Yes, it's sad, they're all taking the IR filters off their DSLRs and then wondering why their lenses produce haloes in IR... when E200 produced beautiful results.
I didn't buy enough lately, my fault obviously...
Yea, I know. I feel like the last man standing. Someone has to continue the legacy of film.
Legacy Astrophotography
E200 is an amazing film in so many ways. I've learned its character and have exploited it as much as possible.
I'd wager that Kodak would love nothing more for film to return to it's former glory.
This is/was a fairly rare film in the UK. I don't think I've ever actually seen it for sale. With this film being cut and with the recent cut of all the Sensia films, I think Provia 400X is the only fast slide film left.
This statement is the exact opposite of what Mr. Antonio Perez, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kodak, has been repeatedly telling Kodak's investors, journalists, customers, and anyone else who will listen, for over five years now.
In his own words, Mr. Perez states he was recruited and tasked by Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a completely new digital technology company, not to return Kodak's film business to its former glory.
It is a source of unending astonishment to me that people here continue to ignore Mr. Perez's direct statements regarding where he - at the request and direction of Kodak's Board - is taking Kodak. And what the current and future implications for Kodak's analog products will be as he approaches that final destination.
Kodak's systematic and continuing reduction of their analog photography lines of business is way, way past the point of simplistic application to individual products of the law of supply and demand. Kodak has much bigger fish to fry at this point in their corporate reinvention. At best, supply and demand helps only to decide which traditional product is next on the chopping block.
While there have been a (very) few instances of new Kodak film products or product reformulations, the overall trend has been one of continuous product line consolidation. This trend is in keeping with Mr. Perez's larger mandate. This trend will continue. New products will be realized only insofar as they serve the ultimate goal.
And yet, in spite of Mr. Perez's best efforts (for years now!) to tell us exactly what is going on at Kodak (a public company, so he is legally obligated to speak truthfully), we still see posts here lamenting,
"Gee, I can't for the life of me figure out what Kodak is thinking. But I know that if everyone just keeps using enough Kodak film, Kodak will keep making it forever."
Or worse,
"This is all our fault. We didn't buy enough..."
At this late date in the process and given Kodak's repeatedly stated goal of a complete digital makeover (if we would only listen to them), the term "enough" is for all practical purposes undefined and meaningless.
<sigh...>
Ken
And I'm not surprised at all to hear that.
I suspect the new Kodak's aim is to end up with one B&W film, one color negative film, and one (maybe) transparency film. And that's it. At least for now.
No need for all of the previous beautiful palettes and flavors of a full line of Kodak film products. Just a single, basic "raw" capture medium for each type. Just like a digital sensor, really. Then everyone will be expected to take that raw negative or (maybe) positive capture medium and scan it and fix it up later in post-production using Photoshop.
Eventually they will do away with even this, recommending instead that users simply invoke the software emulation features built into their Easyshare cameras to simulate the various extinct film types.
Far fetched?
Well, they're already recommending precisely that to all of the ex-Kodachrome users (there was a url link here which no longer exists).
Ken
Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.
The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.
Despite what happens in the business, the writing is on the wall. That's why the best thing we can do as lovers of analog is do our most to learn how to make things from scratch. The emulsion makers have shown that b&w is doable for the hobbyist, and if that's true than color isn't out of the realm of possibility. Silver-dye bleach systems (like Ilfo/Cibachrome) are fairly straightforward in the chemistry they require, and the materials are obtainable. Slide films could be created off this basis, as well as paper.
We must retain our freedom to purchase chemicals, which is something that anyone who laments the passing of film should also take on as a cause. Film is only the product of certain materials and chemicals, and there are many people in the world; big businesses and our government alike, who aim to make it very difficult to get these things. Due either to basic misunderstandings, environmental concerns, or threats of terrorism and the like.
There can be no experimentation without a broad range of things to experiment with; I fear that the work done over the last 150+ years in photography might not be achievable if we were forced to invent anew today. Regulations, restrictions, fear... it's just a different world now and things could be lost, potentially forever.
But in the meantime...
Ken,
You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.
...
So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.
8?
But we all now that today's large is bigger than yesteryear's large; now it's more like an Extra Large.
You've completely mis-understood what the poster was trying to say.
Up until the advent of digital photography, Kodak realized much better profit margins on the sale of film than any digital photo equipment manufacturer realizes today.
So, yes, they would love nothing better to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it.
Worry less about what Mr. Perez's PR blather...
[...snipped reference to rare earth metals supply...]
Here ya go!
:wizard:
4 sale cheap.
So, umm, let's summerize then...
I've "completely mis-understood" that Mr. Perez's public comments regarding his mandate from Kodak's Board of Directors to remake Kodak into a digital technology company are truthful. They are, in fact, nothing more than "PR blather." Even though as leader of a publicly-held corporation, should he be caught willfully lying to that public, he could be criminally charged with fraud.
And the crucial point I'm missing by not correctly seeing beyond Mr. Perez's so-called "blather" is his - and by extension Kodak's Board of Director's - real wish to simply "wave a magic wand and make it 1986 again because their shareholders would love them for it."
Hmm...
Well, over the years my luck with the application of "magic wands" to the resolution of my own problems has been decidedly poor. Perfectly poor, to be honest. Perhaps your, and Mr. Perez's, past luck using them has been better? I suppose, as they say, YMMV...
Ken
Ken, thanks for that concise and telling post.
The best thing Kodak could do for it's film business is chop it off and sell it to some smaller party who is dedicated to analog. The quicker Kodak film is no longer controlled by Kodak, the better.
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?