Well apart from a difference in interpretation of whether a management buy-out means a sugar coating which in Harman's case we agree clearly consisted of taking a huge personal risk and the kind of investment that his means it would seem that we are in agreement
What I was trying to illustrate by this huge amount of personal risk is how much they had staked and why this kind of personal commitment to the "Ilford business" distinguishes their position compared to Pemberstone and what that might mean in the event of a decrease in film sales
I just feel at times that there is a real danger that a section of us here on Photrio believe that there is always "nothing to worry about" Some here seem to say they will continue to buy film especially Kodak colour film in a whatever it takes spirit and I am sure they mean it but I fear they do not represent anything like a big enough portion of the film buying public to be confident that there will be little of no effect on film revenue
It is not a matter of simply suggesting an approach of "stop complaining" or "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen" as a solution.
pentaxuser
What I was trying to illustrate by this huge amount of personal risk is how much they had staked and why this kind of personal commitment to the "Ilford business" distinguishes their position compared to Pemberstone and what that might mean in the event of a decrease in film sales
Buy film to keep it in the freezer from the hoarders.
But hoarders are not the clients that make manufacturers happy.
Instead they want steady sales. (Custom production runs aside.)
It seems prudent to buy film somewhat regularly but gradually ensure you have a bit of a stockpile. The same goes for canned food, for example. Maybe I'll buy groceries regularly but I'll get a little more than I need to keep for emergencies.
But hoarders are not the clients that make manufacturers happy.
Instead they want steady sales. (Custom production runs aside.)
No hoarding is bad. I am talking about buying film when the prices are good and stockpiling for myself and keeping the film from the hoarders. That way I am regularly buying film and storing it, much like a squirrel does with nuts.
Are there hoarders that don't stockpile for themselves?
But hoarders are not the clients that make manufacturers happy.
Instead they want steady sales. (Custom production runs aside.)
Bulk loading (Vision3 and Ektachrome 100 cine stock are readily available in 400 foot rolls, break down to 100 foot for a bulk loader or 3D print a 400 foot loader); this gives purchase price around $6.50 a roll for 135-36 (not counting loader and cassettes, which are indefinitely reusable), for some of the best color films ever made; developing at home in Flexicolor C-41 with replenishment of the developer tank solution can be under a dollar a roll (with a buy-in under $150 and standard equipment). If you're worried about perfect color rendition, home-mixed or kit ECN-2 is an option as well; home mixed and replenished, it ought to cost less than Flexicolor per roll.
Can anyone give me any prediction or insight on when my stocks/bonds/etc will return to normal so my retirement income will allow me to buy film?
Can anyone give me any prediction or insight on when my stocks/bonds/etc will return to normal so my retirement income will allow me to buy film?
Kodak, in its GREAT AMERICAN WAY of doing things figured it all out. Programmed Obsolescence and all that american magic.
First, they added expiry dates. And then they created papers with incorporated developers that made their papers go bad even before they expired...
You're joking, right?
Joking? Programmed obsolescence is true and sadly, a norm. An all-American system.
The society went from people owning one car for a lifetime to owning at least 10. Heck, I’m on my 10th and I have a long way to go, still.
My parents lived on One washing machine for 35 years. I’m on my 5th.
A pair of shoes used to last at least a year. I now use 4 per year. Winter jackets? One per winter.
Films are nowadays rated tonbe “fresh” only 1.5 to 2 years. It used to be 3, 4 years at least. It’s nothing but a trick to sell more Film and go through the cycles much faster.
Unfortunately, Kodak or Fuji or Ilford, cannot chip their films, program them to burn in smoke once they reach expiry date. But if they had a trick to make the film unusable once it’s expired, they totally would. Something like make the cassettes open up, or even sending drones to grab the films off your hands.
Yes, kodak papers used to go bad even within it’s “fresh” period. Just think about it for a minute.
My cars always were always broken to the point of can not be economically repaired. They are not obsolete. Even my first car a 69 GTO is still not obsolete if it's in good shape. Now I can't say the same for my cameras. Many of my film cameras are in perfect condition yet I can't afford to buy film and can't get RA-4 chemica shipped to me. So my film cameras are getting obsolete. Also the 69 GTO would run on unleaded gasoline but the Minolta SRT-101 need mercury battery. So stop comparing cars to cameras.
Topkek))or come up with cyrilic terms
Topkek))
Here, take a look
What is your argument, exactly?
What makes you think so? Zenits are garbage, yes, but Kievs are good and certainly made to last. Sometimes a bit obsolete at the moment of manufacturing, but not always and certainly not "made to not-last". And the films we are talking about weren't that obsolete. Sure, they used a different coupler technology (that had it's own advantages, to be fair) and were a bit behind in terms of speed, but that's itCheap russian/ukrainian cameras, papers, stuff made to not-last. Cars, plastics. Even fabrics. Anything from that beautiful era has been long sleeping in landfills. Obsolete the moment they got manufactured
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?