Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: design_freak on September 24, 2013, 07:13:16 pm
-
Nice news :)
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film
-
Let´s hope they bring back a few things too, like chromes. But as long as I can keep shooting TMAX and Portra I´ll be a happy camper.
-
Very good news.
-
This is non-news really; of course the new owners of the film division are going to keep it operating in some fashion, to get some revenue for the pension fund that now owns it. But please do not get into delusional fantasies about reviving beloved but discontinued products or adding new ones; the article itself says that:
[Dennis Olbrich, president of Kodak Alaris' personalised imaging business] adds that while film remain important for Kodak, that category is mature and doesn't need additional products. "There's not a lot more you can expect, so you won't see massive changes in our offering. We're really focussed on continuing with what we have today," ...
Read more: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film
-
I especially don't see the return of Kodachrome!
Not only would they have to retool for production but reopen processing lines. Anyway, I rather think that today's people would be reluctant to pay what film and processing would cost - digital has opened another 'free' avenue to expression that's unlikely to support much of a pay-for-it alternative...
It's a nice thing to look back, but everything has to change, however inconvenient that often is for those affected.
I am mystified at the maths: isn't it a bit like my buying my own meagre bank account from myself and expecting that action to make me money?
As I read it, that would necessitate taking out a loan to the value of what I have on deposit, paying myself for my new old account via that loan, and then somehow, paying for that loan plus interest... so - what creates the wealth to finance my loan and make me better off than I was before I started to get clever? Or is getting clever the whole point, even if it means you become more poor?
Very confusing; maybe it's all about quantitative easing. Or hedging my bets. Or recognizing myself as a prime sub-prime punter. Maybe best just have a cup of coffee - if I can then still afford one, but maybe if I make one for myself from old beans bought earlier before I sold them back to myself on borrowed money...
;-(
Rob C
-
Continuing on with Portra will suit me fine. For transparencies I'm happy enough to use Provia. Now if I had my druthers I'd still be firing away with Kodachrome, but it's gone and I've moved on...more or less. :D
-Dave-
-
This is non-news really; of course the new owners of the film division are going to keep it operating in some fashion, to get some revenue for the pension fund that now owns it. But please do not get into delusional fantasies about reviving beloved but discontinued products or adding new ones; the article itself says that:
Is the glass half empty or half full? I would say it is half full. This is great news! I am glad Tri-X and T-Max are not lost forever.
-
I'm hopeful this means a longer life of the two films I mostly use, Portra and T-max. But if you read the article, its not exactly like he's giving the film part of the business a lock.
-
http://www.filmsnotdead.com/2013/09/20/dear-films-not-dead-fans-a-letter-from-kodak-alaris/
-
Is the glass half empty or half full? I would say it is half full. This is great news! I am glad Tri-X and T-Max are not lost forever.
The glass is as full as one can reasonably ask for; for now at least existing Kodak film products like Portra and Tmax are safe. I was only warning against futile hopes that the new owners would try to put a quart into a pint pot, by reviving products that had some time ago ceased to be profitable due to diminishing demand. Even the healthiest photographic film survivor, Fujifilm, continues to reduce its offerings.
-
Even the healthiest photographic film survivor, Fujifilm, continues to reduce its offerings.
They, Fujifilm Holdings, may be healthy but that isn't because of film "Within a decade, film went from 60% of Fujifilm's profits to basically nothing."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/01/how-fujifilm-survived
"When lumped together, the film and digital camera business lost less money than last year, but it still lost 2.2 billion yen (US$23 million at today's rate)."
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/fujifilm-yearly-financials.html
Don't hold your breath on big business keeping going in film, look to Harman (Ilford), who arguably are healthy because of film or at least monochrome imaging, and the other small European makers, at least while the machinery is functional. I hope someone is busy designing a coating machine more in line with the future than the past capacity requirements.