Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Coffee With Mentors > Tom Abrahamsson of RapidWinder.com

Tom Abrahamsson of RapidWinder.com It is almost never that an inventor improves on a Leica product so that it is better than the original Leica product. Tom holds that distinction with his RapidWinder for Leica M rangefinders -- a bottom mounting baseplate trigger advance. In addition Tom manufacturers other Leica accessories such as his very popular Soft Release and MiniSoftRelease shutter releases. Tom is well known as one of the true Leica rangefinder experts, even by Leica. IMPORTANT READ THIS: CWE Forum hosts have moderation powers within their forum. Please observe copyright laws by not copying and posting their material elsewhere without permission.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

if kodak dies
Old 10-02-2011   #1
bfffer
Registered User
 
bfffer is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 113
if kodak dies

Tom what will you use to replace tri-X?

i am sooo worried i bought 20 rolls today and starting a Tri-X M2 month.
__________________
Buy less, shoot more.

My blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #2
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 582
ilford, rollei, fuji... i've actually never used tri-X (maybe should try before it 's gone) ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #3
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,737
I agree, alternative B&W options should be available for quite some time. I really don't like the outlook for color, though. Including movie stock.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“You’ve never seen everything” – Bruce Cockburn

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #4
mwooten
light user
 
mwooten's Avatar
 
mwooten is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greenville sc, usa
Posts: 1,021
I will guess that the film division would be sold (or spun off) to another entity. Not being an expert on the subject, but management says that the film division took its big hit because of lower demand and the rise in silver prices.
__________________
rff gallery

blog: atomicspa.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #5
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwooten View Post
I will guess that the film division would be sold (or spun off) to another entity. Not being an expert on the subject, but management says that the film division took its big hit because of lower demand and the rise in silver prices.
I keep reading on various threads that film prices (including color) are increasing because of silver prices but I always thought color film doesn't use silver, does it? Thought it was dye-based.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #6
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I keep reading on various threads that film prices (including color) are increasing because of silver prices but I always thought color film doesn't use silver, does it? Thought it was dye-based.
The silver is bleached out during processing.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #7
mwooten
light user
 
mwooten's Avatar
 
mwooten is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greenville sc, usa
Posts: 1,021
When a thread appeared in RFF last week concerning Kodak I went and looked through Kodak's latest 10Q. On page 36 (I think) in the notes the management give the reason as being, in part, based upon the price of silver.
As far as how color film works, I really don't know if silver is used or not.
__________________
rff gallery

blog: atomicspa.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #8
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,184
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.

The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die. Whether it would be the same or not if somebody else picked it up - who knows... Kodak has already changed and revised the formula a bunch, so a new manufacturer may not care too much about how it is made.

I would be more worried about something like Endura Metallic VC, that aren't likely to get pick up, or have no rough equivalent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.

The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die. Whether it would be the same or not if somebody else picked it up - who knows... Kodak has already changed and revised the formula a bunch, so a new manufacturer may not care too much about how it is made.

I would be more worried about something like Endura Metallic VC, that aren't likely to get pick up, or have no rough equivalent.
Any emulsion technician. Ask 'em.

It WOULDN'T be the same.

Even when you move a coating machine, and use the same formulae and the same people to run the machine, it's extremely difficult to get an emulsion absolutely the same as before. Ilford found this when they moved to Mobberley, and the most recent update of Tri-X coincided with a move to another machine at Rochester. As I said elsewhere, it's very like brewing: at least as much art and alchemy as science, even though there's lots of science in it.

Besides, as Willie 901 says, it's not really that important. Until the last revision of Tri-X, my wife (fractionally) preferred HP5. Now she (fractionally) prefers Tri-X. Anyne who believes that their photography will come to a crashing halt if a given product is abandoned should ask themselves a simple question. Which is more important, their film choice or their skill and artistry?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 10-02-2011 at 09:03.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #10
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Any emulsion technician. Ask 'em.

It WOULDN'T be the same.

Even when you move a coating machine, and use the same formulae and the same people to run the machine, it's extremely difficult to get an emulsion absolutely the same as before.
That goes without saying of course.

I was thinking more along the lines of what happened to Agfa.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #11
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.
Sure, the trademarks won't disappear. Doesn't mean a thing. Polaroid and Agfa are still around as trademarks.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“You’ve never seen everything” – Bruce Cockburn

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #12
hendriphile
Registered User
 
hendriphile's Avatar
 
hendriphile is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks. The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die.
Perhaps something analogous to Voigtlander... a great name in German optics, older than Leica, perhaps even older than Kodak... which went belly-up and then was resurrected (even to their design lettering) by Cosina.
__________________
"It's so heavy! And it's full of numbers!" --- teenaged niece upon meeting my M3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #13
Kolame
Registered User
 
Kolame is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 175
hendriphile, right, but think of Agfa e.g. as well… If Kodak goes that way, it'd be a shame!
__________________
Some pictures of mine [blog].
Life’s unfair, but think, not always for your disfavour.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #14
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone.
Said the Brontosaurus to the Tyrannosaurus.

Kodak seems an obvious candidate to be bought by someone who then sells off the pieces. I'd bet that in 5 years Kodak film is reduced to a few color boutique brands at 2-3 times current prices. No b&w.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #15
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,610
Think about all the photographs recorded by humans word-wide in the past 60 days with any sort of camera in any sort of medium.

Now, how many of those photographers have ever heard of Tri-X? The answer is: hardly any.

Since 2000 film has been slowly but surely transitioning into a niche product for a very small percentage of the global photography market. If Kodachrome died, so can Tri-X.

All you can do is delay the inevitable. Freeze as much Tri-X as you can. Over the years modify your development technique to offset the inevitable fogging from cosmic-ray exposure.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #16
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 70
Posts: 5,536
I would hope that if Kodak goes down, someone would snap up the film division. Films like TriX is still profitable - probably the highest margin of any of their products. It is almost a "generic" name for black/white - really no need for advertising/marketing etc - which saves a lot of money. There is probably a lot of "parent" rolls of it in the saltmines too.
Just in case. I will start adding some more TriX to my current stash of 100 ft spools - and in the worst case scenario - there is XX 0 though I should stock up on that too.
I do hope they survive with a reasonable structure in place. They really put photography in the hands of everybody with the first box-cameras - and with films like TriX - what we know of the 50's and 60's and later is very much captured on that iconic emulsion.
There are other films - but after 50 years with TriX I would really hate to have to learn a new film!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #17
mwooten
light user
 
mwooten's Avatar
 
mwooten is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: greenville sc, usa
Posts: 1,021
My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.
__________________
rff gallery

blog: atomicspa.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #18
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwooten View Post
My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.
That seems to me the second likeliest scenario, with Kodak's staying in business as the likeliest (though I'd not place bets either way). The third likeliest is a simple disappearance, and the fourth is an attempt to re-create the film after a hiatus, Agfa-style.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Now even more free photography information on www.rogerandfrances.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #19
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwooten View Post
My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.
That would be a best case scenario but there are at least several others. I have seen several Paper Machines dismantled and shipped overseas to foreign buyers when they were obsolete here and uneconomical to run.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #20
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 37
Posts: 2,655
As Tom said much of the 50's and 60's were captured on Tri-X. But the bulk of the imagery captured during the 20th century was on Kodak film. It has to be some overwhelming percentage since they were and to some extent, still are ubiquitous. The world without Kodak is a completely different history. Yes some other company would have made a similar process but they may not have been so constant and present in our lives and throughout the last 110 years. Revisionist historical musings, of course.

As for Tri-X in 35mm, I'm planning on replacing that with a few thousand feet of frozen XX and modifying my development. Now, film for the Rolleiflex or the 4x5 cameras, that's going to be a different matter all together.

And the death of Kodak will absolutely NOT be good for photography. Why? Artists should not be limited to using only 1 type or size of brush for painting; only 1 specific weight pencil for drawing; or only one medium in any craft. The lack of tools for creative expression can be a step towards homogeneity.

Phil Forrest

Last edited by Phil_F_NM : 10-02-2011 at 11:08.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #21
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
As Tom said much of the 50's and 60's were captured on Tri-X. But the bulk of the imagery captured during the 20th century was on Kodak film.
Even in the US Kodak weren't that dominant for most of the 20th century - at times, big competitors like Ansco or Dupont had quite significant market shares, and the many small makers accounted for a lot too. Elsewhere Kodak often did not even enter the market until the sixties or seventies - the film markets in the bigger European countries still were dominated by national makers up into the sixties to nineties. And even that still is a Euro-American biased view that does not account for the majority of the global population that lived in parts of the planet where Kodak film was unobtainable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #22
emilsand
Registered User
 
emilsand is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 163
I just ordered $700 worth of film from Ilford, so I guess that would be my option.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #23
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,278
The company will break up in order to survive. Patent sales will be used to finance things. The name, 'Kodak' has real value and will remain attached to whatever portion of the business has the best chance of long term survival. Tri-X will be made for at least the next twenty years. Likely, by a company that purchased the rights and equipment from Kodak. Don't know if it will remain a close imitation of the present product.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #24
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,184
Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #25
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?
Personally I am not concerned that film will disappear altogether but will become hugely expensive to buy and use from fewer and fewer production sources. If all Kodak film were to disappear, as tragic as that might be to some, there are still several other sources for similar film products. What is the big panic? I would worry when the absolute last source of production of film shuts down permanently.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:00.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.