New films shown at ICIS by Fuji and Kodak

[Photo Engineer]

Donald, daddeldu was asking about the fuji 1200 iso, that seems to have been completly overshadowed by the 24000 kodak emulsion.

To you daddeldu, I don't know, but I want to say that it is color. PE can you chime in here?

I know nothing about the new Fuji film.

Dr. Tani asked me to take some pictures of his delegation with his camera.

It was available light, with no flash, and he told me it was a new 1200 color film that was not yet available. He described it as being much improved, using technology similar to Provia X to improve grain and sharpness. He said nothing more. In fact, the camera was a new model as well, if I am not mistaken.

I saw no pictures or data.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I am intrigued by this dry thermal development. It sounds extraordinary. Revolutionary even. Is there any chance we will see any 'normal' speed films with this type of development? Has this technology been around for long? Could it be applied to a colour film at all? If a ISO 24000 film had similar grain to current ISO 400 film, how good would a ISO 400 version be?
It would be a fairly simple piece of equipment required to develop it, and could be done almost anywhere, I imagine.
All sorts of possibilties for such a film.

At the present time, there are lots of thermally processed analog products on the market. The average consumer or professional does not deal with them, but they exist and have been around for decades. Many companies make these products, mainly for medical imaging.

Processing equipment exists in the marketplace today.

PE

 

[ajuk]

Has this apeared in any official news articles yet, because untill it does it may just be ignored. I also can't find any references anywhere to the new ISO 1200 Fuji film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Has this apeared in any official news articles yet, because untill it does it may just be ignored. I also can't find any references anywhere to the new ISO 1200 Fuji film.

This appeared in the official proceedings of the ICIS organization and the reference to their journal is on www.photo.net. I did not repeat that reference on APUG. Carrying this information is up to the press. How inteterested do you think they are in analog news?

I cannot find a reference to the Fuji film either, but Dr. Tani said it was new and not for sale yet. So, what do you expect? Maybe it will never go on sale. Who knows.

PE

 

[r-s]

Comments

Some comments follow.

I'm somewhat late to the game, having found this thread via a link on a page found via a link in an email received today from the NikonMF mailing list.

So in other words, there hasn't exactly been a full court press to promote the knowledge of the existence (or potential existence, if you rather) of this product.

If Kodak wants to find out how much interest there'd be in this film, they'll have to let people know about it. That means promoting the knowledge of its existence. They will have to get information to "the media". Simply slipping a pre-interest form to some attendees at a highbrow conference attended by a scant few folk (in the grand scheme of things), and then counting on some variant form of "viral marketing" (i.e., one of the attendees uploading a scanned copy of the form to a web forum read by a part of the potential market) is NOT gonna cut it.

But then, this is the same company that at the same time as they manufacture the most unique color film in the world -- Kodachrome -- seems religiously obligated to AVOID promoting it at all (and then mutters occasionally about the lack of interest in the product!)

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

There is a sad irony in hearing that there is a lack of interest in something that almost no one knows about.

Properly promoted, this stuff would fly off the shelves. Look what outdated rolls of stuff like Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, APX 25, etc. and so forth will regularly fetch on that online auction-like venue. Insanely high prices, as people get into bidding wars for the few rolls that pop up on occasion.

No one is gonna convince me that Kodak couldn't run off a single batch of K25 every two or three years and sell it for pretty much any price they name. When expired rolls wills sell for $35 per, well, think about it.

And back to this film -- they hand out a printed form, with instructions to fill it out and return it to a pair of email addresses? Not a single address, but a pair of addresses? A printed form? What???? Fill out this form, and then email it?

The mind boggles.

OK, options? Print it, fill it out, scan it, and email it as an attachment, HOPING that their system will not automatically reject messages from unknown senders carrying attachments? Pretty big thing to expect of folks in this day and age.

Or, maybe the other option is to expect people to manually transcribe the form INTO an email, and then "fill it out" in their email client before sending it?

Again, wow.

They certainly don't expect people to fill the actual form out and stick it in an envelope and mail it to them. They'd have given an address if they expected that. Oh, sure, maybe the USPS will (grudgingly) do a mail dump to "Kodak" in "Rochester, New York" (sans zipcode) -- after (and presuming) the envelope finally makes its way to "Rochester, New York". And, perhaps the envelope (or rather "envelopes", since the directions say to send TWO copies, under separate cover) will eventually make it from "Kodak" to those two individuals.

Obviously I'm not really accepting the snail-mail option as something they really anticipate anyone attempting.

So I'm therefore wondering why they raise so many obstacles to people complying via email?

Couldn't they have spent 15 minutes to put up a simple web response form, and given out the URL on that sheet of paper?

Couldn't they -- if they really insisted on email -- have spent five minutes to set up an email alias (e.g., "24000@kodak.com") and had it redirect to both of those intended recipients?

Not only would that have made the process a bit less onerous, but, it would also have ensured that both of those individuals would have received each email, AND, it would have ensured their privacy, since their names and email addresses would NOT be out in the public arena.

Then there's the laughable bit about wondering why no one will say how many rolls they'd want per year, of a product that has no PRICE attached to it. Not even a price range! (And the same goes for processing cost and availability, since it's a very unique process.)

I could go on, but I'll wrap up this section by saying that if the goal wasn't to "prove" the "lack" of interest, it might as well have been, because they went about things in a way guaranteed to generate a LOT of "lack" of interest! Even people who are interested are not going to "buck the current" via the method given for experessing their interest.

Make it EASY for people to express their interest. Don't make them navigate an obstacle course!

And give them more info. Show them examples of images. Give them something more than an (unoffically) uploaded copy of a printed form that people are somehow supposed to figure out how to email.

Good grief.

Next topic:

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

I thought of the possibility of using the developer section -- or, the long ceramic/quartz heat rods -- from a xerograpphic copier -- but realized that they tend to glow red, which would likely fog the film.

But, I wonder if an air-impingement RC paper dryer would do the trick. It should be able to transport the film, and apply a lot of directed heat at the emulsion.

Each of these "expedient" systems would of course need some tricking out to regulate temperature, but it ain't rocket science for anyone with a modicum of manual dexterity.

In the end though it's probably moot, because I will be very surprised if they actually put this stuff into production. Most likely, they won't tell anyone about it, and then announce that no one is interested. Just like Kodachrome.

So, what ever happened to the IP for that stuff Agfa patented a few years ago, something as I recall that gave standard emulsion (i.e., wet-process) sensitivity in the same ballpark as this heat-process stuff?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

Pending adjustments to get the correct dwell time at the right temperature (and one is strongly tempted to wonder if changing one or the other, just a little, would allow control over image characteristics roughly similar to contrast control in silver-image wet processing), the fuser section of a (cheap) laser printer might also work. Printing a blank page with a single "form feed" character on it would serve to feed the sheet, so no alteration of the printer's firmware is likely to be necessary, and a printer carfully cleaned and the toner level detector subverted might be expected not to leave black stuff on the film. Most printers even have a "single sheet" feed option on the paper cassette, so you wouldn't have to load the film into the cassette in conditions darker than the average darkroom. Disabling all panel lights and capping the laser are left as an exercise...

 

[Helen B]

"...Or, maybe the other option is to expect people to manually transcribe the form INTO an email, and then "fill it out" in their email client before sending it?
...

So I'm therefore wondering why they raise so many obstacles to people complying via email?
...

Make it EASY for people to express their interest. Don't make them navigate an obstacle course!"

Aren't you over-dramatising just a little? I thought that writing an email with the required information was easy. The way that this was presented at a technical conference by the chemists/engineers responsible for it, rather than at a marketing junket by marketing people, and the way that we have been able to express our interest gives me the feeling that it is something of a personal initiative. A personal connection. Forget the corporate EK and respond to the individuals sharing their work with us.

Best,
Helen

 

[r-s]

Aren't you over-dramatising just a little?

Well, no, I don't think so. I'm thinking in "big picture" terms, and in that regard, I think we most likely just witnessed the sum total of the "market reseach" campaign that will be used to determine the future of this film. As such, it didin't really research the market. "The market", such as it might be, has no idea whatsoever of this stuff, and I doubt they'll ever find out about it. As to the deconstruction of the obstacle course, that stuff might seem like nitpicking, but it isn't -- that's really the kind of stuff that prevents people from responding to a proposal. Each "roadblock" will sweep numerous potential reponders off the table. Some won't bother because they can't figure if they're "supposed to" figure out whether to email, snail mail, and/or how. Most folks in the real world are subject to the "what I'm 'supposed to' do" internal guidance system. That's why we persistently elect crooks and morons to run the country.

Other folks will look at it and think, "I'd be interested, but I'm not gonna place an order for a year's supply of film when I don't know anything about it, not even the price!"

OK, sure, it's not a real order form. But that's how a lot of folks will see it. And we can forget about any of 'em replying!

IMO they have categorically done everything imaginable -- short of using invisible ink and sanscript text -- to ensure as few responses as possible. My working theory is that "Kodak Marketing" wants nothing to do with this, said, "Oh, great -- not another kind of FILM?", and left "the scientists" on their own. The kind of effort we see on that sheet is the kind of thing we'd see created by technical people who do NOT "think like marketers". They may be great at inventing something, but they simply don't have the ability to sell it.

This is no insult or slam. I'd much rather live in a world of nerds than a world of marketeeeeeers. But the reality is, that in the current environment, if something like this is going to be subject to an MR test before a decision is made to manufacture it, then the MR effort is gonna have to be orders of magnitude less "nerdy" than that scanned sheet.

So, I don't expect this product to see light of day (no pun intended. I think.)

BTW, are you the person we sent some fresh catnip to a few years ago during a combined Ektar 25 buy?

 

[Photo Engineer]

r-s;

I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read.

I also want to inform you that the copy address on the sheet was intended to reach the individual who presented the paper, and they did reach him as well.

This was an effort to determine interest in such a product, as interest among the members of the press and the consumer public, in general, was close to NIL as far as I know (my own opinion based on general interest in analog products).

So, although the film has not been produced, and has not been, except in reachearch quantities, Kodak management now has a rough estimate of intetrest in producing an entirely new product.

Doing so is up to them and the magnitude of the response vs the price to produce will determine that. The test, if undertaken, will determine the quality needs through the response that Kodak gets from the recipients.

So, my take is this. Kodak does something to show that research and new things in analog photography are still going on, and they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested, and all you can do is find fault.

Well, the problem is that you represent the type of people I see griping about Kodak all the time. Heavens knows that they need someone to keep the fire lit under them, but this case is kind of unique and I just cannot understand how this can get you so upset. This was a major change in direction for them, to gain market information. Just the kind of thing you are complaining about. Take it as a gift from heaven that they are doing this and quit your complaining.

I have a funny feeling that if Kodak were to announce an iron clad guarantee that Kodachrome was to be produced for a minimum of 10 more years and that they were reviving Ektar 25 and Super XX, you would find something to complain about.

If Kodak got enough comments like yours, they might cancel the whole thing and say "You see what it is like out there? No use doing this, we can't make anyone happy so lets just do digital as the majority want that."

PE

 

[Greg_E]

Please forward to them that I might also be interested in a slower speed with finer grain, several other people mentioned this too. It's much easier to make a heater in some remote part of the world than it is to mix chemicals. The dry developing of a photographic film (to differentiate between medical, etc.) is what really sparks my interest. And really I do enjoy some night time "art" photography that is difficult with slower films when the wind is howling and the snow flying (and other things that happen in central New York). But all that matters very little because of my consumption of the product. Would I use 100 rolls a month.. no way. Would I use 100 rolls a year... if the results are good, since the processing is pretty simple. Heck heat activated developing might not be so bad in the middle of winter.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Greg;

Your comments and those of others are getting through to Kodak. I am sure that there are silent observers here.

PE

 

[r-s]

r-s;

I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read.

I also want to inform you that the copy address on the sheet was intended to reach the individual who presented the paper, and they did reach him as well.

This was an effort to determine interest in such a product, as interest among the members of the press and the consumer public, in general, was close to NIL as far as I know (my own opinion based on general interest in analog products).

The interest was nil? In a product they didn't know existed?

Go figure!

So, although the film has not been produced, and has not been, except in reachearch quantities, Kodak management now has a rough estimate of intetrest in producing an entirely new product.

Not really, since MOST of the market, via representative sampling, was NOT apprised of the product's existence!

Look, they've got my name and address. They've sent me samples of film. (Sometimes they even managed to have the sample arrive shortly before it was discontinued, or rather, "renamed"!)

I received nothing from them regarding this product -- either via mail (as I said, they know where I live), via email (they do send me notices every month or so to go look at the updated "magazines" on their website), or via carrier pigeon (I just checked my barnyard, "just in case"

And lest you think I'm "focusing on me", I'm merely using myself as a typical example of the countless "pieces of the market" who were not allowed to find out about this product. I mean, not allowed! Blocking access to anything beyond the abstract is tantamount to treating this product like a state secret, which is anathema to any rational concept of promotion, or even determining interest in it!

At the very least, they should have put up a website with some descriptive info (more than that abstact!), some example photos, and a "click here for more info/if you'd be interested in buying this product" link, to take people to a web form.

I've noticed that they have no problem whatsoever in making me fill out voluminous forms in order to receive product samples. So it's not exactly like the technology is out of their reach.

I found out about this by happenstance -- I glanced at a message in a mailing list I receive, because the header struck my fancy ("Kodak ISO 24,000??")

That in turn directed me to a blog, which didn't say all that much, but did have links to this thread (ergo, my appearance here), and, the abstract to the white paper covering the product.

I searched in vain down that path -- I could not find any more info! They didn't even let "mere mortals" see the actual paper describing the product! The abstract was a dead end. Incredible.

And the only ones who even saw "the form", from what I gather, are those who were at the event, and those who happened upon this thread.

That ain't exactly reaching out and grabbing the market by the... "heart."

They want to judge interest in a product, but they won't even allow "the market" to read anything beyond the abstract???

Sheesh!

So, my take is this. Kodak does something to show that research and new things in analog photography are still going on, and they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested, and all you can do is find fault.

Oh, please. That's just silly.

You say "they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested"? LOL! What will they try next, smoke signals? Tapping the water pipe with a spoon to send out the news in Morse Code?

This was a classic case of "hiding your light under a basket."

Plus, I offered constructive criticism. Go re-read my post if you didn't catch it on the first pass.

Well, the problem is that you represent the type of people I see griping about Kodak all the time.

Yeah, "my kind", eh?

Every wonder where "we" come from? Who "created" us?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Agfa. Or Fuji. Or Ilford.

When lots of people complain about something, then maybe, juuuuuust maybe, that "something" ought to consider asking if maybe it is the reason for the complaints, instead of lashing out at all the "complainers."

Heavens knows that they need someone to keep the fire lit under them, but this case is kind of unique and I just cannot understand how this can get you so upset.

Well, perhaps that's because I'm not "so upset"!

Please do not impute emotions to me based upon your conjecture and/or projection, OK? I will do my best to reciprocate.

One major reason I'm not "so upset" is because I already have a lifetime supply of "NLA" emulsions, held in stasis via the miracle of Freon. Sure, I'm not real pleased at having to go to the time and expense of building my own lifetime inventory, but, I've been through worse, and my health is such that there'll be enough film remaining to tide my son over at least until he reaches early adulthood. Then, it can be his problem. (How Keynesian of me

This was a major change in direction for them, to gain market information. Just the kind of thing you are complaining about. Take it as a gift from heaven that they are doing this and quit your complaining.

A "gift from heaven"? NOW who's all emotional? LOL!

As to it being a major change in direction to gain market info, sorry, I am just not buying that, not for one instant.

I cannot bring myself to believe that Kodak does not have working relationships with at least one major Market Research organization.

And by the same token, I cannot bring myself to believe that any MR outfit worth its salt would allow "the above" to be conducted as (or represented as) an MR study.

The presentation, as related (from what I've read thirdhand), including "the form", reeks of "nerdwork", i.e., the kind of thing that engineers come up with when tasked (either from heaven... um, I mean, "from above", or, "self-tasked") with MR duties.

Engineers are great at creating "things", which is why they're engineers, and not MR wonks. MR wonks are good at doing MR, which is why they do MR work.

I have a funny feeling that if Kodak were to announce an iron clad guarantee that Kodachrome was to be produced for a minimum of 10 more years and that they were reviving Ektar 25 and Super XX, you would find something to complain about.

Well, you just confirmed your complete inability to do a "cold read" on me (unless you were going to include something like, "at fifty bucks a roll.")

If Kodak got enough comments like yours, they might cancel the whole thing and say "You see what it is like out there? No use doing this, we can't make anyone happy so lets just do digital as the majority want that."

PE

Well, there we have it in a nutshell. Kodak can get all snippy, offended at their customers, and make a major marketing decision on an emotional basis -- and that's fine.

But heaven forbid their customers "get emotional" over the loss of a favorite product -- that's just wrong!

So much for that whole, "The customer is always right" thing.

RIP TCIAR!

 

[wirehead]

Next topic:

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

I thought of the possibility of using the developer section -- or, the long ceramic/quartz heat rods -- from a xerograpphic copier -- but realized that they tend to glow red, which would likely fog the film.

But, I wonder if an air-impingement RC paper dryer would do the trick. It should be able to transport the film, and apply a lot of directed heat at the emulsion.

Each of these "expedient" systems would of course need some tricking out to regulate temperature, but it ain't rocket science for anyone with a modicum of manual dexterity.

I think it all depends on the tolerances required.

It may be OK to have a big unheated metal shoe, such that you heat it up to temperature before you start and it stays close enough throughout.

You may be able to have a metronome and a hand spool and calculate the timings such that it beeps every 180 degrees of rotation and use a Mk. 1 Human Hand to turn a crank on a spool to control the rate of film transport.

I'm betting that 4x5 is the easiest. Heat a skillet on the stove to the correct temperature (accomidating heat loss for cooling), take it into the darkroom, drop film onto skillet, wait, remove film with tongs after time has been reached.

*sigh*

I'm betting that, were this to have come out 5 years ago, Kodak would be marketing it with a little Polaroid-35mm-like tabletop processor.

 

[r-s]

Please forward to them that I might also be interested in a slower speed with finer grain, several other people mentioned this too. It's much easier to make a heater in some remote part of the world than it is to mix chemicals. The dry developing of a photographic film (to differentiate between medical, etc.) is what really sparks my interest. And really I do enjoy some night time "art" photography that is difficult with slower films when the wind is howling and the snow flying (and other things that happen in central New York). But all that matters very little because of my consumption of the product. Would I use 100 rolls a month.. no way. Would I use 100 rolls a year... if the results are good, since the processing is pretty simple. Heck heat activated developing might not be so bad in the middle of winter.

I can forsee all sorts of innovative applications for something like this as a general purpose (i.e., "slower") film.

How's this sound: A camera that "develops" the film, frame by frame, as it's wound. You snap the shutter, then the film advances to the next frame. As it advances, it's passed over a "hot rod" that processes it -- and, right after it's processed, it's scanned, using a "fax-row" type linear sensor array.

You could have an instant display of the image on an LCD (sure you could have an instant display simply by backlighting the processed transparency -- but, the LCD would be much larger and more usable, and, it could display various bits of info too). You could upload the images (after you review and select the ones you want to send) to your agency, newspaper, website, whatever -- and, you'd still have real film "originals", which would have higher resolution, and so forth. Other advantages? Who knows? The marketplace will come up with them, and we'll all be surprised! How about forensics? It'll be nice to have a hard backup (um, "original") to affirm that the digital image hasn't been subjected to tampering. I'm sure there are countless other applications that no one will even consider until they have the technology at hand.

However, the more I think about this (the "instant process/scan camera"), the more it reminds me of the ASF "dry processor" that a certain company purchased all the rights too, and then deepsixed.

So I'm not gonna get my hopes up!

But if I was the kinda guy prone to getting his hopes up, I'd be watering at the mouth over a color implementation of this technology. It's got to be possible -- if the will do do it was there.

This would breath an incredible amount of life into analog photography!

And that's why I'm convinced it'll never happen.

 

[Photo Engineer]

r-s;

Are you out in left field or what? It isn't a product. I never said so, nor did Kodak. It is an experimental film that is ready for testing. It may or may not be tested based on response here and in other venues. To start with, you don't run a test with a hostile audience. That audience or person is not and cannot be objective.

They are trying to find out if this material should become a product. And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference, but to a site like APUG or Photo Net.

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately? Ever try to sell a new analog product lately? I think it is you who is unaware of the reality of things. It is an uphill struggle to get analog photographic information out to the trade and out to the customer via the press. There is no great press interest and no great trade or magazine interest. And, the reason is that there is no great customer (consumer) interest.

It resides here on APUG with its 12,000+ memebers and other associated sites to carry analog forward without anger or vituperation, but rather in cooperation with each other.

You are fully justified in criticizing Kodak when they err, and they have committed some real errors, but I think this diatrabe of yours was not justified. You are just as wrong to say that Kodak is always wrong. There is right and wrong on both sides. In this case, IMHO, Kodak tried to do the right thing. Since this was their first time doing something like this, give them credit for trying and understand that they may do it better - or not do it at all in the future.

Their future approach is likely to be based on what they read here. I assure you that this thread is being followed by people at EK. They don't need abuse for what they might view as a valiant effort at a new approach.

I want to add that I agree that sometimes customers get justifiably emotional over their favorite product, take Ektar 25 for example. It was cancelled and a great outcry was heard throughout the land.... Well, so to speak anyhow. But did anyone consider that the waste factor for Ektar 25 was about 90% and Kodak had to eat that cost while the product was out there. In the end, they no longer could produce it. It was a loss leader that could no longer be sustained, regardless of the outcry. But, like most companies, Kodak didn't come to you and expain it all. Sorry. Other products were cancelled because of Cadmium, Lead or Mercury. Again, sorry. So, you see, you can look at many things from different viewpoints and come up with a different POV.

PE

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I see the mention of roll film only, maybe because the paper backing provides a nice barrier. A question for Photo Engineer is whether it would be possible to place test samples in Readyload packets. I think Readyloads could provide the protective barrier in a way that 120 roll film accomplishes, and it would give a larger film area for testing. This pre-packaged testing would eliminate problems in film loading. I look forward to your comments. Thanks!

Ciao!

Gordon

 

[Photo Engineer]

I can forsee all sorts of innovative applications for something like this as a general purpose (i.e., "slower") film.

How's this sound: A camera that "develops" the film, frame by frame, as it's wound. You snap the shutter, then the film advances to the next frame. As it advances, it's passed over a "hot rod" that processes it -- and, right after it's processed, it's scanned, using a "fax-row" type linear sensor array.

This was proposed in the 60s and the 'hot rod' as you call it was actually built. It was a small rectangular plate about the size of 1/2 35mm frame.

In the final analysis, film was used with a monobath web rather than a thermal process to produce the B&W images sent back from the early space probes. At that time, film was better than digital in the camera, and digital scanning was the only way to send the data back to the earth.

There are many patents and publications out there on thermal color. I have actually done a bit of this myself. But, asking the pundits about this, they say "why bother as digital can do it as well or better". And, as I said above "Besides, digital is what the customer wants" - ho hum.

That is not my opinion, BTW or I would not be here on APUG or doing the work I'm doing personally.

PE

 

[r-s]

I'm betting that 4x5 is the easiest. Heat a skillet on the stove to the correct temperature (accomidating heat loss for cooling), take it into the darkroom, drop film onto skillet, wait, remove film with tongs after time has been reached.

Thing is, you'd need to use a very heavy cast-iron skillet (smooth bottom, the old-fashion kind, the older the better -- they were thicker and heavier in the old days). Then, you'd want to heat it up to something a tad over your target temperature, and remove it from the heat, to give it enough time to "even out" the inevitable temperature gradients. Even so, you're still apt to get a bit of uneven development.

Ultimately, if you're going to go down that route, best bet might be to buy a nice even block of steel, and mount it with small standoffs (to prevent heat from bleeding off), and run some tests to determine how long it takes to come up to temp.

If its thick/heavy enough, it'll have plenty of thermal mass to enable it to stay at the desired temp, and, have nice hotspot-free coverage.

I'm thinking that for even development, you'll need to either use a big heavy piece of metal (gold would be best), to ensure that thermal mass evened out the heat distribution -- or, use a small "fax-type" heater, and pass the film over it. (In the latter case, you'd only need to ensure even heat over a short, narrow piece of metal -- ideal for portable applications -- but, transport rate would become critical.)

I'm betting that, were this to have come out 5 years ago, Kodak would be marketing it with a little Polaroid-35mm-like tabletop processor.

You got that right!

If anything, I'd think the idea (today) would give some of "the suits" the willies just thinking about it. ("Each one of these we sell is one less potential customer for a digital P&S!")

 

[r-s]

r-s;

Are you out in left field or what? It isn't a product.

Of course it's a product.

It's not in production, it's not being marketed, and it would undoubtedly need some refinement, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a product.

Before they coated that test run, it was a concept. After they coated it, it was a product. An experimental product? Sure. But, a product nonetheless.

To start with, you don't run a test with a hostile audience. That audience or person is not and cannot be objective.

Not sure what you're implying there, but the reality is that no one is objective.

No one!

They are trying to find out if this material should become a product. And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference, but to a site like APUG or Photo Net.

Aside from the fact that we've already established the fact that it is a product, there's a small problem with your argument above. That is, they didn't go "to a site like APUG or Photo Net". YOU did! You are not Kodak -- and Kodak is not you.

And that "bunch of engineers at a conference"? That IS where they went!

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately?

I'm a writer, not a salesman. But, in a former life...

I think it is you who is unaware of the reality of things.

Let's don't go all existential on me, alright?

It is an uphill struggle to get analog photographic information out to the trade and out to the customer via the press. There is no great press interest and no great trade or magazine interest. And, the reason is that there is no great customer (consumer) interest.

You hit 'em with "Fine-grain ISO 25,000 film, dry-process, NEW from Kodak!" and you'll have their attention. You'll have front cover of every "general" photography magazine, and you'll probably even get coverage in digital mags too. ("What are the implications for digital photography?")

It resides here on APUG with its 12,000+ memebers and other associated sites to carry analog forward without anger or vituperation, but rather in cooperation with each other.

Then why didn't they bring it here?

Remember, Kodak does not equate to You.

You are fully justified in criticizing Kodak when they err, and they have committed some real errors, but I think this diatrabe of yours was not justified. You are just as wrong to say that Kodak is always wrong.

This is where you stop being funny.

Do not put words in my mouth, OK?

I don't do that to you, and I expect reciprocal treatment.

If you cannot counter my logic on the points, then please don't haul out a strawman and accuse me of saying things I never said.

There is right and wrong on both sides. In this case, IMHO, Kodak tried to do the right thing.

You already said that the right thing would have been to take it to venues like this place -- which they didn't. YOU took it here, not them. They took it to the aforementioned conference -- and to quote you, "And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference..."

Since this was their first time doing something like this, give them credit for trying and understand that they may do it better - or not do it at all in the future.

This was the first time Kodak ever tried to evaluate interest in an innovative new product prior to deciding whether or not to put it into production?

Who knew!

LOL!

Their future approach is likely to be based on what they read here. I assure you that this thread is being followed by people at EK. They don't need abuse for what they might view as a valiant effort at a new approach.

And, speaking solely for everyone else in the world (If you're going to speak for Kodak, then I might as well speak for the rest of the world, no? LOL!), the last thing WE need is this wink wink nudge nudge cloak and dagger nonsense.

Taking at face value Kodak management's on-the-record statements about "the all-digital Kodak" that's planned for the future -- as well as recent insinuations about the possibility of splitting up the company (see below) -- if I had to venture a guess, I'd guess that this product is perceived as a threat, rather than a blessing, using the apparent logic that dictates that anything that "helps digital" is good, and anything that "helps traditional" is bad -- because "traditional competes with digital".

Here's the "see below" stuff:

'What's Kodak's Strategy?' (excerpted)

Investors are putting pressure on troubled companies like Time Warner and Knight Ridder to split themselves up or sell out entirely. Are you under similar pressure?
I don't feel that pressure yet. But I will do what is best for shareholder value. I believe the [total] value of the parts of the company is bigger than the current [valuation].

Please try not to be so defensive, and so argumentative. It IS possible to discuss things without being compelled to turn every topic into a need to defend the honor of the Eastman Kodak Company. It IS possible to engage in discussion -- sometimes maybe even including the mention of Kodak -- without looking for ways to act offended over anything that falls short of slavish worship of the company.

 

[r-s]

But, asking the pundits about this, they say "why bother as digital can do it as well or better". And, as I said above "Besides, digital is what the customer wants" - ho hum.

That is not my opinion, BTW or I would not be here on APUG or doing the work I'm doing personally.

PE

Hey, see? We can agree on something!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Just a quick response to r-s.

1. This form was not given out at the conference.

2. I did not unilaterally post the form here, I was asked to post it. I did not initiate the 2 threads on photo net with this same subject, but I did add the form in a post there.

3. Kodak has never gone to customers before with new film or paper concepts in the form of experimental coatings. They have given pre-production samples to members of the press - meaning photo magazine editors and writers. Kodachrome 400 was killed by the magazine editors and writers by their ho-hum attitude towards it when given samples back in the 80s.

4. I do not speak for Kodak in any way whatsoever and never said I did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

5. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion.

6. Hit them with a 25,000 speed film and what do the members of the press say? Probably this... "Kodak dilutes its intensive digital effort with meaningless obsolete research in the field of analog photography". (again, I would not agree with this attitude but it is probably close to what they would say)

7. A product is something salable and manufacturable both, and it must give a useful result. This thermal film may not have all of those attributes in its current form. See my example of Ektar 25 above. They chose to ignore one of these rules hoping to solve manufacturing problems later on, but they didn't and had to remove the product from the market.

8. Since you seem to be a writer and salesman, you don't know much about the problems involved in research, development and production of a new product from a concept. Among other things, even though this was coated and demonstrated, many things such as keeping of the raw stock and the final images have to be studied before it can become a valid product. That is one reasson to get it out there for some testing before it is sold. See 7 above.

9. Exchanges like this do nothing to enhance either of us, nor the reputation of APUG, but I felt that it was necessary to clarify some points, especially regarding your statements regarding my relationship to Kodak and those about this thermal material being a product or not, and my reasons why it is not.

PE

 

[roteague]

Thanks for sharing it PE.

 

[dmr]

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately? Ever try to sell a new analog product lately?

If those analog products would generate some display ad revenue, they would listen! {meow!} <semi grin>

 

[dharris22]

Interest in Kodak film

I teach B & W photography at the College of So MD & am interested in obtaining either 4x5in sheet film or 120/220 roll film of the new Kodak 24K film.
How now, brown cow?
Dick Harris dharris 22 jon-r@tqci.net

 

[r-s]

1. This form was not given out at the conference.

Come again?

From your post, this thread, 05-09-2006, 09:06 PM:

One of the inventors handed out PREORDER FORMS at the ICIS meeting soliciting orders from potential customers

The provenance of "the form" seems fairly obvious to me from that reading. If history has changed since you posted that entry, I'm all ears.

2. I did not unilaterally post the form here, I was asked to post it.

Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion. In the post ref'd above, you initiated mention of "the form" in this thread, and then said: "I will scan in the form after the ICIS meeting is over".

That sounds kinda "unilateral" to me, but then again I never really got into that whole "what 'is' is" thing, so maybe it's just too nuanced for me to grasp. (That noise you hear is the sound of some slack being cut -- for you, by me.)

Yet, all of TWO posts later (actually, only "one" post, not counting yours!), you submitted this text: "Unless I see interest in the advance order form from Kodak for the new high speed film, I will not go to the trouble of scanning it in and posting it."

Sounds not only unilateral, but downright pushy! (Not to mention more than a tad offended at the lack of... well, at the lack of any immediate replies.)

It was after you posted that, that Lachlan Young and wirehead and probably others said that they'd like to see the form. This was after two posts by you, a bit pedantic and a bit miffed, the second of the "I'll take my marbles and go home" variety. So, you flogged it until you got someone to "request" it.

And you've got the chutzpah to call ME a "salesman"? LOL!

BTW, I also noticed various posters complaining about the lack of any in-depth information on this product.

Before departing from the topic of your having been (ahem) "asked" to post it here, I'd be remiss if I did not point out that it wasn't KODAK who did the asking.

3. Kodak has never gone to customers before with new film or paper concepts in the form of experimental coatings. They have given pre-production samples to members of the press - meaning photo magazine editors and writers. Kodachrome 400 was killed by the magazine editors and writers by their ho-hum attitude towards it when given samples back in the 80s.

I seem to recall having heard somewhere of at least one batch of Kodachrome 100 that was handed out to at least some folks who were mere photographers. I don't recall any ho-hummery about it, though.

4. I do not speak for Kodak in any way whatsoever and never said I did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please. You've made numerous factual utterances about what what they're doing (i.e., "I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read."), and so forth. Do you really want me to dig through the various statements you've made in the role of a quasi-insider/spokesman? I am not inclined to do so. Please don't say that I must. We both know they're there, as do all the other readers. This is silly. If you're going to deny something, then at least get a handle on the concept of "plausible deniability." To deny something that is obvious in the selfsame context in which he denial is issued, well, it's just silly.

5. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion.

6. Hit them with a 25,000 speed film and what do the members of the press say? Probably this... "Kodak dilutes its intensive digital effort with meaningless obsolete research in the field of analog photography". (again, I would not agree with this attitude but it is probably close to what they would say)

As you said, everyone is entitled to their opinion -- and then, you gave your opinion. I gave mine earlier, and I shan't belabor it other than to say that we differ on this point.

8. Since you seem to be a writer and salesman

Not again, groan....

To quote me, this thread, above, "Today, 05:47 PM": "I'm a writer, not a salesman". [emphasis added]

I think you need to take a break from this stuff.

I KNOW that I need one!

Bye!