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: 1,544,090   Online: 1063
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67
  1. #41
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Thank you. It's a very understandable and honest description of the situation, and I find that it fits to the points I have just guessed or deducted in my posts here quite well. It seems they have thought about hand finishing, which I mentioned in my last post just as an example or price comparison! I'm quite surprised it has been considered in practice.

    It would be nice if Kodak or Fuji would give as accurate description of their inner workings as Ilford, but it's very unusual in any industry. For example, where does Kodak get their backing papers? They might even do them by themselves. At least they have higher total output which might make the numbers more reasonable for them than Ilford.

    This is a delicate subject with a tons of questions in air and it cannot be simply disclosed as impossible or possible.

    One problem of today's film business I didn't mention in my last post is quality control---yes, the very, very, very high quality standard. Lowering it just a little bit may someday become a must even for these companies... It doesn't need to get as low as ADOX level, not even near to it, but however...

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Excuse an obvious question...do Kodak or Fuji make any kind of 220 films now? (I have checked their websites and those of various mail order suppliers and can't find anything, but would like to try a few rolls if I've overlooked a source. )

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    What would interest me is knowing how much paper costs, i.e. how much money would be tied up in seven years and some months worth of leader and trailer stock.
    Are the costs of it really prohibitive? Or is it cheap, and though it would appear silly to have a stock that could last that long, not really a worry?

    But i'm sure 220 film has entered the downward spiral into the Black Hole of Oblivion a while ago already.
    With choice dwindling, use of it does that too. Which in turn will make it less profitable, so a further decrease in production. Which leads to... etc.
    I don't think it is reversible.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    Excuse an obvious question...do Kodak or Fuji make any kind of 220 films now? (I have checked their websites and those of various mail order suppliers and can't find anything, but would like to try a few rolls if I've overlooked a source. )
    Kodak Portra 160 NC (perhaps also another type of Portra, i don't know.)
    Luckily, the film i like best for exactly those things i like to use 220 film for.


    P.S.
    I had a look at what B & H is offering, and Portra 400 NC and 400 VC also still come in 220 size.
    So do Fuji's Pro160S and Pro800Z.
    Then there still are Fuji's Astia, Provia and Velvia. And Kodak's E100VS.
    No B&W film, i'm afraid...

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Kodak Portra 160 NC (perhaps also another type of Portra, i don't know.)
    Luckily, the film i like best for exactly those things i like to use 220 film for.


    P.S.
    I had a look at what B & H is offering, and Portra 400 NC and 400 VC also still come in 220 size.
    So do Fuji's Pro160S and Pro800Z.
    Then there still are Fuji's Astia, Provia and Velvia. And Kodak's E100VS.
    No B&W film, i'm afraid...
    Thanks....I'm in the UK, so maybe it's that there is none imported here. At least I now know that it does exist, even if I have to buy from overseas.

  6. #46
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,382
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    Thanks....I'm in the UK, so maybe it's that there is none imported here. At least I now know that it does exist, even if I have to buy from overseas.
    I seem to be linking to AG Photographic a lot recently :

    http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/por...pack-302-p.asp
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #47
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    As Kodak makes some 220 products currently, they have the machine and backing paper for the process. So none of the Ilford points apply to Kodak. As you can see from Ilford's post, there is no other technical manufacturing points than the rolling machine and paper. Rest is marketing as discussed above.

  8. #48
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    ...the rolling machine and paper.
    I had one of those. I was no good at doing it by hand.
    That was a lo-o-o-o-ng time ago. I stopped doing that sort of thing in 1980.
    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. #49
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,595
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    I'm 100% sure that the actual problem lies in marketing strategies, like: how many rolls of 120 and 220 should be sold and where (it's difficult to foresee the exact sales number---leftovers are not wanted
    It's more likely that for every roll of 220 sold there would be a reduction in sales of two rolls of 120 and it would not be economic to run both lines.

    Ilford had a similar decision to make a few years ago when they were thinking about making a Delta 25 film. In the end they realised that Delta 25 sales would impact on Pan F sales and both lines could become un-economic.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  10. #50
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    You missed the point.

    You cannot compare 120 vs. 220 to two different emulsions. Manufacturing many emulsions is a problem because each of them should sell in quite high volumes because of the cost involved in emulsion making and coating for the whole master roll. Please read my previous posts again. There's a huge difference between these operations:

    Manufacturing different emulsions
    -> emulsion making, coating, slitting, (perfing), cutting, packaging, selling
    |
    |
    |
    Manufacturing different sizes with different film base (35 mm vs. medium format vs. sheet film)
    -> coating, slitting, (perfing), cutting, packaging, selling
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    Manufacturing different lengths with different packaging (120 vs. 220)
    -> cutting, packaging, selling

    It's almost the same matter as selling 4x5" but not selling 8x10".


    While it's completely true that selling 220 is directly off from selling the same product in 120, it's also an undoubtable fact that when you have 120 film in your camera with fewer exposures, you shoot fewer frames than when you have more exposures available. With 220, you also have to shoot more before you can change the film to your camera (if you don't have multiple backs). This makes you use more film. These are considered as disadvantages by some, and as advantages by some, but from sales point of view, people using 220 rolls use them more than a half of number of 120 rolls they would use instead. I've seen it myself. I can shoot in a different way, more like with 35mm, with 220 roll in Mamiya 7.
    Last edited by hrst; 08-18-2010 at 05:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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