Scott_Sheppard
Advertiser
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 272
- Format
- Multi Format
You have already been shown a number of makers of new cameras, and if you head over to DPUG you'll see that 2 new dedicated scanners for 120 roll film have just been announced. Nikon 120 capable scanners sell for 30-100% more in the use dmarket than they sold for when they were still made.
You love talking about "facts" and how you "uphold the facts" yet you spout nothing but malevolent conjecture at us who you hope don't bother to inform themselves. It really gets boring by now.
As you have tried to ignore for so long, Kodak has made a profit with film during the last 10 years. You love to quote Ron Mowrey in full text whenever something he writes supports your doom&gloom attitude, so you might as well trust him if he writes about the profitability of Kodak's film business.
Go buy some film and shoot it !!
Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.Private opinions are one thing, but private facts? Where's the "malevolent conjecture" in quoting financial data from public documents? What's so imponderable about the widely-documented collapse of demand for consumer and professional still film materials?
Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.
Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.
Mr. Inside Analog: PE and Aristophanes can't both be 100% correct because PE contradicts Aristophanes in quite a few points, and especially in those points Aristophanes claims to have so much expertise in (profitability of film business). Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.
We're all used to this kind of polemic when elections are near, but at least in this forum you should expect to be called on them.
It's interesting how recent events World wide have blown holes in very widely held twentieth century economic theory s that companys and institutions are " too big to fail".
No, I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see is a crackpot theory predicting a cascading demise of film based business which is repeated over and over here in the hopes that it might gain credibility somehow, sort of like Harold Camping's announcement of the rapture last year.You're plainly convinced posters here are behind a conspiracy to misrepresent published, public documents. What's up with that? Can't grasp the basis of your sustained refusal to accept that a decade of falling demand for film and its support services hasn't put us all in this current predicament.
This conforms 100% with PE's postings about this topic throughout the last couple of months and flies completely in the face of Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory. Compare this to your "Aristophanes and PE are 100% correct" statement. PE has the technical experience to back up his claims about impossibility of technology transfer (which Aristophanes loves to quote full text) and he also has the business inside knowledge to judge the viability of Kodak's film business. Aristophanes, on the other side lacks both and relies on cherry picked sections of public documents to construct his own little theory of the imminent demise of all analogue film business.The film group could do very well I would bet if it was a new company and not under the control of the current CEO that does not give a sh*t about film.
That's not an economic theory, but a political one. Economics dictates that when a company is no longer viable it goes out of business. Politics dictates that if too many people will lose their jobs or have an immediate negative experience from a company folding, then it must be bailed out regardless of the costs involved or the long term consequences.
No, I don't see a conspiracy here. What I do see is a crackpot theory predicting a cascading demise of film based business which is repeated over and over here in the hopes that it might gain credibility somehow, sort of like Harold Camping's announcement of the rapture last year.
This conforms 100% with PE's postings about this topic throughout the last couple of months and flies completely in the face of Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory. Compare this to your "Aristophanes and PE are 100% correct" statement. PE has the technical experience to back up his claims about impossibility of technology transfer (which Aristophanes loves to quote full text) and he also has the business inside knowledge to judge the viability of Kodak's film business. Aristophanes, on the other side lacks both and relies on cherry picked sections of public documents to construct his own little theory of the imminent demise of all analogue film business.
I'm a big fan of reasonable explanations and love complex realities. Everyone here is aware of the financial problems Kodak faces. But discussing with Aristophanes here feels like discussing religion with sect members. We all saw the shift to digital between 2000 and 2005, we saw Kodak filing for chapter 11 protection, yet I still don't subscribe to Aristophanes' analogue rapture theory which he tries to peddle in multiple threads all over APUG.I'm guessing that, for whatever reasons, you just won't bother with reasonable explanations of complex realities. Instead, you're working a grudge that's really just the product of not accepting Kodak's current predicament.
Aristophanes claims he reports objective and verifiable facts yet he intentionally chooses to report them so selectively that a wrong picture is bound to emerge. His claim about dedicated film scanners was just one prominent example. He inserts full text quotes of PE to support his doom&gloom yet completely ignores or brushes him aside when he doesn't support his crackpot theories of imminent and sudden cascading failure of world wide film business as a result of Kodak's chapter 11 filing.
Mr. Inside Analog: PE and Aristophanes can't both be 100% correct because PE contradicts Aristophanes in quite a few points, and especially in those points Aristophanes claims to have so much expertise in (profitability of film business). Given your poor fact checking on record here I don't know why we should trust you more than BJP.
We're all used to this kind of polemic when elections are near, but at least in this forum you should expect to be called on them.
So are you saying that the US Government should have let General Motors, Boeing several other major corporations and half the banks in the US and probably the whole economy to collapse?.That's not an economic theory, but a political one. Economics dictates that when a company is no longer viable it goes out of business. Politics dictates that if too many people will lose their jobs or have an immediate negative experience from a company folding, then it must be bailed out regardless of the costs involved or the long term consequences.
I'd be shocked if Kodak is able to continue film production for much longer but I am quite willing to be surprised. It isn't just how much film is being bought, the entire infrastructure of the labs is going away too. Color film photography is where the money used to be and I can't see how it can be a viable business any longer. Can they really make a go at the B&W hobbiest market? Can two companies do it? I wonder if it wouldn't be better long term for B&W shooters if Kodak goes away so that Ilford can reap the lions share of the profits to be had in the B&W market. With such a rapidly shrinking market, I think that consolidation is essential. Let's keep our fingers crossed and keep shooting.
Just got back from shooting in the bay area, more Portra 400 and more Tri-X, good stuff. While I was there, I really promoted film use, it was fairly easy with a 501CM that had a "You are Not a Photographer" sticker on the prism. I even handed out a couple of rolls of 120 Tri-X to keen young shooters. But I also sat in Phil's Coffee on 24th Street one afternoon and shared this thread with people in order to get an opinion from them while engaged in conversation.
People who read even part of it all said the same thing, it was depressing, pointless since none of the people posting ARE Kodak and above all, was exactly the opposite of what would actually be considered productive in the promotion of using film.
The so called facts have been stated, there is enough information to make a somewhat educated guess, but beyond that, it is truly a waste of time and frankly, a disgraceful use of Sean's site. In the past two weeks, I have shot hundreds of frames on Portra and Tri-X and promoted film use, handed the stuff out. I have PAID out of my own pocket for this and will continue to do so.
I went round and round and round in trying to meet up with a person in this thread so we could talk in person about Kodak and the promotion of film use in going forward...it never happened.
So keep talking, keep speculating and keep arguing, I'll keep shooting and promoting which is the right thing to do. The rest is truly out of our hands...
Just got back from shooting in the bay area, more Portra 400 and more Tri-X, good stuff. While I was there, I really promoted film use, it was fairly easy with a 501CM that had a "You are Not a Photographer" sticker on the prism. I even handed out a couple of rolls of 120 Tri-X to keen young shooters. But I also sat in Phil's Coffee on 24th Street one afternoon and shared this thread with people in order to get an opinion from them while engaged in conversation.
People who read even part of it all said the same thing, it was depressing, pointless since none of the people posting ARE Kodak and above all, was exactly the opposite of what would actually be considered productive in the promotion of using film.
The so called facts have been stated, there is enough information to make a somewhat educated guess, but beyond that, it is truly a waste of time and frankly, a disgraceful use of Sean's site. In the past two weeks, I have shot hundreds of frames on Portra and Tri-X and promoted film use, handed the stuff out. I have PAID out of my own pocket for this and will continue to do so.
I went round and round and round in trying to meet up with a person in this thread so we could talk in person about Kodak and the promotion of film use in going forward...it never happened.
So keep talking, keep speculating and keep arguing, I'll keep shooting and promoting which is the right thing to do. The rest is truly out of our hands...
At it again, eh? Just more self-congratulatory spew without any clue as to what anyone else does or has done for the cause.
Sorry if it offends you, but I really do think that this kind of discussion with incessant dominance by certain people is really doing more harm than good at this point. I don't know what else to add other than what I have.
How about I spare you and everyone else by logging off and not coming back, how does that sound?
Seldom have so many argued so extensively and so speculatively about that of which so little is known.
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?