i just can't ____ believe it. I'm not naive or anything, but they HAD the b/w market. the place I work for was all kodak for decades, and there's a lab near me that I don't think has ever used anything besides kodak, and they use some godawful amounts of polycontrast yearly. talk about timing. they just ordered an 18K b/w paper processor. for once, I am so glad we have an ilford machine....

You say it's "good for Ilford"? How? What do they inherit? The dying lab industry they wrote off ten years ago when they got rid of their processor division? The mom & pop labs eeking by with the portrait studios, trying to either stay in business or decide to close up shop and retire? The fine art crowd, that has never even come close to ordering the millions of sheets of paper a year that gov't archives and the like used to order? The same systems that are going into digital now because the products have gotten better and are accepted more & more?

What do they inherit? The same climate that kodak had. Just today my boss told me that if this were true, our darkroom was history more or less. We've talked about phasing our film darkroom & print room together and getting a wide format printer for one of the rooms, and changing it into the computer room. Looks like that's more of a reality now, a reality none of us wanted--but in our world, just because someone makes paper on the other side of the world, doesn't mean we're going to be able to use it.

I read on a forum, that the "average" large format shooter uses less than 60 sheets of film a year, as they figured it in this bulls*** survey they were doing. Why b.s.? Because if that miserably low figure is true--then y'all asked for it. You asked for film and paper to die. I shoot 100+ sheets a week and always thought that was low. So, now if we order a half million sheets of polycontrast, somehow that's not enough? Why--because the hobbyists are using a 100 sheets a year or some b.s.?

time to move on I guess.