Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,754   Posts: 1,515,964   Online: 940
      
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 122
  1. #71
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,533
    Images
    10
    I feel sorry for all those who loved and enjoyed this film, but to me the handwriting is on the wall when a film is no longer sold in 120 format. In a time where very decent MF equipment can be had for less than a cheesy DSLR kit a lot of amateurs get professional MF equipment - and having a film unavailable in 120 makes it barely interesting to me in 135 format, too, especially if similar products are offered in 135 and 120. It came as no surprise that Elitechrome got axed, too.

    Second: there are lots of companies around who can coat simple B&W film but only three who have t-grain or something similar. I can therefore understand that Kodak leaves these low tech product lines to cheaper and less sophisticated producers and focuses more on their T-MAX product line and their professional color products, of course.

    Third: while film&paper discontinuation is annoying, it's certainly not a show stopper if you have a decent freezer.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Are you kidding? What was it about their papers that sucked?
    I was never able to try them; discontinued before I started shooting film. But based on the opinions I've read here on APUG, it seemed like a lot of people didn't really care for them. At least that's the impression I've gotten from reading on the internet.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,859
    Images
    62
    Depending on who one reads, it would be possible to come up with other conclusions. I haven't used the Kodak papers as I stuck with ILFORD when starting out and Kodak discontinued their line around the same time as I became more involved.

    Tom

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    ... but to me the handwriting is on the wall when a film is no longer sold in 120 format...
    I read a different wall. When the film (any format) drops down to the bottom of their web page rather than in a featured location...

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    Why do people say that ilford are doing ok? Just parroting around?

    As far as I'm concerned, their HP5 2-for-1 sale showed how much in trouble they can be.
    And if kodak goes away, just watch Ilford's prices double. It's going to get ugly.

    Kodak was bad in business. Just its labeling was extremely bad. God knkws how many films Ive lost by following their developing times. Who knows how many customers they lost just there, by provoquing and causing absolutely horrible results, thin negatives.

    While Fuji has been active and createf the X100 + X10 line, what has kodak done? Nothing. They relied too much on the good old crappy american way of doing business.

  6. #76
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,154
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Why do people say that ilford are doing ok? Just parroting around?
    Over at filmwasters.com Leon Taylor interviewed Steven Brierly of Harmann/Ilford, and in the interview Mr Brierly states they have had an increase in sales this year, contrary to the market trend. I remember a figure of 8%.
    "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

  7. #77
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,747
    Kodak providing recommendations leading to thin negatives? I always thought they were intended to create negatives for solar eclipse viewing.

    Actually they've always been spot on - for the specified c.i. which was optimized for printing with diffusion enlargers. For those of us using condenser enlargers, a reduction in time is generally needed - in my experience anyway.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Over at filmwasters.com Leon Taylor interviewed Steven Brierly of Harmann/Ilford, and in the interview Mr Brierly states they have had an increase in sales this year, contrary to the market trend. I remember a figure of 8%.

    Dumping free film on the market helps to boost sales for sure

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Kodak providing recommendations leading to thin negatives? I always thought they were intended to create negatives for solar eclipse viewing.

    Actually they've always been spot on - for the specified c.i. which was optimized for printing with diffusion enlargers. For those of us using condenser enlargers, a reduction in time is generally needed - in my experience anyway.
    HC110 B 3.5 minutes for Plus x and Tri-X, regardless if you rate it at 400 or 800? This well known Kodak joke is old by now.

  10. #80
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    HC110 B 3.5 minutes for Plus x and Tri-X, regardless if you rate it at 400 or 800? This well known Kodak joke is old by now.

    yeah, but you didn't know that the 3.5 min was for a rubber tank that you were supposed to violently throw against a wall for the duration, didn't you? That was one of Kodak's most well kept secrets.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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