Spending 4000$? Terrible, terrible recomendation.
If you spend that kind of money you wont return for a few years, sending a bad message. And why buy 1000 rolls now when you can buy 100 and wont have it expire on you?
What kodak wants to know is if there's a next generation after the old generation stops shooting or living (us). No matter how much we use the film, what's important to know is if there's a next one coming.
And the answer to this is no, unfortunately. And this is where film dies a peacecul death together with us.
The next generation wont even care nor will we, after all.
Lead sheeting won't help. It's transparent to the background cosmic radiation that, cumulatively, will fog film. Rate of fogging depends on film speed and emulsion, with conventional-grain types often less susceptible at a given speed than tabular or core-shell flavors.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
The only thing that will effectively eliminate fog from cosmic radiation is a substantial layer of earth. But make sure there's no granite in that layer. I've often thought that the underground refrigerated storage offered by this outfit
would be optimum, but am afraid to even ask for a quote. :)
Tri-X in sheets is one of those higher-speed films that lasts very well in long-term frozen storage, suffering only a very gradual increase in fog. One can lower the exposed speed over time and simply print through the fog, being left with a perfectly usable EI 250 film (rotary, ID-11 1:1) even after decades. Fresh, that combination yields a 0.1 over fb-f EI of 500; I shoot it at 250 anyway to get off the toe, so don't anticipate any change in my shooting routine over time.
Given already announced Kodak discontinuations, not to mention probable imminent bankruptcy, I decided a dedicated film freezer wouldn't be worth the floor space, cost (acquisition and energy) or trouble for me. Instead, I negotiated with my wife to "split up" volume in the freezer compartment of our regular refrigerator-freezer. Then I concluded that, for the most part, 5x7 320TXP was the best film to bank.
As a result, I removed an inner door and shelf in the ice tray area to accommodate even more boxes than were already cached. There are now 1,800 sheets of 5x7 and 100 sheets of 8x10 320TXP in the freezer. An additional 126 sheets of 5x7 remain in the refrigerator compartment. And we can still store all the food our cooking/eating habits require. Seems like a good compromise, especially since I haven't found any film that better matches the thousands of sheets of Azo I stockpiled when that final batch was sold. As an amateur who is 14 years older than you and shooting much less, Dan, I'm considering this a lifetime supply.
This has to take stupidity to a whole new level. I won't "return" for a few years?? Return to what exactly? Sandisk memory cards? I'm sure there will be plenty to be had! The question of stocking up on a cherished medium is about securing availability when the fate of continuity is all but sealed.
Originally Posted by NB23
The basis for this entire thread is the unspoken consensus that there is no "next one coming". Rather then spouting thoughtless discouragement, I suggest you try to see the matter in its proper context.
Originally Posted by NB23
Just to back this up: The small but thriving dark room crowd in our local photo club (100+ members) consists mostly of younger folks (25-45 years old) while the old members (50+) are 100% digital.
Originally Posted by stormbytes
Some people like CGW, Aristophanes and NB23 really seem to get a kick out of calling film a dead medium. If they truly believed in their assertions in any way, why do they spend hours per day (look at the sheer length of Aristophanes' postings in multiple threads! ) and hang out with us luddites here on APUG, when they could get a nice smart phone and set their sail into a bright future? It looks like film has become so popular lately that APUG has attracted its share of trolls now :(
Exciting thoughts. Not enough to save Kodak. But it is the best investment, in my opinion, if you are a dedicated film user.
You probably can buy Tri-X for $2 to $3 a roll five years back. And you probably can buy Tri-X for $6-$8 a roll in next three to five years, if you still able to find it. In last five years, Tri-X has appreciated its value for about 50-100%. And in next five years, it will appreciate its value again 50% to 100%.
Can you get this kind of result from a bank or investment account with a simple no-brainer purchase?
So I think this is a great investment decision.
But this won't save Kodak. If there are 1,000 APUGers bought 1,000 rolls of Tri-X in 2012, that will be 1,000,000 rolls. Sounds a lot. But that is 4 million dollar only even if you purchase directly from Kodak. A fired Kodak CEO probably can take 40 millions dollars home. In that case, 1,000 APUGers need to purchase 1,000 rolls of Tri-X 10 times, or 10 years to satisfy a typical exiting CEO's stomach.
Now what kind of consumer purchase can save Kodak? You need, additionally, one million people to buy 100 rolls of Kodak film for $4 a roll every year to help Kodak's consumer film division to break even this year, or every year. And there are a bunch of divisions losing this kind of money at Kodak every year.
It might be an investment but it might as well not. And saving Kodak is neither our job, nor within our reach, especially as long as Kodak includes an inept CEO with no vision but with a corporate jet.
Originally Posted by bwfans
It's funny: for a decade or more Kodak has defined itself as a digital company and treated film like an unwanted child. Huge amounts of money were transferred away from its film division to pay for that digital transition. And now, that this whole circus nears its end, the analog folks are the only ones (besides former and current employees and of course the stock owners) who mourn the demise of Kodak.
I do not think film is a dead medium.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
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.
Film is NOT versus digital. Got that? The vast majority of film shooters shoot digital as well. That's not a threat or a zero sum game; it's an opportunity. The either/or hyperbole doesn't help.
Generally stockpiling anything perishable is a time limited solution. It's survivalist photography.
Just for the sake of accuracy : We are indeed a small company but a little larger than the $ 20m you suggested:
HARMAN technology Limited sales in 2010 were £ 23,076,000 x 1.55 USD to the £ gives sales of
$ 35,768,000 :
Dear Domaz : As for 2010 we were profitable, as for 2011 we are profitable, and I do know:
Also as a private limited company in the UK we are required under law to submit our audited accounts to companies house in the UK, they can be inspected by anyone, or indeed you can get a full copy of those accounts but you have to pay.
Regards Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Simon, I forgot the statement was in pounds, as opposed to dollars. It is obvious in retrospect but something I overlooked. Thanks for the correction. My point was that Ilford is a small company when compared to most global companies and would likely lack the resources to take over Tri-X production.
Stormbyte, Yeah, you want to sound even smarter? Recommend all of us to spend 20,000$ each on some film that will ultimately expire in 2014.
Way to go.