Velvia sheet film hasn't gone anywhere, literally - its still in Japan and readily available.Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Velvia sheet film hasn't gone anywhere, literally - its still in Japan and readily available.
Not in 8x10.... You can't buy it in Acros100 or Velvia50 on 8x10 new because they stopped cutting it.
And yea, japan .... Not the US, it's already expensive without having to pay shipping from japan.
Also this causes an offset of the view of where Sales are viewed as most interest. Because Fuji won't know that many of the sales of V50 are being imported to the US and V100 sales might drop in the US and the there's none easily available.
And don't try and say, "well it's available you just need to pay to play" that shipping cost for small quantities really eats into the total amount one person can purchase and does offset the amount people will purchase in a given year. This drops the use of it and to Fuji, this shows a decline. That's all they see. They don't track where the purchase goes, Judy the orders from distributors.
Anyway... Very frustrating stuff. And the reason V50 is only available in japan now, and not cut in 8x10 is the decline of sales in general, so, it's on it's way out, I hope you can see that...
I went in for 4 boxes mostly to support those who really want this product...think of my needs for Kodak products next time any of you decide to bash them.
The other reason being is that he is going to use a film that is already made as the negative component, so his product will invariably support another one currently made. And when I got to thinking about it, this could be a good operative for a service I am considering offering in the future. I also PM'd him and told him to knock off the defeatist crap, it does no one any good and is truly the opposite of what gets people excited about something...."Negative Nancy" does not get a date, let alone a marriage proposal...
As for the reference to color materials above, Stone...there is a wall that *may* have writing on it and then there is simply writing on the wall. I hope for the sake of people who want to use the materials that those stocks stay around, they certainly are unique but are in another league in terms of complexity, cost of manufacture and it does not look good. I stocked up on what I plan to shoot of it which is not much, I think far more long term than that as I suspect others do too and long term for E-6 to me says it is terminal.
I'm not sure if this project will make it, time is indeed running short and if it does not, well there is some sorely needed market info. In reading another thread regarding statements made by Ilford's Michael Bain, medium and large format film sales continue to see "Steady Growth" so we can not gauge the LF market as a whole by a project like this succeeding or not...lots of photographers smartly choose to avoid the internet, so there are others out there.
I did my part, we'll see what happens...
By Kodachrome25
This is an excellent point. Looking at the New55 project I'm seeing more and more mistakes in earlier marketing (or lack thereof), which in case they don't make it, is going to be a big part of the blame. But again, the feed from Sam Hiser is strange and really makes sense only, if it was meant to say ..."we're actually folding our efforts and we'd rather not see the kickstarter funding to materialize". Even, if I remain hopeful we'll see this product live, I'm growing weary of a project which is asking for a donation in the $400,000 range with zero guarantees.The other reason being is that he is going to use a film that is already made as the negative component, so his product will invariably support another one currently made
Witold
simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...
Given the amount of money involved, I felt I needed to voice below opinion while realizing, it may sway some away from backing it. Everyone should look at it from his/her own perspective.
Someone said before: "I'll buy the actual product, but without a pledge" and I'm beginning to see it the same way.
The New55 project surely seems like a noble idea, and is certainly pitched that way.
$400 k of play money, no guarantees, no equity offers on the table. Is this really a serious project? I don't see any plans or tools for its backers to monitor when the funds are being used either (again, project gives no guarantees of delivering anything, so if there is nothing in the end, who is to tell where the money went?) Am I overly suspicious? Probably (and I hope I am), but that changes nothing on the project's transparency front. If there is anything on the Kickstarter that counters this, perhaps somebody can show me where it is?
Some will say: what's $25 to you (or any amount)? Wouldn't you want the product come out?
And I'll surely would reply: I'd like to see it, I would also use it.
All the same, I would also state that when someone is asking for a big chunk of doe while leaving himself every possible option to deliver nothing, he is (at least) questioning the possibility of final success, while having no trouble asking for serious funding anyway.
So I'm on the outside looking in.
Witold
simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...
That's the gist of Kickstarter. You pay the money, you take the ride with the creators to see if they can make it to the end or not. It doesn't work for everybody, there is no shame in staying out. I've got my money in there with full knowledge of what may or may not happen.
What you do have in the case of New 55 is a project that has been moving forward for the past 3-4 years with a lot of well-documented research, steps forward and steps back. You also have the documented support of a lot of credible people and places like 20x24 studios. You know something about the history of Bob and Sam and you know that they've been working on a business plan.
You can take all that but at the end of the day there is some faith involved.
I'll just add that I've backed over 20 Kickstarter projects to date and I've been happy with the outcome of every one of them. The failures get blown out of proportion to the successes.
Witold,
#1: Do you think that the start-up cost for building the manufacturing machinery is unrealistic?
#2: Do you think that the stated risks are unrealistic?
I think that Bob has stated things quite realistically. He's had prior experience in regards to bringing innovative products to market, and, given funding, that New55 can succeed, too. However, he can't get normal funding for this, and commercial lenders aren't going to lend startup money for a known user base of 1,500 people. Bob isn't one of the fly-by-night patent medicine hawkers. One again: Bob has a good track record.
As for asking for a lot of money, I've seen a number of projects for video games that asked for, and received, far more money. One project, Neal Stephenson's Clang!, wound up spending all the money on costs, never paid the developers who did the work, but did deliver an alpha version to the supporters.
What's the real probability that New55 will go down in flames even if Bob gets full funding? I say, "low." There isn't a lot more R&D to be done. What he needs is the machinery that will be used to assemble the sheet assemblies. If Bob had started the project saying, "I need $500,000 to do basic R&D," then I would never funded this. But the base R&D has been done (on Bob's own dime!), and now it's time for the machinery.
For the project to succeed, it needs to raise an average of $25,000 per day over the next five days. So, yeah, sitting it out may really mean the difference of the project succeeding or never seeing any product like Type 55 again. Ilford has categorically stated that they will not even pursue a *Load product. New55 is it, take it or leave it.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
I have to agree with Brian. This is a huge opportunity for ALL film photographers, whether they use instant film or not. If we demonstrate that there is still demand for even what many consider a niche product others will take notice and it will help even solidify what other film options we have now.
Also, people who may not be shooting film may try this as they can get the immediate gratification that they are used to in the digital world. Once they see how beautiful LF images can look they may continue to other films or just stick with this option.
It's about momentum, opportunity and perceptions. With the success of this effort we may help, even if in just a little way, the general perception that film is gone or going away. And that's a win for us all.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
And on that note, I also just doubled my pledge.
An equity offer would have completed Kickstarter campaign a long time ago. Why isn't it there?
Majority of Kickstarters are low ball affairs with easy cost prediction. When you pledge say $25 for someone to publish a book and you get the book in the end, you know the risks of NOT getting one are practically non existent (quality of the book aside). New55 offers nothing as a matter of precaution and whether the stated risks are realistic will only have been known when the time comes to deliver, and that is a far away date. At the same time it is a LOT of money they are after. I'm not sure, if some backers actually understand this concept, where even the smallest donation goes towards a large compiled sum with exit gates opened in more than one place.
Where is the transparency of expenditures as they come from Kickstarter funding? This probably bothers me the most in the whole deal. When you ask for funding, you should have a pretty clear plan of how you are going to prove your spending, so in the end (and especially, if the end is sad) people at least won't be questioning how they went about it (and I would expect a LOT of questions from backers, and non, regarding it).
If you have pledged for say 4 boxes and (especially) your decision to join in was more based on sympathy than actual need, how are you going to respond, if there is no 4 boxes in the end? Is everyone really going to just keep quiet and say nothing? I may be the only one here who would expect a provable monitoring of expenditures, but this should be also in the interest of project's curators to have it in place prior to even initiating the Kickstarter. The fact it isn't there is worrisome.
Some of you may know Bob and associates personally and that may make them comfortable with any pledge they make. Nor do I question any R&D that had already been completed. However, given how the use of the $400 k funding is explained, it is quite clear to me that the authors themselves are unsure of the outcome production wise.
So yes, I see it as $400 k of play money with no guarantees and potentially a lot of people more than disappointed.
P.S. This is the only thread or place I'm stating my concerns about the project. I'm not spreading this around the web. It is not my intention to derail the project, although I have a good reason to believe a lot of backers are not realistic about their own expectations. It would be great to have film products available indefinitely (different discussion though) and I agree the New55 would support sustainability (or perhaps even growth) of film production. I hope it does.
Witold
simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks