Irresponsible conflation of Kodak and Ilford

Some of the photos (like the one of the Ilford truck) gives the impression of it all sliding down into oblivion, which is not the case. Ilford is on the ball, Impossible Project is starting to look possible, and who knows, something might even come out of the ashes of the Kodak restructuring? It's not all gloom and doom. 🙂
 
Some of the photos (like the one of the Ilford truck) gives the impression of it all sliding down into oblivion, which is not the case. Ilford is on the ball, Impossible Project is starting to look possible, and who knows, something might even come out of the ashes of the Kodak restructuring? It's not all gloom and doom. 🙂
Exactly. That's why I found it irresponsible.

Cheers,

R.
 
Oh well.

As long as film is bought, someday the tune will change to 'the one that got away' and we will have other articles highlighting the continued existence of film.

Menawhile, I'm getting ready to purchase 152 mtrs of Polypan F and a busload of Rodinal and will use digital for anything that cannot be tackled by that combo.

So I'm good, thank you 😉
 
I'm finding more and more people come back to film. Everyone has a soft spot for it. And there are people out there that still see it as a competitor to digital. Someone was telling me how everything digital looks all the same. Everyone is using the same sensor, the same presets, the same looks. Its all boring and sterile.

"there's just a look of film, an organic look, that just can't be touched by digital"
 
I enjoyed the article, like the photos and don't see any problem with the text.

The views expressed in the article seem typical of film advocates including many of us here at RFF: regret at the decline of film; fear for the future of colour film; and hope for the continued niche for black and white film.

Who would argue that the golden age of film has not passed? And how is this quote irresponsible? "My hope is that [black and white] materials will be available for a long time—the Ilford company appears to be in good position to continue this role."
 
On Slate magazine, Robert Burley irresponsibly conflates "murder of Kodak by car radio salesman" and "death of film": http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2...raphy_at_the_end_of_the.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Talk about irresponsible [use of] journalism!

Cheers,

R.

I saw that article too, I enjoyed some of the photographs, but it's fairly eye-rolling journalism. But then, the intricacies and grey areas of reality are probably less interesting than 'xxxx IS DEAD!'.
 
I've seen a lot of these images before, most of them were taken before 2007. It's always easier to re-heat 5 year old news than bring anything new to print.

Makes me want to do an article on youngsters using film, pop over to Mobberly and take some images of newer trucks and HP5 rolling out.

The incredible story is that 6-7 years after those images were taken you can still buy colour film, as from September my College will be re-instating darkrooms 4 years after their demise.

Stay positive, if you can't shoot the negatives.
 
...The views expressed in the article seem typical of film advocates including many of us here at RFF: regret at the decline of film; fear for the future of colour film; and hope for the continued niche for black and white film.

Who would argue that the golden age of film has not passed? And how is this quote irresponsible? "My hope is that [black and white] materials will be available for a long time—the Ilford company appears to be in good position to continue this role."
Exactly,I fail to see anything in this article about Ilford in terms of irresponsible journalism.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Obvious [WIP]
Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...
 
On Slate magazine, Robert Burley irresponsibly conflates "murder of Kodak by car radio salesman" and "death of film": http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2...raphy_at_the_end_of_the.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

Talk about irresponsible [use of] journalism!

Cheers,

R.

Your mistake is being old enough to remember when journalism had some self-restraint and professionalism. These days, with the internet's endless bandwidth to fill 24 hours a day, the quality of even once-noble efforts like Slate is getting pretty lame. "iPhone Video Reporter" anyone?

s-a
 
Exactly,I fail to see anything in this article about Ilford in terms of irresponsible journalism.

—Mitch/Bangkok[/i]

Mitch here's the section:
"As I visited the gutted Polaroid factories in Boston, the Agfa and Ilford plants in Europe and many other buildings related to photography’s everyday uses in the world it became clear that photography as I had known it was quickly passing into history,”

Let me help you Mitch, he's placing Ilford in the same sentence as 'gutted factories' with an image of the paper finishing plant in Cheshire with a rusty 1980's Ilford logo truck.

The Polaroid/Agfa gutted factories are defunct, gone, no more churning out those brands; Ilford on the other hand are a financial success story–and one he doesn't wish to show.
 
Ilford execs bought the firm with the intention of being "last man standing." They make full line products so that whatever you need, you can buy from them. Kodak ruined their own market with typical American bean counter mentality. They divided the company into product niches, looked at each separately and decided if it was profitable. They never looked at how it contributed to the whole which may be hard to quantify and prove. So if you pull bricks out one by one, the wall eventually falls.

Color will go as it a pain to process, both developing and printing. I did it for decades.

The inkjet is nearly as bad with cleaning cycles , dried ink, expensive profiles, etc. I have elected to purchase my prints and allow a local profesional, higher quality labs do the prints. I can not devote space or money or upkeep to a laser printer. On their recommendation, I bought a Eizo monitor 27" Color Edge calibrated it, profiled my digital cameras, soft proofed the files with an action I developed that removes 90% of the work, and I order the economy prints which turn out perfectly because the lab is in control of their process and I am in control of mine. They are cleaner and sharper than what I could do with the the best equipment money can buy.

I kept the darkroom for monochrome work and I am learning to paint. It is a blast and something others appreciate where they "think" a color print is just something mechanical. Of course they think that way when the local food or drug store cranks out your color prints for you. They are correct to some degree.
 
... Ilford on the other hand are a financial success story–and one he doesn't wish to show.

He says "My hope is that [black and white] materials will be available for a long time—the Ilford company appears to be in good position to continue this role."
 
He says "My hope is that [black and white] materials will be available for a long time—the Ilford company appears to be in good position to continue this role."

Yes I saw that, but most people reading this essay and the accompanying photo's won't see this as a positive piece–this is very much about documenting the death of film and will be used as proof of the demise of that medium.
 
Still locked in a film vs. digital matrix? The point of the photographs is to depict, visually, a change one can't deny, whatever words accompany them. And they're quite good documentary photographs.

Appreciate it for what it is: Not journalism (that's Slate), but a documentary photo project?

And in point of fact, Ilford is part of the documented scene: do you think their gelatin-silver sales are booming and their factories expanding?
 
Still
And in point of fact, Ilford is part of the documented scene: do you think their gelatin-silver sales are booming and their factories expanding?


The documentary images that were originally released over two years ago, with that in mind do you think there was a need for this to be re-hashed?
What value does the use of Robert Burley's already old (some 7 years) photographs have to the current scene?
Here's a decent write up on his project.
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/blog-post/1651248/requiem-film
n.b the date 2009
And yes Ilford's sales are up, are you trying to say they aren't?
 
Back
Top Bottom