Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,285   Online: 888
      
Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 273
  1. #11
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post

    BTW, where is the Fuji rep here?

    PE
    Apparently there isn't one. Fuji, however, has gotten a 'by' with it's pronouncements about continued commitment to film.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    This is not intended to be a 'why are we bashing Kodak' thread or anything like that. It is intended to be a serious look at why others that can, don't, and if there is a good reason, then the complainers have nothing to complain about.

    In fact, we then have reason to ask other companies who can, why don't you? That is, if we truly believe that the market is there.

    I hope you see my point in this.

    PE
    I could not agree with you more. Surely if must be possible to get a sample of the Fuji paper and figure out if it does exist. If you could provide me with a name of the product and any other information that you have on it I will make the calls and shake the tree a bit to see what we can get to fall out of it. However I see no reason to chase products that are not worth the effort. The only way to assess quality is to test it. Fuji is in business to seel their products in a global marketplace. The fact that this paper is not in the US tells me that something is probably awry that should be corrected.

    PM me when you get a chance.

    Best,

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    877
    PE,

    No, I'm not mad at Kodak. I'm a CPA and independent businessman. I understand fully the need for a business to make a buck. The last time I checked Kodak was a taxpaying corporation, not a charity. I also understand that they have to do what is best for their shareholders.

    I'm just disappointed that a few of my favorite products, including Azo, have been discontinued. I'm a big supporter of Kodak products. I use Tri-x for 35mm film and 4x5. I use TMY exclusively in 5x7, 8x10 and 7x17. I'm an enthusiast, not a producing professional, but I stocked a 21' freezer with Kodak film over the past 2 years.....

    I am also grateful to Kodak for giving us 6 months notice regarding the discontinuance of the B&W papers. I guess timing is everyting in life. After about 12 years away from photography, I purchased an 8x10 camera in early 2005. I called Michael Smith to place my first order of Azo exactly 24 hours before Kodak announced its discontinuance. I feel extremely fortunate to have acquired a rather large stash of 8x10 grade 2 Canadian Azo. Thanks to the Azo Forum, TMY and Pyrocat HD I've been able to produce negatives that take advantage of the longer scale of the Canadian Azo.

    Since the announcement of the discontinuance, I have included ULf in my photography. It sure would be nice to be able to get my hands on some 16x20 or 20x24 Azo to use with 7x17 TMY negatives...

    As I've already stated, I'm not mad at Kodak, life goes on and we will all learn to adapt....... Hell, Fred Picker was bemoaning the loss of Ilfobrom, Ilfomar, Varigam and some other Dupont and Ilford papers that I never experienced, in his newsletters from the mid 70's.

    As for me, I plan on taking a platinum workshop.....

    Perhaps Simon can shed some light on why Ilford doesn't see the economics of filling the void left by Azo.
    Last edited by jgjbowen; 11-18-2007 at 07:26 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: bring back to original topic
    John Bowen

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,060
    ron

    i think it is kind of sad
    kodak is damn'd if they do
    and damn'd if they don't ...

    it's too bad that they don't have the forward thinking
    to spin off a separate company just to do analog endevours ..
    promote it as hip and trendy, and sell it, and make and sell good cameras like they used to ...

    as it is now, the analog market is like that poor old guy in the monty python skit who isn't dead yet ...
    im empty, good luck

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
    I could not agree with you more. Surely if must be possible to get a sample of the Fuji paper and figure out if it does exist. If you could provide me with a name of the product and any other information that you have on it I will make the calls and shake the tree a bit to see what we can get to fall out of it. However I see no reason to chase products that are not worth the effort. The only way to assess quality is to test it. Fuji is in business to seel their products in a global marketplace. The fact that this paper is not in the US tells me that something is probably awry that should be corrected.

    PM me when you get a chance.

    Best,

    Michael;

    It has been mentioned here elsewhere by an APUG member from Japan IIRC. I have been unable to find a reference and my last look at the Fuji US site failed to reveal a name.

    I'll keep trying.

    PE

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo View Post
    Apparently there isn't one. Fuji, however, has gotten a 'by' with it's pronouncements about continued commitment to film.
    I guess the fact that Kodak has introduced a whole new line of Portra films and their new motion picture film gives them no credit then?

    PE

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I think there are a lot on this site who do like Kodak.

    Business is a tough world and things get cut sometimes. Most of us understand that. Look at Ilford with the Cooltone developer. How long was that on the market before it got yanked? 1 year? 2?

    However, the perception of how Kodak relates to its audience, specifically us enthusiasts, is a little lacking. Would it hurt to have someone here that we could talk to and have a dialogue with?

    I personally just spent about $500 in the last week on Kodak film. Most was for Tri-X (running out) and HIE (before it runs out), though I did find a stash of Kodachrome 25 for a couple bucks a roll and figured I'd pick it up and try it out while I still have the chance. $500 is a lot of money for an amateur who lives below the poverty line. I'm committed to Kodak film, and probably would buy their paper as well if it wasn't discontinued before I started wet printing. Not blaming them for not making it though if they were losing money on it.

    The Portra films rock and I'm really happy that TMY was upgraded (though 400TX gets my money). At the same time, it would have been great if there was some final run of HIE that we could buy in 100' cans. While I might be arm-chairing it here, the fact of the matter is that without someone official here at the site, there is no way any of us know if 100' cans of HIE would be ridiculously expensive or not for Kodak to make. I'm guessing there might be enough people who would buy a couple cans worth each - I don't know how much is in a full run and I don't know if we could buy it out. Then again, there might not be enough people. The fact of the matter is, we don't know, because contact hasn't been made from either side...

    This is where I feel Kodak is put in a bad light. I'm not an old timer though. To be honest, I'm shocked that HIE was in production up until this year - surely the gov't must have been the biggest buyer and they must have moved to some kind of digital system by now...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    PE,

    Surely you must have realized long ago that the only acceptable reason for the discontinuation of any analog photographic product in the eyes of many here is the cessation of operations of the company due to bankruptcy..
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    ron

    i think it is kind of sad
    kodak is damn'd if they do
    and damn'd if they don't ...

    it's too bad that they don't have the forward thinking
    to spin off a separate company just to do analog endevours ..
    promote it as hip and trendy, and sell it, and make and sell good cameras like they used to ...

    as it is now, the analog market is like that poor old guy in the monty python skit who isn't dead yet ...
    Is it forward thinking they lack, or simply a buyer? Or somebody to finance the spin-off?

    I'm sorry but this is easier said than done.

    It is my belief that EK, itself, has been implicitly up for sale "lock, stock, and barrel" for several years (isn't everything else?). But it remains a company with operations in flat or declining markets (analog) and operations in markets with too many players (everything else). And it still produces loads of useful patents and other assets but lacks the finances or manufacturing expertise to convert these into profits.

    Given all the above, who is going to buy them or finance them? I think we know the answer.

    You can't simply be making money; you must offer expectations of profit growth. And that's barely possible in any of the markets that Kodak plays in right now.

    I write the above as a Kodak customer who buys about a hundred rolls of Tri-X a year and intends to continue doing so as long as it's made.
    Last edited by aldevo; 11-18-2007 at 08:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  10. #20
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I guess the fact that Kodak has introduced a whole new line of Portra films and their new motion picture film gives them no credit then?

    PE
    Ha!....I still even have the tube that I got last year at PhotoExpo with the free...count'em...free....rolls of Kodak color film. But, why no credit? Because their promotion was limited and was still in conflict with Mr. Perez's pronouncements. I was thrilled to see the line waiting for free packs of film, and yet perplexed at the disjunct between Kodak's at-large ads, vs their local, in-the-moment promotion. I'm a complete civilian in these matters, but I'm not entirely stupid, nor naive. Kodak needs to hire a PR virtuoso and charge that person to formulate a campaign that integrates tradition with innovation. They're out there!
    John Voss

    My Blog

Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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