Nothing wrong with consistent quality with Ilford and Fuiji – sorry Kodak friends !(though one among them! Bought 25 rolls 120 TMY (( and 25 rolls 120 Acros 100 this afternonen)))
Originally Posted by bobwysiwyg
If just ONE company could produce, say, a set of (50)-100-400 ISO reasonable B/W film emusions, and say one reasonable set of 100-200 (400) ISO neg colour film (slide filme is history, I suppose) to a, in same sense, reasonable price (*) , that wouuld be enough – the rest WE CAN DO OURSELVES!
(*) In Europa we pay roughly 3x US price for fuel, and we can live with that, and we also drive cars.
A few weeks ago Fuji sues Kodak re digi patents, today Kodak sues Fuji re digi:
It's not a long term solution, I am just saying that govt work might help them pick up some of the pieces, spin them off, and remain solvent. As for HP and the other printer companies, Kodak claims to have a much lower cost solution. If that's true then this'd be the thing.
Originally Posted by SilverGlow
Anyway that was just one example of the kind of approach that I think is needed to help Kodak... but not necessarily film. Film is not going to save Kodak, but they can save their film brands for a few more years and throw their longtime customers a little bone, if they so choose.
Just a small reminder that, sadly, this has been going on for a while:
Changing focus : Kodak and the battle to save a great American company. Swasy, Alecia. Times Business, c1997.
"I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary's laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography." -- Lee Friedlander
Actually they are talking about archiving Digital movies on film
Originally Posted by SilverGlow
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Maintaining a digital archive through changing technologies can become a massive and massively expensive undertaking when the scale is large.
Making copies of every digital film to new kinds of media every 5 - 10, maybe 15 years will cost owners of those archives 10's of thousands, and more likely 100's of thousands of $'s, Pounds or Euros.
Certainly, maintaining a film based archive isn't cheap either, but it's not subject to quite the same technology churn that digital technology is.
Meanwhile, Fuji cleverly introduced a new line of film-based archiving devices...
I think we are pretty fucked for film photography in general if they can't find an investor willing to take the brand and move the plants and machinery for 35mm and 120. all those psyop TV adverts saying if you buy the D4 etc your photos will be great, and look like the stock photos in the ad.
Best: chapter 11 to stave off immediate debt, spin off divisions that outside investors perceive to be viable, sell patents, and maintain a core business.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
Worst: chapter 11 and then liquidate everything to the highest bidder under the supervision of a court.
...and for film shooters as a group:
Best: Kodak goes and their film market share goes to companies that can extract more profit per unit sold. Prices remain fairly stable.
Worst: Kodak goes and takes out all the remaining local processing with it, raising the effective cost of using film beyond the reach of newcomers. At that point, only those with film projects underway and good stocks of film and chems will be financially viable.
Re: Archiving - Digital is the worst possible medium for archiving anything due to the fugitive nature of the digital copy either on DVD or magnetic disk. Also, digital archiving easily costs 10x that of film archiving. This has been proven and discussed here on APUG many times.
Look it up!