Nothing to cheer about but no reason for panic either.
Kodak's reps aren't offering much comfort when they gush about sales figures but not volume. Volume matters and that's the worry.
Yeah, Scotch film was a 3M brand although I did hear it may have been made by Ferrania. Still have some in the freezer.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
American Scotch film from Italy. A little roll of identity crisis inside every box.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
IMHO, Kodak has a track record of pulling out of markets just before they do well, or do well again. 8mm video is an excellent example. Kodak got in early, didn't see film-like profits and then bailed out. About a year later every video camera maker was selling 8mm video like hotcakes. Verbatim and Sterling Drug would be further examples. There are many more, I am sure.
When people (as in general public) find out five or 10 years from now that they don't have any real pictures on paper and the baby pictures are long gone because of a corrupted memory card, fouled hard drive or the latest incarnation of Windows BS and Facebook has finally gone into the dark corners of the Wayback Machine where it truly belongs, things in the market may very well change. Most people's PCs don't work and they couldn't print a picture if they could actually figure out how to do it - and most can't. A generation of our history is disappearing into the bit-bucket. Kodak ought to market that.
We need an Open Source Color Film project and APUG is just the place for it.
Exactly. I love what TMY-2 and TMZ can do, so why would I stop using them while they are still available?
Originally Posted by canuhead
Then again, I started shooting film about 5-6 years ago, with the thinking that I was going to shoot it and enjoy it while it was still here to be enjoyed. And as long as I can continue to do that, it's great. I'll figure out the transition to Ilford, or in a worse case scenario, back to digital for everything, when the time comes.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Your conclusion about Kodak 8x10 320TXP simply being less convenient to obtain is incorrect.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
Ilford, in its annual special sizes program, will supply any listed item regardless of how few boxes are ordered. Kodak, selling through retailers, will only cut and package non-stock sizes if a minimum quantity is ordered. Using TMAX 400 as an example, Canham has managed to complete only one 8x10 special order nearly 11 months ago, with a second attempt falling short in October
This despite his minimum number of boxes being 218, fewer than the B&H minimum of 245 boxes
Although B&H asks "only" $73.50 per box, compared to Canham's $77.00, it has not to my knowledge sold anyone the minimum quantity since 8x10 TMAX 400 became a special order item. Note that these are 10-sheet boxes.
Regardless of film size, Kodak requires an approximately $18,000 purchase for special orders. Ilford will deliver a single unique-size box of film even if it sells for $50 and only one is ordered. The likelihood of anyone being able to put together an 8x10 320TXP group order in the future is slight. I think this community will need to rely on Ilford for first-tier-quality 8x10 black and white film going forward. FP4 Plus is a fine film and performs similarly to 320TXP in many ways.
They can't. Kodak also disappeared into the bit-bucket...
Originally Posted by kb3lms
"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
Yeah, but the ink will be cheap.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
This isn't 1999. The world is now in a different place. I think most people realize they are no longer getting prints done, and they're doing it by their own choice. Aside from the scrapbooking niche, most people aren't putting together physical photo albums anymore. If people do get prints, it's usually just a few things so that they can have it in a frame and on display. But now with digital picture frames, I predict that will become less popular as well. Most people are perfectly fine sharing photos over Facebook or Flickr photo albums. Besides, archiving your photos on a website, in my opinion, is a safer bet than keeping it on your personal hard drive. I've never heard of someone loosing their Facebook pictures because one of Facebook's drives died. Now with cloud computing, it seems even less likely.
Originally Posted by kb3lms
So with that, I wouldn't count on a resurgence in film because people realize they don't have prints. You can always make prints from digital and most film nowadays isn't even printed, it's scanned. Digital archiving is only going to get safer and more secure in the future.
Film: Just use it, make photographs with it and try to show people good work, get the word out that it still rocks, can be souped in your kitchen sink. Word of mouth and stellar visual examples of why people should use film are what is going to keep it around, not a big marketing campaign from Kodak or Ilford.
When I was a kid, it was the photographs I saw being made on film that made me want to use it, not an ad from the company that made it....
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~