Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] TRI-X: RIP
From: benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:28:40 +0930
References: <5038f4c0.53a13a0a.23a7.06bd@mx.google.com> <CAFuU78ecxPd=mFSe0Edv+=tcoqpcQHdY6VtPPZCkjZBnqbor-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABmfTOXh_Fj=Vmi0O6bFtzSX-rGBs6J=ZDG-czv+bb7bF6cZrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFuU78dMaZh0VXiMP33gEF=V=Z2Eo8vJutRnc4X=+A4fScuUdQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAFA24C8FFFF427599D56185C4EE02BE@billHP> <CAFuU78eSFqbaNOqRoT6fowXHDNQLwO5vyYoWThaTABVuJUj=Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 
> I'm not judging the difficulty of the process, I'm saying that once the
> process and trade mark is sold, whatever happens next will be up to the new
> owner. They would be under no obligation to duplicate Kodak's manufacturing
> facilities or the formula for the coating, and they will be entitled to
> call their product whatever they want.

Absolutely, but in an economically realistic world there are two
possibilities: either someone will keep making Tri-X on Kodak's
manufacturing line, or the product will disappear.

The really critical component is the vessel in which the emulsion is
mixed; its physical characteristics have a huge influence on the
properties of the final product, and even if another one is procured
that has the same specifications, in practice it will never work
exactly the same.

Marty
In reply to: Message from jshulman at judgecrater.com (jshulman@judgecrater.com) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)
Message from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)
Message from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)
Message from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] TRI-X: RIP)