Dear John,
Jan,
first let me say that I appreciate your well informed and knowledgeable input here and elsewhere very much. So, I am glad to have you around here, and it is perfectly fine for me that you are on a kind of personal mission of converting everyone to the usage of Fuji slide film,
I am not on such a mission.
But I am tired of the Kodak marketing (and some of the Kodak fanboys) which wants to destroy reversal film as a photographic medium. In some countries Kodak still invests in advertizing to get photographers away from reversal film.
Why want a film manufacturer destroy a complete film segment?
By the way, Kodak started this advertizing already in 2008, when they had a complete range of slide films.
And the same case with Robert. For years now he is bashing slide film in general and wants photographers to discourage using it.
And by the way: I am using Kodak and Agfa slide films as well. And Kodak and Fuji color negative films.
but I do have problems with your at times disrespectful and derogatory language towards those whose opinions or choices might differ. It would add greatly to your personal credibility and thereby help your cause if you would make your point without resorting to this type of comments.
I think in 99,9% of the time I am extremely polite and respectful.
But sometimes you just have to use very clear words.
And now concerning Robert it is the time.
What I do criticise is:
1. His permanent spreading of misinformation concerning some manufacturers, the film market and some film types.
Examples:
- For years he is telling that Kodak will stop production. But Kodak is producing and even reported increasing sales of some film types.
- He is also permanently telling wrong stories about Adox, for example that Adox Silvermax is identical to Agfa Scala, which is wrong.
- He is bashing reversal film in general and often telling complete nonsense about the film type. For example on flickr "I shoot film" he said you can use reversal film only with a complete set of color filters. Total BS. Millions of other photographers have used slide film in the last decades without filters with outstanding results.
In the Netherland analog forum he wrote a bashing post about slide film with even more nonsense, e.g. that the Efke films had higher resolution than the curent ISO 50 / 100 slide films.
That is also wrong. I've done the direct comparisons, others have done it, and all got the results that the Efkes could not compete at all with the current slide films.
And he has been telling that E6 will disappear and that therefore the photographers have to stop using it. With such discouraging (similar to his "Kodak will be dead soon") action you just hurt the market!
It is completely counterproductive.
If a "Digitaliban" is doing that who wants to kill film, okay, makes sense.
But if a film distributor is doing this, he is shooting in his own foot.
Because of this stupid behaviour Robert has in the meanwhile an extremely bad reputation in the industry. The other manufacturers and distributors are only shaking their heads and don't understand why he is doing that.
It is completey counterproductive from a psychological and marketing point of view.
2. His permament praising of products whith second to third grade quality (like the CR 200,the Efke films, Foma stuff), and bashing products of first grade quality (from Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Adox).
Now, Robert's answer --- and let me add that I appreciate and value his input here as much as yours --- was specifically addressing BLKRCAT who had written that he would stop using Fuji slide film because he cannot afford it anymore, trying to show up a budget alternative.
As a budget film option the best advice would have been the AgfaPhoto Precisa slide film. Much much better price / performance ratio than the Rollei CR 200.
But Robert has not recommended it.
He does not offer it.The film selection in his shop is extremely small.
And very important: This "I cannot afford Fuji (or Kodak) slide film because of the current prices" should be critically questioned.
Than you get a different picture.
The facts:
Well it is not so expensive. It is even cheaper than shooting colour negative film.
Because:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.
Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the
absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with 1 - 1,5 MP.
The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).
2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
Here in Germany that is depending on film and mounts in the 50 Cent to 1,20€ region per shot.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.
Cheers, Jan
