At this point indications are that Kodak film is still being manufactured, which is still the only commitment that actually matters.
And easily put on ignore.Actual photographers problem solve and get on with making stellar images....Conversely, some enthusiasts like to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot piece of plywood and toss it in the air above them. Thankfully those who feed on relentlessly sharing their self induced headaches with everyone on APUG are very, VERY few.
There is reality and then there is emotional reaction to reality which often distorts it...
I just put 200 rolls of Tri-X in a cart at B&H and to ship to a suburb of Tokyo, it was about ¢.56 a roll for shipping before any form of duties or tariffs, that is $5.55 US a roll shipped. So if I lived in Japan and I wanted to order my Tmax-400 from B&H and it cost double the figure above when all said and done, you bet your behind I would do it, because I use the products I deem necessary to get the results I want, no matter who makes them.
Actual photographers problem solve and get on with making stellar images....Conversely, some enthusiasts like to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot piece of plywood and toss it in the air above them. Thankfully those who feed on relentlessly sharing their self induced headaches with everyone on APUG are very, VERY few.
Just remember Dan, most people (even here) only shoot 20 rolls a year...
People aren't blind, they see through the BS and that's what brings the emotion, they are being ripped off, and it pisses them off... And rightly so...
Your opinion of what "People" think and do is kind of baseless unless you happen to know all "People". And "Most People" shooting 20 rolls a year...? That is 1.66 rolls per month, that kind of figure will sink everyone, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, etc. I threw the 200 roll figure out there because it is a reasonable one for an enthusiast to fund given the break on shipping and how long it will keep even in the fridge. 200 rolls is *not* a lot of film sir...unless you are nearly broke all the time in which case, pick another hobby.
I'm not blind either and really, I want to save as much money as I can so I can buy a home for my wife and I one day. Like I said before, thankfully there are very few who like to rack up post counts all over the internet pissing and moaning, easy to ignore which is what I suspect most people do....
Just remember Dan, most people (even here) only shoot 20 rolls a year... Not 200, your always quoting "it's not so bad because X" but your examples often far outweigh those if normal mortals... Try your price at 5 rolls (which is more akin to the normal shooters purchase habit) and you'll see the difference.
I'm not complaining, I just dropped $80 on a 100 sheet box of 8x10 kodak x-ray film, and I'm glad it exists because it's super cheap (less than $1/sheet) but if they can produce that for x-ray, they sure as heck can produce something similar for normal film, but instead are jacking the price up. I think that's where the issue lies, if ilford can sell 25 sheets for $100 and kodak can make 100 sheets for $80 on one emulsion, they shouldn't need 10 times that amount ($85 for TMX 8x10) to make a profit on another emulsion of the same speed, TEN TIMES... in fact, x-ray being more specialized should cost more... And the double sided stuff should cost even more... But it costs even less... $30/100 sheets... For double the emulsion... That's 200 emulsion layers or whatever... That's 15 CENTS per enulsion or 30 cents per sheet... So where is all the money going for the single sided stuff that costs an arm and a leg??
People aren't blind, they see through the BS and that's what brings the emotion, they are being ripped off, and it pisses them off... And rightly so...
Normally, if a business is having problems supplying their product to end-users, they get right on it. If it takes a while to fix, they tell their customers about it.
To the best of my knowledge, Kodak hasn't manufactured X-Ray film since that part of their business was sold in 2007 to a business that is now known as Carestream.
They just licence their name now.
But what I won't be doing is distracting my self from the sheer joy of shooting and printing nice black and white photos because I have to hold a grudge against Kodak and make it a near-daily process of vomiting my disdain all over the internet....
I think it's fairly natural for a film photographer to be concerned about the future of film.
Anton Corbijn bought 2000 rolls of Tri-X in sheer panic, when Kodak went bankrupt. Did he overreact? Not at all, he was concerned for the future of his craft.
Ilford is NOT the answer for me as they don't make the films I use.
And I find the constant sucking up to Ilford offensive, as they sponsor this site. It really does not give an impression of fair and unbiased discourse.
It should be renamed IFUG, Ilford Film Users Group
Who says that a forum needs to be free from bias? Such a proposition is ridiculous. No one here functions as a journalist. Anyone posting in this forum is under no mandate whatsoever to be free from bias. The moderators need to be unbiased. If the mod were to delete any posts praising Ilford that would be bad.
And you are somehow "offended" by people praising the company that is single handily doing more to keep film photography alive now and into the future?
Good god, I am glad that I am not as soft as you are. Do kittens and soft puppies offend you too?
Ilford *EARNED* the praise that they receive.
Ratty, what is this? You attack my personal character, although my post contains no personal attack?
I find that offensive.
Anyway, I conduct all my affairs on the basis of truth and fairness. You'd be surprised how many people find that offensive. But the most surprised were the ones who thought I was "soft".
Enough of personal arguments, let's talk photography.
No harm, let's move on.
Is fair and unbiased a site rule or merely your personal whim?And I find the constant sucking up to Ilford offensive, as they sponsor this site. It really does not give an impression of fair and unbiased discourse.
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?