Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,006   Posts: 1,633,572   Online: 1061
      
Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 301
  1. #101
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    875
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    I found a website that lists color film as a product of Lucky in China. I don't know much about it.

    http://www.luckyfilm.com/html/produc.../cf/index.html
    I use Lucky (BW) and I like the emulsion. It does suffer from a bad base, as in ringlets of curl in 35. The 120 base is only slightly better. The 120 paper has poor taping and frequently ends up with a roll of used film with nothing left to hold it togeather. All that said, it's a fun cheap film to play with.

    The colour is only available in 35mm. Because I know they make the SHD, they have the physical means to make 120. They don't, so I assume they probably don't make it themselves. I could be easily wrong. It could be that they use what ever factory Kodak left behind, and they might have only made 35mm there.

    The BW emulsion does not resemble anything I have seen fron Kodak. I think it is safe to asume there is no formula sharing going on here.

  2. #102
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,188
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    I found a website that lists color film as a product of Lucky in China. I don't know much about it.

    http://www.luckyfilm.com/html/produc.../cf/index.html
    Kodak supplied materials and coating expertise to produce color films in the 90s using formulas from an earlier period. IDK how much of the film was made there and how much was made in the US and shipped to China. That ended. From that point, Lucky or whatever company three, could make their own. IDK how much they make or what quality it has from personal experience, but reports here say that the color film is grainier and less sharp than other similar films on the market.

    PE

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    85
    PE: I dont know if you would have any knowledge or experience in it but how much of Kodaks film business has been motion picture stocks vs stills stocks? Either historically or currently?

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555

    A Kodak Assisted Outcome??

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Kodak supplied materials and coating expertise to produce color films in the 90s using formulas from an earlier period... reports here say that the color film is grainier and less sharp than other similar films on the market.

    PE
    duh!

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by JayGannon View Post
    PE: I dont know if you would have any knowledge or experience in it but how much of Kodaks film business has been motion picture stocks vs stills stocks? Either historically or currently?
    I remember reading at one point that 90% of all film coated by Kodak was Eastman Color Print film, the film used for release prints to theaters. That's not even including the camera original and intermediate films.
    "Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by lns View Post
    Very true, and I understood your point at the time. Fear not: probably a lot of other people did too.

    I think you're right. But to me, that's water under the bridge. When Kodak expanded, the future looked bright and expansion seemed a good economic choice. It is fair to say that a lot of businesses have been blindsided by change.

    When it became clear that film was starting a major decline in sales, Ilford chose to restructure, get smaller and concentrate on black and white film. While Kodak chose to use the cash from film operations to try to turn into a digital company. Ilford's parent has a division that sells printer paper, by way, so it isn't film only either. Again, water under the bridge. Both were legitimate strategies. I prefer one but understand the other.

    I still maintain that there's too much panic in threads like this. We'll go crazy if we post about every negative prediction from every obscure stock tout or committed digital evangelist or negative nellie. I've been reading about the imminent death of film for five years now, and it's still here. I don't know about anybody else, but I bought some film from Kodak and Ilford this week, not to stick in a freezer, but to use. I'm shooting some of the new Portra 400 this weekend, and I can't wait to see the results.

    -Laura

    Thank you Laura.
    Unfortunately I don't have thick skin, so I appreciate your words.

    Besides, you and others have made some good points.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    I've always felt Kodak was a like Big Brother, in the good sense of the term.

    They were a big company
    that made products in quantities small enough
    for the bright-eyed little boy and girl to perform magic in their makeshift darkrooms...

    They were an active dream weaver...
    and all the while their bread and butter actually came from
    mom and pop vacation snapshooters and the movie industry.

    (Yes that's speculation-what do you think?)
    Last edited by Ray Rogers; 02-06-2011 at 01:27 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Saved for later

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    BTW, whatever did you mean by "the mistakes in you glossry"?

    PE
    I meant that the mistakes in your glossary (= word list, dictionary etc.)
    (published on Emulsion 101 under your name)
    were rather obvious.

    Is it possible they are simply cut and pasted from your book draft?
    If so, maybe they are cut and paste errors.
    Last edited by Ray Rogers; 02-06-2011 at 04:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #108
    André E.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,520
    Images
    12
    Only PE can defend or victimize Kodak, lol, hey, they got what they wanted, drop out of the film market smoothly and if possible victims of something...
    Perez got what he deserved and wished for years, Kodak is a victim of Kodak policy, nothing else.
    The only ones needed are the ones commited to film, those who aren't, goodbye and good luck.

    Support Ilford!

  9. #109
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,049
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    No, the chemical companies that make kits are NOT equipped to coat film or paper. There is absolutely no crossover in either production facilities or coating.
    What I wanted to say is this: there are companies independent of Kodak and Fuji which can create highly sophisticated photo chemicals - I doubt they could do this without advanced understanding of color film chemistry. And these companies can deal with low volumes properly. At the same time there are companies which can coat film in low volumes while turning out a profit. If these two skills can be combined and the relevant patents expire, I see no reason why a company couldn't pick up the slack after Kodak drops the ball on film.

    If you look at the Kodak-Lucky partnership: that's exactly what we don't need. The aim of this was to mass produce cheap film for the Chinese consumer market which wasn't expected to be able to afford digital cameras. They were proven wrong and the deal collapsed. A decent film camera may cost 1/10 of a dSLR, but it's still more expensive that the camera which comes with your cell phone. Cheap consumer film isn't going anywhere IMHO.

    What I would like instead would be a small but decent menu of good color films which have nice and well known characteristics. Give me a few films which behave like Portra, E100G, E100VS, Provia 400X, throw in a Velvia lookalike for the folks who like it and be done with it. Make the menu complete with some specialties like a usable ISO1600 color negative film and create yearly specials which follow trends in taste. Charge 20-30€ per roll/box of 5 sheets if you must, make it like a choice between a bottle of good red wine and a roll of film. Film shouldn't be something companies should be ashamed of (guess why Kodak doesn't advertise film! ).
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Fabrizio;

    Kodak had smaller machines, but as I posted earlier, they were dismantled several years ago. They don't have the money to build new small machines. So, they are stuck with an earlier decision to produce high volume, high quality film and now they cannot easily back up to low volume.

    And, as volume goes down, and maintaining Kodak's quality, then the price goes up. Many here already complain about their prices and will use other films instead.

    That is the problem.


    PE
    Fotokemika in Croatia (Efke, Adox) has smaller machines that are said to be economic at lower levels of production.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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