It's not a question of them chickening out ... they're a company that's fighting to survive. If they reach a point where they start losing money on film and can't find a way out of it, they'll drop it. It's really that simple.Originally Posted by Lynn Jones
Sure about that?Consider this: there are more horses now, when they aren't much other than playthings, than 100 years ago when they still pulled plows, wagons, artillery and streetcars.
According to this source:
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mrussell/...o%20horses.pdf
there were 26.5 million horses in the U.S. in 1910, and 92 million people (.28 horses per capita)
In 2000 there were 7.1 million horses and 281 million people (.025 horses per capita).
So there were more than 10 times more horses in 1910 than in 2000.
Why? Because in 1910 horses were indispensable tools, and in 2000 they were companions.
Surely, people still appreciate the intrinsic beauty of horses, but they don't need one. Just as people will appreciate the intrinsic beauty of a view camera, but they won't need film to use one.
Last edited by Jay DeFehr; 2-Jun-2011 at 20:48. Reason: spelling
That totally sucks but is totally true.
It's why I'm wondering about the practicality of small companies making it...
Re: horses ... on a more disturbing note, they still use larged hooved mammals to make film, don't they?
But you can certainly coat glass plates one at a time
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
My info came from a farrier's conference a couple of years ago.
But whatever the numbers there is still an active horse industry in the USA that is worth a great deal of money, and an industry which exists for reasons other than man's infatuation with modern technology. It exists because enough people wantit to exist, so I maintain that traditional photography isn't so far off the mark in this respect.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Harman Technology (Ilford monochrome products) operates a coating machine that is a city block long. But during the difficult years since the bankruptcy of the former Ilford Imaging they have become a much leaner operation; they've radically reduced the size of their staff and have figured out how to manage their coating and finishing operations to make shorter product runs economically viable, while still maintaining good QC. (No, Frank, you don't have to tell us again.)
They have a much smaller second coating machine that as I recall is used mainly for R&D, but can also be used to produce product if necessary.
In principle it is entirely possible to use smaller coating machines to make excellent monochrome products. In practice, we see that the smaller players seem to find quality control a challenge.
There's a lot of voodoo in coating film and paper, and even with experienced staff a fair amount of trial and error - and hence, a fair amount of up-front cost - can be expected before saleable product can be produced reliably. The only important analog film/paper startup that I'm aware of in recent years (in the West, I should add - I know hardly anything about what may be going on in China) is the resuscitation of some of the old Agfa film and paper product lines by the Fotoimpex-renamed-Adox group, working in collaboration with these folks -
http://www.inoviscoat.de/index.php?o...=81&Itemid=130
- who run the coating machine. Arguably it shouldn't be considered a true startup, because of the substantial tangible and intangible inheritance from Agfa. Even at that, because of a combination of economic conditions, marketing considerations and technical challenges, bringing these products to market has been a very slow process, and not without some QC hiccups. This isn't low-hanging fruit - you need a patient investor and very knowledgeable and committed management to pull it off. But the packages of fresh Adox MCC and MCP paper that are being happily consumed now in many of our darkrooms are testimony that it can be done.
More re barriers to entry: Beyond laying your hands on a coating machine and hiring qualified, experienced production staff, procuring all necessary raw materials in sufficient quality and quantity at a tolerable price can be a challenge. The problems caused by the spike in the price of silver are obvious. But more obscure or specialized inputs, such as certain specialty chemical compounds, or things like backing paper for 120 rolls, can also be difficult to procure in the small quantities needed for niche-market product runs. As I recall, Simon Galley of Harman has observed that even at their (relatively) high volumes they sometimes find themselves having to buy years' worth of certain inputs at a time to get them at all. That means precious capital tied up in inventory for extended periods.
Provocative thought. Less disturbing, except perhaps for PETA, is the use of horses in movies and, in my area, for farming. A horse still has more practical intelligence than computerized farm equipment.
The demise of film in photography and horses in farming is far in the future.
Yeah, it'd be kinda hard to make Charge of the Light Brigade and such without them, don't you think?
But as for movies themselves, they're increasingly shot and projected digitally.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks