I very much doubt that Harman would purposely send out duff products.
Originally Posted by rich815
I did not say they would. But what one calls an "acceptable" quality control varies.
Originally Posted by kevs
Yes but 2 boxes of tri-x and two boxes of BW400CN film and ONE roll of c-41 color and one amateur pro pack (4 instead of 5) C-41 probably get bought about once every 6 months to a year, no one is buying those... people like us actually buy the freestyle stuff haha (actually I don't because I prefer Ilford for most films and they don't sell to freestyle anymore).
Also I don't consider any of those films to be "premium" films, they are all the consumer market films, regular "all purpose" C-41, 400tx which many pro's use, but isn't a pro film, and I'll give you that "kodak professional" BW400CN says the words 'professional' on it, but isn't used by any professionals I know... I've rarely seen it now and then here on APUG posted in the gallery, but most pro's use true B&W films and is oriented for consumers now since they can get that B&W look and still have it processed at the local drug store.
I recognize that film companies need to make a profit, and I hate to lose a film (like Fuji Provia or Velvia or Neopan400) over lost sales, but they also can't expect us to pay STUPID expensive prices either and sell a lot of film. It would also help us to understand why prices for films aren't consistent, we fall in love with a film, Acros100 for example, shoot it on 35mm, then 120, then we go to use 4x5 and it's twice the price of everything else in the same family, it makes no sense, at least none that we can think of. Is the price from 120 deferred to 4x5 in a market they assume can handle the difference? keeping costs down on the 120 versions? or is there some extreme extra waste associated with producing it in 4x5 that bumps up the cost to double? This pushes us away from a product and onto another different one, and it's easier to be consistent and shoot the same film, so then we might just switch altogether for ease of processing and shooting, not to have to deal with these inconstancies...
Anyway, this is sort of important for AGFA to hear, but also is a bit out of topic, but I don't want it taken down as OT either because it's important to know.
So if you produce APX100 and it's really great, I would buy some, but I would not invest in stock of 120 at $4/roll if a box of 20 4x5's was $65/box and 35mm were $8/roll, make sense? the prices should match so we aren't detracted by comparing those prices to other films which we see as similar. For example FP4+ (25 sheets) is $32/box but Acros100 for only 20 sheets is $56/box ... it makes no sense, it also turns me off from using that film as I feel slighted. But if I were to find out arista had a secret rebranded Acros100 that was in 4x5 for only $32, not only would I buy that, but I would know for sure that I was being price gouged because they obviously can make it much cheaper and still sell it to Arista.
Just some thoughts to ponder...
Originally Posted by zsas
C'mon... Tri-X is absolutely a pro film. Do you know how many great images have been made on this film, by professionals and the like? Absolutely stellar film and it's deserving of it's reputation.
400tx which many pro's use, but isn't a pro film
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Well said^ and I might add 400CN is crazy sharp and beautiful. It clearly says on the box "professional", guess that is marketing lingo....
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I like the current products fine. I'll be happy with analog as long as I can get them. Heck, I'd be happy with just those from Ilford though I like to see some competition so I'm glad Foma, Adox etc. are around.
Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao
I use the best film for the job, not the cheapest. Sure, I shoot that Arista Tri-X because if I didn't I'd shoot Tri-X and it's the same. But if I want Delta 3200, I shoot Delta 3200, not the cheapest film I can find. I like your MCC 110 paper and use it. It isn't cheap - there are quite a few less expensive papers on the market but the difference is pretty small given my limited time for my hobby, and the difference in results is much larger than the difference in price.
Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex
If you make a superior product (in whatever way sets it apart) and price it for a reasonable profit, people will buy it unless it's way out of the zone of the competition. I doubt I'd use any 400 speed black and white film that cost, for example, $20 a roll, no matter how superior, when I can get TMY-2 or Tri-X or HP5+ for 1/5th to 1/4th that. But I said I would pay $20 a roll for some good infrared film that was like old HIE, for example - not a lot of rolls a year, but I'd buy some. And I'm buying some Provia 400X at nearly $16 a roll while I still can, because it's great film soon to be gone and nothing else like it.
I like the other guys "I guess professional is marketing lingo" comment haha
Originally Posted by clayne
I did state that even though pro's use the film, doesn't make it a "pro" film. Tmax400 is the pro film ... Portra is a pro film, and I guess the BW400CN is technically a pro film, but then why don't they offer it in other sizes that pro's use, 35mm is for amateurs hehehehe
^Oh Stone....ah oh....
Cue the HCB'rs.....
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2