B&W film at Kodak growth

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Michael Scarpitti, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Michael Scarpitti

    David Foy Guest

    Kodak did a market test in Atlanta two years ago, promoting black and white,
    and got the shock of their lives when it was hugely successful. They've
    rolled it out and are enjoying a good-sized jump in sales.

    David Foy
     
    David Foy, Oct 1, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Scarpitti

    Norman Worth Guest

    When they feel that traditional film and paper are no longer profitable
    enough, they can spin off that part of the business.
     
    Norman Worth, Oct 2, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I don't think that's a problem. B&W film long ago fell out of favour
    with the consumer. While most photographers will abandon chemical
    photgraphy for digital, and many on this list will adpot it, in the end
    the demand for B&W will stay level.

    Let's face it, why should someone like Kodak spend money on R&D for B&W film?
    We're still arguing over things like is TMAX any good? (how long has it been
    around?), why TRI-X is better? What happened to Panatomic-X? and where can
    I get KB-25 and Edwal FG7, both of which I used in the 60's?

    My favorite question is why dosen't anyone use Plus-X?

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Oct 2, 2003
    #23
  4. Because FP4 blows it away.........
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 2, 2003
    #24
  5. I recently tested 4x5 100 speed films to find a replacement for plus x
    I found I did not like FP4,....not enough shadow detail even rating the
    film at 80. So I tried Delta 100 now I am reasonably happy. Less contrast better
    grain....and better stain.

    Still I would choose PX if still available in 4x5.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 2, 2003
    #25
  6. Michael Scarpitti

    Jorge Omar Guest

    I do, develop in a Xtol like dev and I'm very happy with it.

    Jorge
     
    Jorge Omar, Oct 2, 2003
    #26
  7. I knew there was at least one other PX user out there ;-)
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 2, 2003
    #27
  8. I read something similar in ''Black & White Photography'' (GMC
    Publications Ltd) half a year ago. Apparently both Kodak and
    Ilford experienced a boost in the B&W sales last year. It was
    expected but not in that degree.
     
    Jörgen Persson, Oct 2, 2003
    #28
  9. Michael Scarpitti

    Jorge Omar Guest

    If we keep this thread going, maybe we can become the PX basketball team
    (-:

    Jorge
     
    Jorge Omar, Oct 2, 2003
    #29
  10. What developer did you use on the FP4?
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 2, 2003
    #30
  11. What's the difference, It did not give me the results I wanted
    but got with Delta 100 case closed end of story.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 2, 2003
    #31
  12. Michael Scarpitti

    J Stafford Guest

    I love PX and PXP. I still have a lot of it in the deep-freeze.
     
    J Stafford, Oct 3, 2003
    #32
  13. Why not try a really exotic developper such as

    bis(1-hydroxy-3-methylcyclopentadienyl)-iron in a suitable solution?

    triptycenediol is another one that might bear investigation.

    Experimenting with Vanadium Bromide (0.45m) in Hydrogen Bromide (1.4N)
    would probably make you the only one on your block using something so
    exotic.

    Why use these boring benzene-ring compounds that have been used over 100
    years?
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Oct 3, 2003
    #33
  14. Al films have 'best matches', and maybe you did not get the best match
    with FP4. I consider it hands down better than Plux-X, though I cannot
    say how it compares with Delta 100, a film with which I have little
    experience.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 3, 2003
    #34
  15. I am only interested in the developer, its properties and the look it
    and the film give me, I am not going to use something else period.
    Delta works and is finer grained than FP4.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 3, 2003
    #35
  16. Michael Scarpitti

    Norman Worth Guest

    I've used FP4+ in D-76 1+1 with pretty decent results on sheet film. There
    may be something better, but I'm used to D-76. I find FP4+ somewhat better
    than the PX I remember, which was good.

    Remember that MS treats shadows somewhat differently than most
    pictorialists.
     
    Norman Worth, Oct 3, 2003
    #36
  17. Michael Scarpitti

    Norman Worth Guest

    Kodak may feel that its current products will be sufficient to meet demands
    for B&W for the next several years. The increase in demand for B&W
    represents an upturn after years of decline. The worry for this sort of
    decision is that something significant will come from the competition.
    Kodak either feels that is not a threat or doesn't care. Big competitive
    issues for them right now are OLEDs, where they have been the absolute front
    runner and are now seeing serious competition from Japan and China, and
    digital printing, a growth area where their dye sublimation products are
    suffering some serious competition.
     
    Norman Worth, Oct 3, 2003
    #37
  18. Michael Scarpitti

    John Guest

    20 years. It was announced in the fall of 1983 at Photokina I believe.

    Regards

    John S. Douglas, Photographer
    http://www.darkroompro.com
     
    John, Oct 4, 2003
    #38
  19. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:41:47 +0000 (UTC), (Geoffrey S.
    : Mendelson) wrote:

    : >We're still arguing over things like is TMAX any good? (how long has it been
    : >around?)

    : 20 years. It was announced in the fall of 1983 at Photokina I believe.

    Has it been that long?? I remember getting a couple of rolls back then and I hated
    the results. Way to contrasty with blown out highlights. Then I learned the zone
    system, how to test film speed, and determine development time and then I quickly
    came to love it. :)

    It's a film made for the zone system.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Oct 4, 2003
    #39
  20. Hmmm, my recollection says 1987. Can anyone check?
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 4, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.