Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,204   Online: 858
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81
  1. #41
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    Thomas I haven't read the original thread from Mirko Fotoimpex as I've stated it can come close and I also that believe it would still be a great product just like MCP is a great product and I thank Mirko/Fotimpex for his efforts to try to ressurect the products we love but they are still different than the original product. A different base colour makes a big difference imho MCP is a great product on its own MCC it is not though it comes close. I also believe that it's kinda sad that new manufacturers are forced to recreate emulsions or have to create a "relation" to an emulsion in order to sell their products.

    Dominik

  2. #42
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,649
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    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.
    Nobody in his right mind would suggest that film sales will return to 1990s levels and I have not read this here anywhere. But there is certainly no reason to follow your doom&gloom of how Ilford and Fuji will go out of business as a result of Kodaks troubles. As has been mentioned here already, film can profitably produced in smaller batches, and Adox seems proof enough that there is financing available for this type of product right now.

    While stock piling most likely won't help Kodak, I do like the idea of stocking up on Kodak's materials for my own use, a few years' supply of what I use in Tri-X and E100VS would be quite affordable for me and would decouple me from the perils at Kodak. Whether I will have switched to other film, whether other films will even be available then, whether I will still be around by then or whether I will still enjoy photography after that remains to be seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    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.
    Digital vs. analog threads have ended here a long time ago and are now quickly killed by the mods so I don't really know what you refer to. We should not censor our discussions here based on controversial opinions, yet this is hardly a forum for discussing how we should all give up on film and move to digital (your endless "film industry is dying" rants are essentially that in a thinly veiled disguise). There are plenty of other platforms for discussions like that.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    176
    I hope to see Kodak color and b&w films, color papers, Fuji slide films and b&w films, and Ilford b&w films and papers and chemicals still being produced for a long time.

    But frankly the only possible things left over after 10 years may just be b&w materials so Ilford will have a good chance to survive, or even grow a little if other two giants abort their b&w productions. There is a strong possibility that color papers and chemicals will co-existing with inkjet printing. Current inkjet printing fulfillment for consumer market cannot compete with C-41 process.

  4. #44
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,022
    Images
    65
    The figure Mirko quotes is quite reasonable.

    As for TriX, it has changed quite a bit over the last 50 years due to necessary changes in chemicals (environmental concerns), changes in coating methods (curtain vs slide vs extrusion) and making (automated with UF wash vs manual with noodle and then ISO washing). So, TriX today is not Trix of yesteryear.

    And, if we had to change the formula, why not make a "new" product of it!?

    PE

  5. #45
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Nobody in his right mind would suggest that film sales will return to 1990s levels and I have not read this here anywhere. But there is certainly no reason to follow your doom&gloom of how Ilford and Fuji will go out of business as a result of Kodaks troubles. As has been mentioned here already, film can profitably produced in smaller batches, and Adox seems proof enough that there is financing available for this type of product right now.

    Digital vs. analog threads have ended here a long time ago and are now quickly killed by the mods so I don't really know what you refer to. We should not censor our discussions here based on controversial opinions, yet this is hardly a forum for discussing how we should all give up on film and move to digital (your endless "film industry is dying" rants are essentially that in a thinly veiled disguise). There are plenty of other platforms for discussions like that.
    The title of this thread is "Tri-X will survive". One major--in fact dominant--reason why film at all survives to this day is scanning. Link the two, which is logical and economical as every mini-lab in the world figured out 15 years ago, and suddenly it's an issue here. To reach a mass market large enough to support the necessary demand for Tri-X requires both an acknowledgement and promotion of that resource. Not having that discussion in the context of this thread is like trying to eat a plate of food without a plate.

    No disguise here; just plain and simple economic facts. It's not digital vs. analog anymore. It's "without digital services, analog cannot survive". This is far different from your hyperbole and ad hominen, knee-jerk conclusion about "giving up on film". It's about the compromises that will allow Tri-X to survive.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    28
    @mdr, I think we both agree For me it isn't very important if it is the same or something different. For me is just important that I like it....

  7. #47
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    Thomas I Ich stimme dir vollkommen zu/ I fully agree with you

    Dominik

  8. #48
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,649
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The title of this thread is "Tri-X will survive". One major--in fact dominant--reason why film at all survives to this day is scanning. Link the two, which is logical and economical as every mini-lab in the world figured out 15 years ago, and suddenly it's an issue here. To reach a mass market large enough to support the necessary demand for Tri-X requires both an acknowledgement and promotion of that resource.
    Since most people mail order their film stock nowadays, I could imagine that film processing will at some point in time be divided between home processing and mail in labs. And in the case of B&W I'd think that home processing will be dominant, it's just too simple to do yourself. People who hate dark room work have left the analog camp years ago. Nobody here has an issue with minilabs, I have no idea where you got that from. What I do reject, though, is your line of argument that film can survive only if this and that and that happens all at the same time and in massive numbers. Film scales a lot better than you try to make it sound.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  9. #49
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Since most people mail order their film stock nowadays, I could imagine that film processing will at some point in time be divided between home processing and mail in labs. And in the case of B&W I'd think that home processing will be dominant, it's just too simple to do yourself. People who hate dark room work have left the analog camp years ago. Nobody here has an issue with minilabs, I have no idea where you got that from. What I do reject, though, is your line of argument that film can survive only if this and that and that happens all at the same time and in massive numbers. Film scales a lot better than you try to make it sound.
    All film markets are shrinking. No Neopan 1600. No Plus-X. The list goes on. There is no sign of any stemming of the decline.

    Film emulsion is an economy of shared resources. Smaller players can only survive if there is enough bulk supply of core materials (substrate, chemicals, distribution, plant re-tooling, credit, market research) being purchased by larger players to create and economy of scale. This applies to the decline of film to the point where the largest purchaser in the world is close to bankruptcy, so those normally pulled along in Kodak's wake will feel severe turbulence, maybe some ups, then they will stall. Without that broad purchasing power from cinema and colour film, things will get very dicey and probably a lot more expensive for B&W. Don't for a moment imagine it's in its unique and sheltered little harbour. The ecology of film emulsions supply is very co-dependent, especially on pricing. Small B&W suppliers may see a small pip in sales upwards in an overall declining market, but they are likely to face some very serious a core input and credit supply problems. They use emulsion systems decades old, cannot scale to demand very well, and have very low capitalization profiles.

    All mail in labs are hybrid processes because they have to be in order to be profit efficient. But that's taboo output and discussion here, yet is critical to a discussion of saving Tri-X and other products. Most people shoot a variety of films so it's like a well laid out table; knock one leg off it might stand. Knock two off and it all collapses. PE speaks to how difficult it is is to save Tri-X from technical perspective; I am examining the financial and a market options. No, I do not think film productions scales down well at all. It didn't from the very first days when George Eastman took his run at it.

    Many in this and other forums have lamented that Kodak never put enough effort into lowering scanner costs and working more on scanning B&W. Fuji did for colour as they are minilab modules. This would have helped Tr-X. Ilford has mail order processing, scans, and prints. I would be interested to know how their B&W scans are done and their prints as well. So even getting into a discussion of Tri-X alternatives and mail order systems broaches taboo topics of scanning and inkjet printing. Pretty much anything not darkroom is hybrid and that's the limiting shame of trying to promote film, a discussion far more worthwhile than the silliness of stockpiling.

    My analogy is when the ship is going down, we try and organize everyone into lifeboats. There may be losses (goodbye Plus-X), there may be sacrifices ("You mean we have to talk about scanning?"). Your analogy is grabbing a life preserver and your suitcase full of film and abandoning ship yelling "Every man for himself!"

  10. #50
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,649
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    All mail in labs are hybrid processes because they have to be in order to be profit efficient. But that's taboo output and discussion here, yet is critical to a discussion of saving Tri-X and other products.
    You know, there is a sister site to APUG, aptly named DPUG for this type of discussion. Hybrid work flow is not a taboo topic, it's just relegated to the correct forum. To your great surprise you will find a user with just my user name posting there frequently

    Tri-X will not be saved by hybrid workflow discussions on APUG. It may be saved by ordered restructuring at Kodak together with a replacement of their management board.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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