Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,704   Posts: 1,482,725   Online: 985
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    62

    While Ilford Soars, (Just released)

    Ya, I don't buy the blame falling on the customers shoulders. And this is from someone who had not traditionally shot a lot of kodak. Ignoring my recent discovery, then hoarding of efke emulsions, I have traditionally been an ilford man. The funny thing is that it is not that I thought kodak was crap or more expensive. I think I just felt that ilford just spoke to me more as a bw enthusiast. Its not that is did not shoot any kodak, I shot Kodachrome - at times like a madman. I always thought that even back in the day (70s - 80s) that kodak really did not care about black and white film. Now maybe my then twenty year old ego was better manipulated by ilford's marketing, but to me, b&w felt peripheral to kodak even then. I took their pursuing of APS, Disk, and picture CD (etc) all as it getting distracted from their core values. I don't fully blame them, as I understand that they were in different position than a company like Ilford. Ilford always was pretty small and a specialty company compared to a mainstream company such Kodak. It is a lot harder to change the direction of a big ship. But like a lot of you I remember shaking my head at some decisions kodak made back then that I am still shaking head them. (And I still don't exactly know what I would have done if I was CEO.)

  2. #32
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    626
    Images
    4
    Kodak didn't "kill off" films just to spite people. Believe me, if they could, I bet they would be running every film emulsion they ever came up with in every size it was ever offered.
    No, they would not. Kodak killed off films to convince the investor community they were serious about digital. They HAD to do an about face from the "make money on film and get the hell out of everything else" mantra from the early to mid 1990's - that was the thinking that spun off Easman Chemical and dumped Sterling Drug. They HAD to show that digital was the future. That's why there was a "Kodak Digital" sign in Times Sqaure NYC for years. Mainly to convince Wall St and Kodak itself that they were now a "digital" company - even if they didn't know just what that meant.

    If you've ever worked at a mid to large size "Corporate America" company, you've no doubt sat in a conference room in these kind of meetings and you know how it goes. The word comes down from the top and what was GOLD yesterday is S^*T today!
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  3. #33
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    626
    Images
    4
    BTW, +1 for ILFORD! Good for them!

    We are just about in a post-Kodak world. Stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Kodak for they will take care of themselves. Perez's work is just about done.

    It's the guys like Ilford that are bringing to the table that which we want. Patronize them. Don't forget the others like Foma and Adox.
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,740
    I don't mean to sound like current film users are to blame, more along the lines of your friends and their friends who went digital. Of course in Kodak's case there is the item of showing off to shareholders, I suspected that when Kodachrome went, but that is a bigger picture failure that has many sides to it, not just still film use's decline...

    If all of the sudden film use shot up 500% in one quarter then kept on going, that would make any film maker, even RIP Efke take another look despite rising raw material costs. But this has not happened and will not happen, so film makers, including our beloved Ilford, keep film around that sells.

    People also keep clamoring for Ilford black and white in 220, Pan-F in 4x5 and larger, but Ilford is not exactly tripping over them selves to introduce it. Ask Simon why and you might have a better understanding in how not only do we not get everything we ask for but why other companies who despite not really wanting to for PR reasons, have to discontinue varieties of films in various formats and exposure capacities.

    [moderated]
    Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 11-02-2012 at 07:57 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Just toning the rhetoric down a notch, let's keep it polite, nothing wrong with discussing the indistrie's profits or losses.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,432
    Images
    24
    I have had just about enough for this jerk insulting me. Is this what this forum is about? Is this what I subscribed for? Is this how this forum treats members? Have I ever insulted ANYONE?

    I am beyond outraged at this.
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 11-01-2012 at 04:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Don't blame the companies who make the film, blame your self and your friends for not buying enough. Everyone wants Ilford to come out with a replacement for IR820 but Simon has stated on several occasions that he doubts that would happen....there is a reason for that, it is called ROI and economies of scale...

    I'm sure that if you take the time to adapt to FP4 you might find it works well for you. As for Kodak nixing unique products, at this point in time, all film is unique somewhat, TMY in 4x5 being very much so....
    Um, he has? Last I saw from Simon he was surprised at the interest in IR and said they could "easily" make it if the market was there, but doubted that it was. He then said he'd look into it. I haven't heard anything else since. There was a thread here were several of us were saying we'd buy such a film. though granted the users here who said that won't be nearly enough.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Well then buy Kodak film!! Remember Kodak is an American business and supporting American business helps the American economy.
    I wish I could, but they stopped making ANY E6 film. The Portras I buy from time to time won't help much. If there would still be E100G, yes, that would be something.

    Greetz
    Chris

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ringerike, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    113
    I wonder if part of the problem is that Kodak's coating machinery was built to serve 1990's level of demand for film. Now that this demand has all but vanished, the overhead costs in starting a production run small enough for today's demand is terribly large. Would I be correct to guess that Kodak won't build a smaller machine with less overhead because the cost will never be recovered?

    Fotokemika was able to hang in there until the coating machine broke recently, and then it was curtains for their photo products. Several other coating companies folded or up and left the market when the consumer photo and medical x-ray market went away.

    Ilford went through a painful restructuring process some years ago and was able to emerge alive and competitive. Is Ilford's coating machinery smaller and more economical for small runs than Kodak's?

  9. #39
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
    I wonder if part of the problem is that Kodak's coating machinery was built to serve 1990's level of demand for film. Now that this demand has all but vanished, the overhead costs in starting a production run small enough for today's demand is terribly large. Would I be correct to guess that Kodak won't build a smaller machine with less overhead because the cost will never be recovered?
    Absolutely correct. That's why Kodak had to discontinue all of their E6 production. All of their emusions would have to be reformulated for the smaller machine, and there just isn't the demand for that. Fuji discontinued their ISO 400 120 film because new Japanese regulations dictated using differen chemicals, and they couldn't recoup the expense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
    Ilford went through a painful restructuring process some years ago and was able to emerge alive and competitive. Is Ilford's coating machinery smaller and more economical for small runs than Kodak's?
    Much smaller.

  10. #40
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Ok, we've moderated two posts in this thread. In general, we don't like to edit individual posts and don't do it often, but in the interest of keeping discussion going about the relevant piece of news here, that seems to be a lesser intervention than deleting the thread and starting over. I would recommend that all parties dial back the rhetoric, avoid personal attacks, but also to avoid "Kodak bashing" and stick to the facts please.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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