Corporations and Big Boobs – A commentary.

[lxdude]

Mike, Eddy,

It was not meant to relate to Kodak. Kodak's quality is exemplary.


Nor was it even meant to bolster the original statement that Kodak was killing off a product by not shipping it. It was a response to a statement by MikeSeb making fun of that statement.
I was just saying that I have seen profitable products killed off by inaction. I did say that I wasn't saying that's what Kodak did.

Then a question was asked in response to that, asking why anyone would do that, as it's illogical, and why they would risk bad will when profit is still assured.

My account was to show illogical behavior in which a company short-sightedly abandoned customers and substantial profit because it was easier than continuing to serve their needs. They also failed to serve their top customers by often shipping products with quality problems. Neither was logical, but that's what they did, and it eventually led to disaster.They frittered all the trust and good will that they had earlier worked to establish, by then electing to coast on it. (BTW, Mike, parts were made to customer prints and spec.)
That was to illustrate that companies' behavior is a product of the attitudes and thinking prevalent within them. People in business are not immune to irrationality and poor judgment. I don't know how many times I said something didn't make sense, only to be told not to worry about it.

I've been in the position of running things myself, and can say I've also made obvious mistakes that others could see, dismissed advice that would have saved me headaches if I'd followed it, and had my share of D'OH! moments.
The lesson that has served me best is to really listen to input, without consideration of the position of the person giving it. My father has often said that he learned more from his employees than he ever taught them. Once I took that to heart, my job got easier and my decisions better.

[ajuk]

I guess I will be the one to say for the millionth time on the Internet that they are totally different emulsions with different imaging characteristics, not just different-ISO versions of an otherwise identical film.

If the latter was the case, the two separate films would never have existed in the first place. It would have just been one Tri-X Pan.

Sorry I didn't sort of think that might be the case a quick Google seems to show it's more for studio work, so I would have thought the LF versions sales would have held up, no?

[Tom Kershaw]

If the Kodak information is taken straightforwardly, then it suggests photographers' using TXP are keen on working in large format. Which is interesting in and of itself, as to the extent of market size, split between 35mm, medium format, and 4x5" +.

Tom

[SchwinnParamount]

Whilst I am sometimes one of the first to point out spelling and grammar mistakes, it is always done light heartedly.

In this case DR5 is making a serious point which is his opinion on the matter of stopping TXP production. The incorrect use of short sided, surly and and allot does not subtract from the point he is making.


Steve.

Well said.

[dr5chrome]

Word from DPP today that the order placed for TXP roll film, [250 rolls] was cut by 1/3 !

For this weekend, I've decided to resort to 35mm and Tri-X 400. It will be sufficient for this project. After that, I don't know. I'll figure something out. I absolutely hate Tmax with a passion, so it won't be that. I am not terribly fond of Tri-X 400, but it may be the lesser evil. I do plan to do more tests with HP5; it's never been my favorite, but maybe I can find a way to like it more. The biggest pain factor is that whatever I go to will have to be 120. I resent that.

I just can't believe that there is no other 220 B&W option. Unbelievable.

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Word from DPP today that the order placed for TXP roll film, [250 rolls] was cut by 1/3 !

Ugh. That's not good news.

Sorry for not replying earlier regarding the order. I was out in Malibu teaching a workshop, and my laptop decided to die. When it rains, it pours.