Why Didn’t You Make Dye Transfers

Posted on Posted in art school, creativity, Getting Stuff, meaning, studio table, the Lab, The WhyTagged , , , ,

Everybody loved dye transfer. Nobody made them. Why? This century, this time span one and all bemoan the death of a friend they never knew. Never even visited.

  • supplies were a phone call away
  • documentation was available free, or for minimal charges
  • workshops were held at getaway photo shops.
  • several colleges held courses
  • trade schools were in major cities, or by mail-order

A simple enough question . with likely very few answers — honest, introspective responses.

The obvious response: there aren’t any materials . What about when there were — why didn’t you buy the Efke film? Assuming you were an adult in 1990, why didn’t you buy Kodak dye transfer material ?

And for those of you who did buy the materials: why didn’t you use them ?

Continuing along this expansion, for those of you who bought Materials and took a workshop, why didn’t you use dye transfer as your print process?

If you were drawn to dye transfer enough to buy the materials and take the training, why didn’t you expand your skills and become a die transfer printer?

Why do people buy beyond use : compulsion vs obsession. The ownership vs the authorship. Do they believe themselves stewards?

Catalog prices for some Dye Transfer supplies. These are the retailer list price. Labs paid much less.

Consider: Giffen vs Veblen goods. The professional depended on the supplies. The hobbyist didn’t. 1981 was a break year for Kodak’s process. By 1986, the decision had been made to let the process run out the clock. During this time, the larger labs had a decreasing dye transfer business. It was maintained as a prestige factor attracting interest but resulting in few projects. Small specialist labs grew in the eighties; even the best known added other processes to their sales brochure. “Now, the finest Black and White from the finest Color Lab.” — 1987 —

Kodak chose not to license, nor sell the process[ 1981,2] . Wonder why? In their final run of product, the only supply sold completely was Tanning developer. Nope, not even all the matrix film was sold. Not even the Pan Matrix. So it goes…. much of the film and paper was held in store for years.

and then it was recycled. The Fotokemika branded Efke matrix film also saw few buyers.

Maybe there is a market for the Coffee Mug, the Trucker Hat, the Film Vest… not the film… Sell the tchotchke, maybe the tattoo, no need for the mats and blanks.

Morning Arrow

Posted on Posted in econocaste, K Street Y, said, stranger land, twits

… finding acolytes… deriving this question: why is it that we denigrate those who question our knowledge? Particularly found amongst innovation experts, teachers of business development laying claim to complete, rigorous knowledge of economics, certainly with regard superior to those amateur economist participating in an economy without PhD skills. War games without basic training.

It is best to avoid calling out: “people who denigrate modern economics – the neo-Marxists, the back-of-the-room scribblers, the wannabe-contrarian-dilletantes” from an endowed hot-tub.

does John and Jean Doe, who were mere Smithies in their daily job, stand a chance — have any luck. Their starting point is never the same. Choice is chuck and duck. Which grid do they play> Giffen, Marshall, Veblen <

The market is no place for economists — Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu “Anything Goes”

The invisible hand is taken at faith value ..[ AI TRANS took it at cliche value] https://books.google.ca/books?id=HAiMDU4qv0IC&pg=RA1-PA208&lpg=RA1-PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

Flower Pot economics — works in small examples

Blackboard Jungle — lots of squiggles, easily erased.

Point out a market that achieved equilibrium, please. 

The main results of this paper are two theorems stating very general conditions under
which a competitive equilibrium will exist. Loosely speaking, the first theorem
asserts that if every individual has initially some positive quantity of every com-
modity available for sale, then a competitive equilibrium will exist. The second
 theorem asserts the existence of competitive equilibrium if there are some types
of labor with the following two properties: (1) each individual can supply some
positive amount of at least one such type of labor; and (2) each such type of
labor has a positive usefulness in the production of desired commodities. The
conditions of the second theorem, particularly, may be expected to be satisfied
in a wide variety of actual situations, though not, for example, if there is insuf-
ficient substitutability in the structure of production. -- Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Kenneth J. Arrow; Gerard Debreu, 1954