Corporations and Big Boobs – A commentary.

[white.elephant]

While I've never used TXP, I can certainly feel the pain of those who, like Cheryl, count on the product. If Ilford suddenly announced they were doing away with FP4, I'd be screaming. But I have a question maybe someone can answer.

Occasionally you hear rumors that the film market has stabilized, or maybe even recovered a little. Kodak themselves has stated, it seems, that sales of Tri-X 400 are 'healthy.'

Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Does anyone anywhere have any real evidence to support either of these ideas at all? Or are we just all fooling ourselves and totally delusional?

I'm sure that TXP was discontinued because it no longer was profitable enough and didn't move quickly enough to prevent spoilage. But how close are we exactly to that fate with other products? Does anyone really know?

I don't quite know what I'd actually do with the data if it is available, but I would really like to separate fact from hope.

[rhmimac]

Buy lots of it ... It's the only remedy in the kapitalist world to keep things running.

Amen.

rhmimac

[Steve Smith]

Occasionally you hear rumors that the film market has stabilized, or maybe even recovered a little. Kodak themselves has stated, it seems, that sales of Tri-X 400 are 'healthy.'

Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Does anyone anywhere have any real evidence to support either of these ideas at all? Or are we just all fooling ourselves and totally delusional?

Unlike Kodak and Fujifilm, Ilford does not rely on the movie business so perhaps their sales figures more accurately represent the trend in film sales.


Steve.

[SuzanneR]

This is incredibly bad news to me. Tri-X 320 (220 format) is the ONLY film I use, and almost the only film I've used for the past eight years.

I not only dislike the alternative film, it will significantly raise my costs and my developing time. And when photographing toddlers, can you imagine having to reload after EVERY fifteen frames?

Oy vey.

- CJ

Cheryl... I hear ya, and I've used it plenty for similar reasons. There were times, however, when I found it's limitations in certain light frustrating, so I would shoot the regular tri-x, and my best solution to this problem with running out of frames is having more backs for the camera. Not a perfect solution, I know, but I find changing backs easier than reloading film. I have 4 120 backs for my RZ, and I load them up ahead of time, and 4 rolls of 120 for a portrait gig seems to work well for me at 10 frames a roll in 6x7 format.

I can process them all together, two tanks, four reels (unless the light was really changeable), and I don't have the headaches with highlights (especially when they wear white ugh...) as I found with TXP when printing.

Hope you find a good way to deal with it. It sucks.

[dr5chrome]

Suz ..I would agree! I think the problem here was marketing the 2 TriX films mostly. Kodak & Ilford do need each other.


I luv you tu Bruce...!

..damn! could have sworn I did a spell check!!

dw

Competition is good... if Kodak were to discontinue ALL film products, I think, would be bad for Ilford. I can't help but feel that many people (not necessarily photographers) would simply be under the impression that film is no longer manufactured, period. And, I think, if there's only one company left standing, then any bump in the road they might hit, would be bad news for the few photographers who stuck it out.

If Kodak needs to discontinue a poor selling film (despite my efforts, as I've routinely used 220 format TXP over the past few years.) to save the rest of it, then that's something I'll adjust to. I like the regular Tri-x, and I'm going to try TMY and Fp4 next. I want to know, and understand more than one film, from more than one manufacturer.

[GeorgeDexter]

[QUOTE=white.elephant;939507]

Other times you hear that if Hollywood ever abandoned film for their products, we'd all be dead in the water, that without them, our use doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
QUOTE]

What does Hollywood use B&W film for?

[Ektagraphic]

Today there are allot less knowledgeable people about film because of the digital market, let alone the many who simply don't know that there are 2 TriX films. As a lab I cant tell you how many times I have to explain this fact.

I didn't know about this great film until fairly recently actually. I can see right where you are coming from.

[T42]

...What does Hollywood use B&W film for?

Wasn't Schindler's List shot on Kodak B&W film, at least in part? Isn't there an enthusiasts group which is focused on exploring Kodak's cine film for use in 35mm film cameras? Project Double-X or some such?

A few years ago Kodak changed their logo. IIRC, I read that it was to detach themselves from the common perception that they were just the big film company, or some such thing.

[T42]

Here's a bit about Project Double-X:

http://www.project-double-x.org/index.html

Here are some words about Kodak's trademark switcheroo:

http://www.underconsideration.com/sp...es/002512.html

[Ektagraphic]

This has already happened in my area. I get asked far too often when carrying around my Rollei, "can you still find film for that camera?"

This happens to me almost once everytime I am out in a populated area to shoot. It is amazing how quickly the digital revolution went.