 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2004TP120 Discontinued by December
This probably has been discussed here before, but I don't see the thread on my screen. This is truly sad news for film users. TechPan was the most grain-free film that I've seen. I've never been able to see the grain with my scanner. > This probably has been discussed here before, but I don't see the thread > on my screen. This is truly sad news for film users. TechPan was the > most grain-free film that I've seen. I've never been able to see the > grain with my scanner. It's that same old story again: they give us excellent films, we don't bother to use them. And people wonder why Kodak has given up pouring money in R&D to find even better film... Most think it is because of digital... Sad indeed. I would buy that theory, except for experiences I've had with other big corporations. Sometimes it isn't the profit they're looking at, but instead what percentage of revenue does the product represent. They could easily charge $12 a roll for TechPan, as it is a specialized film that mostly artists use. In the long run, I would believe that digital is going to take a bigger bite out of C41 and E6 films than B&W films. > > This probably has been discussed here before, but I don't see the thread > > on my screen. This is truly sad news for film users. TechPan was the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And people wonder why Kodak has given up pouring money in R&D to find even > better film... Most think it is because of digital... Sad indeed. > I would buy that theory, except for experiences I've had with other big > corporations. Sometimes it isn't the profit they're looking at, but instead > what percentage of revenue does the product represent. The beancounters aren't interested in making profit. They are interested in *maximizing* profit. -- Lassi I see you read your economics textbook. Beancounters look at a whole bunch of things and pinpointing the profits for a particular product is an inexact science. From what I've heard they often look at what percentage of "revenue" the product is contributing and if it's low on the list, they drop it. Economies of "scope" are not considered nor is the potential profit rate on the product considered. As I said before, they could easily charge $12 a roll for this product. I have a hunch though that that might be what Kodak has in mind. This sort of game was played with K200 a few years ago. Lassi Hippeläinen wrote: > > I would buy that theory, except for experiences I've had with other big > > corporations. Sometimes it isn't the profit they're looking at, but instead [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -- Lassi Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on digital camera products (at one point, $100+ per digicam sold), kodak continues to survive on profits generated largely in the film divisions, right? ;-) Perhaps this is one major reason why kodak stock has tanked? ;-) grins bobm  Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on > digital camera products (at one point, $100+ per digicam sold), kodak > continues to survive on profits generated largely in the film divisions, > right? If it continues to kill off its most distinctive films, it isn't going to be subsidizing digital games with film revenue for long. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think >> pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it continues to kill off its most distinctive films, it isn't going > to be subsidizing digital games with film revenue for long. I expect bankruptcy soon. The people at Kodak are morons. SignatureStacey > I expect bankruptcy soon. The people at Kodak are morons. Now why do you think that? > > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on > > digital camera products (at one point, $100+ per digicam sold), kodak > > continues to survive on profits generated largely in the film divisions, > > right? You're presumably talking only about the cost of the chemicals and materials. There's a lot more to the "cost" of producing a product than the materials cost. Think direct costs such as cost of the building in which the film is produced, machinery, equipment, utilities, repairs, payroll for the factory workers and other direct payroll costs, storage, packaging, shipping , etc., then add in all the indirect costs taken into account in going from gross profit to net profit. Even if some of the direct costs were fully amortized years ago, such as the factory building or the equipment, and even if the indirect costs can be spread over several different products, the actual cost of producing film for a company the size of Kodak has got to be considerably more than a few pennies per roll. I have no idea why Kodak discontinued Tech Pan.. Someone suggested it was because we weren't using it enough. That's possible but by no means certain. Nobody outside of Kodak knows how Tech Pan was selling or what kind of profits, if any, it generated. But we do know that companies often discontinue products for reasons other than just a lack of sales (in fact a huge volume of sales of an unprofitable product can kill a company). It's interesting to hear Michael Smith talk about his efforts to save Azo paper, a product that has consistently produced a profit for Kodak (according to him). The problem sometimes is that profits generated by specialized products like Tech Pan and Azo for a company the size of Kodak just aren't worth the trouble of keeping the product around. Maybe Tech Pan was selling well but the net profits were small and Kodak thought the resources devoted to Tech Pan could better be devoted to another film or another type of product entirely. > > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it continues to kill off its most distinctive films, it isn't going > to be subsidizing digital games with film revenue for long. >... The problem sometimes is that profits generated by > specialized products like Tech Pan and Azo for a company the size of Kodak > just aren't worth the trouble of keeping the product around. Maybe Tech Pan > was selling well but the net profits were small and Kodak thought the > resources devoted to Tech Pan could better be devoted to another film or > another type of product entirely. Maybe it is time for some Kodak old timers to do an MBO of the "obsolete" product lines? A small company might live happily with the small sales volume. Or maybe Efke comes to rescue... -- Lassi > Maybe it is time for some Kodak old timers to do an MBO of the > "obsolete" product lines? A small company might live happily with the > small sales volume. I'd buy our the film division and move it to somewhere like Ireland - if they would have it. >> Maybe it is time for some Kodak old timers to do an MBO of the >> "obsolete" product lines? A small company might live happily with the >> small sales volume. > >I'd buy our the film division and move it to somewhere like Ireland - if >they would have it. OK, first you have to do a business plan. This is what stops most people as when they start writing out the plan they find they can't make money on the proposal. On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:11:44 GMT, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: >>... The problem sometimes is that profits generated by >> specialized products like Tech Pan and Azo for a company the size of Kodak [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >-- Lassi Interesting idea, so far no one has been able to make the numbers work. As with starting a magazine, everyone (at least here in the states) is free to start their own film manufacturing company. > Interesting idea, so far no one has been able to make the numbers > work. As with starting a magazine, everyone (at least here in the > states) is free to start their own film manufacturing company. Or the numbers still work for Kodak. Need a seller before you can have a sale. Nick > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:11:44 GMT, Lassi Hippeläinen > <lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > work. As with starting a magazine, everyone (at least here in the > states) is free to start their own film manufacturing company. IIRC, in the beginning of this thread it was assumed that the product is profitable to Kodak, but not profitable enough for the more aggressive investors. I.e. the numbers could be made to work in a smaller scale. Starting from scratch with no product history would be far more difficult than buying an existing line with its brand. -- Lassi see http://news.agfa.com/corporate/news.nsf/news/F07C0210ECC86EA9C1256EF3004D27CE?op endocument Divestiture of Consumer Imaging Agfa-Gevaert announces that it has reached a definitive agreement to divest the whole of its Consumer Imaging business, including film, finishing products, lab equipment as well as the related lease portfolio, in a management buy out/in for a purchase price of 175.5 million Euros. ============endquote Okay, so the management of the Corp. is buying in with their own money to buy the film division of AGFA, leaving the other investors holding the "fast growing" digital side of the company. So for those who think film has no future, or that it isn't profitable vs. digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) >Okay, so the management of the Corp. is buying in with their own money to >buy the film division of AGFA, leaving the other investors holding the >"fast growing" digital side of the company. Are you sure about this? Sounded like digital was part of the deal, or at least the digital labs they sell. The only thing left is "Healthcare" (??) and "Graphics", which sounds like pre-press printing plates and similar. >So for those who think film has no future, or that it isn't profitable vs. >digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the >FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) You're probably reading it wrong. Here's what they say in the source you quoted about the products included in the deal: "After 6 months in 2004, sales in Consumer Imaging reached 363 million Euros, a decrease of 17.9 percent ... compared to the same period of 2003. The sales decrease ... reflects the rapidly accelerating shift from analogue to digital photography as well as increased price erosion. Turnover of film rolls is most affected, while Lab Equipment and photopaper show a more moderate decline. During the first half, Agfa's new digital minilab d-lab.1 and digital wholesale finishing lab d-ws, were launched." So from this it's clear that film sales are declining rapidly and the new products they are announcing in this division are digital, the "new digital minilab d-lab.1 and digital wholesale finishing lab d-ws". So to answer your question, they didn't pick the "FILM division", they picked the "Consumer Imaging" division and the only new products that division introduced are in fact digital. Kind of blows your anti-digital theory out of the water, doesn't it? >grins bobm Frowns bobm? Bill > see > http://news.agfa.com/corporate/news.nsf/news/F07C0210ECC86EA9C1256EF3004D27CE?op endocument [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the > FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) Hi Bob, See my reply to you on the 35 mm group. The part of AGFA you think is digital, is in fact commercial printing support services, actual called the Graphic Design group. Their digital imaging products were largely sold off to Microtek a few years ago. The future R&D funds will go into medical imaging, and graphic design divisions. Since the demand for commercial printing is increasing in the world, this bodes well for the future of AGFA. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > See my reply to you on the 35 mm group. The part of AGFA you think is digital, is in fact > commercial printing support services, actual called the Graphic Design group. Their digital > imaging products were largely sold off to Microtek a few years ago. Scanners and the like, yes. AGFA is hanging on to their also digital medical imaging systems. A huge thing now that hospitals all over the world are switching to that. This film vs digital divide is rather misleading, isn't it? ;-) > > See my reply to you on the 35 mm group. The part of AGFA you think is > digital, is in fact [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thing now that hospitals all over the world are switching to that. > This film vs digital divide is rather misleading, isn't it? ;-) Definitely. I thought the thread title change that Bob M. did really missed the facts. I have used some of the older AGFA scanning gear, and it was quite good at the time. Unfortunately, Microtek have not done much to update those better scanners. I don't expect AGFA to ever get beyond number three ranking in photo finishing services, nor in film sales (including one time use cameras). Bob M. almost made it sound like the upcoming AGFAPhoto offshoot will be a gold mine of profits . . . hardly realistic. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! Mea culpa. Sorry if I was too enthusiastic ;-) However, I do think Gordon et. al. are right that it bodes well for the future of AGFA's consumer (film &) imaging division spinoff. I would like to see Kodak spin off its film division to a (mgmt?) group which would focus on those resources, and let us decide whether to invest in the old cash cow film division or the new digital entities. But the point about film being a cash cow is a good one, and bears repeating that the corp. mgmt, who knows rather more about the corp. assets and where the profits are made, picked the film division and related (some digital) assets to invest in. Now if the top mgmt had dumped the film division and invested in the non-film lines only (which they could have done with enough juggling? ;p-) then that would have been a vote of no confidence in film by top mgmt (though the buyers would be presumed to be saavy enough to see that film's future as a cash cow outweighs its lack of growth potential, and that digital's growth potential is not unlimited, and may be shifting (e.g., camera cell phones, see, I got that in again ;-) grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Mea culpa. Sorry if I was too enthusiastic ;-) However, I do think Gordon > et. al. are right that it bodes well for the future of AGFA's consumer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the corp. assets and where the profits are made, picked the film division > and related (some digital) assets to invest in. The big difference at Kodak is that it is a public company (NYSE: EK). I doubt the shareholders would want that to happen. They could easily restructure the existing management, much like IBM had done in the past, to allow individuals divisions slightly more control over their products. Unfortunately, that sort of an announcement usually causes an immediate drop in a stocks value, even if it improves future outlook, and eventually causes a rise in share price. That type of move might see a turnover of the board of directors, which I doubt any of them want. > Now if the top mgmt had > dumped the film division and invested in the non-film lines only (which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > potential is not unlimited, and may be shifting (e.g., camera cell phones, > see, I got that in again ;-) With AGFA, you really need to be involved in the graphic design and commercial printing industry to understand how they function. That business is a growth sector, and there are now fewer competitors in that market. AGFA graphics systems products are also at the top of the choices for quality, closely matched by Heidelberg, and very few others. Dumping the graphic systems division (what you call digital lines), would be the stupidest thing they could ever do as a company. The economists or accounts could give you a better idea of why this happened, but take a look closely at the figures. Selling the film division and assets allowed a very large charge off, which helps them immensely in their corporate taxes. AGFA photo finishing, and contracts for one time use cameras, have eaten in market share of both Fuji and Kodak. You can bet that if the AGFA consumer film division had been made available on the open market, rather than to management, either Fuji or Kodak would have been on top of it fighting for the assets. One time use cameras are the highest volume production, highest profit, and most common type of consumer film product. Okay, so one aspect that is very new at AGFA, and will become a part of AGFAPhoto, are the new minilabs. Both those products are changed to better implement photo printing from digital sources. They might be right with those products, and actually get more business, but I think it is too early to tell. With a shift to camera phones at the low end of digital imaging, do you feel the numbers of people using commercial printing services for actual prints will increase, or decrease? Why? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! > With AGFA, you really need to be involved in the graphic design and > commercial printing industry to understand how they function. [...] And even then you miss how AGFA is doing in the world of medical imaging systems. Which (the way they are doing) is not bad. ;-) > > With AGFA, you really need to be involved in the graphic design and > > commercial printing industry to understand how they function. [...] > > And even then you miss how AGFA is doing in the world of medical imaging > systems. Which (the way they are doing) is not bad. > ;-) Definitely. I chose not to comment on that aspect, because I have no first hand experience with that. Going by their numbers, they do look to be quite healthy as a company. Thanks for including that aspect. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! >From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) >Mea culpa. Sorry if I was too enthusiastic ;-) Some of us thought you were being too negative (towards digital :). >I do think Gordon et. al. are right that it bodes well for the future >of AGFA's consumer (film &) imaging division spinoff. Sales were down almost 18%, which they blame on "the rapidly accelerating shift from analogue to digital photography". How exactly do you figure that this "bodes well for the future"? >But the point about film being a cash cow is a good >one The udders on this particular cash cow seem a bit dry and shriveled ... I'm thinking Phyllis Diller ... if sales keep dropping > 15% per year how long can they continue to milk the old girl? Bill > The udders on this particular cash cow seem a bit dry and shriveled ... I'm > thinking Phyllis Diller ... if sales keep dropping > 15% per year how long can > they continue to milk the old girl? Ech! You sure know how to conjure an image, Bill. > The udders on this particular cash cow seem a bit dry and shriveled ... I'm > thinking Phyllis Diller ... if sales keep dropping > 15% per year how long can > they continue to milk the old girl? Well, with, say, $2 billion in sales, and an annual decline of 15%, a business would still have revenues of close to $100 million even after 20 years. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Agfa has the patents on the new formic acid enhanced film technology, see http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html - it is about due to hit the market (overdue, but then, Agfa has been in a financial fix that probably explains the delays; then again, now that mgmt owns the film division, maybe those delays will be dealt with expeditiously? ;-) So while the industry film sales overall decline, they are still making major $$ on film, and Agfa's marketshare could skyrocket if they get this film series to market, yes? Ten times faster film for the same grain size? Let's look at the flip side; as film becomes less of a cash cow, as Bill correctly notes, there won't be a source of profits and sales to insulate the losers in the digital photography scramble from their excesses and errors. And while Gordon's helpful points and past statistics have noted that more folks are doing digital prints than in the past, those numbers are still a small fraction of the total of digicam sales and users. As we go to camera cellphones, I suspect those numbers won't get much more in sales, despite huge increases in users with camera cellphones etc. So I can see why mgmt wanted to keep the film cash cow, even if it is declining rapidly, as Bill noted ;-) regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Sometimes you can guess the author of the post just from the title :) >From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) > >Agfa has the patents on the new formic acid enhanced film technology, see >http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html - it is about >due to hit the market ... Hi Bob, Do you have a link or source for when this technology will appear in actual products? The cited press release is almost 5 years old. >Agfa's marketshare could skyrocket if they get this >film series to market, yes? Ten times faster film for the same grain size? If the colors are good then yes, it would definitely be a great product. Getting the colors right seems to trip up a lot of films though, so they'd need to do all three (ie, faster, less grain but still a pleasing color palette). >Let's look at the flip side; as film becomes less of a cash cow, as Bill >correctly notes, there won't be a source of profits and sales to insulate >the losers in the digital photography scramble from their excesses and >errors. The digital guys who are really making out like bandits right now are Canon and Nikon (and some of the non-dSLR makers too but I don't follow them). They don't have film sales as a cash cow buffer anyway. Kodak and Fuji and Agfa are the main ones with large film sales, right? Bill Bob M: > [...] Ten times faster film for the same grain size? Exactly what is "ten times", 2.5 F-Stops over what, 3200? the specific examples were ISO 1,000 films with current ISO 100 grain sizes, but with more linear response in the shadows etc. To some extent, I suspect we are seeing this and related improvements in products like Kodak's and Fuji's upgraded films, e.g., velvia 100 etc., where we are getting incremental improvements in grain size and faster speed at the same time as the tradeoff - supposedly, part of the justification for dropping older fine grain but slower films? ;-) I don't recall any implications for a new film chemistry overall, as with Scala or Techpan with their own developers, but simply an additive that improved efficiency of converting silver halides. In any case, as the velvia 100 films etc. show, film is still being improved by some vendors, and has more potential if R&D $ are provided rather than being siphoned off to support digital division losses (cf Kodak ;-)... grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >In any case, as the velvia 100 films etc. show, film is still being >improved by some vendors, and has more potential if R&D $ are provided >rather than being siphoned off to support digital division losses (cf >Kodak ;-)... Bob, fact is that Kodak is now the 2nd most important digicam vendor: it has the 2nd largest market share after Canon, with an important grow since last year. These kind of things are exactly the reason why the management would (and will) prefer to invest even more money on digital, than trying to revitalize a dying market (in their eyes, of course) with new R&D... :( That say, I'm a big Fujifilm and Kodak consumer (Velvia100F, Astia 100F, Sensia 400, E100G, TMax 100&400): as soon as the light will start blinking for those films, I'll go and buy some serious rolls to store in my fridges, along with an appropriate supply of Ornano-3 E6 processing chemicals... :) Fernando Hi Fernando! yes, I didn't catch Kodak's leap ahead to #2 spot; I hope they are finally making some money on all those chips and gizmos ;-) My fridge is full now, and I just reloaded with fuji thanks to a shopping cart full of short dated stuff at our local food store, so some good out of the declining film sales on overstock sales, yes? ;-) My guess is that many of these assets will not be scrapped, but rather purchased and run by other buyers, who can focus on the film only end and still make $$ from the high markups on film in today's market, even if the volumes are falling, esp. if the assets are bought cheaply enough? Part of Kodak's PR release on film future was to actually reduce or cut the price to try and boost sales presumably, but it may be that the cost of film falls during the upcoming period due to such a price war? ;-) I am actually more worried about environmental laws classifying silver as a heavy metal poison and making it much tougher to do mini-lab or home processing. The electronic silver removing kits are cheap, but don't meet the high standards now in Europe and elsewhere, and the next step up would be many kilobucks per lab setup. regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >I am actually more worried about environmental laws classifying silver as >a heavy metal poison and making it much tougher to do mini-lab or home >processing. The electronic silver removing kits are cheap, but don't meet >the high standards now in Europe and elsewhere, and the next step up would >be many kilobucks per lab setup. Damn, you're right! Better stock those E6 processing kits *now*, then! Before brand-new bills would show up... ;D A friend of mine is trying to refresh my E6 processing skills; he're really good at this. :-) Have a nice day! Fernando > Agfa has the patents on the new formic acid enhanced film technology, see > http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html - it is about > due to hit the market In all, this discussion is not very interesting. Look, there ain't nothing we can do to pursuade a large manufacturer to go our way. I'm reverting to what's available and the rest of the manufacturers can just screw themselves. Efke is looking interesting. Hi JJS ;-) yes, that's the Harry Browne approach, and I often use it myself ;-) But the problem is that film isn't a commodity; Adox/Efke doesn't make Tmax 100 ;-) nor sensia or provia etc. ;-) The loss of slow films like Ektar 25 and Kodachrome 25/64 are real losses to some of their fans... but then there's the "Squeeky Wheel Gets the Grease" approach. That has worked, for example, with Kodachrome 200, cut film for 4x5 and 5x7, and so on. Yes, they are more expensive than before, but it beats no source at all! And those protests from investors on Kodak's PR release dropping film R&D etc. may have caused some top mgmt to rethink their situation too? ;-) Efke is an interesting film source, and their willingness to provide film in odd formats (127 etc.) is a big plus. This also goes to some recent past posts on "savings" by dropping films & formats for Kodak etc. I would bet the savings are illusory on film emulsions they continue to make, given the high profits from film sales. On the other hand, I doubt that film sales will disappear in my lifetime, anyway (and I'm an optimist on that ;-). Just too profitable, the R&D is done, and the factories are in hand. Those assets may get sold off (cf. to agfa's mgmt ;-), but I doubt they will just abandon them as long as there are even modest sales. My guess is that the median film emulsion sells less than 10 million rolls, perhaps less than 1 million, given the number of specialty films being made. Some sell a lot of film, esp.in C41, but the rest are much less, yes? So it isn't that they will have to make 100 million rolls to break even or make a profit, rather much, much less? grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > That has worked, for example, with Kodachrome 200, cut film for > 4x5 and 5x7, and so on. Yes, they are more expensive than before, > but it beats no source at all! Speaking of 120; there is by far a greater variety of films on the market today than at any time in 120's history. And that's minus Verichrome Pan, APX 25 and TechPan. I was'nt about to pay $7 a roll for TP but $2.25 for quality film is low. I think the manufacturers have some up-side room. So Agfa has the patents. Information is four years old. What are they going to do, let the whole matter die? If not, what of that frig of yours stuffed with old fashioned film. I think we are way overdue for a progress report. They are certainly not building up much excitement being tight lipped. At the very least somebody should know somebody that knows somebody who's uncle works at ... don't you think? Dan well, the film in the fridge is being used up, and I don't expect it to last thru the semester ;-) so when the great stuff hits the shelves, I'll be ready for it again ;-) re: why not 10X film by now? given that Agfa has been in financially straits during the last five years, it isn't greatly surprising that they haven't put in the major $ for the D part of R&D to get this out of the lab and onto consumer shelves. But it might also be that one reason for buying the film division, if you are a senior manager, is knowing how popular such a film might be when it does get to market, esp. for small lens disposable cameras (tiny flash but faster film = lots better ;-) and slow longer zoom lenses in consumer cameras etc.?? ;-) ;-) In the meantime, we have seen similar improvements in both Fuji (Velvia) and kodak brands, up a stop or more in speed in the latest iteration. It may be that fuji or ?? brings this to market paying Agfa royalties in order to grab marketshare. Or it may be that it never makes it to market, or some other product gets there first and eclipses it? No guarantees, but their research makes it clear that such improvements are possible technically. It normally takes a number of years for products to come out of the labs after the research is done, so some delays are to be expected. I hoped it would be out a few years ago, but again, given Agfa's problems and the film market decline, it isn't surprising that a company with financial problems hasn't been able to fully exploit all their technology R&D? regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Agfa has the patents on the new formic acid enhanced film technology, see > http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html - it is about > due to hit the market (overdue, but then, Agfa has been in a financial > fix that probably explains the delays; then again, now that mgmt owns the > film division, maybe those delays will be dealt with expeditiously? ;-) Carefully read that article again. In the first paragraph is mentioned uses for this technology, and of those uses, commercial printing is currently experiencing the greatest growth. I think that is where you should look for this technology, especially in CtP applications. Ask AGFA directly by going through <http://graphics.agfa.com>, and send them an information request. Silver halide based printing plates still provide a greater resolution and dot placement accuracy than any other technology. The current plate accuracy and resolution actually surpasses the capability of many presses. Heidelberg and Creo are also heavily involved in similar technologies. This type of technology relates very closely to B/W photographic film, and some of this technology could be applied to consumer level photographic films. While I would like to see a greater sensitivity film, I think that we would run into other issues. To change the chemical supply needed for processing would be one issue. Unless AGFA were prepared to share the technology with other companies, and enable more wide spread processing, then a new product of this type could hope to do no better than Scala has done, or Kodachrome. > So while the industry film sales overall decline, they are still making > major $$ on film, and Agfa's marketshare could skyrocket if they get this > film series to market, yes? Ten times faster film for the same grain size? Well, that is the problem. If they are still making good profits, and sales overall are declining, what incentive is there to risk introducing a new product. Recall that successful products are those that are marketed better, not necessarily the best of technology. There are practical reasons we might not see this technology, or at least a version we could buy for personal use. > Let's look at the flip side; as film becomes less of a cash cow, as Bill > correctly notes, there won't be a source of profits and sales to insulate > the losers in the digital photography scramble from their excesses and > errors. Okay, so Sony, Kodak, Canon and HP will largely control the market, with phone companies digging for scraps. Unfortunately, just like the computer market, at some point growth will slow dramatically, though the products will by then become a technology fixture (common). > And while Gordon's helpful points and past statistics have noted that more > folks are doing digital prints than in the past, those numbers are still a > small fraction of the total of digicam sales and users. The funny thing is that the photo finishing industry still speaks optimistically about more people making prints at commercial locations. I have yet to be convinced that will ever occur, and I would be surprised if the numbers ever reach 35% of direct digital camera (or camera phone) owners. > As we go to camera > cellphones, I suspect those numbers won't get much more in sales, despite > huge increases in users with camera cellphones etc. So I can see why mgmt > wanted to keep the film cash cow, even if it is declining rapidly, as Bill > noted ;-) Faster connections, more available wireless technologies, lower costs of internet, broadband, mobile phone, and wireless connections (free in many locations) . . . . . All these other developments, and why will people be compelled to print any image? Why would they bother with a one hour place for prints? Direct digital imaging, in any form, is largely about images zipping around the ether going from one computer monitor to another (or phone to phone displays). Anyone not an optimist would state that film is not dying, photography is dying. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! <...> > While I would like to see a greater sensitivity film, I think that we would > run into other issues. ... Yes, one is too much speed. Typical P&S cameras can step down to f:16 at 1/500, which means that in daylight they can't use faster film than ISO400. While SLRs may get f:22 and 1/1000, or ISO1600, they are a minority of cameras. There isn't that much market for really fast films. -- Lassi >Agfa has the patents on the new formic acid enhanced film technology, see >http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/emulsionsphoto.html - it is about >due to hit the market (overdue, but then, Agfa has been in a financial >fix that probably explains the delays; then again, now that mgmt owns the >film division, maybe those delays will be dealt with expeditiously? ;-) I thought for a minute you might have something interesting for us to look at, bob. But wait... that press release is almost five years old. Old info may be of use to the Department of Homeland Security, however. Orange alert! Cordon off the financial district! rafe b http://www.terrapinphoto.com I just got the new Porters catalog and they have a cellphone tripod on the front cover! > Mea culpa. Sorry if I was too enthusiastic ;-) However, I do think Gordon > et. al. are right that it bodes well for the future of AGFA's consumer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Bob M. said: > >But the point about film being a cash cow is a good > > one, and bears repeating that the corp. mgmt, who knows rather more about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > they could have done with enough juggling? ;p-) then that would have been > > a vote of no confidence in film by top mgmt Bob, I don't know what you do for a living but I'm certain it has nothing to do with business acquisitions. The fact that the buyers "picked the film division" means absolutely nothing when it come to the future of film in general. Maybe they bought it because it produces a big loss that they can use for tax purposes to offset profits from other ventures. Maybe Agfa made the price so attractive that they could make profits for a while regardless of declining film sales. Maybe Agfa is financiing the purchase itself, i.e. the buyers put up no cash out of their own pockets. Or maybe they did pay cash but it was with borrowed money on a non-recourse note guaranteed by Agfa. Or maybe payment of a large portion of the purchase price is contingent on future profits, so that if there are no profits the buyers pay little or nothing for the business. I could go on and on but the point is that if the price is low enough and if the terms are good enough a buyer can be found for almost anything . The simple fact by itself that someone bought the business means absolutely nothing about the future of the business. > I just got the new Porters catalog and they have a cellphone tripod on the > front cover! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * > > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Recently, Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> posted: > I don't expect AGFA to ever get beyond number three ranking in photo > finishing services, nor in film sales (including one time use > cameras). Bob M. almost made it sound like the upcoming AGFAPhoto > offshoot will be a gold mine of profits . . . hardly realistic. There are many ways to make money. One way is to dump those things that are nothing more than a drain on the profitable items. Being number 3 in film is a much better position than "less-than-number 10" in consumer digital. Their medical digital systems are fairly safe, as there are only a few manufacturers capable of playing in that market. Since they have a long-established relationship with hospitals and private practices for their film products, they avoid the most serious barrier to entry. Neil > So for those who think film has no future, or that it isn't profitable vs. > digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the > FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) Maybe the answer lies in how much they had to pay for it, and how much it's worth when broken up and sold off in pieces. ;-) > [...] > So for those who think film has no future, or that it isn't profitable vs. > digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the > FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) Perhaps the deal was managed so that was all they could afford. >> [...] >> So for those who think film has no future, or that it isn't profitable vs. >> digital, how come the mgmt of the digital and film corp Agfa picked the >> FILM division to put their investments into, and not the digital end? ;-) > >Perhaps the deal was managed so that was all they could afford. That is a funny way to word it, but yes, maybe the amount of capital they could raise would only support the acquisition of the units they acquired. Since the film has a high gross margin and a declining market volume it is going to be interesting to see what they will do with the film cash cow. > >Perhaps the deal was managed so that was all they could afford. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it is going to be interesting to see what they will do with the film > cash cow. I think with AGFA it is a matter of "consumer imaging" not being their "core business" for a long time already, and it not being big in revenue too (compaed to the rest). No cash cow. Just like the camera (including motion picture) lens division of Zeiss is only an insignificant side line of Zeiss'. No cash cow. AGFA have been trying to get rid of this side line for some time now. Now they found a way. Sort of. >> >Perhaps the deal was managed so that was all they could afford. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >business" for a long time already, and it not being big in revenue too >(compaed to the rest). No cash cow. I'm only addressing the film because it does fit the definition of a cash cow. When we talk about a cash cow we are talking in terms of it generates gross profit not gross revenue. A million dollars of gross revenue that generates one dollar of gross profit is obviously less valuable than a product line that generates a hundred thousand dollars of gross revenue and ninety thousand dollars of gross profit. At this stage in history, film is a cash cow. It is a mature product with high margins. The market shrinkage isn't a problem now, and were not sure how long until it gets to be a serious problem. The C-41 market is still large enough to warrant R&D expenditure. >Just like the camera (including motion picture) lens division of Zeiss is >only an insignificant side line of Zeiss'. No cash cow. That is an entirely different situation. The Zeiss lenses more aptly fit the definition of what I was taught is a dog. Still requiring considerable design and manufacturing costs while producing little in the way of gross profit. Zeiss may keep making the things because they have a iron maiden contract with Hassleblad they can't get out of or maybe it an ego thing where they eat the cost just to be able to have bragging rights. >AGFA have been trying to get rid of this side line for some time now. >Now they found a way. Sort of. As I understand it they are completely shed of it, having transferred all rights and property for hard cash. It will be interesting to see what happens with the film products. > I'm only addressing the film because it does fit the definition of a > cash cow. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not sure how long until it gets to be a serious problem. The C-41 > market is still large enough to warrant R&D expenditure. I don't see how this changes anything. You concentrate on what "cash cow" means, and concentrate on film. My point was that "cash cow" is not part of the reason behind the sale. Agfa has wanted to be rid of their "consumer imaging" division for a long time. All during that time it may have been a cash cow. That didn't stop them wanting to be rid of it. So i think that all considerations about whether or not film is still a cash cow are not adressing Agfa's reasons to sell this. And ot top of that: film may still be the cash cow you make it out to be, but Agfa is not getting rid of film only. They have transferred the entire (!!!) consumer imaging division to its management. And that includes (consumer) digital. And "consumer" includes professional photography. > >AGFA have been trying to get rid of this side line for some time now. > >Now they found a way. Sort of. > > As I understand it they are completely shed of it, having transferred > all rights and property for hard cash. It will be interesting to see > what happens with the film products. Well. It is sold by Agfa to Agfa staff. They continue to market Agfa products, continue to sell them with the Afga label attached. I don't know who put up the money. Agfa funds too, as a "farewell" gift? Though it officially is no longer Agfa, it still looks like Agfa, smells like Agfa, feels like Agfa, tastes like ... etc. And still responds to the name Agfa. >The market shrinkage isn't a problem now . . . Really? Try telling someone in a business where sales declined 17% last year (Agfa's approximate film sales decline as I remember the announcement) on top of who knows what declines in previous years that they don't have a problem. I think it might be difficult to convince them of that. > >> >Perhaps the deal was managed so that was all they could afford. > >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > all rights and property for hard cash. It will be interesting to see > what happens with the film products. >>The market shrinkage isn't a problem now . . . > >Really? Try telling someone in a business where sales declined 17% last >year (Agfa's approximate film sales decline as I remember the announcement) >on top of who knows what declines in previous years that they don't have a >problem. I think it might be difficult to convince them of that. Yes, that is true, except in the case where you are talking about a business entity with one business line. As long as a line has a positive contribution margin, its gross revenue exceed its variable costs, it is rational to continue it. When that contribution margin is high, such as film is reputed to be, it can be kept as a cash cow for quite a long time. As I understand that Ilford is now in receivership, I fear esoteric discussions on issues of accountancy are long past being of any consequence. > [...] You're presumably talking only about the cost of the chemicals and > materials. There's a lot more to the "cost" of producing a product than the > materials cost. [...] Certainly, and that's why we (USA) have the case where Kodak makes bulk 120 Tri-X and ships it to England where it is cut and packaged... and then we order it from someone in the USA who reimports it from England, takes his cut of the profits and the film is _still_ significantly less expensive than USA packaged film! >> [...] You're presumably talking only about the cost of the chemicals and >> materials. There's a lot more to the "cost" of producing a product than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >cut of the profits and the film is _still_ significantly less expensive than >USA packaged film! I think this has been discussed previously about why Kodak maintains high retail suggested prices in the States. The U.S. Justice Department, operating under the Anti Trust laws, has successfully sued them in the past for competing too aggressively. In effect, Kodak is reacquired by the U.S. government to leave a reasonable amount of the consuming market available for Fuji and Ilford. > >> [...] You're presumably talking only about the cost of the chemicals and > >> materials. There's a lot more to the "cost" of producing a product than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > reacquired by the U.S. government to leave a reasonable amount of the > consuming market available for Fuji and Ilford. Of course, my ignorance of the nuances of the law compells me to wonder why a failing company is being forced to have prices higher than competitors. It seems crazy. >> >> [...] You're presumably talking only about the cost of the chemicals >and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >a failing company is being forced to have prices higher than competitors. It >seems crazy. AFAIK (1) They are not failing. They have experienced a decline in profit which they are trying to turn around. (2) They still have the dominant world share of what really sells in film, the consumer c41 market. First of all please do not overrate the brainpower of corporate decision makers. For a reference I would use "Dilbert" instead of an Economics 101 textbook. Secondly, I haven't seen anyone disagree with me that TechPan could be sold for upwards of $12/roll. Just look at what they're getting for K200 now that it's been "saved" from the chopping block. With respect to an alternative supplier, I'm sure it would be much easier to buy the formula from Kodak than to reverse engineer the product. Plus I'm sure specialized, not commonly available equipment, is utilized to produce as unique a film as TechPan is. Remember that Efke uses Adox formulas, which I believe they formally received (I've seen early Efke packaging which also features the "Adox" brand name). To my knowledge Kodak has not sold off a film line - yet, although my Economics 101 textbook would say that this would be a reasonable thing for Kodak to do. > > > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > > > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > -- > > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it continues to kill off its most distinctive films, it isn't going > to be subsidizing digital games with film revenue for long. Well, if we continue to refuse to buy these fine films they produce, there is no point in spending even pennies in producing them, for there will be no return to fund whatever they would like to fund anyway. Amazing how fast this thread has turned away again rom the real reason they stop making TP in 120 format, and why they stopped making Ektar 25, and etc. Apparently most photographers like to blame anything but theirselves for anything thatis not good in photography. It just like that DOF thread we had lately in which great stubborness was displayed. Unwillingness to accept that the main factor in DOF is still human. And that bad technique, sloppy photography is why DOF stanards have not been altered, though advances in film (now almost all gone again) and optics certainly would have made that possible. Or the ever persisting believe that we can handhold and still brag about how sharp our lenses are when put on an optical bench. People, it's not beancounters, it's not bloodymindedness, it's our (!!!) refusal to buy these excellent films that is putting an end to its production. And at the bottom of that is that convenience thing again: TP is slow. And you will have to use it in tripod mounted cameras. And take great care focussing. And pay great are to processing too. If not, you might as well put some ORWO in your camera and process it in Rodinal undiluted. We don't want to do that, do we? But we do like to blame (in this case) Kodak. Must Kodak take blame for our laziness??? Just for starters, i put the blame on all those here who have bragged about their handholding skills... > Well, if we continue to refuse to buy these fine films they produce, there > is no point in spending even pennies in producing them, for there will be no > return to fund whatever they would like to fund anyway. I buy the films I like: Portra (all flavors), Tech Pan, Tri-X, T-Max. The rest is Fuji. > Amazing how fast this thread has turned away again rom the real reason they > stop making TP in 120 format ... I don't recall hearing Kodak mention the real reason. What was it? And since when does Kodak announce the real reasons for anything? > And at the bottom of that is that convenience thing again: TP is slow. And > you will have to use it in tripod mounted cameras. I've shot TP handheld on many occasions. > And pay great are to processing too. The processing isn't that tough. Just a different developer, really, and some special agitation. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Well, if we continue to refuse to buy these fine films they produce, there > > is no point in spending even pennies in producing them, for there will be no > > return to fund whatever they would like to fund anyway. > > I buy the films I like: Portra (all flavors), Tech Pan, Tri-X, T-Max. > The rest is Fuji. So do i (buy the films i like, that is). I'm sorry if i may have given the impression that my respons was directed against you, as it was to your post that i replied. It isn't. I just did not know where to jump in into this lets-blame-anyone-but-ourselves and hey-lets-go-for-the-big-corporation-because-they-are-always-to-blame-! thing, so i just picked a spot at random. > [...] > > And at the bottom of that is that convenience thing again: TP is slow. And > > you will have to use it in tripod mounted cameras. > > I've shot TP handheld on many occasions. Why??? I haven't seen any official statement from Kodak yet. If anyone's seen one please provide a URL. > I don't recall hearing Kodak mention the real reason. What was it? And > since when does Kodak announce the real reasons for anything? >I haven't seen any official statement from Kodak yet. If anyone's >seen one please provide a URL. When I first saw this mentioned as a rumor on the pure-silver mailing list I called Kodak's tech suppoer ((800)242-2424) and confirmed it. Manufacturing of 120 will stop in December 2004, 35mm stops in April 2005 and sheet film stops in June 2005. The recommended replacement is T-Max 100. SignatureBrian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know, reynolds@panix.com | the important thing is to understand http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get NAR# 54438 | the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer > When I first saw this mentioned as a rumor on the pure-silver mailing > list I called Kodak's tech suppoer ((800)242-2424) and confirmed it. > > Manufacturing of 120 will stop in December 2004, 35mm stops in April > 2005 and sheet film stops in June 2005. The recommended replacement > is T-Max 100. Very good of you to call them, Brian. My sense of this is that there are no longer enough microfiche-like applications to support the film (at current prices.) Now what do you all make of the recommended replacement? Is it good enough? And will you really pay $12 a roll for 120 Tech Pan? I don't know that you "need" a tripod to shoot TechPan, however some fast glass would help. As has been discussed here before, making lenses fast is no longer a requirement. Zoom lenses rely on the faster emulsions i.e. 400&800 to deliver results. Another problem which is plaguing film in general and exotic B&W emulsions particularly is the decline in processing options. Even pro-labs have trouble with films like TechPan. > And at the bottom of that is that convenience thing again: TP is slow. And > you will have to use it in tripod mounted cameras. And take great care > focussing. And pay great are to processing too. If not, you might as well > put some ORWO in your camera and process it in Rodinal undiluted. > I don't know that you "need" a tripod to shoot TechPan, however some fast glass > would help. As has been discussed here before, making lenses fast is no longer > a requirement. Spot the contradiction? But you do need a tripod if you want TP for all it can do. But yes, if you like grainfree blurred shots, you do indeed not need a tripod. > Zoom lenses rely on the faster emulsions i.e. 400&800 to deliver > results. Ah! You are no longer talking about TP. Yes, they do. And people rely on not needing a tripod because they have fast film. TP however... ;-) > Another problem which is plaguing film in general and exotic B&W > emulsions particularly is the decline in processing options. Even pro-labs have > trouble with films like TechPan. They do, yes. It's best to do it yourself. Another of those inconvenience factors. You're talking to a guy who uses a tripod whenever possible. However most of my best TechPan shots were shot using no tripod. TechPan is one of those films that if you hit the light just right - you get magic. > > I don't know that you "need" a tripod to shoot TechPan, however some fast > glass [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It's best to do it yourself. > Another of those inconvenience factors. > You're talking to a guy who uses a tripod whenever possible. However most of my > best TechPan shots were shot using no tripod. TechPan is one of those films > that if you hit the light just right - you get magic. The qualities that make those your best shots will not be the qualities that make TP a very good film. Q.G. de Bakker said in part: > Apparently most photographers like to blame anything but theirselves for > anything thatis not good in photography. I don't think that's the case. Unlike you, most of us don't assume as fact something about which we know absolutely nothing (sales and profits of Tech Pan film). For all we know it was selling great but the profits were small or Kodak just thought the resources devoted to Tech Pan could be better used elsewhere. Nobody outside of Kodak, least of all you and others here, are in a position to know anything at all about Tech Pan's sales. > We don't want to do that, do we? > But we do like to blame (in this case) Kodak. Must Kodak take blame for our > laziness???> Just for starters, i put the blame on all those here who have bragged about > their handholding skills... Why do you even talk about "blame?" Maybe most photographers just didn't have a good use for the film, in which case their failure to use it isn't something to "blame" them for. Or maybe people just didn't like Tech Pan, I know I didn't. I found it very difficult to predict the results that it would produce. The contrast and tonal range would be very good in one negative then in another the contrast would be way too high and there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to which was which. If I used 35mm the benefits might have outweighed this disadvantage or might at least have caused me to persist more. But I don't use 35mm, I use 6x7 and 4x5 so grain isn't really a major issue. And no, it didn't bother me to rate it at EI 25, and yes, I always use a tripod, and yes, I focus carefully, and yes, I take great care with consistency in processing, and yes, I agitated exactly like Kodak said to do. > > > Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think > > > pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Apparently most photographers like to blame anything but theirselves for > anything thatis not good in photography. If not, you might as well > put some ORWO in your camera and process it in Rodinal undiluted. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just for starters, i put the blame on all those here who have bragged about > their handholding skills... >Have you any idea of how cheap it is to produce a roll of film? Think >pennies a roll, not dimes ;-) And after decades of losing their shirts on There is a big difference between the direct cost of a roll of film out of the cutter and the fully absorbed cost of the rolled, labled, and boxed roll on the loading dock. >digital camera products (at one point, $100+ per digicam sold), kodak >continues to survive on profits generated largely in the film divisions, >right? ;-) Perhaps this is one major reason why kodak stock has tanked? I think Kodak's business model is much more complex than just film and digicams, and their problems are much more complex than just some problem of keeping low volume films on the shelves. The market for techpan 120 must be infinitesimal. What do people use it for anyway? >;-) > >grins bobm > The market for techpan 120 must be infinitesimal. What do people use > it for anyway? In recent years it has been popular for portraits. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> The market for techpan 120 must be infinitesimal. What do people use >> it for anyway? > >In recent years it has been popular for portraits. I was not aware of that. I thought people were complaining because of its color sensitivity doing something to skin tones?? > I was not aware of that. I thought people were complaining because of > its color sensitivity doing something to skin tones?? Technical Pan has very good sensitivity to red, but some people like that. It's more panchromatic than most black and white films. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > I was not aware of that. I thought people were complaining because of > > its color sensitivity doing something to skin tones?? > > Technical Pan has very good sensitivity to red, but some people like > that. It's more panchromatic than most black and white films. Indeed. And the plus side of that is that if you do not like the sensitivity range, you can use a filter. So what's there to complain about? Most of what I've seen is use by artists, either for portraits or other "artistic" compositions. The film has a "cult" following. I use about three rolls a year. I like the results but shooting at EI 12 is certainly more difficult than shooting at EI 100. > The market for techpan 120 must be infinitesimal. What do people use > it for anyway? > > The market for techpan 120 must be infinitesimal. What do people use > > it for anyway? It's very useful in low contrast situations . For example, both John Sexton and Don Kirby recommend using it to photograph petroglyphs, where the contrast range between the colors in the images and the grays of the background rock is often only stop or even less. With a normal film even plus development wouldn't allow the images to stand out from the background. Tech Pan works does that very well. I think John Sexton rates it at 100 for that application. Other than for low contrast situations it's perhaps overkill for 4x5 where grain is pretty minimal even with normal films. But it should be very useful for 35mm landscape and architecture photographers I would think. Sometimes, discontinuance of a product by a big poorly managed company is good because it opens a market niche for small specialist ones. Perhaps another film vendor will produce a similar and possibly improved product. Kodak is run by shitheads, though. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.