|
|
|
-
Some Reassuring News from Ilford!
Gloom and doom that reflect real world facts which lead to worry and disappointment need a good, and reliable counter. Here is one:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Il...products-13162
Last edited by jovo; 03-10-2010 at 06:47 PM.
Reason: fixing a verb
-
Nice to hear, but ya got to think that if it came down to it and they couldn't pay their bills they'd be up the creek like all the rest. I guess business must be pretty good tho. That's good to hear.
Btw, scroll down the page and look on the left about classic cameras being in high demand.
-
IlfordPhoto have less alternative ways to go than the Big Three...
And as Wayne said, their way seems to pay off.
-
 Originally Posted by waynecrider
Btw, scroll down the page and look on the left about classic cameras being in high demand.
Classic cameras are just so awesome! Glad to see reassurance from Ilford. I love their papers.
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
-
Now if this thread had been about Kodak and a similar article, the thread would be filled with vulgar posts about how Kodak management did not know what they were doing, that the article was full of lies, and that Kodak could not be trusted.
So where are the negative posts about Ilford? Fair is fair, if you would be nasty about Kodak, have the balls to be nasty about Ilford or never post anything bad about Kodak again!
Steve
P. S. I have nothing against Ilford.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Well, I personally haven't bashed Kodak  As many around here are porbably tired of me saying, I love Kodak.
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
-
In the past I have seen statements just like this from companies & days later they have done a complete turn around. Kodak are famous for this, that is why they basically have no company worth salvaging.
-
steve
o, ok ...
its too bad they canned pop centennial!
now that i got that overwith,
i am happy to know ilford is doing OK ...
-
Originally Posted by Ektagraphic
Well, I personally haven't bashed Kodak As many around here are porbably tired of me saying, I love Kodak.
Ektagraphic, I did not mean you. That was aimed at the anti-Kodak, "I will not buy Kodak film" crowd.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
In 1974, when I was 20 years old, my college job was at Disneyland. Film photography was in its glory years and I, wanting to record the behind-the-scenes activities of my coworkers and friends, decided to purchase a 35mm SLR.
Being a student, as were all of the other employees, I had little money. But while everyone else was buying Minolta SRT-101s and the like, I bit hard and bought a Nikon F2. Got the 55mm f/1.2 as well, since I worked a lot of night shifts.
After only a few weeks of use I came to the realization that this is what I wanted to do for fun. In fact, I knew then - that very first summer - that this was to be my retirement hobby. I have never waivered from that decision. Kodak has waivered. Fuji has waivered. Agfa has waivered. But I have not.
So I just want to say thanks to Mr. Brierley, Mr. Galley, the other managing directors, and all the employees at Ilford, for that commitment. It's not a guarantee of product availability forever. But it is a guarantee of their desire to provide product availability for the foreseeable future. That means a lot.
Why?
Because if circumstances eventually dictate that individual products must be killed, or black-and-white photography must die entirely, then I know that in Ilford's case it will have been as a last resort, not as a first resort. I know that you are not looking to eventually get out of the business, but rather to stay in it for as long as is possible.
You guys are the reason I continue to pour money into my darkroom, and purchase as much of your product as I can.
Ken
P.S. February 6 in the slideshow below is a photograph made with that same camera and lens I purchased in 1974...
Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 03-10-2010 at 08:06 PM.
"In 1850 it would have been unusual to find someone who had handled a camera or looked at a photograph, but 100 years later the reverse would have been true—the camera had become a ubiquitous device, its techniques manageable by even the clumsiest and least sophisticated person."
– Naomi Rosenblum, A World History of Photography, 1984
|
|
Adv Reply
