Fotokemika ...
-
A
- Thread starter Rick Olson
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
ADOX Fotoimpex
Partner
Eugen,
how can you be certain that they make a profit?
Today a roll of B&W film costs you less than in 1985 when there were the heydays of silver based imaging (taking out inflation and rise in living standards).
Today we are looking at a fraction of the market but at lower consumer prices.
The difference between surviving and death of a silver based imaging manufactuer is not much, maybe a few dimes more per roll.
But at todays level of competition and world wide internet price transparency life of a manufacturer is realy rock hard.
Fortes lot is still undeveloped.
Everything there looks exactly like 2006 just a bit more depressing because no one can afford the gardener.
Have you been there lately?
Fotokemika will continue focused on industrial customers. No lot developing going on there as well.
This is all a myth.
The truth is that prices for such difficult to make and complex products are way to low today.
Kind regards,
Mirko
The above bears repeating.
Film photographers need to reevaluate the value to them of the products they use. The huge economies of scale are no more. If you value using today's products you are going to have to change your mindset that says cheaper prices are always better prices.
They aren't.
Beware of the law of unintended consequences. If you make the mistake of confusing the cost of something with its value, then you run the risk of engaging in a race to the bottom where everybody loses.
Remember, the cheapest possible film with the least possible impact on your budget is the film that no longer exists...
Ken
Film was not cheap when I started in photography 38 years ago. Houses, fuel, cars, all have increased more than film.
I think we also need to consider what photography is worth in the rewards it gives us. I used to be criticized by people I knew because I drove an older car but bought new photo equipment. I saw some of them buy much more car than they needed, just to impress people. I don't care to impress people, and was not about to spend hard-earned cash to "keep up" with someone else.
I think I was more sensible than they were, but what it really comes down to is, do what makes you happy. They would take on debt to have a fancy car or truck, because that made them happy. My idea of happiness is much different: good equipment, plenty of film, and the time to shoot it.
When I was young and poor, I shot Kodachrome, and I had to discipline myself to make every shot count. I did experiment, but always with a clear purpose. Today, I still do try to make every shot count. Film is not prohibitively expensive; it's just whether the reward is great enough to make it worth the cost. To me it is, and I don't mind giving something else up to afford it, if that's what it takes.
As a hobby, film photography is not more expensive compared to others. Try skydiving, or motorcycling, or fishing, or even ceramics. Or the business I was in for years, golf. If the passion is there, people find a way to do it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 193
- Format
- 35mm
Going by the price tags I have on various old boxes of film I think film is actually about the same price today as it was 30-40 years ago.
A roll of Plus-X in 1958 was 99 cents, or a bit over $7 today... which was around what it was selling for on store shelves when they discontinued it last year. A roll of Verichrome Pan was 55 cents in the mid 1960s, or about $4 in today's money, so again about equivalent to today's film prices.
Are prices way too low? I can't answer that, I don't know. But it does certainly seem that prices have held pretty steady for the past half century.
PS: I hope 127 doesn't go extinct!
A roll of Plus-X in 1958 was 99 cents, or a bit over $7 today... which was around what it was selling for on store shelves when they discontinued it last year. A roll of Verichrome Pan was 55 cents in the mid 1960s, or about $4 in today's money, so again about equivalent to today's film prices.
Are prices way too low? I can't answer that, I don't know. But it does certainly seem that prices have held pretty steady for the past half century.
PS: I hope 127 doesn't go extinct!
If not already moved next week Fotokemika would probably be on a new address. They were located in rented place and on a new address they would not have access to a darkroom. So far I know the machinery failure is not the only problem they have to continue production.
Exactly. Plenty of people have much more expensive hobbies.
I do sympathize with folks who really can't afford or struggle to afford materials. I've been there in high school and college. But we will never help film survive by trying to make it cheap. We will help it survive be emphasizing the qualities and craft involved. It must be promoted among those who can afford it without worry about the cost. That's the only way the market is going to remain.
Manufacturers shouldn't fret about it but make the best materials they can possibly make, then charge what they need to charge to make a fair profit on them. Obviously there's a point where this wouldn't be true, for example if someone could market a paper that's marginally better than the second best paper but costs $10 per 8x10 sheet. But if you are anywhere near market prices, make a superior product and people will buy it. Witness Ilford's MGWT FB paper and Multigrade Art 300 papers. These are some of the most expensive papers available on the market, yet MGWT FB is wildly popular and Art is becoming popular. MGWT is perhaps the finest conventional fiber paper I've ever printed on. I currently use it when I want a warmer tone and Adox MCC 110 when I want a neutral tone, and that paper too is some of the most expensive available. Both are worth it.
Make it superb, charge what you need to charge, promote film among those who can afford to pay what it costs. This doesn't mean, of course, that one is unsympathetic or discouraging to those who can't. Perhaps groups can get together and buy in larger quantities. People can discuss techniques for saving materials. More importantly, people will learn to make each shot and each print count.
As an art student I can tell you all art is expensive. Last year in figure drawing I paid around $8 for a sheet of 22 x 30 paper. Not to mention having to constantly replace charcoal. Painting is even more expensive. I've seen $80 brushes. Not to mention the cost of paint at up to $20 for a medium sized tube. Actually, since I buy Arista EDU film, photography is one of the least expensive mediums I work with. But keeping my darkroom running does add up. For those who complain of expense, get over it. I wouldn't mind higher prices, especially if it allowed the manufacturer to make a profit and keep going.
Yashinoff, If you worry about 127 film format, simply buy film slitter from Ebay (http://tinyurl.com/9kch85e - I think this seller is also APUG member) and then you can roll your own from 120 or 70mm films. Last spring I bought one for 70mm and it works. Save all backing papers and spools from your existing stock and you are in business.
I Bought mine in April this year and in that time he didn't have any for sale in his Ebay shop, so I send him a message and he responded and sold me one.
Found his private email: Joe McGloin; xkaes(at)aol.com.
Very, very simple design, but it works! If you are heavy user of 127 it's no brainer with price of $10 per roll of 127.
Found his private email: Joe McGloin; xkaes(at)aol.com.
Very, very simple design, but it works! If you are heavy user of 127 it's no brainer with price of $10 per roll of 127.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 386
- Format
- Medium Format
Not all art is expensive if you have talent. My boss had an old friend , a true Ottoman Gentleman who prefers to drink coffee.
When he finished it , he was taking a small brush and paint most wonderful istanbul seaside pictures I have ever seen.
Drawing and painting does not require expensive papers or paints , even tea works as your paint.
Many painters paint on thick small notebooks , its enough. The important think is to trust yourself , work carefully and do your best. I saw excellent drawings done with pencil and thin cheap paper.
If you start art with most expensive carrara marble and try to create michelangelo , I advise you to find few dimes and carve hobo nickel with cheap swiss knife or nail. In my eye , they are better.
Victor Hugo, the very great poet and novelist, was also a very decent drawer. He had the habit of letting coffee fall on a piece of paper and then "spreading" it with a point with a chiaroscuro effect.
Some of his designs are visible at the Victor Hugo museum in the house he dwelt, in Place des Vosges, when he had to flee precipitously during the night of the coup d'état by the future Napoleon III.
Looking at the state of the machinery as displayed in the article's photograph, with its apparently peeling paintwork, it becomes understandable why production stopped. It also perhaps explains why in recent years there were so many problems with quality control. The closure is still a great shame and means a reduction in choice for photographers.
Aside of being behind in corrosion protecting at machinery, to be seen already at photos published in the past, failure of workplace climate control, also stated by an other source, the article reports a collapsing roof and flooding.
Out of the industry you hear that this all is due to being captured in being forced to large scale production at minimal profit. However as there are several parties involved in dealing with Fotokemika all those comments out of that field should be taken with a grain of salt. I find it hard with a desktop perspective to reason on the cause of Fotokemika's demise as manufacturer.
Out of the industry you hear that this all is due to being captured in being forced to large scale production at minimal profit. However as there are several parties involved in dealing with Fotokemika all those comments out of that field should be taken with a grain of salt. I find it hard with a desktop perspective to reason on the cause of Fotokemika's demise as manufacturer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sad to lose them.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 386
- Format
- Medium Format
You might find further two pictures from the complete article even more telling:
Note to administrator: if there are potential copyright issues with these newspaper scans, please do remove this post immediately.
Wow - like tap dancing elephants (the amazing thing isn't that they do it well but that they do it at all) there was a lot of criticism of quality issues with Efke films but overall they seemed pretty decent. Not up to Kodak/Ilford/Fuji or even Foma but considering the equipment the amazing thing was that they were as good as they were. They were obviously doing a great job given what they had to work with.
But it shows you don't need a billion-dollar facility to make film.
You do if you want good film with high quality.
Compare Kodak, Ilford and Fuji with these products.
PE
Compare Kodak, Ilford and Fuji with these products.
PE
No doubt Kodak, Ilford and Fuji were and are far more consistent. But Efke was usable most of the time. Considering they were apparently working with "stone knives and bearskins" to quote Mr. Spock, they did pretty darned well.
(City on the Edge of Forever: "I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.")
(City on the Edge of Forever: "I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.")
And Roger you are right. However, there are far more complaints about EFKE products here than for products from the big 3. I have seen defects that others have missed AAMOF. I have some samples here that I posted and I got no comment.
You see, one of the defects is uneven coating speed. This causes a sinusoidal coating pattern giving products high and low density in a given pattern. You would see it very badly in LF, but hardly at all in 35mm. Another unremarked problem is particles of dirt and dust in the coated film. So, they do well as IMHO most here ignore or are not aware of these "tiny" problems.
PE
You see, one of the defects is uneven coating speed. This causes a sinusoidal coating pattern giving products high and low density in a given pattern. You would see it very badly in LF, but hardly at all in 35mm. Another unremarked problem is particles of dirt and dust in the coated film. So, they do well as IMHO most here ignore or are not aware of these "tiny" problems.
PE
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |