Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,182   Online: 641
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80
  1. #51
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,219
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Yeah, but the ink will be cheap.
    Most stuff displayed on folding banquet tables at front yard estate sales usually is.



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  2. #52
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,617
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    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
    I checked the lin?s you supplied: apparenty fewer than 80 boxes of TMAX 400 in 8x10" size were preordered in that time frame. The total amount people were willing to pay for this was about 6000$. Sorry, but I can't blame Kodak or any of their partners for not shipping a product which is so rarely used, especially in a common format like 8x10. These links also show that minimum order quantities were reached for quite a few films and at quite unusual sizes.

    So what's most likely going to happen? Either people will order some other film which is similar and available (TMAX 100, Delta 400, ...) or in one or two years all TMAX 400 stock in 8x10 which people hoard in freezers will be used up and folks will complete a new order. Unless Kodak goes under there is no reason why they shouldn't coat TMAX 400 in a few years, it's a popular film stock in smaller sizes.

    I envision a business plan where someone buys a load of 8x10 or larger and cuts it down to various sizes (4x5, 5x7, ....) and sells them in smaller quantities at a hefty markup.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  3. #53
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    There were about 300 boxes of tmy2 8x10 ordered; not 80, but it's still not much for a year's supply for the industry.

  4. #54
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    Of course Kodak is to blame I love their products but their management sucks or has the economic knowledge of an amoeba a soon as an item becomes special order or really hard to get people will turn to the easier available product in this case probably Ilford Hp5+, or as old German Austrian saying goes aus den Augen aus den Sinn (approx translation: out of view, out of mind). Since I am not using TMY in 8x10 I have to ask was Tmax only available trough Canham if that is the case than Kodak hasn't really given a thought about 75% of the worlds photographers (living outside the US) and is a 100% responsible for the downturn in it's LF Film sales. If on the other hand TMAX 400 was available worlwide trough worldwide distributors than the blames lies with the photographers and Kodak 50/50. h.v. the digital archiving won't get better in the future because the company producing the stuff don't want it to last longer, that's a fact and the companies openly admit it at least to archivists and the UNESCO.

    Dominik

  5. #55
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    Of course Kodak is to blame I love their products but their management sucks or has the economic knowledge of an amoeba a soon as an item becomes special order or really hard to get people will turn to the easier available product in this case probably Ilford Hp5+, or as old German Austrian saying goes aus den Augen aus den Sinn (approx translation: out of view, out of mind). Since I am not using TMY in 8x10 I have to ask was Tmax only available trough Canham if that is the case than Kodak hasn't really given a thought about 75% of the worlds photographers (living outside the US) and is a 100% responsible for the downturn in it's LF Film sales. If on the other hand TMAX 400 was available worlwide trough worldwide distributors than the blames lies with the photographers and Kodak 50/50. h.v. the digital archiving won't get better in the future because the company producing the stuff don't want it to last longer, that's a fact and the companies openly admit it at least to archivists and the UNESCO.

    Dominik
    What about demand? Where's that gone? Kodak won't make product that doesn't sell. Where's the mystery in that? Kodak isn't talking much about production just sales. FYI they're not the same.

  6. #56
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    CGW take a look at my first paragraph if I have a monopoly I can do things like special order etc.. but if I am a one of a dozen fishs in a pond I have to be visible and I have to promote myself in order to be in demand. Kodak LF products were neither visible nor available thus lowering the demand for said products. Ilford and other manufacturers are much more proactive than Kodak and are being noticed especially by newcomers. Demand is created trough visibility and promotion and that's a marketing fact.

    I don't blame Kodak's for reducing their product line it's the correct decision but they are not innocent in their downfall (see above paragraph) and they still have the big corporation mindset well they aren't anymore.

    Dominik

  7. #57
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    CGW take a look at my first paragraph if I have a monopoly I can do things like special order etc.. but if I am a one of a dozen fishs in a pond I have to be visible and I have to promote myself in order to be in demand. Kodak LF products were neither visible nor available thus lowering the demand for said products. Ilford and other manufacturers are much more proactive than Kodak and are being noticed especially by newcomers. Demand is created trough visibility and promotion and that's a marketing fact.

    I don't blame Kodak's for reducing their product line it's the correct decision but they are not innocent in their downfall (see above paragraph) and they still have the big corporation mindset well they aren't anymore.

    Dominik
    Ever occur to you that fewer and fewer people are bothering with LF and/or that just possibly Kodak can't economically supply that dwindling demand?

  8. #58
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    CGW it did occur to me and as I said I agree with their decision to cut the filmsize from their program. But film sales wouldn't have dwindled that fast if Kodak would have been more proactive in promoting their products while in fact they have a CEO who openly states film is dead. I congratulate Kodak on bringing out new motion picture film, but cutting Ektar from their LF program sends the wrong message even if it is the right decision. I lay blame where blame is due on the CEO and the marketing dept. Kodak is and always has been a great company with superb products and stupid CEOs and marketing.

    Dominik

  9. #59
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    CGW it did occur to me and as I said I agree with their decision to cut the filmsize from their program. But film sales wouldn't have dwindled that fast if Kodak would have been more proactive in promoting their products while in fact they have a CEO who openly states film is dead. I congratulate Kodak on bringing out new motion picture film, but cutting Ektar from their LF program sends the wrong message even if it is the right decision. I lay blame where blame is due on the CEO and the marketing dept. Kodak is and always has been a great company with superb products and stupid CEOs and marketing.

    Dominik
    Lack of promotion is a soothing fiction that alone can't possibly explain the decline in film use. It's not selling. Deal with it. It's not the 1990s. Sad but true.

  10. #60
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    Remind me who invented digital photography and couldn't market it ? Kodak's history is a history of bad advertising and promotion and I am dealing with it by saying it's the right decision to cut products that don't sell. Film isn't dead yet and I thank god every day that it's still around and I very much doubt that it will make a come back.

    Dominik

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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