Re: [Leica] Re. New TriX

[Ernest Nitka <enitka@twcny.rr.com>]

Carl - thanks for the inside scoop.  it is tough to be competitive in 
the film world when everyone is saying that the medium is dead, going 
to be dead.  I harbor no illusions that Ilford ( which is really 
International Paper) wouldn't do what Kodak is doing if they needed to. 
  It's just that so far Ilford has stayed consistent for several years 
now, no Xtol debacle etc.

ernie


On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Carl Pultz wrote:

> 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
>

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