From: George Huczek (ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca)
Date: 09/03/01-07:46:51 PM Z
At 04:23 PM 03/09/2001 -0400, FDanB@aol.com wrote:
>
>Guy said in his message... [cut]
>OK Guy, I'll take your bait:
>
>Whom have you blamed for the demise of wet plates and pre-coated platinum
>papers? Correct me if I'm taking your "you killed it" comment the wrong
>way but I can't help but think you're behaving in an historically daft
>manner by making that kind of accusation.
Kodak's bean counters are more interested in the bottom line than they are
about supporting some segments of the photographic community. Some of
Kodak's excellent products were discontinued because their market share for
them was dwindling.
I think that the company does have a responsibility to support its less
profitable products, though it may be that those would have to be available
less frequently, and on a special order basis perhaps. I can think of many
of their products - Kodachrome, Super XX, -- you can add your own
discontinued favorites to the list -- which had a small but very loyal
group of users who were upset when these products were taken off the market.
It is precisely because of Kodak's policy to remove products from the
marketplace that I have switched nearly all of my film, paper and chemical
purchases to other manufacturers. The only products of Kodak's I still
continue to buy are TriX and Portra (regrettably because they discontinued
Vericolor.). If I can be assured that their products will remain in the
marketplace, I will support the company with my purchases. And if enough
photographers decide to boycott Kodak and its products because they
discontinue materials, then perhaps the company could be persuaded to offer
better support to a small but dedicated group of users who they
disenfranchise every time they pull a product from the consumer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/01/01-01:41:32 PM Z CST