Re: AW: [APML] Petition-2nd draft

["Mike & Dianna" <galaxy@ncweb.com>]

Warren and List,

If the petition is going to happen, mabey one small overlooked thing is to
have the "RIGHT" names sighned along with the "MANY" names on the petition.
 If people in our field have had their foot in the door with Kodak before,
then they may be recognized at the top of our list which just may help carry
a little weight.

Just a thought...........I guess we'll never know unless we
try...........then we'll know.......

Mike Leitch
galaxy@ncweb.com
Astrophotography website
http://www.ncweb.com/~galaxy/home/astropho.htm


----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Middleton <bobm@koyote.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [APML] Petition-2nd draft


> I'd tend to agree with you Chuck and I noted my cynicism in the first
reply
> I made to this thread. However it wouldn't hurt to try. The only way we
> would have a chance was if Kodak had already been discussing and
considering
> action similar to our desires and our petition was the "straw that broke
the
> camal's back". I also noted the need to show that there are willing buyers
> waiting in the wings........in which there have been a scant 3 people that
> have said they would be willing to purchase a revivied 120 astro-friendly
> film.
>
> But here's the ironic part; of the billion $ or so they move every year in
> film sales I'd bet that a very large part of it is sold to people who
could
> care less about the film's grain structure, tonal qualities, etc. Because
it
> doesn't make any difference to their application. But it does to ours.
> Probably more to ours than any other segment of their marketing base.
> Perhaps if that were explained to the Kodak people it would also carry
some
> weight...........probably not unless it was a part of their marketing
> strategy.
> Bobby Middleton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>
>
>
>
> > Ulrich,
> >
> > > If necessary, I would commit myself to buying large quantities of
film,
> too,
> > > mainly E200 and some TP as well. I'd say I'd go with the $200, and
count
> me
> > > in for signing!
> >
> > Maybe if you bought $200 million worth it might make a difference.<g>
> >
> > Look at this:
> >
> >
>
http://www.kodak.nl/US/en/corp/investorCenter/discTrans/3qtr01Discussion1.sh
> > tml
> >
> > Kodak revenues in 3rd quarter 2001 were $3.3 Billion! That means about
$13
> > billion a year. Does anyone think that pleading with them to keep
> producing
> > some film when they decide it's time to discontinue it will make any
> > difference? What do you think the sum total of all film and chemical
> > purchases are from Kodak by amateur astronomers every year? $100,000 at
> > most?
> >
> > If Kodak cared one iota about film based astrophotography they could
> > have developed a film much better than TP years ago.
> >
> > I hate to be so negative but I'm trying to interject some sorely needed
> > rationality here.
> >
> > Chuck <aa6g@aa6g.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
> >              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>