Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,480   Online: 1081
      
Page 12 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2678910111213141516171822 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 450
  1. #111
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how...tcy-2012-01-05

    The demand for film from Kodak has been in a ~10% per annum decline since 2003 according Kodak financial statements. At one point Kodak sold something like $11 billion worth of film per year and now they are in the low hundreds of millions of $$$ and still declining.

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,305
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50

  3. #113

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    Do you base that judgement on personal experience, and can you post any examples to prove the point (I only ask because I'd be interested to know)?
    I personally experienced flaws with several films which I wanted to test a while back. My experiences were with "Adox". My father had some sporadic issues with Efke films (200 ASA). These tendencies appear to have been experienced by others, but I wouldn't normally base my comments on other people's experiences since one can never be certain if the problems were caused by the user. Recently some serious problems were reported on here by dr5 chrome.

    My point is this - both R&D, and quality control are expensive. There is no question when it comes to Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. With these other companies, I don't know what I'm actually getting. I don't even know who makes the stuff, because the brand names being used are just that - names. Adox is not Adox. Agfa is not Agfa. Rollei is not Rollei. It's all very murky to me. You don't know if two different films are actually the same old stock from Agfa or something, repackaged as something new with resurrected brand names. And in any case, most of these products are throwbacks to older technology. Large numbers of photographers seem to have flocked to this old fashioned stuff over the years. Good for them. I'd rather use Kodak and Ilford films. The same goes for some of the chemistry out there. For example, I got slammed on here when I pointed out it was nearly impossible to get even development with Adotech developer when I tested it with CMS20. There was even a post from someone at Adox, refering to my posts, indicating I obviously didn't know how to use this "perfectly matched combination". Interestingly though, it was so perfect they subsequently reformulated it. I guess now it's even more perfect?

    If we lose Kodak, there are some people in my camp who will then pretty much only have Ilford to rely on.

  4. #114

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,916
    I wonder how the owner of the site feels about this ongoing thread practically owned by Aristophanes and his never ending call for doom, practically calling out for the death of the site as well?

    Since first posting on this thread, I have shot a roll of Tri-X for a magazine article, sold two images for a book and had two meetings with this well funded art center in regards to bringing a darkroom workshop into the fray for at risk kids: http://thirdstreetcenter.net/

    I just can't effing believe how ineffective this site is in the promotion of both great images made in the analog medium and being a true champion for getting the word out about film. This is beyond frustrating and because of people like the aforementioned, this site is just not worth being a part of anymore in terms of dialog. I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.

  5. #115

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    718
    Dan, this is a thread about the death of Kodak. It's in the title.

  6. #116

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I wonder how the owner of the site feels about this ongoing thread practically owned by Aristophanes and his never ending call for doom, practically calling out for the death of the site as well?

    Since first posting on this thread, I have shot a roll of Tri-X for a magazine article, sold two images for a book and had two meetings with this well funded art center in regards to bringing a darkroom workshop into the fray for at risk kids: http://thirdstreetcenter.net/

    I just can't effing believe how ineffective this site is in the promotion of both great images made in the analog medium and being a true champion for getting the word out about film. This is beyond frustrating and because of people like the aforementioned, this site is just not worth being a part of anymore in terms of dialog. I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
    +1, DB!

  7. #117

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,063
    So why don't you guys start a thread entitled, "The bright future of Kodak" and present the other side of the story?

  8. #118
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    I think a thread entitled "The end for Kodak" is not going to be a source of positive promotion for analog film any way you spin it. If you don't like to hear analyses about the impact Kodak's impending bankruptcy may have on the film industry, then don't read it.

    And not once have I called for the "death of the site [APUG]". In fact, I clearly laid out a market space business case for the continuance of film as an alternative medium to the dominance of digital. In order to support what may come out of the impending, ultimate Kodak moment, it helps to have some reflective criticism of what led to film's rapid demise in the eyes of the public as the medium of choice and not make those errors again.

  9. #119
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    Pkm-25 congratulations tor your successes unfortunately I believe that most people on this site use film as hobbyist and not as professionals some people on this site don't have a big income either so they can only buy little amounts of film. APUG is ineffective in promoting film use for a very specific reason, the digi crowd or the average person with a digicam isn't really interested in film or analogue photography and therefore doesn't frequent this site except for some misguided trolls who come to this site to declare that film is dead. I still believe that a lot of members of this site try to promote the use of film Gandolfi comes to mind and you of course, I personaly try to promote the advantages of film use whenever I can both to both amateurs and pros. Unfortunately I haven't shot any film this week since I am lying in bed due to a disc hernia. Maybe we should start a thread on how to promote film use?

    Dominik

  10. #120

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,063
    I'm interested in all of the discussion, both optomistic and pessimistic. One of them will eventually be correct.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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