[Leica] TRI-X: RIP

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

I don't get this formal thing!?!?  Is camera film a drink?
I think its a physical object not a liquid solution which has to be
manufactured in a factory with complex machines and a variety of trained
people who know who to operate the various aspects of it..

Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/


> From: Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:05:27 -0500
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] TRI-X: RIP
> 
> It would be entirely possible to get only the formulae and have the film
> manufactured by someone else, but it would be a herculean task to start up 
> a
> new coating line, slitting and packaging line for such a niche product. I
> expect that there is a requirement for highly skilled labor as well. I 
> would
> expect that cranking out Jeeps is quite a bit easier than a bunch of tri-x.
> Jeep owners I have know often had issues with the products precision.
> Also, the freestyle film isn't their formula, but one of the manufacturer.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lew Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 9:00 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] TRI-X: RIP
> 
> Why wouldn't it be the case? Why not port the recipe? Tri-X itself has more
> than one formula and has been produced in different locations and
> countries. The new owner will decide what the product is or isn't just as
> Kodak decides now; that's what ownership means. This kind of thing is done
> all the time in industry. Jeep's, except for their outward appearance, are
> 100% Chrysler products. Ralph Loren sells his brand name as a 'product' by
> itself. If a toothpick manufacturer paid enough for the license, he'd be
> able to market Ralph Loren toothpicks. Freestyle has a house brand black
> and white film the trade name of which has been constant for many years,
> but the manufacturer has changed at least once.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Marty Deveney <benedenia at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This simply isn't the case.  The physical machinery is as much part of
>> the product as the chemical formula.  If Kodak finds a buyer for the
>> Personalized Imaging business they simply cannot port the formulae to
>> another facility; it would be cheaper to buy the Kodak plant and keep
>> making it there.  The implementation costs of making "Tri-X" somewhere
>> else would be huge, to the point of being prohibitive in the current
>> climate.
>> 
>> Marty
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Lew Schwartz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information