"Initiative TRI-X 400/220 Petition"

[SuzanneR]

Seems to me the shrinking market, despite my best efforts, for 220 format film have a lot to do with wedding photography. It was a pretty popular format for the wedding crowd, but since they have for the most part gone digital it leaves very few photographers who purchase that format. Fine artists, portrait photographers.... a few commercial photographers maybe? I've always felt that TXP was a difficult film to work with, but I bent it to my will so that I could use 220 format film. Not sure if Kodak ever offered Tri-x 400 in the 220 format, but I would have bought that in a heart beat, as I find it a more versatile film, and can handle a wider variety of lighting conditions.

It's a little hard to vote with cash when the product was never offered. I can't help, but think, it might have sold better than TXP in this format.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I've signed. I hope this helps

Jeff

 

[lxdude]

I respect James (and all who have signed) for at least giving it a try. There's nothing to lose. And it feels a whole lot better than just taking the "oh, well, woe is me" approach.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[herb]

Tri X in 220

The dude at Kodak is Scott DiSabado. I would suggest you phone him and ask how big a demand it would take to get what you are seeking. If the guys really want this, I suspect Kodak can name a volume that would make it worth their while to produce it.
Devotees can then stockpile it.

good luck. I know 220 is an odd bird for a lot of folks, but I like it in the field.

 

[darekj]

Signed!

 

[fotch]

I must be crazy, but here we go again.



Significant, ongoing purchases of the stuff during the decades 220 was offered would have been even better. Kodak already knows how little demand there is.



Ahh, but our collective voice has been heard: long, marketplace silences; occasionally a weak, hoarse whisper, but too quiet to disturb a void also unpunctuated by ringing cash registers.



Yes, examples of a company finding new forms and markets for existing selling products, or offering updates / replacements for products with good track records. In other words, NOT 220.



Proactive? Project?

If it's results you're after, rather than the nobility of an empty symbolic gesture, take some real initiative. Ring up Kodak, and find out what it would cost to start from scratch to produce a run of the mythical beast 220 400TX. (Even better, figure on two or more production runs, to help spread out some of the startup costs, and to ensure there will be no future petition drives when enthusiasm wanes, yet again.) Double (at least) that number for good measure, then divide by 1000. Pass the hat among the members of the 220 Gelatin Millenium and have each kick in his/her share. Wrap the cash in your petition and take that up to Rochester.

IOW, put your money where your mouth is, in a way that the supposed legions of 220 "lovers" haven't been sufficiently willing to do for decades. Otherwise, from Kodak's viewpoint, it's all talk and nothing more. Prove them wrong with something more real than the candyfloss of your good intentions.

If not, then can we please call a moratorium on further postmortem product petitions here?

Mike, your using to much common sense. The world needs dreamers. If only things like signing a petition would work, think of all the changes in the world we could demand.

 

[jamusu]

I guess I need to clarify what I said earlier. What I said about a new master roll was because someone else talked about TXP specifically, not TX, although this thread is about 400TX in 220.



I'm afraid that's not true. Scott DiSabato said that TXP's sales were less than 5% of total Tri-X sales, certainly not Kodak's revenue. I wish you good luck though.

Anon Ymous.

You are correct. Scott DiSabato did say that TXP's sales were less than 5% of total TRI-X sales. I appreciate your taking the time to correct me on my misquote.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[clayne]

I'd like to point out that the "put your money where your mouth is" comments are ignoring one significant difference: in that situation we would have Kodak be making the roll *on demand* which is not what they've been doing now. If they made the master rolls in accordance to demand (which they do to an extent), what would even be the issue with letting TXP exist with 5% sales of TX in general?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't completely loose hope. It once took well over one month for a bill my aunt sent to get to it's location.....

The Post Office claims to have delivered it according to the tracking system. They finally realize that the pack was not delivered and the neighbors never saw it. Now they are going to get serious about investigating.

Steve

 

[donbga]

then can we please call a moratorium on further postmortem product petitions here?

+1

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If not, then can we please call a moratorium on further postmortem product petitions here?

Again (gently)...

Who or what gets hurt if someone wants to give it a go? I just don't understand why a few individual posters seem to want so desperately to put a stop to - or a moratorium on - these people, or their petitions.

If they want to try, free speech in a democratic society trumps. Providing that the exercise of this freedom does not preclude the exercise by others of their freedoms. And I don't see that at all.

And if their efforts are truly so grating to some, Sean has generously supplied us all with an "Ignore this thread" menu option. Such excellent foresight, that.

I just don't see the dog being kicked here...

Ken

 

[donbga]

-1

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

For those who don't want to see any further product petitions, I'd suggest not looking at them. Problem solved. Why even click on them?

I dislike shooting in color. That's why I don't read threads pertaining to it. Saves me a lot of time telling people I don't like it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

-1

+2^(1/2)

 

[Chazzy]

If you don't like the idea of product petitions, ignore the thread and move on. There is no need to insult the intelligence of those of us who have signed. If Kodak cares about the input of their customer base, they will welcome a petition—which of course does not mean that they will act upon it favorably. Incidentally, this is not a post mortem attempt to resurrect a dead film, as someone has falsely claimed. This is an attempt to get a much more popular and well-known emulsion in 220. If Kodak says no, there will be a petition to Fuji. If these petitions upset you, please use the ignore thread function instead of venting your animosity. Thank you.

 

[MikeSeb]

Chazzy, I thought you'd blocked me after my last anti-petition screed. Good to hear from you up there in Hoosier-land.

I have no animosity, people; there are enough irritating people to dislike in the Real World without hatin' on strangers on APUG. But free-speech suppressor ("suppression" evidently meaning "failure to blithely accept every bit of unsubstantiated blather spilling from the cake-holes of others as Revealed Truth") that I am, I just can't pass up a chance to exercise my own by marveling at the tendency of people to behave irrationally and call it thinking; or to substitute empty symbolism for concrete, effective action and then get worked up when someone calls "Bulls**t!"

APUG is supposed to be a place where ideas are exchanged, some of which might rub you the wrong way. I don't expect others to take what I say without reaction if they think I'm FOS either. If my exercise of free speech here upsets YOU, use the "block Mike" function. Or better, do as I do, and argue against people like me as forcefully as you are able, rather than ask them to shut up.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Mike, you can certainly say whatever you want, and I'll defend your right to do so. Your complaint was having to see product petitions, so a few of us have proposed ways for you to not have to see them, without limiting what other people are allowed to post.

Simple solution, really. Just being practical.

 

[MikeSeb]

CJ, good to hear from you.

I don't mind reading product petitions. I haven't asked the moderators to prevent people's posting them. I have asked, rather acerbically as is my wont, for people to examine their underlying motivations in calling for petitions; and to examine the many reasons why, by the time the petitions have begun to fly, it's too late. People can persist in futile undertakings to their hearts' content; but expecting others to accept their (often) flawed reasoning without demur is asking a lot.

That "block Mike" button is, likewise, there for all to use.

See you round the aether.

 

[jgjbowen]

B&H lists TXP 220 avaialble......

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If my exercise of free speech here upsets YOU, use the "block Mike" function. Or better, do as I do, and argue against people like me as forcefully as you are able, rather than ask them to shut up.

"Providing that the exercise of this [your] freedom does not preclude the exercise by others of their freedoms."

That's the key difference, Mike. And where the asymmetry in this discussion lies.

The petitioner's exercise of free speech is solely an attempt to convince someone (Kodak, or possibly Fuji later) to create a new product for them. Not to convince you to stop your exercise of your free speech rights.

Your exercise of free speech is an attempt to stop someone (the petitioners) from exercising their free speech rights (advertising their petition for a new product to Kodak, or possibly Fuji later).

In other words, they're not asking you to "shut up." But by calling for a "moratorium" on such petitions, you appear to be effectively asking them to "shut up."

I do note that earlier in post #5 you did also wish them "Best of luck."

Ken

 

[Photo Engineer]

At this point, there are 216 supporters out of nearly 40,000 members of APUG. Do you really think this will impress Kodak? That is less than 1% of the membership and represents practically no film sales at all. If this were a "popular" movement, I think it more reasonable that 50% or so of the membership would sign up.

What do you all think?

PE

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What do you all think?

Life carries no guarantees. But I think they have a right to try.

If they fail, then they will have learned something. If they succeed, then you will have learned something. That makes "trying" a win-win situation, don't you think?

Ken

 

[MikeSeb]

Your exercise of free speech is an attempt to stop someone (the petitioners) from exercising their free speech rights (advertising their petition for a new product to Kodak, or possibly Fuji later).

Ken, thanks for commenting.

Wow. I wish I were so fearsome an advocator. I'm under no illusions about stopping it; why should I care? I did, however, challenge some of their assumptions. My sadness is that too many people seem to want to forego effective (but more difficult) concrete action in favor of post-hoc empty symbolism that is cheap and easy.

And I do wish them well. I like it here, slings and arrows notwithstanding. You can block me now if you wish!

 

[jim appleyard]

At this point, there are 216 supporters out of nearly 40,000 members of APUG. Do you really think this will impress Kodak? That is less than 1% of the membership and represents practically no film sales at all. If this were a "popular" movement, I think it more reasonable that 50% or so of the membership would sign up.

What do you all think?

PE

Gee Ron, I didn't see your name. Unless you signed in as "RM", #23 or some other unknown name.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

At this point, there are 216 supporters out of nearly 40,000 members of APUG. Do you really think this will impress Kodak? That is less than 1% of the membership and represents practically no film sales at all. If this were a "popular" movement, I think it more reasonable that 50% or so of the membership would sign up.

What do you all think?

PE

The petition's only been up for a day or two. Give it time. If it does nothing, nobody's lost anything more than a few minutes of their time. Not a big deal, is it?