Now, back on topic...
I think that if the most active people on APUG worked together, maybe a magazine or (more likely) e-zine (though I hate that phrase) could be put together. Maybe start out digital and then work towards a dead tree edition.
Just a thought.
We could put up a website! We could have discussion forums, maybe a few articles, a classifieds section, some galleries, get a few industry sponsors and small advertisers, and we could just talk all the time about what we're doing with traditional photography, help out new users, and advanced users could share their experiences. There could be something for everyone!
Nahhhh...never work. Everyone's gone digital.
....
I think that if the most active people on APUG worked together, maybe a magazine or (more likely) e-zine (though I hate that phrase) could be put together. Maybe start out digital and then work towards a dead tree edition.
.....
Already there's no real need to build an extensive technical library.
Just when I was beginning to like you...
I meant like a boiled down version of APUG which would have long articles, images, etc which could be printed or purchased to carry around and read.
Maybe somehow copies could be available to mom and pop shops (there are a few left) as those are the ones who don't always get the news about stuff anyway.
What do you think about the stores that don't avail themselves of up-to-date product information available via APUG, other websites, and keeping in contact with their suppliers?
Tom
Mike;
Thanks so much for reaffirming the negative attitude towards Kodak on APUG. If you look at Fuji and Kodak, they both seem to have similar policies towards their customers, but Kodak always gets bashed. Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of Kodak policies myself, but then they have produced a line of new color and B&W products for us.
PE
This thread is happening just as I've had something of a revelation. Darkroom know-how is disappearing even faster than I have feared. ... But, whether or not people act on that interest and commit to buying a roll of film or a box of paper will be determined by whether or not they feel they know what the heck to do the stuff once they get it home. Recognizing and addressing this basic, very real issue will be the key to generating sales for Ilford.
d
PE, while I think the imbalanced negativity towards Kodak, as opposed to Fuji, is irrational in nature - I believe it has to do with long-term resent by many of Kodak's users as a result of having various films and papers yanked out from under them. AFAIK, Fuji was more popular later in the game - and hence has had less time to piss people off, really.
PeteZ8;878565 Kodak chemistry said:Most chemicals last longer with less exposure to the Air, just use 5 bottles of 1 liter each, you can probably jam a liter into a US 946ML "quart" bottle. OR use a "gallon"and a "Half Gallon".. 3.8 + 1.9 = gives room for 5.7L = Otr a gallon plus a quart 3800+946 is 4746ML but their is often some air space.
The insistence of using US measures is one thing that _Really_ bothers me using Kodak Chemicals. I have been using HC-110 a lot. Dilution B requires 1:31 as it is intended to make some number of US quarts. I use an old Patterson tank that wants 290ML per roll, or a stainless steel tank that seems to like 250ML.
I end up using a calculator each time, depending on the number of rolls I have, then rounding up and generally mixing just a bit more than I need just so I can get an even amount of concentrate to start.
If the metric system is ever to succeed, it needs at the very least a "metric eighth of an inch"!
Steve
I think this is a very good point, but luckily Ilford has a nice website with very clear and basic information about developing and printing that can be downloaded and printed out. Probably Kodak and Fuji do too. I know all three companies have instructions (time and temperature) for their films and developers. In addition, there are still available basic photography books, like Henry Horenstein's, with more detailed information, because film photography is still being taught. I saw the Horenstein book sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble the other day, and this is a store that has very little stock.
So the good news, I think, is that we're not quite at the point that information has disappeared. And I believe the digital revolution actually will keep this information updated and accessible, between company websites, the massive development chart and forums like APUG.
As someone else said, as long as the photo schools keep teaching film, there will be new users (even if short-term users) and a decent, though small market.
There's fantastic information in this thread from the professional printers about the size of the business decline over the last 10 years. Extrapolating from that, one can really see just how small the market has become. But the last men standing are doing okay now, it seems, including Ilford.
-Laura
If that gives the impression that the inch floundered about undefined till then, it would be quite misleading. The inch and foot had already been rigorously defined in the Weights and Measures Act of 18-something-or-other, a good century earlier. All that happened in 1959 was that the inch was redefined as a fraction of a metre. It is analogous to the change in the definition of the second from being a fraction of the solar day to being the time taken for nine billion odd transitions between two states of a caesium atom. And after all, it wasn't until 1983 that the 'metric' part of the world decided what a metre should be exactly.And that's not just a 'continental' thingy: it wasn't until the 1960s that the 'imperial' part of the world decided what an inch or foot should be exactly.
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?