I was talking about film. It's mostly rehashed old-style stuff and there have been many, many reports of defects and flaws, not just my own experiences. Just because someone buys an old Agfa coating machine doesn't mean it's an Agfa quality product. And I would call it misleading, at the very least, for people to have resurrected brand names like Adox and Agfa to sell what ever it is they are selling.
There is way too much repackaging and rebranding going on and you can't get straight answers from anybody. Unfortunately people flock to it drooling all over themselves because they love the idea of using old fashioned emulsions. They are too cool for Kodak and Ilford, I guess, but they have no idea what they're even using. What a crock.
There is only one company which selled old films as new ones, so maybe you are writing about Maco/Rollei...... (But Schroeder's time is over there, times are changing!)
Everybody knows which films are in the Adox boxes and Adox never stated that films like Adox CHS are new quality films. It is clearly stated that these films are old styled films and people buy this film just because of this (yes and they like it, I like them too although I normally use FP4 and HP5). The Adox CHS films (=efke) are advertised as old style films. So do not write such a nonsense, it seems that you do not know what you are writing about!
Your own experiences:....the new Adox film is not produced yet, so cannot have bad experiences with it. And Fotokemika (efke) does not have anything to do with Adox making the new Agfa APX films.
And with the other Adox films: Everybody knows which films are in these boxes (like Adox CMS) because it isn't kept secret.
The new Adox films will not repacked films but will be new ones, we hope that they will have the same or will be near the quality of Agfa. We do not know now, we hope it. But the paper which is made by Adox has the quality of Agfa papers and because of that I'm thinking that the same thing wil be with the films. Nothing is rebranded here.
The point is: you have to be able to coat films in small charges. If you are not able to do this, you cannot survive as a company in analogue film businsess.
Michael I personaly use both new style emulsion from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji as well as "outdated" Efke emulsions I agree with you that the constant new APX reincarnates are annoying and that none of the Fuji, Ilford, Kodak, Agfa-Gevaert alternatives offer the same kind of QC. Unfortunately there are currently no alternative to the big four in terms of QC but that doesn't mean that one should'nt experiment/use products from other manufacturers. If one is aware of the products shortcomings one can use them in a creative way they are just no alternative for the high quality products from the big four but can be used along with them. Efke 50 in pyro is just beautiful and gives a look I can't recreate with any others film but the look doesn't work in every situation. For general purpose photography I use products from the big four for printing I prefer the offerings from Fotokemika and Foma to Ilford (never tried Art 300 though )
Thomas as good as the new paper from Fotoimpex are they did in fact have coating and other defects just do a forum search.
There are no APX reincarnates, all APX stuff is old original Agfa stuff or it is no APX. This is a simple fact. The Maco/Rollei RPX which was advertised as an APX successor is rebranded Kentmere film - not a new film. This is misleading as there were many many misleading things made by this company, but I hope this time is over now.
And this does not have anything to do with the APX project of Adox. Adox had some problems with their last coating, which was mentioned by Mirko in the Fotoimpex Forum and is waiting for the time, when the old APX stuff is sold.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have a simple question.. Where is MAS getting his paper made?
It must be coated on a small line and in small batches.
When I talk to people that use his paper it always has good ratings.
I am going to give his product a go.
That's a good point, Bob. By all accounts Lodima is a good quality paper - although I have never used it myself so I can't say first hand.
MDR, no argument here on trying new things and such, but I'd also argue they should be significantly different to warrant leaving the array of films currently offered by Ilford (and Kodak). Unless you're after something particularly "way out", even the relatively small selection of Ilford's current lineup offers nearly everything any serious B&W photographer might need, from slow to medium speed, tabular to more traditional (although admittedly not entirely traditional). With different developers you can get pretty much any "look" you're after in a negative with these films - fine grain, tight grain, coarse grain, sharp, soft, high contrast, low contrast etc. Add to this the current Kodak offerings which are different enough than the Ilford equivalents (TMX/TMY/TMZ and Tri-X), and you've got even more.
There are likely a small number of people who might really need the kinds of films "Adox", Efke, "Rollei" etc purport to offer, particularly if they have no access to Ilford or Kodak products, but other than that, I believe most of the people using these films are doing so because they want stuff from the "good old days" (which Ansel Adams rightly pointed out were largely a product of a failing memory ) for some esoteric reason like "they're better", or "they are silver rich". Personally I find the entire thing to be pretty shady. The product descriptions on websites marketing these films and developers are usually blatantly ridiculous.
I don't want to dwell on this. Everyone use what they want. But I had to take issue with the post that held these companies up as examples of how things could or should be done when it comes to both the R&D and production of film.
I just gave you the answer up above:
Originally Posted by jerry lebens
Not only was I there that day, but Scott Sheppard from Inside Analog Photo, Josh Root from Photo.net and Steven Schaub. From Kodak were Scott DiSabato among others in marketing from the Film and Entertainment Group that had never even seen the machine. After for lunch, we met up with Photo Engineer, Robert Shanebrook, etc...
There you go, all set..:-)
Kodak, even before Coca-Cola and certainly McDonald's, Apple, and other pretenders did more to establish the concept of brand and corporate identity. No other company so thoroughly brought forwards its logo and insinuated both the visual and conceptual (Kodak moment) into daily Western life as Kodak. I studied Kodak in school back in the early 1990's on that point alone.
Originally Posted by BrianL
Reading their formal statements from years gone by I can only say that part of Kodak's problem is insiders who think they have the scoop on how the company performed, but they mostly miss the fundamentals because, as much as Kodak invested millions in brand awareness only to see consumers run from the brand and film in general to digital, they also snared their employees in believing in the infallibility of their core product too much. Any insider information as to the financials and market positions is fundamentally biased (apologies to PE whose descriptions of the emulsion and coating process are exemplary).
The raw financials of film demonstrate that no amount of marketing or attempts to compete with digital was going to stop consumers moving away from the medium. Management saw it coming, but lived Q to Q instead sacrificing for the transition to digital, went down some dead ends, and panicked. They did not mismanage the film effort, but the transition to other sources of revenue. Demand collapsed and Kodak could not collapse their financials fast enough to keep up. It's right there on the balance sheets.
Oddly, Fuji could. They developed their own sensors in part licensing Kodak patents. They put out very competitive digital cameras and put out more consumer models per Q than any other company. They even continued film camera production (1 model still) long after Kodak did, but that effort is now almost entirely ended as there is no profit to be made from film cameras. Their diversified optics are still profit-makers in broadcasting. Fuji is an interesting foil to Kodak.
When Kodak goes bankrupt its film biz will be under the most scrutiny to see what residual value there is in a market of collapsed demand. The problem for smaller suppliers is that of shared resources. Kodak (especially the motion picture segment) drove demand across for most of the industry, in part with Fuji. So all inputs of film manufacture from petrochemicals to papers to machine parts and distribution systems all relied to some extent on Kodak's buying power and economy pf scale. When that goes all players, like Ilford, will have their credit ad supply profiles under scrutiny. If Ilford and the Czech companies are running 30+ year-old coating systems and are limited to a B&W market, and they need to re-tool or lock dow long term supply chains, they will have problems. These problems wil increase as film demand continues to decrease due to the aging demographic of purchasers and their knowledge, and, most importantly, the fact that the supply of new cameras (save Lomo and some very high-end esoteric stuff) is now a salvage market. What the Kodak bankruptcy will do is suck the oxygen out of the room. That's the money threat here. The contagion of falling demand may not mean more biz for other players. The cost to capture may be far too high as the money behind it all sees only a very short-term life for emulsion products.
It's nice to hear the Kodak has coating systems that may scale. Will the demand in the market? That's the key question.
It makes me angry, because you are writing about something, which is not the point. The new made films won't be old school films, so why are you always talking about that? The new films will be new made Agfa APX, like the new papers are new made Agfa MCP and MCC. So why you are always writing bad things about a small company which decided to save analogue photography and takes the risk to start making their own paper and own film as their new business, in a time, where sales are going down. This has nothing to do with efke or other old style films, these films will be new ones, like the paper. And I'm glad that I have these Adox papers, because I really like them. I won't use the new Adox films, because I'm Ilford user, but there are many people who loved Agfa APX and want to have it back. And Agfa APX was not and will not be an old style film.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
And I think it is really bad what you are writing bout people who want to take pictures on Agfa APX films!
You do not understand the point I think: Nobody sad that we just need old style films like efke, but companies like Fotokemika and in the future Adox can produce films in small charges and because of that, these companies can survive and Kodak now cannot. Kodaks film production only can survive, if they can change it to small scale production like these small companies in Europe. I hope Kodak can do this and I think that there will be people who want to do it. I really hope it, because I was always using Kodak films when taking colour pictures.