Re: Kodak and No. 2 Pencils

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

P3D Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> The other side of the coin is that, to a large extend, commercial film
> is a commodity, just like the No. 2 pencils that we use to fill out
> forms.  The majority of consumers do not care much about the technical
> data and, frankly, do not care if they use Fuji or Kodak since they
> cannot see much difference in their drug store processed prints.

We are largely in agreement, so just consider my remarks as comments.

I think the large majority of consumer use "noname" film, which today is
not bad stuff!  With super economy minilab processing, the print quality
is such that I doubt if it matters what the film is.

> 
> Professional photographers do not read spec sheets (past speed rating)
> but rather rely more on their own experience using these films or in
> reviews published by their peers who also report on their experiences.

In some fields, this is true.  I also read the reviews, but most
"reviews" are just hype to garner advertising, but you can't tell until
you read it.


> Photography is not an exact science and these specs don't mean much
> to most people who use common consumer films. The vast majority of
> film users will not pick Kodak, Ilford or Agfa over Fuji because
> they got enough data over the web to leave them confused for the
> rest of their lives... but will pick one over the other based on
> rational considerations like price and availability, and also
> irrational considerations like sense of trust, effect of
> advertisement, etc...  Many Americans will aways use Kodak
> because this is the "right thing to do" (support a US company).

"exact science" .... actually there are areas where it is just that, but
I agree you won't find consumers there.

To me availablitiy is not an issue,  Up here, in a town of 170,000 you
can buy virtually an film you name and unless you want usual development
processes, get it processed by a full service range of choice.

I always check Kodak because they tell yuo exactly what the product is. 
eg archive capabilities etc not just that Cindy Crawford looks great on
Velvia.  In fact, I have come to learn that "white skin" is not as
difficult to get right as "dark skin".  Anybody know of a film that gets
all "skins" right?

I also check AGFA, Ilford, etc.  Fuji tells me nada.  I would like to
know things like archive life, projection life, development guidelines
etc.  Until they do, I won't pay the premium, and make no mistake, Fuji
charges premium prices but lacks the service and support.

BTW, my wife always buys Fuji 400 whatever, because that's what came
with her camera, in 1986, and she likes the results.  Why experiment
when you don't have a problem, that's her point of view.  And for all
the pictures she takes, 3 rolls a year, what's six bucks ($2 per roll of
24 over "no name")?  Heck the camera cost $350, so just figure the
depreciation on it.  She could afford anything!

I don't figure film will die out, but it will die back.  Who is left
standing is determined by the knowledgable buyers.

Regards,
--
John Ohrt,  Regina, SK, Canada
johrt@xxxxxxx


------------------------------