Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,068   Online: 1013
      
Page 42 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3236373839404142434445464748 LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 477

Thread: Fotokemika ...

  1. #411
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,893
    Could be, but from we've heard the Fotokemika machines are held together with spit and baling wire and need constant repair, plus their older coating technology is said to use more silver for the same area of film and paper, and with the cost of silver being what it is now their materials would have to cost a lot more than the competition.

  2. #412
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei View Post
    Fotokemika stands even better... ....Besides they are one of the last (after Forte is gone) big capacity coaters.
    You are throwing things in reverse.

    It would be more true though, if looking at barytated paper as some high-capacity coaters left this field.

  3. #413

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    So who's going to pick up the 127 spooling equipment?

  4. #414
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,614
    Most probably a company that already dealt with Efke-made type 127 films.

  5. #415

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Most probably a company that already dealt with Efke-made type 127 films.
    We are hoping it would be true!


    But then I was hoping someone would take the 126 equipment from Ferrania and looks like that never happened.
    - Bill Lynch

  6. #416
    ADOX Fotoimpex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei View Post
    Come on, how is Fuji, Foma and some others getting profit out of BW material?
    Eugen,

    how can you be certain that they make a profit?

    Today a roll of B&W film costs you less than in 1985 when there were the heydays of silver based imaging (taking out inflation and rise in living standards).
    Today we are looking at a fraction of the market but at lower consumer prices.

    The difference between surviving and death of a silver based imaging manufactuer is not much, maybe a few dimes more per roll.
    But at todays level of competition and world wide internet price transparency life of a manufacturer is realy rock hard.

    Fortes lot is still undeveloped.
    Everything there looks exactly like 2006 just a bit more depressing because no one can afford the gardener.
    Have you been there lately?

    Fotokemika will continue focused on industrial customers. No lot developing going on there as well.
    This is all a myth.
    The truth is that prices for such difficult to make and complex products are way to low today.

    Kind regards,

    Mirko

  7. #417
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,296
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by ADOX Fotoimpex View Post
    The truth is that prices for such difficult to make and complex products are way too low today.
    The above bears repeating.

    Film photographers need to reevaluate the value to them of the products they use. The huge economies of scale are no more. If you value using today's products you are going to have to change your mindset that says cheaper prices are always better prices.

    They aren't.

    Beware of the law of unintended consequences. If you make the mistake of confusing the cost of something with its value, then you run the risk of engaging in a race to the bottom where everybody loses.

    Remember, the cheapest possible film with the least possible impact on your budget is the film that no longer exists...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #418
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    The above bears repeating.

    Film photographers need to reevaluate the value to them of the products they use. The huge economies of scale are no more. If you value using today's products you are going to have to change your mindset that says cheaper prices are always better prices.

    They aren't.

    Beware of the law of unintended consequences. If you make the mistake of confusing the cost of something with its value, then you run the risk of engaging in a race to the bottom where everybody loses.

    Remember, the cheapest possible film with the least possible impact on your budget is the film that no longer exists...

    Ken
    Film was not cheap when I started in photography 38 years ago. Houses, fuel, cars, all have increased more than film.

    I think we also need to consider what photography is worth in the rewards it gives us. I used to be criticized by people I knew because I drove an older car but bought new photo equipment. I saw some of them buy much more car than they needed, just to impress people. I don't care to impress people, and was not about to spend hard-earned cash to "keep up" with someone else.
    I think I was more sensible than they were, but what it really comes down to is, do what makes you happy. They would take on debt to have a fancy car or truck, because that made them happy. My idea of happiness is much different: good equipment, plenty of film, and the time to shoot it.

    When I was young and poor, I shot Kodachrome, and I had to discipline myself to make every shot count. I did experiment, but always with a clear purpose. Today, I still do try to make every shot count. Film is not prohibitively expensive; it's just whether the reward is great enough to make it worth the cost. To me it is, and I don't mind giving something else up to afford it, if that's what it takes.

    As a hobby, film photography is not more expensive compared to others. Try skydiving, or motorcycling, or fishing, or even ceramics. Or the business I was in for years, golf. If the passion is there, people find a way to do it.
    Last edited by lxdude; 10-06-2012 at 09:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #419

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Going by the price tags I have on various old boxes of film I think film is actually about the same price today as it was 30-40 years ago.
    A roll of Plus-X in 1958 was 99 cents, or a bit over $7 today... which was around what it was selling for on store shelves when they discontinued it last year. A roll of Verichrome Pan was 55 cents in the mid 1960s, or about $4 in today's money, so again about equivalent to today's film prices.

    Are prices way too low? I can't answer that, I don't know. But it does certainly seem that prices have held pretty steady for the past half century.

    PS: I hope 127 doesn't go extinct!

  10. #420
    Zvonimir Ervacic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Croatia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei View Post
    So I ask myself, where exactly are their factories located?
    If not already moved next week Fotokemika would probably be on a new address. They were located in rented place and on a new address they would not have access to a darkroom. So far I know the machinery failure is not the only problem they have to continue production.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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