The B&W dream that will never be

<blockquote><i>I mentioned about seeing if a special run could be ordered and he basically said once its discontinued- that's it. "Even if you had a million dollars they would not produce it" he said. I asked if I could have a contact of someone to talk or write to to voice wanting this film to come back and he said "You've got it". No mention of putting my name down on a list to request it return.</i></blockquote>

<p>

It's that kind of customer relations/marketing savvy that helped make Kodak the company it is today.

<blockquote><i>I spoke with a technician at Kodak and he explained that the film is made on large rolls then cut down to sheet or small roll size. The film is then stored in a huge salt mine in New York state to help reduce low level gamma radiation exposure, it is then distributed from there. Because so much film is made during a production run, years will go by before a new run is considered.</i></blockquote>

<p>

And heaven forbid they do what any <i>other</I> commodity manufacturer would do when faced with similar market conditions -- SCALE DOWN THE OPERATION, to deliver what the customers require, in the VOLUME they require it!

<p>

Funny how Efke and the rest of the little outfits have learned the black art of coating film in <i>less</i> than "too damn much to sell" quantities.

<p>

Perhaps they'd be willing to license their top-secret technology to Kodak?

<blockquote><i>As time goes by technology changes and the old substrates are no longer available. </i></blockquote>

<p>

And the world would end if they coated it on a <i>different</I> support?

<p>

Show of hands, please. How many of you would flat out <i>refuse</I> to buy Tech Pan if it came on normal thickness support instead of the ultra thin Estar base?

<p>

<blockquote><i>It appears the biggest problem is actually environmental laws and EPA restrictions. In the case of Panatomic-X, this film uses Cesium and is now a restricted chemical and no longer permitted in the waste stream in any amount. </i></blockquote>

<p>

When I cook a recipe, and I can't find one of the ingredients, I do something that all moderately competent cooks do: I find a workable substitute. Unless, that is, I simply don't <i>want</i> to cook that dish.

<p>

<blockquote><i>Additionally it has been so long since a Pan-X run has been done all of the coating machinery has been disassemble or destroyed.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Funny the way that keeps happening. You'd think by now they'd find the guy who's running around doing that to their machinery.

<p>

In fact, you'd think they'd find the guy who keeps forgetting to warn the customers about production cessation until <i>after</I> the machinery has all been dismantled.

<p>

<blockquote><i>With the focus on digital and streamlining film stocks to profitable lines, the old films have no chance of a comeback from Kodak. It would simply be way to expensive to re-engineer an old film look using all new chemicals, a new substrate and building a new coating process. Sorry. Enjoy what is left.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Remember the old (<i>old</I>) Saturday Night Live "Scotch Tape Store"?

<p>

"Welcome to the TMAX store!"

<p>

Someone else posted a restaurant metaphor, where the menu is progressively pared down until the only remaining items are the ones with the highest profit margin.

<p>

The punchline is that once they reach that nirvana point, no one can figure why <i>sales</I> drop down to nothing.

<p>

Until "The West" is morphed into a clone of the old Soviet GUM "department" store, and people will line up for blocks to buy a roll of toilet paper (<i>any</I> toilet paper, when available), this kind of myopic "we'll just keep on slashing until they're forced to buy what we make the most money selling" mentality will fail.

<p>

Man, will it ever fail...

Reuben;

 

The upswing in single use cameras is taking place in 3rd world countries, where they don't want slides and cannot afford expensive cameras. It is taking place here because some first generation digital users are experiencing loss of pictures due to failing CDs and HDs. These people want prints, not slides. So, your reasoning for #1 is wrong.

 

As for EK being the company it is today, it is the largest single photographic manufacturing company in both digital and conventional in the world. It is #1 in digital sales in the USA. So you actually are saying something nice?

 

From the complaints on-line about EFKE film curl, softness, scratching and other problems (I suspect raw stock and latent image keeping as well as reciprocity failure will also rear up their heads soon), I believe that this is a step backwards until EFKE comes UP to EK and Fuji standard practices in emulsion making and coating quality. Don't mistake me, they are good, but just a bit like EK and Fuji in the 60s. And with EKs product mix and scheduling demands for world-wide production, your comments just don't make sense.

 

This kind of demolishes your last 3 posts. I'm glad you are not an EK mgr. Then they would really be more in the shape you believe they are in. Sorry. They are pretty well off compared to Ferrania, Ilford and Agfa for example. In fact, Fuji posted a huge loss for the quarter. So, it seems to me that EK is at the top of the heap.

 

Good luck in your future predictions. IIRC, Jean Dixon once cancelled a visit to Rochester, predicting a huge snow storm. Instead, the city experienced a spring thaw and balmy weather. So much for 'crystal balls'.

 

Ron Mowrey

<blockquote><i>As for EK being the company it is today, it is the largest single photographic manufacturing company in both digital and conventional in the world. It is #1 in digital sales in the USA.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Show me the chart on their film sales volume.

<p>

Show me the PROMOTION they've done for Kodachrome. Take your time, I'll wait.

<p>

<blockquote><i>From the complaints on-line about EFKE film curl, softness, scratching and other problems (I suspect raw stock and latent image keeping as well as reciprocity failure will also rear up their heads soon), I believe that this is a step backwards until EFKE comes UP to EK and Fuji standard practices in emulsion making and coating quality. Don't mistake me, they are good, but just a bit like EK and Fuji in the 60s. And with EKs product mix and scheduling demands for world-wide production, your comments just don't make sense. </i></blockquote>

<p>

Strawman argument. Those sort of <i>alleged</I> Q/C issues have zilch to do with <i>volume</I>, unless you're suggesting that if Kodak were to make shorter production runs, <i>its</I> film would curl, scratch, lose latent image, and have reciprocity issues?

<p>

If that's what you're saying, I am genuinely interested in hearing the mechanism that links production run size with things like reciprocity characteristics and emulsion hardness.

<p>

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. What I really mean to say is that I just don't buy it.

<p>

Size ain't everything.

<p>

<blockquote><i>

This kind of demolishes your last 3 posts.

</i></blockquote>

 

<p>

LMAO!

Reuben;

 

All I can suggest is that you go here:

 

http://democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/search

 

and read for yourself.

 

As for Kodachrome, all reversal film sales are way down, not just EK, but in the mean time negative film sales are up. I stand by that as well. When EK did advertize Kodachrome it made absolutely no significant impact on sales.

 

But, since you obviously know so much about the internal workings of EK, I guess I can never convince you of that. I know though from experience. Reuben, EK had a 400 speed Kodachrome ready to market and in the blitz of ads for the new Kodachromes when the latest ones came out - sales dropped, so the 400 speed film was cancelled.

 

As far as EK quality, the large production size contributes to coating and batch uniformity. Making enough of all of the EK family of films for WW consumption requires the machines to be tuned for large batches. EFKE and others make no color, and make few products for limited markets. Therefore they have greater nonuniformity from batch to batch and more coating defects. They make emulsions using last generation technology, and this will probably lead to more problems with LIK, reciprocity and etc.

 

I've done my research, but you are speaking from some viewpoint which leads you to feel you know the inside scoop. Well, you don't.

 

One bottom line question... Have you ever discussed any of these questions with an EK VP or top manager? I have. And, I'm just telling you the parts of the conversation that I feel I can pass on.

 

Ron Mowrey

Dan Carp, in his latest speech to stockholders, said EK would spend 15% percent more on advertsing in the coming fiscal year than it did in the previous year. That's an extra 90 MILLION based on the previous year's 600 MILLION! Let me see, I can bet they'll spend almost nothing on film! Film has a BIG profit margin, where digital has very little. Go figure!

 

Robert Johnson

Gentlemen;

 

In the latest issue of Rangefinder, EK has 12 pages of ads. Six of those pages are for film and six for digital.

 

I guess you might just be wrong in your assumptions. You might do similar homework yourself. I find that the ads are rather balanced for both lines by EK.

 

In the same issue, Fuji had 7 ads, of which only 2 were for film.

 

Interesting? Typical ad balance, I find, and typical misstatements by posters on the forum. Guys, your comments are how 'myths' are born.

 

Better luck next time.

 

Ron Mowrey

Rangefinder is a publication slanted towards wedding, event, school type photographers. I only see the professional/advanced amateur photographer type publications, such as Pop. Photo, Outdoor Photo, American Photo, French Photo, French "Hunter of Images" and the like. For Kodak, there is only one film ad in four of those December issues (all I could find that hadn't been tossed) in contrast to 6 pages of digital/ink jet paper ads. For Fuji, no film ads at all. The EK film ad is a full page one for 400UC, a film I have bought, but don't intend on buying again. FYI, you can now buy this film at Wal-Mart and Target. It appears to be collecting dust on the hang rack! Lady behind the counter at Wal-Mart said she had never had a roll returned for processing. I did have them process a roll I shot with a Nikon F6 NPS loaned me to test out for about an hour at a pro show. It told me what I wanted to know without prints.

 

Robert Johnson

Robert;

 

About 50% of Rangefinder is digital and the rest conventional. The point here is that you and many others on PN consider themselves to be professional or near professional. I felt that Rangefinder was a valid source.

 

As for Pop Photography, I've seen it vary from issue to issue, with plenty of B&H, Adorama, and Calumet ads for film and paper as well as digital products.

 

The bottom line is that EK still advertizes all product lines.

 

In our local supermarkets, there are racks with Gold film and HD film and disposable cameras all over the place at checkout lanes and near the door with the photofinishing lab.

 

Ritz and the others show EK ads and Fuji ads in the window and within the store, as do our professional store. OTOH, one pro store has converted to all digital. So, it varies, but ads still exist.

 

I have made a point elsewhere that sales of conventional products are rather brisk in 3rd world countries as are the advertizing campains. I have seen several EK ads from China featuring consumer films. It does not take away from the single fact that a heavy ad campaign for the present Kodachrome when it was first issued was a total failure. Sales, even with test market ads are dismal and that includes Ektachrome, both of which are considered "professional" films. The sustaining film sales at the present time come from color negative films.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>The bottom line is that EK still advertizes all product lines. </I>

<p>

Oh?

<p>

Where might I see the ads for Kodachrome?

<p>

Or are you generalizing "film" as a "product line"?

<p>

<i>a heavy ad campaign for the present Kodachrome when it was first issued was a total failure.</i>

<p>

A reasonable man might conclude that either the film (Kodachrome) sucked, or, the ad campaign sucked.

<p>

A reasonable man might conclude that Kodachrome does not suck.

<p>

Therefore, a reasonable man might conclude that the ad campaign may very well have sucked.

<p>

And, a reasonable man might observe that in other industries, "ad campaign" is not considered a generic commodity, in which "any ol' ad" will do. Different ad agencies exist. Mattachine Avenue is seething with them. When one campaign flops, it's not unusual to try a <i>different</I> campaign, rather than present the <i>product</I> with the mat and sword and "Seppuku for Idiots" manual.

<p>

Wouldn't it be something if <i>every</I> manufacturer dropped <i>products</i> every time an <i>ad campaign</I> flopped?

<p>

It would certainly make <i>shopping</I> a lot easier.

<p>

Instead of wandering the aisles, we'd be able to walk to a few convenient stacks -- "macaroni" -- "cheese" -- "meat" -- "beer" -- "soap".

<p>

And think of how the bottom line would benefit, when those "less profitable" items weren't manufactured anymore!

<p>

Of course, there are those who are of the belief that such "workers paradise" style "selection" lead to <i>reduced</I> purchases. People buy the absolute minimum.

<p>

"Tasha, did you get the soap today?"

<p>

"Nyet, tovarishch Vanya, was out of soap today. Factory 42 did not meet its production quota, it was still making lard for last month's production."

<p>

"Such is life."

<p>

"Da, such is life."

<p>

But as to your assertion that smaller than gargantuan product runs would make it impossible to turn out a quality product, once again, I'm not buyin' it. Kodak obviously does have the ability to produce small batches of film. They hand out rolls from relatively small test batches (I believe we're talking several thousand rolls at a time, but you'd be in a better position to talk about that than me.) I know they do this because I know of people who have received these test rolls. In fact, I'm replying to one of these people right now!

<p>

Sorry, Mr. M., I'm not buying the idea that mass production is the only way to deliver a quality product. It may play well in the hyperventilated quarterly-report-driven economy, but in a historical context, I don't think you'll find too many gourmet chefs believing that Mickey Dee turns out a better product than that which comes out of their own kitchen.

<p>

I'll grant that <i>cost</I> of production does scale dramatically. I just don't buy the idea that the only way to turn out the best possible quality is to use the methods you advocate.

<p>

If nothing else, my belief is borne out by the fact that Kodak's best emulsions are dead and gone, killed by the steady hoofbeat of the kind of "progress" you promote.

<p>

If "volume" really could deliver the <i>best</I> quality, we wouldn't be crying for Panatomic X, Tech Pan, Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, Royal Gold 100, Supra 100... the list goes on, but I'm too weary to continue it. You either get my point by now, or you continue to pump sunshine where it doth not belong.

<p>

I can appreciate your undying loyalty to the company that formerly employed you. I can't quite <i>understand</I> it, given <I>their</I> lack of equivalent loyalty to the <i>customers</I> who after all paid the way, but that's show biz.

<p>

Ultimately, every mother lovin' bean-countin' yuppie "manager" will learn life's brutal lesson: It's not "investors" that make money for the company -- it's <i>customers</i>.

<p>

A committment to whore oneself to the investor base <i>will</I> likely result in impressive stock charts. For a while, at least. But long term, stock traders ain't gonna bring home the bacon.

<p>

They're only gonna trim it off, and then move on to the next carcass.

<p>

JMO, YMMV.

Reuben;

 

You misunderstand some basic facts.

 

First. When the EPA tells you that you can no longer manufacture one of your products because the process to manufacture it uses toxic chemicals that cannot be used any longer, then you simply must move on and develop a new product. There is no alternative. So, we can no longer buy hexachlorophene antibacterial soaps and todays antibacterial soaps are inferior to those available 20 years ago. In a similar manner, EK has redesigned emulsions to use newer, non toxic chemistry and if you feel these products are inferior, that is your right, but that is what EK can manufacture with EPA approval. If EFKE or for that matter, Fuji can use these toxic chemicals, that is beside the point for EK except for the fact that EFKE might be able to produce an emulsion that you might consider 'better' than a modern EK film.

 

I am interested in the fact that you ignored the huge losses posted by Fuji in spite of their advertising campains. Sometimes, ads just don't work if there is a paradigm shift in the public. Where is Brylcream today or Dr Lyons Toothpowder? Brylcream had a huge ad campaign if you may remember. People (the majority) in the 80s wanted Ektachrome and Kodacolor film and not Kodachrome films. It matters not how many die hards there are for Kodachrome out there, if the general public will not buy it for whatever reason in spite of an ad campaign. People did not want Kodachrome. Proof of this follows from the fact that in spite of heavy ads by Fuji and Konica, their Kodachrome equivalents died off completely. The amateur film using public shifted to color negative and Ektachrome due to costs and turnaround time. The Kodachrome users are a small fanatical group that is steadily shrinking regardless of the quality of the film or the availability of the process.

 

Yes, EK can manufacture smaller batches in the pilot lab for both film and paper. I have used both and have coated research coatings of paper and made very fine prints on them. So what? The market for Plus X or Panatomic X requires more frequent and larger runs than the pilot lab or any similar scale facility could make. It requires a huge facility. The up and down swings during the onset of digital played havoc in coating schedules to meet demands without waste of a perishable product. EK cannot maintain several sizes of coating facilities and just leave them idle when one product lags in sales. It cannot divert pilot facilities to production on a dime. This would be like Ford or Chevrolet using research staff to hand build specialty cars with a low market presence.

 

I feel that it is useless to try to explain the realities of the situation to you as your opinions have closed your mind completely. I am not trying to be loyal to EK, I'm just more in tune with the realities of the situation than you are it appears. It is a complex and dynamic situation, trying to produce products in a market that is fluctuating so wildly.

 

Lets wait a few years and when the dust settles, see who is left standing. And, I hope in the meantime, you might concede just to yourself, but heaven forbid not in public, that I might know more about this subject than you do. If I'm right, you will find EK, Fuji and Ilford still standing. When the economy of Eastern Europe gets back on its feet, maybe EFKE will vanish as the people convert to digital. Who knows.

 

Ron Mowrey

Oh man.

<p>

Where to begin, where to begin...

<p>

<blockquote><i>When the EPA tells you that you can no longer manufacture one of your products because the process to manufacture it uses toxic chemicals that cannot be used any longer, then you simply must move on and develop a new product. There is no alternative.</i></blockquote>

<p>

You keep alluding to these alleged EPA edicts, and I'm now gonna call you on it.

<p>

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm certainly not saying that I <i>do</I> believe you either.

<p>

Given your curious track record with facts (see below), I'll reserve judgement until you supply references. Or, until you <i>don't</I> supply references.

<p>

Your move, maestro.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>we can no longer buy hexachlorophene antibacterial soaps</i></blockquote>

<p>

Really?

<p>

Then perhaps you'd best quit wasting your time with <i>me</I>, and go tilting after <a href="http://www.walgreens.com/library/finddrug/druginfo1.jhtml?id=4357"><i>this</i> windmill</a>!

<p>

Your record is looking worse by the moment, mon ami.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>EK has redesigned emulsions to use newer, non toxic chemistry and if you feel these products are inferior, that is your right, but that is what EK can manufacture with EPA approval.</i></blockquote>

<p>

I think you might want to spend some time <a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm">[here]</a> before playing the Logical Fallacy game much longer.

<p>

You're just not all that good at it.

<p>

But, since you stepped on it with the above, I will again ask you to supply references for your assertion that the EPA is telling Kodak that it may not make the films under discussion. And I will again reserve judgement on the matter until you do supply citations. Or, until you don't.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>If EFKE or for that matter, Fuji can use these toxic chemicals, that is beside the point for EK except for the fact that EFKE might be able to produce an emulsion that you might consider 'better' than a modern EK film.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Are you asserting that there is some simple issue with offshore vs. domestic manufacture?

<p>

I'm not sure you really want to go <i>there</i>, given the recent relationship between Kodak and Lucky. Because if you're saying what it sounds like you're saying, these allegedly prohibited emulsions can simply be "Made in China" any time Kodak feels like doing so.

<p>

I am also offended at your implied suggestion that the emulsions under discussion were <i>not</I> better than their "replacements".

<p>

Please, go look up Ektar 25's PGI, and then get back with me with a "replacement" that has better numbers. Or even <i>equal</I> numbers.

<p>

I should create a "Take your time, I'll wait." keyboard macro.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>It matters not how many die hards there are for Kodachrome out there, if the general public will not buy it for whatever reason in spite of an ad campaign. People did not want Kodachrome. Proof of this follows from the fact that in spite of heavy ads by Fuji and Konica, their Kodachrome equivalents died off completely. The amateur film using public shifted to color negative and Ektachrome due to costs and turnaround time.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Oh, please. That tune just won't play. Velvia rolled in and clobbered Kodak. Rochester was caught with its pants down, and it didn't know how to respond. Tokyo blindsided your hero, and the rest is history. As to Fuji's financials, don't forget the China Behemoth, in large part created by shortsighted American companies who are racing to export our entire economy to an avowed enemy (go read "Unrestricted Warfare" written by some PLA insiders, translated to English by the CIA, your tax dollars at work, for once; google it up, you can download the entire book for free).

<p>

But let's get back on point. Point being, for a world in which "people don't want Kodachrome" (paraphrase), Fuji certainly knew how to get them to want <i>Fujichrome</I>.

<p>

I will concede that Kodachrome's "problems" were not restricted to the absence of any detectable marketing effort.

<p>

There was also the "who give's a rip" problem with Qualex, which drove <i>many</I> photographers fleeing into the welcome arms of Fuji.

<p>

Kodak fumbled the ball, and has now holed the hull of their flagship product, and you and your ilk persist in blaming the <i>customer</i>.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>The market for Plus X or Panatomic X requires more frequent and larger runs than the pilot lab or any similar scale facility could make.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Make up your mind, willya?

<p>

You're playing the double corner of the checkerboard. First the demand is too small, then it's too big. You switch sides fast enough to make <i>my</I> head spin. You take whichever position is convenient at the moment, regardless of how it contradicts your <i>previous</i> positions. I fear we're impinging on "What 'is' is" territory!

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>EK cannot maintain several sizes of coating facilities and just leave them idle when one product lags in sales.</i></blockquote>

<p>

So say you.

<p>

However, you've <i>also</I> said that they can rapidly swap coating mix <i>during</I> a run, for instance, when one vessel runs empty, instead of stopping the line, you said they make note of the position in the master roll, reload the vessel with more emulsion soup, make note of where it begins coating again, and then trim out everything in between those two points, categorizing it as, I believe you used the term "coating defect" or something akin to it.

<p>

What's to prevent them from starting the master roll as Panatomic-X, then a few thousand feet later, changing over to "Thick-base Tech Pan", and so forth?

<p>

I suspect the main obstacle is the lack of any <i>interest</I> in seeing traditional materials extend their lifespan on the market. After all, film is a threat to digital, and "digital is the future", isn't it? Gotta make that transition, right? Bring those luddite customers to the mat, kicking and screaming if necessary, right? It's for their own good. Keep telling yourself that. Who knows? Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself of it.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>It cannot divert pilot facilities to production on a dime.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Oh really?

<p>

Why would <i>that</I> be?

<p>

Are they <i>that</I> much the hive of busy little bees, occupied with the R&D efforts to come up with newer, better emulsions?

<p>

Please go bone up on the material on that last link I provided before answering that question, OK? :)

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>This would be like Ford or Chevrolet using research staff to hand build specialty cars with a low market presence.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Do you know how Detroit (or Tokyo, etc) builds cars?

<p>

They have one line for <i>all</I> similar models. They all start out the same. The metaphor for film would be "support". Then, they apply the required options (engine, interior appointments, trim, accessories, etc.) as required for each specific car. The film metaphor would be "emulsion".

<p>

When the cars roll off the line, each one is <i>different</i> from the others.

<p>

Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, <i>all</I> roll off the <i>same</I> assembly line.

<p>

And this predates "JIT" (as well as ISO-9XXX) by many decades.

<p>

As to "research staff", <i>what</i> are they "researching"?

<p>

You can't have it both ways. Either the market is retracting, consolidating to <i>fewer</i> products, cutting down to the most profitable existing lines, or, they're "R&Ding" <i>new</I> products to compete, and keep the medium alive.

<p>

You're once again taking two contradictory positions. Bad form, tsk tsk.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>I feel that it is useless to try to explain the realities of the situation to you as your opinions have closed your mind completely.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Nice try, I'll get back with you on that when I stop laughing.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>Lets wait a few years and when the dust settles, see who is left standing.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Exactly who and what is trying to knock who and what out of the ring, according to you?

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>I might know more about this subject than you do.</i></blockquote>

<p>

You might not know very much about how the world works. I'd suggest less of your spin-control efforts, and more attention to realpolitik.

<p> <p>

 

<p>

<blockquote><i>maybe EFKE will vanish as the people convert to digital.</i></blockquote>

<p>

Maybe that's "the goal"?

<p>

It seems like that's the bullseye you keep orbiting. Digital prevailing over film. Now, I'll concede that if that <i>is</I> The Goal, it <i>does</I> help make sense of a <i>lot</I> of the otherwise nonsensical (marketwise) that we've seen.

<p> <p>

Look... I'm resigned to the loss of the grand, beautiful emulsions of the past. I've accepted that "progress" is running in negative-einstein-time, with NewerBetterFaster films having less resolution etc. than the older "obsolete" films they replaced. My freezer is my friend, and it runneth over. Literally. I've got to buy a second freezer soon to store my hoard.

<p>

It's just that I don't think that reducing photographers to this sort of thing is <i>good</I> for anyone or anything other than "digital", which, frankly, I detest.

<p>

Sure, digital has its place. But it won't replace real photography, just as photograpy never replaced sketching or painting, just as <i>no</I> DIFFERENT metaphor replaces anything else.

<p>

For giggles, after you finish boning up on the material I linked above, you might want to dip into McLuhan's "Understanding Media" and "The Medium is The Message" some time.

 

Kodak's marketing dept is focusing alot on C41 disposables; how they are packaged; the cute mini-displays at the end of Walmart asles. I saw at least 4 different ones at Walmart last night; ie 4 different themes in just a few minutes. In the camera/film section; they had more disposable types. There are alot of ways to dress up old Max Zoom 800!

Reuben;

 

Thanks for the learned but uninformed discussion.

 

1. Hexachlorophene is still available but not in across the counter soaps. Try to find PHisohex soaps and lotions now days. Even the note you referred to mentions that the item they sell is not to be used on babies. In the 60s and 70s, newborns were wiped down with a weak hexachlorophene lotion wash and the hospital gave each new mother a bottle of PHisohex to take home with them. A friend of mine nearly lost his son due to a staph infection shortly after birth due to the restriction on using PHisohex, and the lack of any at the local stores. This was all due to the EPA rules against it. You see, it is similar to the poly-chlorinated biphenyls that are now banned from use in the electronics industry and the byproducts in manufacture include dioxins which are also present in agent orange. It is virtually impossible to degrade hexachlorophene in the environment. So much for your knowledge of this subject.

 

2. The specific chemicals banned in photographic materials include Cadmium and Mercury. These are now forbidden, under EPA and OSHA rules to be used in photographic materials. Also included were ferricyanide and a host of other ingredients in both the emulsions and in the processing chemistry. I don't need a reference to tell you about the toxicity of mercury, do I? If I do, you are as mad as a hatter. If you don't get this one, you failed again.

 

3. Production and Pilot facilities are scheduled months in advance. Research facilities are also scheduled far in advance. A small window is open on each facility for emergencies, and a machine down for routine mantenance can be brought up to meet such an event. So, there are possibilities, however making a film is quite complex involving months of work to bring everything together. You obviously don't have any idea of the process at all. Your example is the best one for me to use and the worst for an example of your so-called understanding.

 

Changing support type and/or thickness during one coating operation is one of the most difficult of all operations due to the change in the adhesion to a support and the thickness of the support. That 'bump in the road' requires a complete change in the formulation of the emulsion being coated, and a compelet reconfiguration of the head end of the coating machine to adjust for the thickness change and chemical change. It is rather easy by comparison to change kettles of melted TriX from batch 1 to batch 2 on the same support. Even there, a small adjustment might have to be made for any concentration difference or emulsion batch difference, but changing over to a new support is a big variable.

 

Last but not least - Fuji Velvia did not even exist when the new Kodachromes and Ektachromes went on the market. Fuji and Konica did have Kodachrome type versions of their films though. Interesting how you got the facts wrong there. Velvia didn't come along until well after the new Kodachromes and E6 Ektachromes. By then, the abandonment of Kodachrome was well under way for less expensive, simpler, and quicker to process Ektachrome film or the much more attractive print films such as Gold. So, your entire argument falls due to the single fact that Fuji Velvia did not exist when the events I describe took place. I don't dispute your comment that customers moved to Velvia, but it took place in the 90s, and was a move from Ektachrome more than from Kodachrome. There was a slight dip in the switch to Velvia when Fuji went through the period where Velvia was incompatible with E6. Remember that? There was a huge furor over that event, and created quite a bump in the road for Fuji.

 

At the time the new Kodachromes were introduced, Fuji manufactured two film families. One used a Kodachrome process, and the other used a proprietary Fuji process similar to the one Agfa used. They later moved to an E4 type process to get into the US market, and then to an E6 type process as EK evolved their processes. In the mean time, Fuji abandoned their Kodachrome type film. It was quite good, as was the Konica product, and they resembled Kodachrome. Ask why they quit making them? Because there was a big decline in the entire marketplace for those films as well as Kodachrome. EK kept making Kodachrome, as they knew there were many dedicated users out there, even though it was a losing proposition in the face of the declining market for it even in the mid 80s.

 

So, being erudite and waxing philosophical does not abrogate you from the responsibility of knowing your technical facts. You can look anything up that pleases you on the internet, but it does not fill in the gaps that take place within EK, nor does it show you what went on in the 60s and 70s as the EPA rules began to impact on manufacturing. You sound like a young person with little experience, an ax of some sort to grind, and a desire to flame people. You sound like a philosophy major who thinks that makes his arguments perfect.

 

I'm afraid that does not work with me. My facts are sound, and my information sources are 100% reliable. I'm not going to go look up references to mercury being banned just to satisfy your lack of knowledge about the subject. This fact is so well known you should be ashamed of asking me for a reference. Wow.

 

Ron Mowrey

I would say that the reason for the abandonment of Kodachrome is in the material itself. I've used only the 25/64/200 generation of the product, but none of it has left any positive impression on me in the results. Only one lab in Europe pretty much processes it (although there may be a few small labs) and when I tried it, it took between 3 and 5 weeks to get it back. And very rarely was there anything worth keeping. The Ektachromes are much better as are the Fuji ones. Kodachromes have their own look which little resembles the subjects (the colors and contrast are way off). I can't get it scanned with true colors except for the discontinued Kodachrome II stuff. If you like it for sentimental reasons, that's just you. I think it would be silly to advertise such an inferior quality product compared with what other films are available. What I find is astonishing is that they still sell some Kodachromes. Why? What is a pictorial situation which gives good results on Kodachrome, without a color cast? -- I do have to say that the K II slides my father took in the 1970s and 25 ones in the 1980s are great, really admirable quality stuff. But the speed and cost of the film deterred people from buying it. I'm guilty of this myself. I usually bought iso 400 color negs instead of 100 stuff because I mainly took small prints. Once I could make my own prints I discovered the huge difference between iso 100 and 400 films in terms of grain. Now I use the slowest stuff I can manage with. But the masses will never deal with the difficulty of using slow speed films, especially now that zooms dominate the 35 mm market.

 

No, it was Kodachrome itself that ended itself. People didn't want to buy it because better products existed. As for the B&W films, I am sad to see the slow films go out, as they are often the best films. I am clearly guilty of it myself, never having bought a roll of the very expensive Tech Pan although I've seen great results made with it. I just don't find it practical, with special processing required, iso 25, and high cost (I think it cost something like 20-30 e per roll here). But it is true that in the current marketplace, Tech Pan would be an asset to compete with digital - of course only if people were willing to use it in large numbers. I think the move towards faster films is not a good one in general. Kodachrome 25, Ektar 25, and Tech Pan would be nice to experiment with now that scanners show all too much grain with the fast films.

 

Or maybe it's just a question of fine tuning the scanner software to get better results of the present slow and medium speed films. I think RS200 and HD200 are great films and I intend to keep using them for the foreseeable future. If the 400 stuff take over the market, causing the discontinuation of the 100 and 200 stuff, then digital has truly won.

Kelly,

 

You should have gone to Walgreens for a BIG choice. They had 10 different version of the Kodak brand "disposable" type cameras. They had B&W, color, color digital, flash versions, 800 max versions. I believe they were 2 Fuji versions along with the Walgreen Studio 35 products which IIRC contained Agfa private brand film. They did have a few varieties of 24 exp. Tri-X, Elitechrome 200, etc. Only film they had that I would buy is the HD400, which I find to be good film for the wife's P&S Canon - not a cheapie!

 

When I need the pro stuff, which is quite often, I just call up one of the "friendly?" NYC merchants (like I did yesterday)and it's on the way the next day for one and maybe when they get around to it at the other! FYI, they did have Technical Pan bulk, 36 exp, 4x5 and stated they could get 8x10. Get it while you can! Make them put on that extra shift at Kodak Park so that they can rapidly empty and package the last master rolls in the salt mines!

 

Robert Johnson

Remember what I said about you playing the double corner of the checkerboard?

<p>

12:48 a.m.: <i>"we can no longer buy hexachlorophene"</i>

<p>

11:36 a.m.: <i>"Hexachlorophene is still available"</i>

<p>

 

At least you're consistent.

 

<p>

<i>These are now forbidden, under EPA and OSHA rules to be used in photographic materials. Also included were ferricyanide and a host of other ingredients in both the emulsions and in the processing chemistry.</i>

<p>

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, man.

<p>

You can get ferricyanide at any of the mail order photo chemistry dealers.

<p>

<i>Fuji Velvia did not even exist when the new Kodachromes and Ektachromes went on the market.</i>

<p>

As if that had <i>anything</i> to do with what I was saying.

<p>

Are you a Turing machine?

<p>

If so, you're not ready for production.

<p>

Seriously, I think I am going ot bow out of tossing any further reality your way. I am starting to feel guilty about it, and I don't like when I feel like that. I'm not the sort of person to go about provoking people into making fools of themselves, and it appears that that's what our little interchange has devolved into. I ask questions, which you ignore. You make wild and crazy ex cathedra allegations, which I then ask you to substantiate, and you blithely move along, completely ignoring my requests.

<p>

I shoot down a few of your more absurd claims, and you then shift gears an pretend you never made the original claim -- even though it's there in black and white for all to see, right in this very thread!

<p>

You are either a troll, in which case I would feel silly for allowing you to bait me into feeding you, or else you are not quite "there", in which case I feel guilty for allowing you to make a fool of yourself.

<p>

Please do not misinterpret my refusal to address the remainder of your babble. My silence is neither a concession of defeat, nor is it an acknowledgement of your correctness. It is simply the aforementioned factors, compounded by the fatigue that inevitably follows this sort of interchange. The ELIZA program may never get tired of chatting, but the sentient being at the other end of the keyboard will eventually say "screw this" and get on with life.

<p>

I'd say "it's been real", but I fear I'd be leading you on, so I'll simply say good day.

<p>

Oh, what the hell. I <I>cannot</I> resist. One last thing for you to meditate upon:

<p>

<blockquote><i>My facts are sound, and my information sources are 100% reliable.</i></blockquote>

<p>

I read that, and I immediately scratched my chin. Deja vu, ya know.

<p>

Then it hit me.

<p>

This is <A

href="http://www.moviewavs.com/0056218974/MP3S/Movies/2001/operatio.mp3">your voice</A>, isn't it.

<p>

Same message, different planet, eh?

<p>

In closing, if your "sources are 100% reliable", then put up or shut up. I've asked you REPEATEDLY to <i>substantiate</I> some of your outlandish claims.

<p>

You simply ignore my requests, and them move on to issue even <i>more</I> outlandish claims.

<p>

It is axiomatic that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You, however, simply cascade your claims higher and higher, with <i>no</I> substantiation to back them up, other than repeated invocations of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

<p>

What makes you unique in that regard is your steadfast refusal to <i>cite</I> your authorities.

<p>

Too sad for words, man. Too sad for words.

Reuben;

 

Yes, you can buy ferricyanide. No, EK cannot use it in photographic solutions nor allow it to get into effluents. You can even buy a bottle of EK Ferricyanide, but you can no longer buy any Ferricyanide color bleach from them.

 

You can buy mercury, EK cannot use it in film. Same for Cadmium.

 

You can buy hexachlorophene, but you cannot buy it over the counter in lotions or soaps.

 

I'm sorry that I don't satisfy you in the level of detail you seem to require, and I'm sorry that it seems to satisfy you to mock my answers. I'm just going to point out that the above statements I made are correct and the details follow rules set up by the EPA. Who expects logic from the government? I am sorry that I did not give details, but the average person here is not interested in details like this and they are not interested in acting like you.

 

I know that this will not satisfy you and you will continue to pick everything I say apart because it does not suit you. If I had agreed with you in your statements, you would have said nothing more.

 

Actually Ilkka is probably right. At the risk of further offending you and other Kodachrome enthusiasts, The current Kodachromes have less than perfect color reproduction. I think it comes from too much cyan undercut and a cyan dye that is too sharp cutting and slightly off peak from optimum.

 

Your basic premise though was asking me to prove that EK could not use certain chemicals. I don't have to. It is rather well known that EK has eliminated those compounds due to EPA rules in spite of your questioning the matter. As for my other comments, you know you have your timing wrong for Velvia / Kodachrome introduction and some of your facts, and the best way to avoid answering your errors is to distract the readers. I see no proof of what you have said either.

 

All I can answer to you is that I worked at EK, saw the ad campaign, saw the sales figures, and have tested all of the various color products we have been discussing. I don't know what your background is but mine has helped me come to these conclusions, and many of them have been passed on to me by members and past memebers of EK management.

 

And please don't ask me to make sense of the tangle of EPA rules that govern the use of chemicals in industry. It sounds like you are better suited to it than I am.

 

Ron Mowrey

Guys;

 

Here is some history for you.

 

Fuji advertizes Fujichrome (old style) up to June 1989.

 

EK has one of their final big Kodachrome ads in March 1990 sharing the spotlight with Ektachrome after a long Kodachrome bliz in ads which were accompanied by drastically falling sales going to negative and Ektachrome.

 

Fuji, no ads whatsoever in major mags until fall 1990, and then they started ads for Reala, not Velvia.

 

So much for Reuben.

 

Enjoy.

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

Here's an old pic for amusement. These were dated 1941-42.