[pure-silver] Re: Hamster was (Glass versus Plastic containers)
- From: DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:13:25 +0100
Peter
Please don¹t get angry, I meant no harm or personal attack. It is just that
the first sentence of your original note caught my attention. Here it is
again:
?I have recently purchased enough AGFA chemistry to last me at least 10
years at my current rate of consumption.¹
From this I concluded that you wouldn¹t be buying any chemicals (or at least
a certain type) for the next ten years; not to far of a stretch, I hope.
Anyway, your statement just worried me, because if many people start to
hamster product, because its manufacturer went out of business, then the
remaining manufacturers can¹t sell their products, which in turn might cause
more products to be lost.
This market is shrinking; the industry must follow. It is a good thing that
some products go; that will create opportunity for the rest to survive. We
must look forward and support tomorrow¹s products, not hang on to
yesterday¹s favorites.
By the way, we should all write to Ilford and ask them to replace Sistan
with an equivalent product.
(Or did everybody stock up, and they can save themselves the trouble? Hope
not.)
Regards
Ralph W. Lambrecht
http://www.darkroomagic.com
On 2005-10-30 07:57, "Peter Badcock" <peter.badcock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I knew there was a reason I wanted to check my emails earlier on today, but
> didn't have the time to, as I think that some early intervention on my part
> would have directed this thread away from the hypothetical and more towards to
> reality.
>
> On 10/30/05, DarkroomMagic <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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!
>
> Says who?! I simply said that I purchased enough AGFA chemicals to support
> my current rate of consumption. I didn't say that I exclusively use AGFA
> chemicals. In fact to clarify things, allow me to modify my original
> statement and say that "I purchased enough AGFA chemicals to support my
> anticipated rate of consumption".
> I say this because the first time I touched a bottle of Rodinal was two days
> ago ! I purchased all of two 500mL bottles. I have always desired to
> dabble with Rodinal and didn't want to miss my chance. Currently I use Xtol
> for my films, and don't intend to switch unless forced to.
>
> I also now own two bottles of Sistan after buying one more. This again
> happens to be a chemical that I haven't yet started to use.
>
> So for two out of the three I bought, I'm hardly depriving Ilford of any
> income.
>
> On to the final one - Neutol Plus. I now own 10 bottles of this. Yep, one
> bottle if used correctly should allow me to develop 6.5m^2 of RC paper (150
> 18x24cm sheets) per year. On this count I appeal to Claudio Bonavolta's
> rationale, in that there really is no commercially available substitute. So
> unless I change my mind, I would probably have to make my own when I run out.
>
>
>> Also, in a few years he runs the danger of all his chemicals not
>> being any good anymore,
>
> This is my problem which I am seeking to mitigate against, although I
> appreciate the concern.
>
>> 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.
>
> Once again this is my problem which could only potentially happen if I
> exclusively used AGFA, chemicals although I appreciate the concern.
>
>> 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.
>
> Ralph, have you bought anything from Kodak since they made the announcement
> about their B&W papers? If you have, then I think you would be in the
> minority of people who think that Kodak's management actually intend on
> providing for the analog market. If not, then good for you and the likes of
> Ilford.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
Other related posts:
