Re: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued

From: Ryuji Suzuki ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-11:43:23 AM Z
Message-id: <20050713.134323.212904462.lifebook-4234377@silvergrain.org>

From: "Baird, Darryl" <dbaird@umflint.edu>
Subject: RE: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:29:05 -0400

> I would like to weigh in with a question - what products would be
> desired, as a 'must-have' from Kodak? Could these products/materials
> be revived by smaller, boutique-style manufacuers or are there other
> problems involved that the scale and size of Kodak solved. Would
> Kodak sell the patents?

I hope Kodak continues to make all current b&w films. If not, I'd keep
T-MAX 100, Tri-X and T-MAX P3200 and ditch others. (Though I love
Plus-X a lot and I always stock several bricks in my fridge.) I don't
need any Kodak processing chemicals. Regarding products useful for
non-silver halide photography, I think all useful products from Kodak
are gone already...

It is unlikely that Kodak bothers to sell their patents when they
discontinue some products. Color printing paper is still a viable
market and at least Fujifilm is still putting a significant research
into it. It's hard to know which of older patents are useful later in
court when there is a dispute for current products.

Also, buying Kodak patents is not going to enable a small company to
produce Kodak-quality films. Kodak products depend on not only Kodak
inventions but also inventions by others and they have mutual
licensing agreements. Also, patents are required to disclose the best
mode of implementation of the invention known to the inventor but they
are very often very short in this aspect, and also they are by no
means required to disclose the best product design utilizing the
invention. That is, patent may give you some information but it is not
enough to make a product. Much of important information is kept
proprietary.

From: BOB KISS <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
Subject: RE:Just the facts, Ma'am, Just the facts... Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:45:13 -0300

> 2) Kentmere has introduced their own fine art silver/gelatin papers
> and are doing a BIG advertising push. All this while we are hearing
> of implosions from Kodak, Ilford, etc., etc!

Paper is significantly low tech compared to the latest films and
smaller companies may be able to do fine job.

> 3) Bergger has given us something close to Super XX.
> What does this tell us?

Bergger BPF 200 is nothing like Super XX. For example, compare gamma
infinity. I think the similarity is limited to the nominal speed and
the rest of the story was a marketing gimmick.

> 3) The smaller manufacturers are not producing mass market QUALITY
> items...they are going for US...the fine art high end market.

When shopping for films, I always pay attention to the film base
material. For b&w still photography films, I would not consider
triacetate films. Archival storage of triacetate (TAC) films is a lot
more pain in the azz than later polyester (PET and PEN) films though
TAC film is still made and used. Films using PET and PEN are
technically a lot more demanding to manufacture, but they provide good
dimensional stability, good archival property without worrying about
too many variables during storage. PEN (A-PEN) is the most advanced
film base material that offers the stability of PET without its
strong curling tendency, which is very useful for roll formats and
35mm. It was one of the new technology introduced with the notorious
APS system.

I do want all these benefits from recent technological advancement and
the only way I can see to get them is to support existing, viable
companies that can adapt to the changing market. I don't care if I
have to bulk purchase direct from the manufacturer once a year. I
don't care if the product comes in plain white box without any fancy
printing. But I do care for good image permanence and other aspects of
fine quality b&w films.
Received on Wed Jul 13 11:43:58 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/25/05-05:31:51 PM Z CST