Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,867   Online: 887
      
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    Why should Ilford make Tri-X, when it has its own HP5 and Kentmere 400?

    It is possible to make Tri-X, Mirko stated in this thread http://forum.fotoimpex.de/index.php?showtopic=2480&st=0 that it would cost around 2.000.000,- € and a time from one to two years to start producing Tri-X again on different coating machines. If it can be made on the coating machines used by Kodak today it's cheaper (, but there you have the problem with the big charges and are maybe producing too much film).

  2. #32
    viridari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina [USA]
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    Images
    22
    Perhaps buying 1,000 rolls of HP5+ would have been a better down payment on the future of film.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    Yes I think you are right.

  4. #34
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    If Kodak stops making TRI-X the new Tri-X (from another company) would definetely not be identical to the original it might come close but not identical just like I doubt that Mirko's APX Clone will be identical to the original. His MCC paper is superb but it's not identical with the original product neither was his first testrun of the APX 400 clone. As has been stated by PE many times it's not that easy to recreate an emulsion even on the same machine. I also hope that Tri-X will remain in production for the next 50+years under the Kodak label.

    Dominik

  5. #35
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    In order for any film production to survive you'll need a majority of the market processing through mini-labs with scans and multiple ways of sharing. The economy-of-scale these well-established systems provide offer the greatest chance for retention of enough demand to keep the rollers rolling.
    I've thought this for a while. What's really needed is for a lab to offer absolutely stupendous scanning on disposable cameras with a "free" disposable camera coming back at you. Just like Kodak used to send you a "free" roll of film in the package. Free my foot, but it got put back in the camera, and returned with the money.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  6. #36
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,648
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    I do not think film is a dead medium.

    I think that way a market thinks of film and its placement within is in the wrong place and needs to change to allow roll, cartridge, and sheet film to survive. This change will have to take place both on the producer and consumer side, and requires multiple pieces in play.

    At the heart of it is raw economics. The home hobbyist darkroom crowd is a resourceful evangelizing source of pro-film bias, but there is nowhere near enough volume to make up for the demand loss of almost all the pro market and certainly the consumer market. The inward looking focus of the darkroom set (which had a modest but nevertheless small market impact on the industry when home darkrooms became a thriving hobby industry in 1970's and 80's , especially in suburban America and Canada with all those new basements in need of a purpose) is actually part of the problem. There will never been enough volume of this crowd to make a dent in the demand side, and, to be blunt, many people find the darkroom concept a barrier to film enjoyment. Most people just want to shoot. this is not a bad thing, but a good thing.

    In order for any film production to survive you'll need a majority of the market processing through mini-labs with scans and multiple ways of sharing. The economy-of-scale these well-established systems provide offer the greatest chance for retention of enough demand to keep the rollers rolling. This should be encouraged and discussed (which APUG gets into spasms about, especially the scanning side which is now integral to the business case and consumer enjoyment). That level of industrial consumption and processing is the only way to keep the required level of industrial film production going, even with multi-format/session coating machines in play. Ilford launched their photo lab service because of that harsh economic reality. The Lomo crowd also has it right.
    Aristophanes, you essentially say film is well alive but the whole world would have to change to make it so. This does mean "film is dead", and most folks here on APUG interpret you that way, just like CGW and NB23.

    There's a good chance that Kodak will go down the drain real soon now, whether we like it or not. It is highly unlikely that the whole world will change before Kodak runs out of options. I envision the movie industry pick up the shambles from Kodak's film business for a few years until they have completed the conversion to either Fuji stock or digital, and it is unclear whether the movie industry will support us photographers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Generally stockpiling anything perishable is a time limited solution. It's survivalist photography.
    If a frozen stock pile keeps me going for 20 more years, what more can I ask for? Tri-X film lasts about that long in a freezer (according to PE whom you love to whole quote lately) and I am about to learn how to mix the chems myself. Call it survivalist all you want (CGW loves that term, too), I'd rather be the last one to try (with the option of failure) than the first one to give up.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  7. #37
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,648
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    If Kodak stops making TRI-X the new Tri-X (from another company) would definetely not be identical to the original it might come close but not identical just like I doubt that Mirko's APX Clone will be identical to the original.
    Kodak has changed the recipe of Tri-X multiple times yet it's still Tri-X. I have no idea why nobody with the necessary budget should be able to recreate Tri-X. The question is rather whether all those screaming "Tri-X or nothing" would rather pay extra for the survival of Tri-X or whether they will quietly move to HP5 as soon as the remaining Tri-X stock dries up. The thread about the discontinuation of Kodachrome is longer than its customer list for it must have been for a while.

    Instead of ragging at everyone trying to recreate loved film emulsions we should rather applaud their efforts. Nobody helps film if we only moan about minute differences between old and new stock and keep denouncing everything which looks just a bit different from what we use right now.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  8. #38
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    Rudeofus is it really the same I think not the emulsion became finer grained had better color reproductions etc... but it's not the same as the original Tri-X or the Tri-X from the 70's it's the Tri-X from the late 90's. I applaud Mirko's and other Manufacturers wish to (re)produce the emulsions we all love but claiming that they are identical is a bit much. Ilford was (I believe) always honest in that regard HP3 >new emulsion HP5 >new emulsion HP5 plus etc.. Kodak should have done the same thing.

    Dominik

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    Rudeofus is it really the same I think not the emulsion became finer grained had better color reproductions etc... but it's not the same as the original Tri-X or the Tri-X from the 70's it's the Tri-X from the late 90's. I applaud Mirko's and other Manufacturers wish to (re)produce the emulsions we all love but claiming that they are identical is a bit much. Ilford was (I believe) always honest in that regard HP3 >new emulsion HP5 >new emulsion HP5 plus etc.. Kodak should have done the same thing.

    Dominik
    Mirko didn't mention in his german thread that the film would be identical, but that it would be near identical. Even different charges of Tri-X are not completely identical. You are right, that the MCP and MCC are not identical to the original, but nobody claimed that they are identical. But the real difference within the two papers is not the emulsion, but the carrier (is it the correct english word?), so the paper itself is different because the original carrier isn't available anymore. So Adox MCP and MCC is coated onto the same paper as Ilford papers are, so the new paper is more white than the old one.

    I do not use Kodak B&W films, but colour films, so I hope that they will be produced by Kodak in the future. It would much more difficult to build up a new coating line for colour films than for a b&w film.

  10. #40
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Aristophanes, you essentially say film is well alive but the whole world would have to change to make it so. This does mean "film is dead", and most folks here on APUG interpret you that way.
    The world HAS changed. it's the denial of that reality among some (often very bitter) filmophiles that is part of the problem. They are stuck in a 1987 time warp. The nostalgia about how film may come back vs. digital is ludicrous. It's like saying we'll use the internet but with typewriters. Or if we all spend $4,000 on hard copy encyclopedias we'll bring back that industry.

    Very few enthusiastic digital photographers bad-mouth film the way that some users here bad-mouth digital, (and Lomography). Anyone who is legitimately passionate about imaging AND who wants to see film as a viable medium going forward should understand the changes and work through that information channel towards keeping as broad a film market as possible rather than parochial in-fighting and silly boundaries about what can and cannot be discussed.

    How many biz classes teach that you can promote a product through censorship and stifling of discussion? Think about it.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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