[Leica] Re. New TriX

[Carl Pultz <cpultz@earthlink.net>]

Hi folks,

Ernie wrote:

 > This is sure to be splitting hairs but what is the point of having less
 > grain in Tri X?  As someone already pointed out - maybe BD, it is the
 > film's 'signature' grain that makes it TriX - otherwise call it non - T
 > Grain Tmax.  Does anyone on the list know Kodak's reason for this new
 > TriX?  Is it just that this is what they can produce in their new plant
 > and they are trying to dupe us into thinking this is an improved TriX -
 > what was wrong with the old TriX.  Sorry for the rant.
 >
 > Ernie HP5+ Nitka

I was recently talking to a local guy who is in an excellent position to 
know details of Kodak's retooling - not an employee, but well connected, 
interested and concerned. I'm very sure I quote him correctly, but you how 
second-hand stories can be, so caveat reader.

We were discussing what he regards as the inevitable disappearance of film 
when I sited the apparent investment Kodak has made in new production lines 
as a positive sign. He floored me by saying that there is no new coating 
facility - it's a line(s) built in the 80s! (?)

It's not that the old facilities were waring out or polluting too much (two 
explanations I'd heard), but they simply were designed to continuously coat 
huge amounts of film, production that is now beyond demand. Apparently, the 
newer (smaller?) plants are geared toward producing smaller batches or 
switching from one emulsion to another. (Maybe both - I'm not clear on that.)

Now, that's fine except for one thing: the best way to make film is to make 
it continuously. It's the most efficient cost wise. It's also the key to 
consistent quality. This is especially true, he told me, of color films and 
papers. So, that suggests a couple areas of concern: if the 
quality/consistency of film declines, it will hasten pro's conversion to 
digital; fewer types of film will be made; the cost of film has only begun 
to rise, which will impact consumer sales; further decreases of production 
will cause a downward spiral of quality, demand and management commitment 
to the products.

None of this is Kodak's fault, he stressed. They can't go on cranking out 
films 24/7/365 that don't get sold. How well they'll be able to manage the 
engineering challenges of maintaining quality will depend on physics, 
chemistry, and art, all of which Kodak has (or had). But, will they find it 
worth the cost? That depends on the market.

And, I would add, on the willingness of Kodak and other film makers to 
promote their traditional products.

For those of us who live in Rochester, the decline of film production has a 
silver lining (sorry!): New York State's worse polluter produces a little 
less crap that shortens our lives. Of course, we're all a little poorer, too.

You want fries with that?

C (traitorous Fuji user) P

Latest PAW http://quazynet.no-ip.org/PAW/PAW03-5.htm only a month late.

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html