Following Ilford's Lead, KODAK Response

[Drew Wiley]

I have a friend who bought into that whole "moon hoax" nonsense. I had to keep my mouth shut. That very afternoon my wife was taking cookies to one of her former patients who happens to be one of the last living members of the Apollo team, now about 97, who was in charge of both a lot of the guidance system as well as design and training - a former test pilot and alternate astronaut, but also an aeronautical engineer. Still sharp as a whistle. About a year and a half ago he told me every single Apollo craft was customized to the specific crew; so it was hard to substitute members on specific missions. But he didn't seem very interested in talking cameras, though he knew quite a few specifics.

[pepeguitarra]

I understand most of the glass taken into space and for observatories is ZEISS.

[Tim V]

I’d buy 8x10” tri-x and T-max if it was sold in 25 sheet packs and it was no more than 33% more than HP5 or Bergger. They’d be making more money off me right off that bat there, and saving on packaging and overall shipping outlay. But alas they don’t and won’t, and if what you say is correct then maybe other manufacturers will follow suit. It’d be like cutting their nose off to spite their face though, at least in my opinion.

I buy Portra regardless, but do wish it was in larger sheet quantity packs.

[Tin Can]

I prefer even # packs of any sheet film.

25 always leaves me wanting one more sheet.

10, 20, 50, 100 sheet packs are logical.

[Tim V]

Yes, very true!

[BrianShaw]

I prefer even # packs of any sheet film.

25 always leaves me wanting one more sheet.

10, 20, 50, 100 sheet packs are logical.

Buy two...

[Drew Wiley]

Pepeguitarra - what was taken to the moon back then was just a modified Hassie, so Zeiss optics would be natural. But customized optics were taking over. I worked alongside the fellow who made the Pioneer satellite optics, after he left NASA. Nobody back in the moon landing days would have even dreamed of the kinds of optics technology being used today for space research.Lots of it is being made here in the Bay Area, just a few minutes from where I live. A single project might involve more money than everything sold under Zeiss label could garner over decades. It takes big national and even international budgets to do that. In some of these projects glass has been replaced by composite mirrors which can be readjusted, slightly changing shape thousands of times a second.

[ic-racer]

Or maybe Ilford is prepared to barely make a profit on 8x10 sheets. You might not like it, but those Kodak prices are more in line with historic norms (just not the distorted 1990's). Mirko Boedekker of Adox has been quite outspoken about the necessity of paying more realistic prices relative to market share if we are to see investment in the future of film photography. The idea of 8x10 as being somehow affordable is largely a hangover from the collapse of film sales in the early 2000's.

You are satisfied with pricing when 1600 square inches of film cost 2.5 times more when packaged in a box than a perforated roll, that is great.

[Drew Wiley]

Sheet film base is way thicker and a different material anyway. It costs considerably more to make per square inch. But having to pay for yet another box per ten sheets is something of a ruse. Hard to say what they were thinking.

[invisibleflash]

There's a difference. Ilford has done a good job telling us who they are; Kodak is telling us who they once were. It takes more than a marketing dept to keep pace. Let's hope they can figure out a justification to produce E6 sheet film again. But it won't be affordable for many, so a gamble. I depend on their color neg as well as TMax products.

Yes, Kodak was something in their day. But nostalgia only goes so far.