Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,519   Posts: 1,543,772   Online: 893
      
Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2678910111213141516171822 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 309
  1. #111

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,560
    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

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,560
    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.

  3. #113
    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!

  4. #114
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,647
    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.

  5. #115

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,143
    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.

  6. #116
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,523
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by André E.C. View Post
    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!
    Ilford don't make Tri-X or various colour products.

  7. #117

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by nickrapak View Post
    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.
    Yeah I would have thought the figures were something like that.
    Thanks. I can see the volumes of release print sales plummeting for sure, but I would say the other markets are relatively stable.

    Speaking about motion picture stocks here btw not stills stocks. In my experience the volume of people shooting on 35mm and 16mm stocks hasn't changed a huge amount but apart from some people like the Cohen brothers once its shot its then scanned to DPX and is cut and released digitally.

    But I think the motion picture print stocks may be the key to keeping a small volume spin off alive, because the demand for them is very much still there.

  8. #118
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,951
    Images
    71
    People think of a coating machine in terms of a kitchen implement. Ron explained the size complexity and startup procedure for Kodak's equipment..you can't make a yard of Kodak quality film or a sheet of kodak quality paper.
    I guarantee that everybody at Kodak wants to make as many analog products as possible. The first generation of young adults who grew up on digital photography will be having their own kids who'll never know analog photography existed......film will just be forgotten. If nobody wants to buy the product it doesn't matter what Kodak wants to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    All of you armchair economists have forgotten taxes which are higher in NYS than just about anywhere in the US, and here in Monroe county they are just about higher than anywhere in NYS. So, Kodak bears a HUGE burden in taxes and in fact, this was the reason that they were literally forced to demolish buildings that could have been renovated and rented out as office, lab or manufacturing space. It was less expensive to turn those buildings into grassy areas.

    As for the earlier comment about one sheet being as easy to coat as a mile, this is a very poor argument. The methods used to coat single sheets increase labor costs and defects. In fact, as you go from 1 mile to 1/2 mile, the costs are the same using the same equipment, but the idle time increases burden as the plant and machine must be kept tempered even when idle. So there are two ends to this train of scaling, the low end which is impossible on a production scale and the high end which is near impossible as you scale it back due to hidden costs.

    PE

  9. #119
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,015
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
    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.
    Ray;

    I have no idea what this is about. That post is on another web site entirely. I suggest you continue this over there.

    PE

  10. #120
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,015
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Johnson View Post
    Fotokemika in Croatia (Efke, Adox) has smaller machines that are said to be economic at lower levels of production.
    Alan;

    Many products require more than one layer. Color film requires up to 14 layers. The machines at Efke for example, only apply one or at most two layers in one pass and therefore would require 7 passes to 14 passes through a machine for one color film. In addition, they coat at about 100 ft / min. To get a real feeling for this, their production of color would be at about 1/7th that rate for a 2 station coater and with a huge defect rate due to the method of coating and the constant rewinds. The film would therefore be very very expensive to produce in sufficient quantity.

    PE



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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