Good points Ken! Though we can't forget that some folks are new to film, students, etc.; and that give-and-take-symbiotic-system can't exist (yet) because price is so much more important (vital)....
I wonder what the mix is of folks who'd rather get a bunch'a $2'ish rolls of low cost b/w film vs the $5+ roll-a-film-folks.....hummmm I smell a poll
For the record, I pay a lot more for APX100 here in the states because I love it! I am worried that any change to the emulsion will affect my art goals....so for me, I am like you describe the symbiotic buyer
What's funny to me is that in the US there is only one manufacturer of film. So if the box says made in the US, it's Kodak by default.
Originally Posted by NB23
Now the whole EU thing allows these sellers like Lupus to say "...ohh it's made in the EU..." and walk away.
From a consumer perspective, like Ken describes, the symbiotic relationship can't be upheld when some of the varriables of the symbiotic relationship have been removed. For eg, if X factory in the EU, was known for producing film with pinholes, defects and whatnot, and the consumer can't be sure that the film isnt coated at X factory cus the obfuscation of who made it exists due to an "EU" stamp on the box.....well....the risk is there that your gonna get what your gonna get.....and thus the cost better be low...
I think in the US our import laws require the country of manufacture to be on the box....
When the APX400 hits the US shores I will buy some and see if we can put this shell game to a rest re the new APX400...
One more food for thought. I sit here typing on my Foxconn phone....I mean iPhone.
I believe 99% of the parts are Chineese made and the phone was assembled in China at a company called Foxconn, who Apple, an American company, contracts with to manufacture the phone.
What if, Apple has the same components, that I belive are 99% Chineese, sent to the US and the phone is assembled in the US. The country of manufacture is therefore the US
Anyway....I think this might happen in film. It could be coated at say Foma and cut/boxed (aka confectioned) in Germany. Same thing...
Now the difference is that when you buy OEM parts of a iPhone, lets say you break the glass and you want to swap it out (as I've done too many times to count).....the OEM part will say made in China.
That transparency doesn't exist with film...
Is this odd to some?
I once saw a documentary that said a major % of a Leica M7 is pre-assembled in Pourtugal and then assembled in Solms Germany. So can you get OEM parts of a M7 and find out that this was the case?
Is this a German-thing? Or a EU thing? I don't understand all this obfuscation...
Look, anyone who knows me knows I love ADOX and their films/chems and service - I am a diehard Adonal user!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I guess it's because of when I grew up, but if someone says "pro film", Tri-X is the one I think of. To U.S. magazine and newspaper photographers of the past five decades, the standard B&W film was Tri-X.
Originally Posted by clayne
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.
Regular Tri-X or Tri-X Pan Profesisonal? There's a difference...
Originally Posted by lxdude
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Tri-X 400 (as it has evolved over the years) has had more shots taken on it by professional photographers for professional uses than any other film you could possibly buy new today.
It may not be the most popular film now for professional use (although I wouldn't be surprised if its numbers are still very high) but it is certainly of professional calibre, marketed to professionals and used by professionals.
And with respect to the rest of this thread, and the discussions about price, everyone here seems to be ignoring one important fact.
There is no longer anything resembling a rational distribution system for Kodak materials and, to a great extent, it is the distribution system that determines the price that consumers pay.
“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
Ok I give up on the Tri-X ok haha.
Originally Posted by MattKing
But I wasn't complaining about their B&W film, only color. Though both Fuji and Kodak's B&W sheet film is double everyone else's B&W film and I don't know how that equates to distribution since the B&W in 120 or 35mm is distributed by the same trucks or whatever, how can Ilford, Foma, and the rest sell sheet film at a lower cost that's more equal to 120 but Kodak and Fuji have to double or triple theirs?
Anyway, I bet that this new APX in sheet film will be a reasonable price and I'll use it
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
I totally agree with Ken's statement above. Pay for the damn film and keep profit in the business!
But in an off topic rant here, why do people here continually use the word chemistry in place of the word chemicals?? This annoys me to no end! (I know, 1st world problem!)
I have been a professional chemist for 20 years and NOT ONCE during that time, nor at any time during my 4 years of undergraduate to get my Chem degree nor at all during my graduate education have I ever heard the word chemistry used as it is in the photography world (in place of the word chemical or chemicals).
I can only speculate that this is a corruption by non chemists. Or perhaps the word chemical is scary to the non chemist? Implying something more dangerous?