Apparently Agfa films will be produced again

JBrunner · Jan 21, 2007

If I hung it up, everytime somebody told me it was impossible, I would currently have a very mundane job, in a very mundane place, and be quietly waiting for death to overtake me, while keeping the thought from my head by watching reality TV, and contemplating the next color of my new minivan, my sole creative decision for the year.

Photo Engineer · Jan 21, 2007

Guys, how many times have we seen jobs or projects take longer and cost more than estimated?

That is all I'm pointing out here.

So, we will have to wait and see.

PE

Mark Layne · Jan 21, 2007

I haven't ascertained whether they are trying to make paper as well as film.
I see a bigger need for paper than film. If we get lucky they will try for MCC and accidentally get Portriga
Mark

JBrunner · Jan 21, 2007

Mark Layne said:
I haven't ascertained whether they are trying to make paper as well as film.
I see a bigger need for paper than film. If we get lucky they will try for MCC and accidentally get Portriga
Mark

RFLMAO!!!

George Papantoniou · Jan 22, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I say again.....

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!

PE

C'mon, Ron... don't be so down to earth... let's have fun with our daydreaming. It might as well be true, and they might succeed.

Photo Engineer · Jan 22, 2007

George;

You missed the other post then #27. Most entrepreneurs who try to get into film and paper manufacturing don't realize how difficult and time consuming it is.

I liken it to cloning an animal. It is a long process with a steep learning curve. Errors don't count, and the final product has a finite lifetime. It spoils on the shelf.

It takes time and money and will likely not come to fruition on the time scale given. Thus the comment "don't hold your breath".

PE

kjsphoto · Jan 22, 2007

Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

braxus · Jan 22, 2007

Chazzy said:
Now if they brought back Agfapan 25, that would be interesting.

That won't happen. Its gone for good.

Photo Engineer · Jan 22, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

Kevin, I don't disagree, but we are talking about an industry that is shrinking such that Agfa just went bust. Restarting it will be a major undertaking requiring a major effort with lots of funding, it won't be done from a bicycle shop.

Even Fuji admits that after shutting down the Velvia 50 (was that it?), anyhow they are restarting it but it will not be exactly the same film. Why? Because once a line shuts down, it cannot start and offer the exact same product. It is too complex.

PE

aldevo · Jan 22, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

1) How did they do it better than NASA?
2) They were a privately-funded outfit that relied on decades of research bankrolled, effectively, by NASA
3) How is this at all relevant to the continued production of analog products?

Commercial space travel would likely yield enormous profits. Continued production of analog photographic materials may not yield any at all.

Terence · Jan 22, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

People thought it could be done, but let's look at the facts, they won a $10 million prize and spent more than $20 million. Paul Allen of Microsoft put up $20 million personally. Not exactly what I would call a profitable return on investment. You might notice that nothing has been done since except a few hints that they'll try to turn it into a business.

In construction we usually say, "Anything is possible. It's just a matter of time and money."

So if you can find a benefactor you might be in business.

As for positive thinking and success, I've seen a LOT of business, bars, restaurants, etc owned by motivated people fail. If it ain't profitable, it ain't staying in business. Motivation and hardwork are necessary, but not enough.

aldevo · Jan 22, 2007

Terence said:
People thought it could be done, but let's look at the facts, they won a $10 million prize and spent more than $20 million. Paul Allen of Microsoft put up $20 million personally. Not exactly what I would call a profitable return on investment. You might notice that nothing has been done since except a few hints that they'll try to turn it into a business.

In construction we usually say, "Anything is possible. It's just a matter of time and money."

So if you can find a benefactor you might be in business.

As for positive thinking and success, I've seen a LOT of business, bars, restaurants, etc owned by motivated people fail. If it ain't profitable, it ain't staying in business. Motivation and hardwork are necessary, but not enough.

This is, sadly, very true.

I've been involved in startups and can tell you...
1) People invest in stuff based on how much money they think they'll make from it, how soon they'll make it, and what the likelihood is of losing that money.
2) If you get the least bit wrong with delivering on the expecations for #1 - stuff tends to happen fast. And it isn't pleasant.

It's not a matter of making enough money to keep your head above water.

aldevo · Jan 22, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
George;

You missed the other post then #27. Most entrepreneurs who try to get into film and paper manufacturing don't realize how difficult and time consuming it is.

I liken it to cloning an animal. It is a long process with a steep learning curve. Errors don't count, and the final product has a finite lifetime. It spoils on the shelf.

It takes time and money and will likely not come to fruition on the time scale given. Thus the comment "don't hold your breath".

PE

As you have the expertise in the field...

What would be the cost (best guess on order of magnitude) to re-start an analog photographic film line of, say, ISO 100 panchromatic film assuming the intellectual capital was present - but the physical capital was not?

Photo Engineer · Jan 22, 2007

Aldevo;

This proposition would lose money. It would be a one note symphony.

Anyhow, you don't tell me capacity, sizes or anything so an estimate would be difficult.

In any event, assuming 35mm - LF, you need 2 supports, perhaps 3. One for 35mm, one for 120 and another for LF.

You will need chemical clearances and certification for all employees and a DEA license in the US. You will need about 50,000 square feet of plant space with a big cooler insulated against radiation to store product until shipping and you will need the plant to be divided into light and dark areas with foolproof light traps.

You need making, finishing, melting, coating, storing, slitting, chopping and packing areas. You need a huge air heater and chiller and humidifiers and dehumidifiers.

You will need a complete stock of rare and expensive chemicals such as heavy metals and sensitizing dyes which may cost about $100 - $200 US/ gram.

You need a staff of engineers and technicians. About 3 to run the machine and two professionals to back them up. You need about 10 to do the storing moving slitting chopping and packaging. You need the machines to go with all of this.

And, this does not include the R&D to start it up. It assumes you have all the knowhow in the people above, and own the proper formulas.

It is as complex as rocket science.

It will probably take over a year of financial support up front to get things going. Look at M&P restarting Lodima from a hand coated formula that worked! It has been nearly 2 years I think. IDK for sure and that was with a formula and a plant. They still, last I heard, have nothing salable.

That is why I express my pessimism over the schedule, nothing more.

My guess, starting from scratch is well over a million $ US and over a year. Starting with people, formulas and equipment all in place, at least a year. It would probably take in the hundreds of thousands in that case.

I estimate that getting Lodima up and running including all test coatings and the first run will cost between $50,000 and $100,000 and take about 6 more months from now. That will be close to 2 years or more with a plant and a formula. Of course, they may get lucky.

PE

aldevo · Jan 22, 2007

Thanks for the information. I certainly wasn't looking to do this myself or be an investor

I spent 6 months worth of weekends learning to brew beer. Ultimately, the best that could be said is that nobody perished from drinking the product. I've learned my lesson.

My early vocation was as a Materials Engineer so, I certainly wasn't looking to underestimate the task. Moreover, I worked in a laboratory during Graduate School. During that time we were tasked with what was ostensibly resuming work performed by a group that had lost funding six years before.

Even with recovery of all the intellectual capital - you guessed it - the sponsors were obliged to subsidize some pretty costly errors.

From a strictly fiscal standpoint, though, the start up cost isn't ridiculous. The run rate, though, would scare me. 13 people isn't trivial. If those are people in, say, Rochester - you have to figure total annual loaded costs of about $1.2 million. That's labor alone.

I doubt you could do this for very long in the USA. Not without a pretty good guarantee of a market.

The heavy metals would worry me any place you care to name. There are, for example, new regs in the EU that were adopted in 2006 to regulate the traffic of these in the member nations. That stuff usually can't be grandfathered. Even China is now showing signs of concerns here. At least, they are making lots of noise about this for electricity generation.

Photo Engineer · Jan 22, 2007

These heavy metals are not very toxic AFAIK, and include salts of Rhodium, Iridium and Osmium. They are used in very low quantities, but are very expensive.

PE

Chazzy · Jan 22, 2007

braxus said:
That won't happen. Its gone for good.

That's too bad, because I don't really care about the 100 or 400 speed stuff. Everybody makes something in those categories. But Agfapan 25 was unique. Most of its fans would say that other 25 speed films are nothing like it.

epatsellis · Jan 22, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

Well, what isn't said is that Scaled Composite's biggest customer (and single largest source of income) is the US Govt. Their primary business is building scale models for aerodynamic testing, as well as composite prototypes. Bert Rutan is a genius (Google the name, you'd be shocked), and deserves every bit of the accolades. Remember Voayger, the first plane to circumnavigate the earth non stop? Ever hear of the Long EZE? But the reality is that he has some fantastic business managers, and they ensure that the $$$ are there for the pet projects. (which is what the X prize endeaver started out as)

erie

copake_ham · Jan 22, 2007

kjsphoto said:
Remember the Wright Brothers? People thought they were nuts and they succeeded. Instead of looking a the negative all the time, fous on the positive. If there is a will people will find a way to make it happen. I will hold my breath because I know business and people. If someone thinks they can do they will succeed regardless of the obstacles. Maybe it takes them years maybe it doesn't, but it really doesn't matter as long as they sees profit in it they will find or if they have a personal reason to do it, they will find a way to do it, it is human nature.

Look a the challenge that was given in the last few years to be the first to put a man in space and win $1,000,000 ( I forget the same of the challenge but it was on the discovery channel recently ). A person in the US did it and launched the frist commerical shutle into orbit. People thought it couldn't be done and they accomplished the impossible and did it better than NASA. They were a non government agency that was privately funded and believe me that was much harder and more risk than making photo film or papers.

So it can be done, it isn't rocket science.

I don't know where you obtain your information - and you have "mixed" your facts above.

Firstly,would you please tell who actually placed a shuttle (your word) in orbit? And, again your confusing post, do you mean commercial satellite in orbit or "manned shuttle".

Actually, I believe the $1,000,000 prize was for a manned sub-orbital flight that had to exceed a certain altitude (100 km?).

As of now, no private individual or organization has placed a manned spacecraft in orbit. And, in fact, Richard Branson's commercial endeavor to offer rides to space tourists at this time is still only speaking of sub-orbital journeys.

The fact that the US, Russia and China make manned space travel seem relatively safe is a wonderment that belies the risks of such endeavors - as the losses of Challenger and Columbia have shown.

More importantly, it would be nice if you would check your facts, clarify your thinking and carefully consider the composition of your posts.

Because actually, it is rocket science.

aldevo · Jan 23, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Guys, how many times have we seen jobs or projects take longer and cost more than estimated?

That is all I'm pointing out here.

So, we will have to wait and see.

PE

Yeah, I've learned the hard way that you best take your initial esitmate for both cost and time, add 10% to them, and then DOUBLE them. I won't count any chickens.

MattCarey · Jan 23, 2007

aldevo said:
Yeah, I've learned the hard way that you best take your initial esitmate for both cost and time, add 10% to them, and then DOUBLE them. I won't count any chickens.

Being in a science/research lab, we use a more geekly rule. The rule of "pi". Estimate the time and cost of a project. Multiply by pi (about 3)...

Matt

sanderx1 · Jan 23, 2007

aldevo said:
1) How did they do it better than NASA?
2) They were a privately-funded outfit that relied on decades of research bankrolled, effectively, by NASA
3) How is this at all relevant to the continued production of analog products?

Commercial space travel would likely yield enormous profits. Continued production of analog photographic materials may not yield any at all.

Umm...
1) they did it for approximately the money NASA spends on documentation for manned launches - they also did it in a short timeframe and arguably using an alternative approach to what NASA is likely to have used. They also are fairly close to having the result be commercially exploited via Virgin Galactic, something NASA has often struggled with.
2) strictly speaking, NASA doesn't fund anything, Congress funds NASA to perform aerospace R&D, often being very specific about how the money is to be spent ... but even so, most of the science used in this cases came not from NASA, but ballistic and sounding missile research and need not have come from USA at all.
3) I agree - not really ;-)

Starchaser in UK or even Armadillo aerospace are much closer to a true startup model ... and notably neither has really flown yet.

aldevo · Jan 23, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
These heavy metals are not very toxic AFAIK, and include salts of Rhodium, Iridium and Osmium. They are used in very low quantities, but are very expensive.

PE

10 years ago, the US government was still monitoring the trafficking of this stuff - that's probably one reason it's very expensive. Iridium and Osmium are considered strategic materials because there's certain stuff in high-temperature alloys that you can't do without them. They are critical (capital "C") for aerospace applications.

Demand for these is, supposedly, growing very quickly for these applications. I can't imagine that helps matters for us...

aldevo · Jan 23, 2007

10 years ago, the US government was still monitoring the trafficking of this stuff - that's probably one reason it's very expensive. Iridium and Osmium are considered strategic materials because there's certain stuff in high-temperature alloys that you can't do without them. They are critical (capital "C") for aerospace applications.

Demand for these is, supposedly, growing very quickly for these applications. I can't imagine that helps matters for us...[/QUOTE]

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 23, 2007

I hope they bring back some paper, too. AND, I hope Forte comes back. Love that Polygrade V FB!

Apparently Agfa films will be produced again

JBrunner

Moderator

Photo Engineer

Mark Layne

JBrunner

Moderator

George Papantoniou

Photo Engineer

kjsphoto

braxus

Photo Engineer

aldevo

Terence

aldevo

aldevo

Photo Engineer

aldevo

Photo Engineer

Chazzy

epatsellis

copake_ham

aldevo

MattCarey

sanderx1

aldevo

aldevo

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Apparently Agfa films will be produced again

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency