Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by MAubrey View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,409

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    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.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    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.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    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.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    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 View Post

    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.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,409

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    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?

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
    Posts
    519

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    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 View Post
    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..

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,337

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Expired Kodak Photoflow, Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, Ilford Rapid Fixer > still ok to
    By l2oBiN in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28-Nov-2018, 16:04
  2. New Lead Screw for Kodak/Century Bi-post Stand
    By Peter De Smidt in forum LF DIY (Do It Yourself)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9-Jul-2015, 10:35
  3. Ilford vs Kodak B&W
    By ignatiusjk in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 22-Nov-2009, 12:28
  4. Lead X ray bag
    By Songyun in forum Gear
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-Mar-2009, 05:20

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •