reuben_c

February 8, 2005

Oh man.

Where to begin, where to begin...

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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

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

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

Your move, maestro.

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

Really?

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

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

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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.

You're just not all that good at it.

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.

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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

I'm not sure you really want to go there, 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.

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

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

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

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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).

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 Fujichrome.

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

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

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

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Make up your mind, willya?

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 my head spin. You take whichever position is convenient at the moment, regardless of how it contradicts your previous positions. I fear we're impinging on "What 'is' is" territory!

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

So say you.

However, you've also said that they can rapidly swap coating mix during 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.

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?

I suspect the main obstacle is the lack of any interest 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.

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

Oh really?

Why would that be?

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

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

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

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

They have one line for all 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".

When the cars roll off the line, each one is different from the others.

Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, all roll off the same assembly line.

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

As to "research staff", what are they "researching"?

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

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

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Maybe that's "the goal"?

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

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.

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

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

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.

February 7, 2005

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

Oh?

Where might I see the ads for Kodachrome?

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

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

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

A reasonable man might conclude that Kodachrome does not suck.

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

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 different campaign, rather than present the product with the mat and sword and "Seppuku for Idiots" manual.

Wouldn't it be something if every manufacturer dropped products every time an ad campaign flopped?

It would certainly make shopping a lot easier.

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

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

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

"Tasha, did you get the soap today?"

"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."

"Such is life."

"Da, such is life."

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!

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.

I'll grant that cost 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.

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.

If "volume" really could deliver the best 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.

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

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 customers.

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

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

JMO, YMMV.

February 7, 2005

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Show me the chart on their film sales volume.

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

<blockquote>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. </blockquote>

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

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.

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

Size ain't everything.

This kind of demolishes your last 3 posts.

</blockquote>

LMAO!

February 7, 2005

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

And the world would end if they coated it on a different support?

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

<blockquote>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. </blockquote>

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 want to cook that dish.

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

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.

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

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

Remember the old (old) Saturday Night Live "Scotch Tape Store"?

"Welcome to the TMAX store!"

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.

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

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 (any 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.

Man, will it ever fail...

February 7, 2005

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

And heaven forbid they do what any other 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!

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

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

February 7, 2005

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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

February 7, 2005

<blockquote>The film market has undergone huge unpredictable swings in the last 10 years. For example, right now reversal film sales are on a huge downturn (Kodachrome for example - and the sales drop preceeded the closing of the processing plants), while single use camera sales and negative film sales have gone up about the same amount. No one could have predicted that.</blockquote>

I could have predicted it.

In fact, I did predict it!

Chicken entrails? Tea leaves? Rocket science?

Nope.

I just looked at what they promote.

They sell what they promote. They don't sell what they don't promote.

The theory you promulgate would only work in a vacuum, in which either no promotion occurs, or, a universe in which promotion has no effect.

Kodak marketing effectively orphaned Kodachrome. Usage dropped. Golly.

November 1, 2004

A harbinger of things to come?

<a

href="http://www.kodak.com/US/en/business/aim/aerial/literature/pubs/p

cn040804_indMatVersiononly.pdf">Discontinuance of

EASTMAN EKTACHROME Color Reversal Motion Picture Films</a>

Kodak is announcing plans to discontinue manufacturing all EASTMAN

EKTACHROME Color Reversal Motion Picture Films by year-end 2004.

This decision has not been taken lightly and is brought about by two

fundamental reasons. Kodak?s proactive environmental strategy calls

for the elimination of several of the components used in these

products and sales volumes have fallen due to lack of demand. This

combination of factors prohibits our ability to enter into a research

and development program to re-engineer these products.

We are very disappointed that we had to make this decision.

</blockquote>

(list of affected films follows on original page)

November 1, 2004

Very beautiful work, by the way. Hard to peel my eyes away from the images. Just beautiful work you did that day.

November 1, 2004

I looked at your other images, and see that you used a red filter. (I thought that was likely, but had my hopes up a little bit, that the film could do that on its own.)

November 1, 2004

Richard, with the mount diablo images, did you use a filter (yellow, orange, red?), or does the film have a spectral sensitivity to allow that kind of cloud definition without any filtration?

October 26, 2004

It's still doing it.

I was gone for a long time, I check, and it says no new answers since my last visit, with a timestamp showing me that it's calculating from my current visit.

In other words, there are no new posts since "now".

If I stick around, and keep checking every hour or so, it'll show me the ones that show up. But if I leave, and come back tomorrow, it goes nuts and tells me that my last visit is my current visit.

I can't believe I'm the only one experiencing this. Not unless everyone else is spending all their time here, never giving it time to reach that magic interval at which it goes nuts. Or, maybe I'm the only one using the "new answers" feature?

All I know is that it was working, and then some time a month or two ago, it stopped working right. I think someone was tinkering with the code and broke something.

And I still think the easiest/best solution would be to simply not bother trying to guess at a "last visit". It's obvious that the server cannot accurately divine the actual "last visit" when it occurs more than a few hours ago.

Ironically, it seems that non-members don't have this problem. They always see the entire "new answers" list in reverse order.

Why can't members see that same list?

Please, whoever is Custodian of the Code, turn off the "feature" that tries to track member usage. It's broken!

October 23, 2004

I just went to "film and processing", and saw eleven threads listed.

But, this morning, it showed none, and if I don't check back for a day or so, then go look, it will also show none.

If I keep checking during the day, it will show me replies, but if I'm gone for a day or more, it gets confused.

October 23, 2004

I think the old Greenspun fora showed everything in reverse order, rather than trying to divine a last visit date. Would there be a way to set that scheme up as a default on a per-user basis (such as "show all replies in reverse order when viewing 'questions with answers'")?

That would be nice.

October 23, 2004

I never log out.

A week ago, maybe, I found myself logged out, but I hadn't logged myself out, but I saw other people mentioning server problems at that time, so I figured I got caught in a glitch.

After I got myself logged back in, the problem persisted.

I think there was one time in the past few weeks that I was able to see any substantial number of new replies.

Strangely, sometimes it seems I can see (very) recent new replies, maybe within an hour or so. But if I don't check for a day or so, and then check back, it says there are no new replies since my last visit, and the timestamp it shows for my "last" visit is my current visit.

I may have used the term "log in" in the generic sense, meaning visiting the website. As far as the cookie is concerned, I never offically log out.

October 23, 2004

Lately it seems that most of the time when I click the "new answers"

link in any forum, it tells me that there has been no new activity

since my last visit, which it reports as having the same date and

time as my current visit.

I have tried to isolate it to anything I might be doing, such as

looking at a picture of the week, or some other traffic, before

looking at a "new answers" listing, and it still happens. I can go

directly there (go to photo.net, click on all forums, select a forum,

then click "new answers"), and it still happens.

So, I assume it's not anything I'm doing.

It used to work OK.

Maybe it might be better to just have the "new anwswers" pages show

all recent traffic in reverse order, rather than trying to figure out

when a member had last visited it?

As it is now, I have no way of finding out which threads have had any

new traffic, other than by trying to guess.

October 20, 2004

UPS has at least $100 insurance on everything they ship.

October 10, 2004

"Product Support Agent 3118 Consumer Information Service Center Corporate Communications Division"

A few hours at Information Retrieval ought to loosen him up a bit.

Sounds like something from the movie "Brazil."

We do the work, you do the pleasure.

October 5, 2004

This is an old Okie formula; which adds a pinch of Hoppes #9 to reduce the purple in negatives.

If you're mixing up your own brew, wouldn't it be better to make yourself a batch of "Ed's Red" instead of prepackaged Hoppes?

October 5, 2004

I would be wary of using that, out of fear that it could attack the gelatin. Isn't that the same drug that is used for dissolving skin in a variety of drug compounds? If it's what I'm thinking it is, it's a very powerful skin solvent, and I would worry about it damaging the emulsion, which is made of the same stuff as skin.

October 5, 2004

Then why is it also used in other movie film stocks that don't require Kodachrome's unique reversal processing?

Seems like the one common denominator is daylight loading at some point in thier history (meaning that there are still some cameras or magazines that need it).

October 5, 2004

Well, I know his mouth is a passable substitute for "Old Faithful", but as to his eyes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with what my own tell me when I look at the results I get from my GA120.

I know, I know, who am I gonna believe, Scottmouth, or my lyin' eyes...

October 3, 2004

It should also be possible to produce a black-dye developer from the bleach/redevelop color toning kits I've seen sold, though at $20 for a kit

Do you know who sells these? I haven't heard of them before. Sounds interesting.

October 3, 2004

Yup, that was *much* safer than that "cyan" stuff.

So in other words, you said "cyanara" to it all? (heh heh heh)

Ron; speaking of patentable things and proprietary trade secrets, I read somewhere that there are some chemicals that are added to developers for the sole purpose of hampering reverse engineering. These chemicals are supposed to make it difficult to do analysis of the developer to find out what active chemicals went into it.

Can you share anything about that practice, and the kind of chemicals that are used? I find the idea of that kind of skulduggery to be fascinating.

October 3, 2004

why the remjet was retained in the still photo version of Kodachrome is probably a highly technical question.

Perhaps Mr. Mowrey can confirm it (I copied and pasted his name this time to prevent my inveterate spelling problems ;) but my guess is that it is simple logistics; one less master spool to coat.

Dyed support is not really a viable option.

If this is the case, then how come it is so widely used?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reuben_c