Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MAubrey
Fuji discontinued the original Acros because some of the materials used in its production were difficult to obtain. So they had to reformulate it in order to rerelease it.
They had no need to discontinue Acros, changing some ingredients in the emulsion does not require to discontinue production and to make loyal cusmtomers move to another film. You make a master roll with the old emulsion and the next one with the following batch of the improved emulsion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MAubrey
Ilford had to do the same with their Harman Direct Positive Paper. It was gone from the market for a few years before they were able to restart it again.
Not exactly the same. In that case the separate company Ilford Imaging Switzerland GmbH crashed in 2013, and ilford UK could not manufacture it, it was not a regular product discontinuation but the bankruptcy of an indpendent company that was sourcing ilford UK.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Raw material costs, tools, R&D, insurance, labor, property, taxes, utilities, environmental costs, inventory, sales force, tech costs, shows, displays, POS costs, profit, legal, accounting, marketing, advertising, conventions, sales meetings, training, office costs, etc, etc, etc..
Bob, having the emulsion layers ready for rolls there is no investment to make sheets. A machine cutting rolls into sheets is very low technology, and they have a lot of those machines lying idle around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
The fact is that Ilford or Kodak or Fuji, or any other company, bases their prices based on what gives them an acceptable return on investment. Not what it costs per linear surface area.
In this case there is no "an acceptable return on investment" criterion, the sheets are a byproduct from rolls, having the emulsion for rolls... you spend a few gallons to make some sheets.
Here the pricing criterion is "more profit now" or "expanding the LF customer base" for the long term. This is IMHO.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Bob, having the emulsion layers ready for rolls there is no investment to make sheets. A machine cutting rolls into sheets is very low technology, and they have a lot of those machines lying idle around.
Sheet film and roll films are on different bases, you would have broken 35mm or mf cameras trying to transport sheet film base film through those cameras.
In this case there is no "an acceptable return on investment" criterion, the sheets are a byproduct from rolls, having the emulsion for rolls... you spend a few gallons to make some sheets.
Here the pricing criterion is "more profit now" or "expanding the LF customer base" for the long term. This is IMHO.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Sheet film and roll films are on different bases, you would have broken 35mm or mf cameras trying to transport sheet film base film through those cameras.
Of course, but coating technique is just the same, you simply coat on a base or the other to make the master roll. Even TMX and TMY have different base films, TMX kind blocks UV.
In theory a coating machine accepts any film base, but perhaps some material/thickness require a minimum diameter in the rollers/drums.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Of course, but coating technique is just the same, you simply coat on a base or the other to make the master roll. Even TMX and TMY have different base films, TMX kind blocks UV.
In theory a coating machine accepts any film base, but perhaps some material/thickness require a minimum diameter in the rollers/drums.
It's a question of minimum length, not roll diameter when coating. And have you actually tested the TMX sheet base for incorporated UV blocker? Every colour neg & pos film has a process surviving UV blocker layer in the topcoat. Adding that to the TMX coating package will have been much easier than making a custom polyester base material - and a unique base is highly unlikely when the same substrate is used across all of Kodak's sheet films.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
They had no need to discontinue Acros, changing some ingredients in the emulsion does not require to discontinue production and to make loyal cusmtomers move to another film. You make a master roll with the old emulsion and the next one with the following batch of the improved emulsion.
Ilford went through this with XP2 Super a few years ago - they had to alter components to comply with regulatory changes. They stated that although they had coated sufficient stock to last through the R&D period, if demand rose significantly or the R&D lasted longer than expected, there would be a gap in supply. Fuji is known to use tellurium & selenium in their emulsions as LIRF controls & if a regulatory change affected those & the R&D is potentially lengthy and extremely expensive compared to the seeming market share of the product...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Not exactly the same. In that case the separate company Ilford Imaging Switzerland GmbH crashed in 2013, and ilford UK could not manufacture it, it was not a regular product discontinuation but the bankruptcy of an indpendent company that was sourcing ilford UK.
It was almost entirely the complexity of re-manufacturing the nucleation component in the emulsion - direct positive emulsions are extremely complex & they had to learn to both make it & make it work well on a different manufacturing plant. Ilford had access to the formula, but it obviously took some intense research to get it to work.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Of course, but coating technique is just the same, you simply coat on a base or the other to make the master roll. Even TMX and TMY have different base films, TMX kind blocks UV.
In theory a coating machine accepts any film base, but perhaps some material/thickness require a minimum diameter in the rollers/drums.
Instead of your continually preaching to the choir why don’t you take your theory directly to the sources and ask upper level management at Kodak, Fuji and Ilford about your Don Quixote crusade?
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
They had no need to discontinue Acros, changing some ingredients in the emulsion does not require to discontinue production and to make loyal cusmtomers move to another film. You make a master roll with the old emulsion and the next one with the following batch of the improved emulsion.
...uh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
Not exactly the same. In that case the separate company Ilford Imaging Switzerland GmbH crashed in 2013, and ilford UK could not manufacture it, it was not a regular product discontinuation but the bankruptcy of an indpendent company that was sourcing ilford UK.
That's a good point. It's kind of like how pierogi from Ukraine isn't exactly the same as pierogi from Poland..
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Instead of your continually preaching to the choir why don’t you take your theory directly to the sources and ask upper level management at Kodak, Fuji and Ilford about your Don Quixote crusade?
He could go to Photrio and ask, but probably wouldn't like the answer from people who made the stuff.
Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response
Pere seems to have an amazing amount of inside knowledge, and must have some very skilled industrial spies on his payroll. I'd hate to see someone at Fuji or Harman go to the firing squad just for throwing a note with an emulsion formula on it into the trashcan.
Or maybe two halves of a secret are smuggled out on two matching torn pieces of a cereal box top. I remember something about "lenses" during one of those incidents.