nongfuspring
Well-known
If the film is a discontinued emulsion that is now back in production then I think it best if Bellamy is forthright in mentioning what emulsion it actually is. A few people have asked him and have been met with prickly responses without answers, which leads me to feel this is more a vanity project than anything.
I can't see this helping on hurting the film industry in any significant way though, less so than his habitual slagging of Fuji anyway.
I can't see this helping on hurting the film industry in any significant way though, less so than his habitual slagging of Fuji anyway.
Daryl J.
Well-known
Why should a business be that transparent?
Satisfying detail oriented people's idle curiosity is an incredible waste of time, energy, resources, and life.
This thread is filled with Computer Chihuahuas who feel prosperity is gained by biting the ankles of Goodness. It reminds me of that YouTube channel called The Angry Photographer.
Good grief.
Satisfying detail oriented people's idle curiosity is an incredible waste of time, energy, resources, and life.
This thread is filled with Computer Chihuahuas who feel prosperity is gained by biting the ankles of Goodness. It reminds me of that YouTube channel called The Angry Photographer.
Good grief.
nongfuspring
Well-known
So this guy brings back a discontinued emulsion, doesn't tell anyone what it is and expects everyone to pay double the price of comparable film from the same factory? Yeah, you're right he definitely shouldn't be transparent about what his product is.
Perhaps emotions running a bit high, it would take less effort for me to type this sentence than for Bellamy to disclose his product
Pioneer
Veteran
So this guy brings back a discontinued emulsion, doesn't tell anyone what it is and expects everyone to pay double the price of comparable film from the same factory? Yeah, you're right he definitely shouldn't be transparent about what his product is.
Perhaps emotions running a bit high, it would take less effort for me to type this sentence than for Bellamy to disclose his product
Boy are you grumpy this morning.
First off he does not expect everyone to pay double. How do you know what he was charged? That, if I remember correctly, is how a business decides what to charge for their product.
Second, he has already told us a lot about this film. He may in fact be constrained by contract not to discuss his products previous life. I don't remember Freestyle formally announcing the actual source of any of their self-branded films.
Finally, exactly why is that important? The film has been introduced, explained and is being sold for what it IS, not what it WAS. The box and his website gives relatively good developing information without actually producing an actual Ilford or Kodak datasheet. If you don't like it, don't buy it, simple as that.
Now I am going to take my own advice and I will discontinue visiting this thread since I don't like it.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
Due to the personal nature of the business. I ran a similar business with a different underlying fan base for some 15 years... out of Japan... through the internet... with a huge word of mouth customer base. Transparency is your friend. Of course you don't have to be, but you reap what you sow.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Couldn't have said it better.
The guy has worked hard, and laboured mightily to do something. You aren't required to cheer him on, support it or even agree with it. But the tiresome internet slagging is pointless, depressing and counter-productive to the shared pursuit of photography (I'm assuming we can all agree that photography is good..?)
The film is there. Take it or don't. End of story.
The guy has worked hard, and laboured mightily to do something. You aren't required to cheer him on, support it or even agree with it. But the tiresome internet slagging is pointless, depressing and counter-productive to the shared pursuit of photography (I'm assuming we can all agree that photography is good..?)
The film is there. Take it or don't. End of story.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Transparency got nothing to do with a successful business .
Have Coca Cola ever discussed its formula?
If anyone wants to support the film industry, buy more film, shoot more and show it to your friends.
What killed the film industry wasn't some niche product like this one, but the lack of interest for film from the general public. Fight to increase the film customer base (using film, promoting it use, etc.) and I'm sure that will help the film industry more than anything.
Cheers
.Have Coca Cola ever discussed its formula?
If anyone wants to support the film industry, buy more film, shoot more and show it to your friends.
What killed the film industry wasn't some niche product like this one, but the lack of interest for film from the general public. Fight to increase the film customer base (using film, promoting it use, etc.) and I'm sure that will help the film industry more than anything.
Cheers
newsgrunt
Well-known
It's my mission to make sure Big Yellow doesn't go belly up Have enough expired/ surveillance/mystery etc film to last a long time.
Have enough expired/ surveillance/mystery etc film to last a long time.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That is NOT how retailers decide what to charge for a product. They charge what they think they can get away with charging. Sometimes it is not much more than the wholesale cost of the item. Sometimes the markup is EXTREME. Sometimes, they actually sell a product for LESS than they paid the manufacturer for it!
I know all of this because I was, long ago, the assistant manager of a store belonging to one of the world's largest drugstore chains. Here are some examples:
Glucosamine is a popular 'dietary supplement.' Its a pill that is claimed to help with pain from arthritis, though there's little or no scientific evidence that it does anything but drain people's wallets. It is quite expensive.
Our company sold several brands of Glucosamine, including a store-brand. The leading brand-name was called Osteo Bi Flex. Its come down in price since then (15 yrs ago), but back we sold a bottle of 40 pills for $45. The wholesale cost was $39. We didn't make a lot of money from each sale.
The store brand version sold for a lot less. $35 retail. The wholesale cost was just $3 a bottle! The markup on the store brand was extreme.
The problem for me was that a lot of elderly people struggling to survive on Social Security, often with no other income, and suffering from terrible joint pain, would come in and agonize over whether they should buy this stuff, instead of eating properly. I'd say no, but these people were so desperate for ANYTHING that would help them with their arthritis pain.
The store brand was a better deal, but even that was too expensive for many of them. If the company I worked for had based the price of their store-brand Glucosamine on the cost they paid for it, they could have sold it for much, much less. They didn't, because that's not how retailers price things. They priced it at a level that made it look like an incredible deal for the customer.
We sold stuff for less than we paid for them too. An example was the four-packs of Kodak and Fuji color print films. We sold them ridiculously cheap. At the time, a 4-pack of Fuji 200 was selling for about $5, and the wholesale was $9. Why did we sell it SO far below our cost?
One word: Photofinishing. We had a one-hour lab in the store, and we also had a lower-price next-day service for film developing. The markup on film processing was extremely high. If we could get a customer in the door for the underpriced film, we had a good change of getting them to come back for overpriced developing, and we made a good profit in the deal!
To recap: wholesale cost of goods has almost nothing to do with retail pricing. Retailers charge the highest prices they think they can get away with, though sometimes they sell at a loss to get customers in the door to buy something with a higher profit margin.
BlackXList
Well-known
This update has been around for a while, and was posted previously as well, and yet some people are so desperate to insist that it's an old stock.
I really don't understand why this message isn't landing with people.
He hasn't been secretive, he's given information, he's given clarification, a number of times, and people are still insisting.
BlackXList
Well-known
From this thread I've learned that it "couldn't possibly be fresh production because that would be expensive."
And then that "This is an expensive product"
hmmmm
And then that "This is an expensive product"
hmmmm
Wulfthari
Well-known
Please show us the results, I am curious and I think having more choice in terms of film is just a good thing.
Pioneer
Veteran
There is one Wulfthari. In this same subforum go to JCH Street Pan 400 Photos. I have been posting my results to this point. I have some more hanging and should be able to get it scanned in this evening.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
There are pictures available from this film on his website, explains his developing and scanning for the said images, looks good.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
I'd like to try a few rolls to see if I like it.
michaelwj
----------------
aizan
Veteran
surveillance film sounds interesting...
a hundred foot roll of maco ts eagle aqs only costs 59 eur/$65 usd. that'll make 19 rolls of 36 exposures, so that's $3.42 vs. $8.50 per roll. expensive.
a hundred foot roll of maco ts eagle aqs only costs 59 eur/$65 usd. that'll make 19 rolls of 36 exposures, so that's $3.42 vs. $8.50 per roll. expensive.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Expensive is relative.
Wulfthari
Well-known
I would prefer to see the results and the review from people who actually spent money for the film.