equivalent of the genuine Geordie warmth of Simon Galley.

    I don't suppose we'll know unless he hosts a tour of the Kodak factory

    pentaxuser

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    No problem Ron. Anyone that is as passionate about silver halide as you are deserves praise, no matter whom they used to work for ;-)

    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. When commercial photography dies, C-41 and mainstream B&W dies. I am devoted to analog imaging. I've invested enough money to buy a D5 into lab equipment and chemistry and film, and medium format equipment, and pay the bills to keep the facility that houses it afloat. I take a loss for shooting film for newspapers, and make all kinds of free prints for people that have become expected with digital on my own dime, because I don't want this whole era to be defined as an abyss, like the days of early color were. Photographers who care about quality need to hold themselves to a higher standard, or the vine is going to wither and take that higher standard with it. Shooting film costs more money that digital commercially, but it doesn't cost *that much* more, if you do it properly, and the quality gain from shooting 6x7 over DSLR is still HUGE. Even a well-printed 35mm neg fillm has more punch. Kodak makes that possible. They've supported fledgeling areas like S8 film, and B&W motion picture stocks and Kodachrome despite those areas being UNprofitable; they've given people time to work with digital and migrate back. Still photographers need to be as consciencous about quality as moviemakers if they want film to be around for their personal use as well. How can we expect the world's largest silver halide material manufacturer to retool to cater for a niche market?

    I was singularly impressed by Kodak's new line of Portra films, significant improvement under the enlarger. Every area that Kodak makes films in other than color negative is charity, for cost or at a loss to them, and it is time people here start getting it into their thick heads. Even when newspapers were all B&W film and colleges were all teaching with just film, that market was at best a small source of profit.

    I don't understand how a community such as this can ignore something that has been fact for at least three decades now. It's one thing to shut out all of the digital zealots out there. I have to endure suggestions of "why don't you go digital" every time I try to submit a photo to a paper, and I've gotten to the point where every person that says that to me I want to punch in the mouth, and it's great not having to hear that here. But talk of B&W sheet film sales being profitable to Kodak and talk of them betraying film users enrage me even more than suggestions about what DSLR I should buy. I wish I could use B&W for weddings, for fraternities and dances, but the demand just isn't there when I make the option available. Commercially B&W is almost completely dead, due to all of the RA-4 B&W papers out there, and my customers certainly won't see the difference between a chromogenic print and a fiber if they can't see the difference between a DSLR and a 6x7 cm camera loaded with Portra 400.

    If people here had any sense, they'd write thank-you letters to Kodak every year for continuing to make Kodachrome and B&W, and staple receipts of purchase for at least 1000 feet of 35mm of each every Christmas. I'm aiming to shoot the equivalent of at least 2000 of Portra 35 this year, and I do pro photography on the side while going to college full-time. Howabout the rest of you? How can you show Kodak that they aren't wasting their damned money not sticking to their CEO's "2008 Deadline". I'd feel pretty foolish if I had to be the one justifying the R&D that went into Portra-II to Perez.

  10. #90
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    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.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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