Fuji and Ilford have what I want. Looks like Agfa transparency film is going to be an option for me too.
You don't have to be any kind of hipster to appreciate Lomos and I-phones. You just have to enjoy skeet shooting. It's always nice to have
something different to toss into the air beside thousands of computer discs.
For example, about three months ago while out shooting with my Blads, I ran into a couple of photo-keen 20-somethings who were really intrigued by my cameras. We got to talking about a lot of things, including Kodak films. At the end of it all I recommended this site as a resource. About a week ago I ran into one of them in town. We got to talking about film, Kodak again and this guy mentioned that while he found a lot of good resources in terms of developing, printing, etc on this site, he was somewhat put off by people always talking about what they don't have and not being positive about what we do have.
We all need film to stay in a positive light, this constant asking for what we don't have and never will again is a sickness and it is a sad one at that...you are totally missing the point if you continue to do this folks, really.....so stop it for once!
The APUG membership is not a statistical outlier to be ignored simply because it's not saying what you want to hear. Rather it's a repository of 66,474 once or greater enrollees who felt strongly enough about the product category of photographic film to sign up as members. And the product preferences expressed here by them are genuine. People aren't gratuitously lying about the products they want to buy and use, if those products were made available. Why on earth would they do that?
It's not a sickness. It's the market at work.
My humble advice would be that one ignores the expressions of this cost-free market research at one's own risk.
I'm pretty sure there's recent research showing that inet discourse skews negative compared to "real-world" offline behavior. Trying to market products in such a way as to keep people from complaining online is a fool's errand; you could bring a film to market that had an RMS granularity of 0.00000000003204, a dynamic range of 68 stops, loaded itself in your camera and could be developed in full daylight while the snipped leader polished your shoes for you, and people would still find something to complain about.
So when ever you fill the wunder-kind internet with wanting what will NEVER come back, it is not positive for film, not positive for the films that are left, not positive for Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc and I gave a perfect example above in how this is DAMAGING the movement of film as a niche. That 20-something that I inspired to shoot film chose not to join this site based on this old washed up guard attitude, I can't blame him.
If we as film users fail to inspire others to use what we DO have left, we risk losing that too, I'm sorry but as a professional who wants to continue to depend on film, this annoys me to no end Ken.
But then again, the people who do market research already know that. And how to correct for it. That's their job. And that job was no different in decades past when they had to decipher how many of those customers who made their product wishes known down at the bottom of all of those mail-in warranty registration cards were also serious about what they wrote. Nothing new here.
More information, whether it be raw or corrected, is always better than less information. Especially when it's essentially free for the taking.
Besides wasting a bunch it money on eBay, ya know what it did? It got me to NOT buy currently available film from the supplier that would help keep film alive.
Dan is right, all this lamenting is bad for business all around. Appreciate, but don't complain.