I don't hate Kodak. I simply ignore them. I don't buy anything made by Kodak today.It is an "I hate Kodak" narrative from Alessandro. We all know, because Henning has made it very clear, that Kodak cannot manufacture enough film to fill demand. In particular colour negative film but also Ektachrome. Additionally, anecdotal evidence from various posters around the world confirms that these films are often out of stock with retailers unable to get hold of it. That's not because Kodak are evil, it's because they didn't anticipate the revival in sales and can no longer make enough for the demand. Fuji also has issues with C200 and NPH400. It's not conjecture, it's not opinion.
Unless you are calling Henning a liar. In which case just say so.
And honestly comparing sales in the first half of 2020 with 2019 when much of the world was economically shut down for months in 2020 and claiming there is no revival is beneath contempt. Film could not be manufactured, or distributed....some consumers couldn't buy because they were in "lockdown" and it was freakin' illegal for them to visit a camera shop and the online distributors hadn't yet sorted their deliveries out in lockdown conditions.....some lost their jobs and/or were temporarily laid off in countries that weren't generous with furlough schemes and couldn't afford to buy film. The whole world economy was phracked in the first half of 2020.
I don't hate Kodak. I simply ignore them. I don't buy anything made by Kodak today.
Simpler, better, cheaper.
I have my opinion, Henning has his opinion, everybody is entitled to have their own opinions. You don't agree with mine, fine. I just don't care.
Yes, a couple of these same "economists" went through this nonsense with Fujifilm on a different thread. Of course, we know that both Fuji and Kodak specifically aimed their pricing structure to destroy their ability to take photographs.And now the "I hate Kodak" chanting to begin. Please run out and cut your nose off.
No, they aimed their pricing to fish the hipster Joe...Yes, a couple of these same "economists" went through this nonsense with Fujifilm on a different thread. Of course, we know that both Fuji and Kodak specifically aimed their pricing structure to destroy their ability to take photographs.
Please shut up, we don't need your "lesson".Except you do care because you keep going on about it.
There is also a difference between opinion and verifiable fact. Henning brings information from the industry, some of which is independently verifiable. And he's never been proved wrong. If you have evidence that he's not telling the truth then I suggest you post it or shut up.
Please shut up, we don't need your "lesson".
Get off that pulpit.
It's yours and Sirius Glass fault.Thank you for your kind words.
None of what you say is of any value. If you believe Henning is not telling the truth, please provide the evidence. Be as specific as you like and if such evidence exists I'll be the first to eat humble pie.
When you are right, there is no need for modesty nor humility. After all it has been said and it has been written, "Right is Might" or was it "Might is Right"? Whatever I don't need no stinkin' modesty, besides I gave up humility for Lent along with abstinence.
It's yours and Sirius Glass fault.
You both have started all of this.
Still waiting. I suspect it will be a rather long wait so I'm not holding my breath.
Eastman Kodak is a printing services company that still has a relatively small, historical division that makes film.I just looked at EK financial statement and I don't see the revival.
NOTE 13: REVENUE
Disaggregation of Revenue
Film sales, fist 6 months of 2020: $71MM
Film sales, fist 6 months of 2019: $80MM
They don't report photo chemicals separately, but they bundle film+all chemicals together into "Advanced materials and chemicals" division, and it's not pretty:
6 months of 2020: $80MM
6 months of 2019: $100MM
Moreover, looks like the bulk of their revenue is printing services, and it shrank from $347MM for the first 6 months of 2019 to $273MM for the same period in 2020
Recently, I put in the time and effort to replace deteriorated foam surrounds on the woofers of my 24 year old Allison CD-9s. They're driven by an Adcom GFA-555. Today I was listening to the following CD...Where do you think the word "splice" came from? Ever see a splicing block? A device that, in combination with a single-edge razor blade, is used to put together different sections of tape? From different takes?
There's nothing more "authentic" about the talent of an "artist" whose performance was recorded via an analog medium than one captured using digitizing equipment. One can debate the adequacy of digital standards -- I personally discussed optimal audio sampling rate with Bob Fine, who'd concluded that at least 100k per second was necessary, at an Audio Engineering Society meeting many decades ago -- but claims about vinyl's inherent "superiority" are nonsense on their face...
Recently, I put in the time and effort to replace deteriorated foam surrounds on the woofers of my 24 year old Allison CD-9s. They're driven by an Adcom GFA-555. Today I was listening to the following CD
which was recorded, performers arrayed around a stereo mike, in the very studio where my AES conversation with Bob Fine took place. Anyone who believes vinyl is superior in any way to a competent playback of that CD has drunk so much Kool-Aid it's overflowing and pouring onto their keyboard.
Exactly the kind of elitist techno-blather response I was expecting. Are you posting as the ghost of Jim Jones?Typical AES Borg! Your system is far from good enough to here what either format is capable of!...
If you had any idea how good my hearing is, you'd slither away with your tail between your legs. Troll....But the relevance of that last statement only applies to those who can hear well enough!
Exactly the kind of elitist techno-blather response I was expecting. Are you posting as the ghost of Jim Jones?
If you had any idea how good my hearing is, you'd slither away with your tail between your legs. Troll.
Recently, I put in the time and effort to replace deteriorated foam surrounds on the woofers of my 24 year old Allison CD-9s. They're driven by an Adcom GFA-555. Today I was listening to the following CD
which was recorded, performers arrayed around a stereo mike, in the very studio where my AES conversation with Bob Fine took place. Anyone who believes vinyl is superior in any way to a competent playback of that CD has drunk so much Kool-Aid it's overflowing and pouring onto their keyboard.
Unlike you, my ears are mid-fi.A red book CD is simply not capable of storing even all audible musical information, letalone the upper harmonics which interfere with each other and produce audible beats.
I have never in my life heard a good sounding CD.
I still use loudspeakers that I made myself in 1989 as a teenager. I tuned them by ear. A few years ago I had occasion to have them tested and the frequency response is dead flat from 18Hz to 23kHz apart from resonance at 35Hz. I've also had my hearing tested regularly because it was discovered in 1980 that my hearing is "super human"...I could hear to 32kHz and reliably detect 1/2 Hz differences between two notes in the "nomal" hearing rage of 20Hz to 20kHz. Sliding into middle age I'm still able to hear to 20kHz and still reliably detect 1/2 Hz differences in tones which puts me in the top 0.05% of humans my age.
Believe me. I've never heard a CD that did anything more than cause me physical pain. The top end is all wrong. The swirl of audio that you actually hear when a musician strikes a cymbal, for example, is reproduced correctly by vinyl and high res digital.....it is the aural equivalent of looking at mother of pearl.....but on a CD....it's just a mess. A total mess. And don't get me started on what they call soundstage. But it's not just a digital vs analogue thing. DVD-A can utilise much higher resolution audio, up to 192kHz sampling rates at 24bit depth. Such recordings sound great, *feel* the same as vinyl or reel to reel tape. The sound is subtly different but the feel is the same. I've listened to CDs not only on my own system but in studios. The same. The top end just disintegrates into mush. Across all genres. Regardless of mastering levels. The people wo invented the thing described it as "mid fi at best" back in 1982. It was only the US marketing department of Phillips which claimed they were "perfect". The people actually working on it never approved that marketing guff and to this day feel it was misleading.
But yeah...it's just the Kool Aid.
I am George Mann aka the Great Genius! I and Tesla are the greatest inventors and engineers the world has ever seen!...my hearing acuity is world renownd (unmatched) in audio circles!...
Ah, the burdens of superhuman perception. Whenever anyone posts "believe me," a red flag goes up to indicate the writer is really communicating "I'm full of it."...I have never in my life heard a good sounding CD....Believe me. I've never heard a CD that did anything more than cause me physical pain...
By the tanker truck load....it's just the Kool Aid.
- Aesthetically prefer the imperfections "analog" imposes
Ah, the burdens of superhuman perception. Whenever anyone posts "believe me," a red flag goes up to indicate the writer is really communicating "I'm full of it."By the tanker truck load.
Returning to the subject of this thread, noting that I have and regularly use film cameras from 35mm through 11x14, let's get real. The only technical reason to work in gelatin silver or alternative processes is for their prints' life expectancy. Inkjet prints cannot compete, irrespective of paper or inkset used. In all other respects, a fully digital workflow provides output that is technically superior. Them's the facts. Those who deny them fall into one or more of the following categories:
This is PHOTRIO, folks. It ain't APUG any more. There's a reason for that.
- Trying to sell things and seek some way to distinguish themselves from the competition
- Aesthetically prefer the imperfections "analog" imposes
- Are part of the young "in crowd" who seek some way to stand out from a world of cell phone photographers.
...Aesthetically prefer the imperfections "analog" imposes...
Objection overruled -- by reality.It's the imperfections of digital that we object to!
No, I did not. You drink the Kool-Aid by believing that whatever 99.9999999999th percentile hearing acuity you claim to possess is relevant to the purpose of systems designed for listening to recorded music. Remember that -- music? The reason for all this is widespread dissemination of music to persons not present when it was performed. Among those whose hearing falls short of what you say yours is, i.e. pretty damn near 100% of the human population, pops, ticks, swooshes, etc. (defects ubiquitous with vinyl) are vastly more apparent and annoying than the digital artifacts you hear and complain about. The vast preponderance of listeners couldn't hear the digital artifacts.YOU DARE ACCUSE ME OF BEING A LIAR...
Well, I remember on APUG some zealots of analog photography making some insulting comments (dog s**t and the like) whenever the discussion touched ever so remotely anything d*****l. Disclosure: I do all my hobby photography on film, and use d* only for documentation.We do have a tendency to polarise more on Photrio than I remember we did on APUG
Objection overruled -- by reality.
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?