.....However, it seems that you are willing to fully ignore facts about physics and chemistry.
As temperature drop, atoms move slower, chemical reactions slow down and/or stop completely, depending on the temperature.
As we are dealing with chemicals here, it's very simple and logical to deduct that freezing something makes it last longer than cooling it.
- This is the reason why we keep beef and other foods deep-frozen and that frozen meat, in fact, can last several years when frozen.
The same applies to photographic materials and chemicals.
I obviously disagree that buying patterns have any effect whatsoever on the viability of a product. My 100 or 200 rolls is NOTHING in the grand scheme of total sales. Because we don't all buy our hoards on the one day every three years, the demand as perceived by the manufacturers evens out to exactly the same level as it would have if we all bought smaller lots. What matters is the total quantity of film consumed. Want to support film? Shoot MORE of it, no matter when you buy it.
Maybe shoot more fairly-fresh film, not secondhand crap that's 15 years old and wonky. If you take the logic to its extreme though, we might as well advocate to abandon Kodak and Fuji ASAP because we don't trust them to be here in 5 years and to throw all our purchasing behind Ilford, who surely will. I guarantee that that approach means we won't have a Kodak or Fuji in a lot less than 5 years. Moralising about what people buy is bad enough but moralising about when they buy it is paranoid and intrusive.
If you want to get picky about second-order effects like demand patterns, then larger/less-frequent buyers are good for the system because they reduce market frictions by moving larger lots with less shipping/handling/inventory-update labour. Don't waste your shopkeeper's time, buy minimum quantities of 40 rolls! No?
Please allow me to have a little fun with the beef analogy. This is absolutely not meant to be personal and hopefully, it can be used to illustrate a point about drawing conclusions from false assumptions and about the dangers of extrapolating the model beyond the observed data.
proposition 1: for long term storage of beef, the freezer is better
proposition 2: it is best to cook beef before eating it.
Most people have plenty of evidence supporting the truth of these two propositions. I think that only a fool would argue contrary to either of them.
assumption: what's good for beef is good for film.
The assumption is obviously false. Nobody would propose heating film to 140 degrees F prior to use and nobody (well, very few) would propose eating beef that had been removed from the freezer and simply allowed to come up to to room temperature.
We need to be careful when drawing conclusions from false assumptions.
We can go further with the beef analogy. Let's do a thought experiment. I'll host a barbecue at the beach. I'll supply the beer and wine, a world renown chef and the beef. Now, imagine a small herd of beef cattle raised on a small family farm in South Eastern Minnesota. They've grazed on grass in open pastures their whole life. Image that we're able to slaughter one of those animals and some how instantaneously transport the finest cuts of beef to out little beach party. We also have some beef that was purchased at the local supermarket four days ago and stored in the fridge. Finally, we have some choice cuts of beef from those same cattle in SE Minnesota that have been stored for two years in a chest freezer in the farmer's basement. A master chef cooks all three samples of beef identically. Can you taste the difference? Which one is 'best'?
Storing beef in the freezer does preserve it for a longer period than storage in the fridge...however, as we all know, that long term storage comes with undesirable effects. If there were some way to preserve the beef for as long that did not come with the additional bad effects...would that be preferable?
For film, the fridge is just such an alternative.
I like beef carpaccio.
I'm talking about the behavior of MANY photographers, which becomes significant, but it starts on the level of an individual.
The best way to stimulate supply is to create demand. How do you do that when you are purchasing a product that is no longer made?
The peel apart films shouldn't be frozen because the pods freeze and break when they expand....
The idea is that you shouldn't buy someone else's film and should always buy new is kind of silly, and what I mean by this is that there's a certain amount of film out there, it's already been produced, and yes a couple people will end up hoarding it forever and then eventually it will just be thrown out in the trash when it's no good and they die, but mostly people will eventually end up using it, so there's no point in saying that you shouldn't hoard some film and then use it up and then hoard some more, because no matter what the film it needs to be used, so it's going to be used anyway, so whether you hoard old film it's expired, or you order brand-new film that was just made, or you buy it roll for role, you're still consuming film at the same rate it doesn't matter at all...
The problem for me is Fotokemia went bust cause all you fan boys were buying Kodak and Fuji.
When Kodak and Fuji stop making film Fotokemia won't restart.
If Forma and Ilford stop for same reason as Fotokemia how long will your stache last?
assumption: what's good for beef is good for film.
Fotokemia was EFKE right?
EFKE went bust because they had such inconsistent results in their films, the EFKEitis etc and people knew it and it cost them dearly, sure when a batch was good it was BEAUTIFUL, but when it was bad it ruined the shoot you were doing and the time you couldn't get back, so people dropped it in favor of a CONSISTENT film company. They also stretched themselves to thin by not cutting lines that weren't making money and focussing on their core films and formats.
It's sad but it had little to do with "fanboys" and more to do with bad production runs and poor business decisions.
IMO...
I only hoard one "lifetime" supply of film. I like to work from someone else's lifetime supply, for obvious reason.
Efke was one of the names they used yes
And I used their film in volume and every film was good.
Maybe it is like Cosina lenses had about 40 if them all good but web experts tell me many bad examples.
So pony up how many bad films did you have?
The problem with the beef analogy is no one has told us whether frozen and fresh film taste any different.
Sort of a tongue in cheek question but I'm wondering how do you all hoard film? (for those that do).
For example, Neopan 400 has been discontinued and will soon disappear. If you wanted this film, and still could get it for a reasonable price, how much would you buy? $100? $1000? $10,000 worth?
I have about 80 boxes in the freezer but can still buy more at $4/box, perhaps a bit less. I am thinking about buying more this weekend but am wondering when to stop buying.
Thoughts?
The problem with the beef analogy is no one has told us whether frozen and fresh film taste any different.
Hmm, there is some overlap... he had advertised for Kodak as well.Doesn't it taste like gelatin? So we should ask Bill Cosby right?
I've only shot the 127 films of 100R the last batch freestyle had, all has terrible EFKEitis, a rice shaped black grain in the images. This wouldn't really be seen in a 4x4 print but probably start to show at 8x8, a 12x12 or larger would certainly be unpleasant and obvious.
I JUST got some IR820 I'll let you know, I'm less worried about that as it's 4x5 and 8x10 and IR so I'll take anything I can get that's true IR.
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?