| | | -
 Originally Posted by Ian Grant  There's something about the Japanese, they have something missing in the West, but they are canny. (Like the Scots).
Ian That Kodak, overall, had the best research is freely and honestly admitted
by even top Fuji scientists.
I think this reflects infrastructure and capital more so than brain power however...
Kodak has always been strong on research and even spent large sums to assimilate technology they did not develop themselves... (Kodak = Borg?)
More than 15 years ago one of Fuji's senior researchers told me they were about 6 months behind Kodak, as evidenced by patent trends.
I did not and still do not have the ability to evalualate that claim, but I respect his insight.
I am sure the Japanese researchers worked very hard,
as did the Americans did when the Germans were on top.
The real question is what happens once your are on top?
Do you continue at full speed, thus maintaining that lead,
or do you relax and begin to gloat?
I think it is wrong to compare research in this way, based on nationality.
That said, one thing I think I have noticed is that the American researchers are more arrogant about their own abilities than the Japanese researchers.
Last edited by Ray Rogers; 07-05-2009 at 08:26 PM.
-
That reminds me that there was a color paper on the market about 30 years ago for making prints from slides, I think it was Agfa. The processing was just plain water, must have been some kind of Polaroid process. I have some of the prints, and the colors still are pretty good.
Originally Posted by billtroop >However, (I may be wrong!) but I think the most valuable lesson we will ever be able to learn from you is how to think like a Kodak researcher.
Surely the best way to do that is to go and find out things? Just do it!
>Strange, but I feel that Kodak research was somehow better than the Kodak products that evolved from it.
That is true to the extent that thousands of fabulous products were developed and never sold. One example is Grant Haist's developer/fix-incorporated papers. In one invention, you process the paper for 30 seconds in sodium carbonate, wash for a minute, and the entire develop/fix/wash sequence is out of the way with no environmental hazard.
In a related invention, the paper is simply heated, to achieve develop, fixation, and archival stability.
These are expired patents. You can find them. What is more, you can make them. Grant made them in his garage, with off the shelf wallpaper equipment.
So? Go out and find them. If, that is, you're interested in something that was cutting edge 30 or 40 years ago. It's certainly a lot more cutting edge than anything being discussed here. We're talking about minute refinements of a completely conventional process here that is about 150 years old. Why not simply get rid of the chemistry as best we can, which means putting it into the paper, and leaving it there?
-
Ray;
Basing R&D on nationality is really reasonable when one factors in national policies that reflect support of companies and R&D in general. This is epitomized in the phrase "Japan INC" used for quite a while in application to advances in Japan in recent years.
In fact, photography was placed at a cabinet minister level in Japan, in order that they might surpass the US. In the US all advances were made by the industries concerned, in this case Kodak.
PE
-
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer Basing R&D on nationality is really reasonable when one factors in national policies that reflect support of companies and R&D in general.
PE This is exactly the reason why Ilford lost out, they came under the control of the Air Ministery during WWII and were forced to drop much of their research, particularly into colour emulsions, but also Phenidone.
A measure of just how much that set them back is it was only in the early 50's that Phenidone came into use, despite the research being done in the late 30's.
Ian
-
Originally Posted by olehjalmar That reminds me that there was a color paper on the market about 30 years ago for making prints from slides, I think it was Agfa. The processing was just plain water, must have been some kind of Polaroid process. I have some of the prints, and the colors still are pretty good. I don't remember the name of it, but I used to use htis product. All the prints I made with it in the 80s have turned yellow a bit...
Anyway, it was not plain water used to process it. It was about 10% sodium hydroxide! That's quite a big difference from plain water.
Kirk
For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
There was a product made by Kodak for negative and positive prints. It was called Ektaflex and had the designation "R" or "C" for reversal or neg pos. My prints here are still in pretty good shape. I worked on the project and have many prints comparing Ektacolor 30 paper, Ektaflex, Ektachrome paper and Ciba/Ilfochrome.
PE
-
Originally Posted by Ian Grant This is exactly the reason why Ilford lost out, they came under the control of the Air Ministery during WWII and were forced to drop much of their research, particularly into colour emulsions, but also Phenidone.
A measure of just how much that set them back is it was only in the early 50's that Phenidone came into use, despite the research being done in the late 30's.
Ian The BIOS reports after the war were no sterling example of scientific inquiry either with gaps and errors all over the place. And, Ilford never got back into color with any degree of effort from what we know.
As for the Phenidone, it had its own problems albeit it was a good advance. Dimezone and Dimezone-S are far better.
PE
-
The Type-R Ektaflex took an machine for processing, if I remember. The nice thing about the Afga product was that a simple tray was all that was needed to process the paper.
Kirk
For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!
-
Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes I don't remember the name of it, but I used to use htis product. All the prints I made with it in the 80s have turned yellow a bit...
Anyway, it was not plain water used to process it. It was about 10% sodium hydroxide! That's quite a big difference from plain water. I think that was Agfachrome-Speed (?) print material. I think it was available for prints from slides or negatives, and the developer was very caustic as Kirk recalls. Agfa supplied the gloves with the trial kit. I got a tiny hole in a glove for tray processing and my finger stung for hours. I think it may have also come with some potassium bromide (?) or another additive for some contrast control.
Lee
-
Agfachrome-Speed. That's it! I don't remember it being for negs. And the use of "chrome" in the name implies slide only.
Kirk
For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!
| |
Adv Reply
