[pure-silver] Re: Hamster was (Glass versus Plastic containers)

  • From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:38:40 -0700


----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Zentena" <zentena@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 8:44 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Hamster was (Glass versus Plastic containers)


On Saturday 29 October 2005 10:52, DarkroomMagic wrote:
I'm afraid, we are contributing to the market being unstable this way. For
example, Peter just dropped out as a chemical customer for the next 10
years! Also, in a few years he runs the danger of all his chemicals not
being any good anymore, or nobody remembers or has any experience with the
chemicals he is using. This might suit his image making, but he is also
running the danger of alienating himself from forums like this.

I will follow a different approach:

1. I'll buy chemicals when needed in reasonable quantities.
2. I try to be flexible with chemicals, film and paper.
3. I will not reward a company leaving the market by stocking up on their
products.



Normally I'd agree with you. But Ilford has already made it clear they intend
to batch produce some things. So if you want ULF you'll have to stock up. If
they decide to make 220 it'll be the same thing. I'd much rather order once
every couple of months. Or drop into the local shop but it's not going to
happen. Ilford would rather make the stuff every so often forcing us to
buy at least 6 months but more likely 12 months worth. But how many are going
to risk the next run being 12 months and not 13 months away? So we'll be
stuck stocking more like 24 months.

For chemicals I've been mixing my own almost totally for awhile. Other then
print developer,sistan,photo-flo and RA-4 I mix my own. I could mix
everything but sistan if I had to.

Nick


As far as batch production I think this is pretty routine for manufacture of photo products other than those which sell in very large volume. Sensitive photographic materials are perishables so the maker does not want to make more than can be sold within the normal shelf life but if a product becomes unobtainable for too long people will stop using it and you will lose your market. The idea is to keep the product available but not have to thow any away so the manufacturer has something of a balancing act to do. At the moment sales volumes are still varying. Eventually they will stabilize and be predictable. What we are seeing is the change from a perfectly enormous market to a much smaller but still fairly large market for non-digital sensitive materials. I think the fact that Ilford was a much smaller company to begin with than either Kodak or Agfa is one reason it has been able to survive.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pure-silver
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2005