------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:54:32 -0400
From: dhssresearcher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: infrared@xxxxx
Subject: Re: Announcement about Kodak
Send reply to: infrared@xxxxx
"Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@xxxxx> wrote:
>On 17 May 2005 at 22:24, Bob Maxey wrote:
>
>> >>>Loading my Noblex 150 once more with fresh Kodachrome!....:))
>> (anyone willing to bet that even within the next 5 years there
will
>> be a digital equivalent with the same resolution?)>>>
>>
>>
>> More to it than resolution. Longevity is a big reason Kodachrome
such a
>> great film. Well, grain and sharpness, too.
>
>Fact remains that there *are* no digi-equivalents for MF swing-lens
>camera's (which, not being SLR, have vastly better lenses).
>
>>
>> >>>PS: I'd like some additional higher-ASA batch as well....that's
>> exactly what I have been pestering MACO about with their IR-films
>> too....:)) >>>
>>
>>
>> Why? You lose quality as you increase speed. Kodachrome 25 is
demonstrably
>> sharper than Kodachrome 64. I once shot everything on Kodachrome
25 because
>> there is a difference.
>
>But I can't take a tripod with me skiing....:))
>(Kodak HIE with #87C is an even larger pest, at an effective 12 ASA)
>
>> >>>On exactly that argument I am trying to talk MACO into
it....;))
>> Add non-existent Chinese environmental regulations for final
>> processing, and we might get somewhere....>>>
>>
>>
>> And you are certain there are no regulation in place? Research
again and
>> please post proof.
>
>Just look at what generation of automotive emissions they allow in
>brand-new plants....all 10-20 years behind on US/EU.
>
>
>> > I am firmly of the belief that the *reason* for the "lack of
demand" for
>> > Kodachrome is the lack of promotion, the lack of availability,
etc. In
>> > other words, it's been left out to die, so it's been dying.
Give it a
>> > shot in the arm, let people know that there's a *will* to keep
it going,
>> > and they'll line up in droves to buy it and use it. (Even more,
if it's
>> > also coated in 120!)
>>
>>
>> Yet, nobody buys the stiff. Before digital, we sold lots of the
stuff. We
>> sold very little compared to E6 materials, however. We sold very
little 120
>> Kodachrome, incidentally. We always sold more print film than
slide film.
>
>But: the argument of toxic/carcinogenic waste is mooth, as long as
>Kodak still makes at least 1 type/size of Kodachrome.
>
>Same (even) if the last types *only* linger on because Kodak is
bound
>to some contracts with large/industrial/scientific customers.
>
>
>> > Would it be necessary to come up with a different *name*? Would
Yellow
>> > Father raise a stink over the use of the "Kodachrome" name?
>>
>>
>> They would be within their absolute rights to object. Again, you
assume
>> Kodak would allow others to make the stuff. You would need to
licence the
>> patents in place and that alone will cost lots of money. I just
paid a fee
>> for the rights to reproduce a Kodak Data Guide from 1943, so I
know how they
>> work and think.
>
>I doubt any essential Kodachrome patent is younger than 20
>years....after which there *is* no patent left.
>
>
>--
>Bye,
>
>Willem-Jan Markerink
>
> The desire to understand
>is sometimes far less intelligent than
> the inability to understand
>
><w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
>[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
>
One thing from moving to near Rochester the last year
is that I don't think Kodak *cares* about film. Its moving to China,
firing workers here, leveling production facilities and selling
off land. All for the good of stockholders. A recent CEO (hired from
HP)
just left, to the tune of a few million in stock after a few years.
Its saying its a big digital firm, but if you read the fine print,
its
going for the $200 cameras.
Now, nobody could compete with Kodak as far as film. It had the
expertise.
As far as home printers, dinky digital cameras, its cutting its
throat.
I see this as another disc film, APX, 126, etc etc etc that its done
over the ages. 35mm was the bedrock. But, no more. I even look at
film photographymagazines, no Kodak ads. Fuji, no Kodak.
The customer service has really gone downhill in the past decade or
so. I remember Kodak would answer letters, help with products,
quickly supply what you wanted. not anymore.
It used to be a good company.
regards.
Frank Schiffel
Lakeville, NY
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
