[rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6

Yes, the great Rock band amps were almost all tube...  The best still
are, and not just for sound.  Tubes can handle overloads better; they
just heat up.  Transistors blow up.  Personal experience here.

Peter Nebergall


On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:46:36 -0800 "Richard Knoppow"
<dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 3:46 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Slide Film and E6
> 
> 
> Thanks Richard. My error. I did notice Portra BW was 
> disco'd. Glad to see
> there are still some films that remain. 2007 has surely been 
> the year of
> digital. I hope film sticks around a while longer.
> 
>    So do I. There is evidently still a pretty large market 
> for "conventional" photographic products, just not the 
> enormous market there was until digital began to erode it. 
> The problem is that the larger companies, like Kodak, Agfa, 
> Fuji, and Ilford, have technology which the small, mostly 
> formerly eastern european, companies do not have and are not 
> likely ever to develop. This makes more difference to film 
> than paper but results in both products being behind the 
> times and in rather poor quality control.
>    Fuji makes good B&W printing paper but sells it only in 
> Japan. I don't know why they are not interested in a larger 
> market but there may be good business reasons that are not 
> obvious.
>    There have been other transistions in technology 
> historically that are somewhat comparable, for instance the 
> supplanting of vacuum tubes by transistors and the 
> supplanting of steam locomotives by diesel-electric. In the 
> U.S. some vacuum tube manufacturers managed to make the 
> transision but others died out and none of the three makers 
> of main-line steam locomotives survived.
>    Agfa was already in other businesses so it simply dropped 
> out of making chemical photographic products. Kodak, I 
> think, would have like to do so but its main product line 
> was chemical photography. Ilford has managed to hold on 
> perhaps because they are a much smaller company and more 
> flexible. Fuji is also in many other businesses and it 
> appears they have managed to continue to find photographic 
> products sufficiently profitable to keep on with them.
>     Digital is not going to go away but, one hopes, neither 
> will chemical photography.
> 
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> ---
> Rollei List
> 
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> 
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into 
> www.freelists.org
> 
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> 
> 
> 
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: