Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,043   Posts: 1,560,840   Online: 1155
      
Page 43 of 45 FirstFirst ... 33373839404142434445 LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 450
  1. #421
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24

  2. #422
    Eugen Mezei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by thomas l View Post
    The problem of companies like Kodak or Fuji is, that if they just switch on their coating machines, they will produce much to much film for a niche market - they are simply too big.
    OK, how many days/weeks/months will it take Fuji or Kodak to produce the world demand quantity for the next 50 years? Take the numbers of today or a decade ago to be on the safe side. (Overproduction is not the problem, right?)

    Then look out for the coldest place on Eart you can find, buy some acres there and push the button. Ship everything you produce to the "cold place" and supply the market from there.
    Financing it from what? Well, after you produced the needed quantity of film for the next 50 years machines are wear out I guess. So you can sell the ground you have the factories on to investors before starting this final run and tear anything down after you finished. The incoming money would be suffice to buy enought depositing space somewhere in Kazachstan, Groenland or the Southpole.
    So Kodak and Fuji, just push that button for the final run.

    On the serious side; could this not work for at least low and medium sensitivity film and paper?

  3. #423
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    As I understand, the problem of storing film isn't just temperature. Natural background radiation degrades film, too.
    There is no place on earth where there isn't, at least, some radiation. All unexposed film will eventually fog beyond useability no matter how well it is stored.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  4. #424

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    ...except for verichrome pan.

  5. #425
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    I have shot Tri-X expired in 1985 and it was still good. Cold frozen from then, no problems except for the one opened packet in the box, which had the leading edge degraded.

    Let's see, 2012 - 1985 = 27 years old. Yes, I have used film older than a lot of my coworkers.

  6. #426
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,261
    Images
    65
    Brian;

    Your definition of good may not be Kodak's definition! You expect high quality from them and included in this is having one batch of film match another. So, it my be up in Dmin, down in contrast or slower in speed. It may be foggier or grainier! We don't know.

    PE

  7. #427
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Probably "grainier." But I started with LF in 1999, so it's not like I have a personal reference point for actual use of in-date 1985 Tri-X. It's good fodder for my pinhole camera, though!

    I can only say that it is fine for what I do with my camera. However, I do have plenty of in-date TMax and Tri-X in 4x5 and 8x10! (And E100G in 8x10!)

    Sometimes I wonder if the fogging issues are due to local background radiation instead of stellar radiation. Since I don't see fogging with "ancient" film in my local area, it's a working hypothesis for me. Of course, I'm not going to be carrying out any experiments!

  8. #428
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    There's the rub! You don't know how the film will degrade until after it has begun to degrade.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  9. #429

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    376
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    28
    It looks like Apple and Google will enter a joint bid on at least a part of Kodak's patent portfolio:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-575...s-report-says/

    Something tells me that they won't acquire the film division though.
    And the sign said, "long haired freaky people need not apply"

  10. #430

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by dnjl View Post
    It looks like Apple and Google will enter a joint bid on at least a part of Kodak's patent portfolio:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-575...s-report-says/

    Something tells me that they won't acquire the film division though.
    Googlechrome. Oh... wait.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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