john_s Posted February 14, 2012 Share #21 Posted February 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) .....I wasn't trying to exclude anyone David. I read somewhere that their international shipping is very expensive. That's not the case? Film is SO expensive here that very expensive international shipping is worthwhile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 14, 2012 Posted February 14, 2012 Hi john_s, Take a look here Kodak: Positive News. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
peter_n Posted February 17, 2012 Share #22 Posted February 17, 2012 The 120 Tri-X arrived from Freestyle. For anyone interested, it's dated 11/2013 and the batch # is 0811 017. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted February 26, 2012 Share #23 Posted February 26, 2012 While I don't know what is happening with Kodak specifically, I was at my local dealer that usually has very large stocks of film in the four or five fridges they have. They had run out of Portra 160 and 400, were low on Tri-X, and were not sure when they would be getting more. But they were heavily stocked with Ilford films, and reasonably stocked with Fuji. I ended up buying some Pro400H and Pro160C instead of the Portra I wanted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_galilee Posted February 26, 2012 Share #24 Posted February 26, 2012 Well, long live the yellow boxes! Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted February 26, 2012 Share #25 Posted February 26, 2012 I have never used black and white film in my Rolleiflex. Is it really that good. I have used the color b&w film ( c-41 ) in 35mm, but was not really impressed with it. I've thought about it, but it is so expensive to develop and print. Don't have room or inclination to do my own developing. DaveO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share #26 Posted February 26, 2012 Black and white film in 120 is marvellous. Forget C41, try some real film. Delta 100 is a good place to start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted February 27, 2012 Share #27 Posted February 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Black and white film in 120 is marvellous. Forget C41, try some real film. Delta 100 is a good place to start. When I bought my Rolleicord Vb last year, it reaffirmed for me the sheer quality available from a 6x6cm negative. One of the first rolls I put through it was FP4 (which I developed in Ilfosol 3). The first shot here is of St Mawes harbour and the second is a 100% crop of the central portion. Well, I was pleased anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinet Posted March 1, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 1, 2012 Why on earth did Kodak ever make anything digital - all their cameras were rubbish. I imagine it's that which pulled them under. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted March 1, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 1, 2012 Consumer cameras, sure except their idea to ease sharing of snaps was a good one. But, do keep in mind that there are Kodak sensors in both the M8 and M9s. Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 1, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 1, 2012 Why on earth did Kodak ever make anything digital - all their cameras were rubbish. I imagine it's that which pulled them under. They pretty much invented digital photography as we know it. They made the first DSLRs using Nikon bodies. Their 6MP DCS 460 cost $35,600 when it came out in 1995 and there was nothing like it. What brought them down has to do with the loss of demand for their film products and not finding a way to replace that lost revenue via digital photography or something else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 1, 2012 Share #31 Posted March 1, 2012 That'll be because film is shit, then, won't it Alan, and nothing to do with the incompetence of the Kodak management to deal with disruptive innovation... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 1, 2012 Share #32 Posted March 1, 2012 That'll be because film is shit, then, won't it Alan, and nothing to do with the incompetence of the Kodak management to deal with disruptive innovation... Regards, Bill I don't know what you are so angry about. We can easily say that Kodak management was incompetent, but if you were running the company anywhere between 1985 and now, what would you have done? (Try not to use hindsight to answer this.) I think they tried a lot of things but the easy money they had coming in from film was difficult to replace in any model of diversification. And from numerous reports, their corporate culture made it difficult to change the company's primary focus away from film. They weren't nimble and really were not used to competing with anyone. Their digital technology was ahead of its time in the 90s but they couldn't translate this into enough successful consumer products to make a profit let alone to offset the declining profits from film. The way Fuji dealt with it was to find other applications for their coating technology and chemicals. Such as in filters that go over screens and in cosmetics. Kodak tried to see if some of their chemical compounds had medicinal values and also licensed patents but it wasn't enough. They bought Sterling Drugs and sold it at a loss. Kodak did a lot of work coming up with OLED technology and sold that to LG for some reason. They spun off Eastman Chemicals and that company is now thriving on its own. They pioneered the CCD camera sensor (Bayer pattern etc.) and sold that off needing cash. They started targeting consumer and commercial digital printing markets just as consumer and commercial printing is declining. Woulda, shoulda, coulda... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 1, 2012 Share #33 Posted March 1, 2012 That'll be because film is shit, then, won't it Alan Not sure how you can infer that as being what Alan thinks from what he said. In fact the reason he gave was precisely the same one that you offered later in the same post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 1, 2012 Share #34 Posted March 1, 2012 That'll be because film is shit, then, won't it Alan, and nothing to do with the incompetence of the Kodak management to deal with disruptive innovation... Regards, Bill I believe you are being facetious. No harm. Perhaps the corporate culture punished innovation in favor of the old times of highly profitable film. Kodak also had a long tradition of keeping employees rather than trimming. But it might be simpler, exactly as you wrote in your second part. Remember that GM's president claimed that they could not make a marketable electric car. He believed he understood his customers and knew he could not make exactly the same performing automobile for the prevailing cost-per-unit. IOW, he was stuck in what he believed was a large, unwieldy sustainable model while the world was ready to adopt disruptive technology. Kodak's first digital camera was dauntingly expensive and probably scared the hell out of The Board. I remember a college that an alum talked into buying 30% of his company. They did, then a year later The Board rebelled saying "What the hell were we thinking? We got sweet talked into a nonexistent technology!" They sold it all. That alum was Robert Noyce and his upstart enterprise that they rejected became Intel. It must suck to be them. -- Pico - off for a bike ride. Broken rear brake fixed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 2, 2012 Share #35 Posted March 2, 2012 Not sure how you can infer that as being what Alan thinks from what he said. In fact the reason he gave was precisely the same one that you offered later in the same post. True, and I actually think their film products, paper, and chemicals were and still are about as good as is possible. (E.g. not shit like.) Unfortunately, they aren't selling enough of them. I don't know the economics involved, but I have a hard time understanding that with existing manufacturing and distribution systems in place, that sales of slide film dropped to the point than not even one emulsion could be produced in occasional batches. I only wish I had some kind of unique insight into what Kodak did wrong or could have done to change things. But my only info comes from what is readily available. I was just looking at the Eastman Business Park site where they are trying to market some of Kodak's 2+ million square feet of office, lab, and manufacturing facilities and hundreds of acres of develop-able land. It clearly was a very large ship to turn around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.