Frankly from reading what you have posted I hardly can believe you were not angry at Kodak. But you have a good point. I am not too happy with Kodak for not offering this Ektar 100 for medium format. It is understandable why so many have praised this new Ektar 100. It is much cheaper than 400UC. Even it is a same film with a faster speed and new cloth it is at least as good and much cheaper.
The "glory" days of film consumption are over, but that can be taken two ways, you can change to new markets, or you can redefine yourself in your remaining market. The management at Kodak made a critical error, they picked digital imaging as the new market, which meant that they were going up against large players who were already well established in that market. This means you either need something new that people can't get from anyone else or you need a massively huge marketing budget. For Kodak, they went from a largely consumables market to a largely capital asset market, and that's even tougher to deal with. The ideal would have been to redefine itself into a smaller film market, finding ways to make films in smaller quantities without massively increasing costs, less on hand inventory, and more unique or flexible products.
If you wanted to produce only ONE film, ONE paper and one chemistry, then you would need to develop this one:
This film can be processed as B&W, colour or reversal, simply by changing chemistries, can be shot at anywhere from 25 - 3200 EI, and give acceptable results, simply by changing the processing time. Can be processed at anything from 15℃ to 30℃, again by changing processing time. This would give film shooters the same flexibility as digital. Ideally chemistries are designed for low or moderate volume use, in that film shooters are much more likely to soup their own film, especially if it's easy to do.
You either need more products or make the ones you have more flexible. Naturally if they had a do all film, that is all they would need to make, since they don't....
Frankly from reading what you have posted I hardly can believe you were not angry at Kodak. But you have a good point. I am not too happy with Kodak for not offering this Ektar 100 for medium format. It is understandable why so many have praised this new Ektar 100. It is much cheaper than 400UC. Even it is a same film with a faster speed and new cloth it is at least as good and much cheaper.
No I'm sorry you are stil wrong. Film isn't a growth product. Digital imaging is the direction Kodak has to take to continue to survive. They have made mistakes but they have also had some great sucesses with digital imaging.
Medium format sales are essentially dead. We are lucky to have any MF film at all. As much as I would like to see Ektar 100 produced in MF, it just ain't gonna happen.
Martin,
Is 70mm film a stock item for stills photography applications?
Tom.
Is a load of 70mm film presented in a giant version of the 35mm cartridge?
Tom.
I presume you're referring to the "interesting" experience of loading and unloading 120 in less than dim conditions.Using 120 is like waiting for the lights to be turned out.
Medium format sales are essentially dead. We are lucky to have any MF film at all. As much as I would like to see Ektar 100 produced in MF, it just ain't gonna happen.
Hasselblad 70mm backs no longer on their site, but there's a Mamiya 70mm currently offering;
I sometimes wonder if either people here are very cynical, or don't really like film at all, and knock it at every opportunity. With the folks here as friends, film doesn't need enemies. :rolleyes:
What I said doesn't mean I'm an enemy of film. Why would I keep buying 120 cameras and film if that were true? I'm just cognizant of the fact that 120/220 film is on the wane. Intelectual honesty is better than denial, IMO.
Listen to what Ctein has to say about 120 film in his interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio:
Dead Link Removed
What I said doesn't mean I'm an enemy of film. Why would I keep buying 120 cameras and film if that were true? I'm just cognizant of the fact that 120/220 film is on the wane. Intelectual honesty is better than denial, IMO.
Listen to what Ctein has to say about 120 film in his interview on Inside Analog Photo Radio:
Dead Link Removed
I want to see this film compared to 160VC, 160C, Reala, Superia 100, Superia 200, Gold 100, and Gold 200.
With any technology where there has been a significant technological change, the same scenario plays out 99% of the market converts over a relatively short period, the absolute death of the old technology is forecast as a sure and guaranteed bet. For a small but significant part of the market of the market the honeymoon with the new technology ends, and these people return to the older technology.
It's happened in photography before, the transition from black and white to colour. Lots of people transitioned then a bunch transitioned back, because they liked the results better.
There will never be the kind of growth there was in film, between 1900 and 1990, but there should be a reasonably sized sustainable market once things even out. I think we are in the backlash period now, heck I am one of them, got totally out of film a few years ago, couldn't get enough for the film cameras, so put them in a back closet, now digging them out and getting at least partly back in. Will I shoot as much film as I did back in the day, probably not, I still expect to shoot about half as d*****l, 80% of the remainder as black and white, and the remainder as colour, might even try E6 again. Been looking at old negatives and old slides, and the slides seem to have faired a lot better. I used to shoot about 20 rolls a year, which means about 10 rolls worth of d*****l, 8 rolls of black and white, and a couple of rolls of colour film.
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?