Not even remotely so when one considers inflation. $49.45 in 1980 is equivalent to a 2010 (most recent date with available data) price of $129.12:
Originally Posted by railwayman3
Originally Posted by Simon R Galley
Originally Posted by hpulley
My personal preference in the event of a reduction in the price of raw silver would be to continue paying the higher price for finished Ilford products until after those 58 had been reemployed...
Originally Posted by Simon R Galley
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
This was the local news, the personal stories behind the news are very sad. This is, working photographers obviously excepted, a "leisure/hobby not our life.
Having said that was this diversification the way to go?
Maybe we all should be recovering our silver and sending it to Ilford?
I agree...I was just interested to see the highest ever figure, and your comparison is, of course, more meaningful. If the current price really did get up to $140-$150, I don't hold out much hope of photo materials being affordable for the average user.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Applying a similar inflation index to my own actual disposable income in 1980, I see that, on paper, I'm slightly "better-off" now than I was then, yet it's only in the last couple of years that I've began to feel that photographic materials were sudddenly becoming alarmingly expensive? This is probably just subjective, but it would be interesting to know the price of Ilford films in 1980.....I'd guess that the 1980's were a time when consumer products seemed most affordable. Just thinking aloud.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hasn't silver been known and used as a bactericide for many years? I have sportwear, socks and shoes, "containing silver for freshness", which are at least four or five years old.
Originally Posted by Chris Livsey;1188861Having said that was this diversification the way to go?
Not a bad idea. I wonder how much of a ding it would make, but it certainly couldn't hurt! We have an advertiser here on APUG, John Nanian, selling silver recovery gadgets... Maybe we can help two sponsors at once!
Originally Posted by waynecrider
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
"Hasn't silver been known and used as a bactericide for many years?"
It has indeed been widely used for many years but as with many "historical" practices/drugs not subjected to rigorous examination, what is referred to as "evidenced based practice" has re-examined many areas assumed to work but found when investigated throughly to be lacking in evidence.
This was published: http://www.nelm.nhs.uk/en/NeLM-Area/...ver-dressings/
in 2010 and perhaps Harmman should have read it.
In summary the only area of clinical use that could be justified on the evidence was in burns and even there "the evidence base is weak". Given the silver price increase must work through here as well it is unlikely, unless new evidence is presented, their use in the cash strapped NHS will increase in volume terms. The DTB is very influential as it is not funded by the industry.
Interesting....I obviously have no specialist knowledge, so, when I made the comment, I was not sure if silver as a bactericide was an established use which could be readily exploited by Harman, or a totally new idea developed by them.
Originally Posted by Chris Livsey