A Conversation with Kodak Alaris

StoneNYC · Nov 7, 2013

eddie said:
I don't understand comments like this. What about it makes you cringe? Have you ever worked with a Holga, or Diana?

If you didn't notice I followed that with positive things about the idea of "lomo"

Anyway, I actually know real Hipsters, not hipsters from some rural town who aren't really hipsters, I mean the real NYC hipsters, not many of them actually use Holga's and more than enough actually have some knowledge of film more than you'd think anyway, but the idea of lomo from how I perceive it, isn't about art, it's basically about making instagram images with film, there are some who use a holga as a tool, who truly create, but the fast majority of people I know who bought a holga who weren't already skilled in film etc, shot a roll or two, and either haven't ever had it developed because of the cost, or don't know where to go, and definitely haven't bought more film... it's like a one time purchase on a whim.

I'm not saying this is the majority, I'm just saying you asked why I cringe, it's because I think of all the failed introductions to film with what could have been some grand adventure, but instead was stifled by lack of info and cost.

Tebbiebear · Nov 7, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I actually know real Hipsters, not hipsters from some rural town who aren't really hipsters, I mean the real NYC hipsters,

That is quite possibly the most hipster statement I have ever seen. Did you know these hipsters before it was cool to know hipsters? LOL

the vast majority of people I know who bought a holga who weren't already skilled in film etc, shot a roll or two, and either haven't ever had it developed because of the cost, or don't know where to go, and definitely haven't bought more film... it's like a one time purchase on a whim.

How does this make LOMO at fault? You are talking about people who bought a film camera and didn't even get their film developed because of the cost... Do you honestly think they would be better served with a "nicer" camera? Hell they could have shot with a Hasselblad, that won't change the cost of development. If the Holga/lomo cameras weren't available to these people they probably would have never shot any film at all. I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that most of the people who gave up on film after using the Lomo cameras would have given up after using any other camera as well. I for one love Lomo even though I don't own any of their cameras or have any plans to, because it means more people shooting film.

In addition to being a photo nerd I am also a Hi-Fi nerd. I belong to several forums dedicated to that pursuit and for the last several years I've had to listen to a bunch of guys on those sites complaining about the "hipsters" buying up vinyl at the local record stores. Never mind the fact that until those hipsters started buying the vinyl most local record stores were closing up in droves. And never mind the fact that without those hipsters buying records most bands wouldn't be releasing new albums on vinyl. All they can see is young people who are excited about something but are doing it "wrong" and thus must be shunned and/or made fun of. I see a lot of that same mentality around photograpers.

Roger Cole · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
Both fascinating and poignant that in the end the interview devolves back to the same question for Kodak that always ends up getting asked,

"Can we have our Kodachrome back?"

It's not that the answer is ever going to change. No, it's just fascinating that the question continues to be asked. And poignant because I don't think EK ever really, really understood in depth what it had created in Kodachrome. Sure, they knew it was a highly profitable (at the time) product line. A technological and engineering (at the time) tour de force. An ongoing (at the time) cash cow. But still and all...

I don't think they ever really fully grasped the culturally iconic nature of the stuff. The collective emotions behind all of those family portraits. And town portraits. And factory portraits. And WWII portraits. And all of the other billions of portaits that over the generations, collectively, became a powerful de facto national portrait of America.

It's the vestigial remnants of that iconic nature that result in the question continuing to be asked. Even at this late, late date. And interesting to note is that he still beat around the bush and couldn't bring himself to give the necessary straight answer.

Which is simply "No."

Ken

How about "can we have E6 back?" Unlike Kodachrome that might, just, be a not-totally-unreasonable hope. The higher saturation/contrast niche is filled well enough by Fuji still but I'd give - well I'd buy a lot of it anyway - to have E100G and Ektachrome 400 back. The latter wasn't as good as Provia 400X but with that going away, I'd take ANY decent quality 400 speed E6 film, plus a moderate contrast and saturation 100 film.

Roger Cole · Nov 8, 2013

Tebbiebear said:
That is quite possibly the most hipster statement I have ever seen. Did you know these hipsters before it was cool to know hipsters? LOL

I know a few too, but you probably never heard of them.

Roger Cole · Nov 8, 2013

thegman said:
Interesting read, the important thing is that their business is film, not 'strategic interests in digital workflows' or other BS. All film users need is a company that wants to make film, without any of the extraneous rubbish that caused Kodak to fail in the first place.

IOW, Ilford? And Adox and Foma?

Seriously, I know those don't and likely never will do color (Ilford could if it were profitable but they are wisely sticking to what they can do superbly and make money at.)

StoneNYC · Nov 8, 2013

Tebbiebear said:
That is quite possibly the most hipster statement I have ever seen. Did you know these hipsters before it was cool to know hipsters? LOL

haha, I've only been allowed into a hipster club once, and it was under duress, I mean the real ones... it's pretty elite hah!

How does this make LOMO at fault? You are talking about people who bought a film camera and didn't even get their film developed because of the cost... Do you honestly think they would be better served with a "nicer" camera? Hell they could have shot with a Hasselblad, that won't change the cost of development. If the Holga/lomo cameras weren't available to these people they probably would have never shot any film at all. I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that most of the people who gave up on film after using the Lomo cameras would have given up after using any other camera as well. I for one love Lomo even though I don't own any of their cameras or have any plans to, because it means more people shooting film.

In addition to being a photo nerd I am also a Hi-Fi nerd. I belong to several forums dedicated to that pursuit and for the last several years I've had to listen to a bunch of guys on those sites complaining about the "hipsters" buying up vinyl at the local record stores. Never mind the fact that until those hipsters started buying the vinyl most local record stores were closing up in droves. And never mind the fact that without those hipsters buying records most bands wouldn't be releasing new albums on vinyl. All they can see is young people who are excited about something but are doing it "wrong" and thus must be shunned and/or made fun of. I see a lot of that same mentality around photograpers.

I think that giving people a camera with SOME controls, and SOME education would go a long way to helping people get into it, just give them a few settings like the old Kodak folder cameras, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, B, T ... that way they LEARN something and become more invested in it by having "elite" lost knowledge...

Anyway this whole discussion is stupid, someone asked why I cringed, and it's because of a perspective I have, it doesn't mean it's right, even I know it's not right, I'm just telling you my reaction to it, it's a reflex...

Roger Cole said:
I know a few too, but you probably never heard of them.

hehe *snicker*

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 8, 2013

Roger Cole said:
How about "can we have E6 back?" Unlike Kodachrome that might, just, be a not-totally-unreasonable hope. The higher saturation/contrast niche is filled well enough by Fuji still but I'd give - well I'd buy a lot of it anyway - to have E100G and Ektachrome 400 back. The latter wasn't as good as Provia 400X but with that going away, I'd take ANY decent quality 400 speed E6 film, plus a moderate contrast and saturation 100 film.

We may have not always seen eye-to-eye on some things, but boy I'm with you on this one. I have no real interest in color negatives. I want something I can drop on my light box and drool over. Then scan up nicely because the final transparency IS the final display medium.

Besides, where I live it's overcast 90% of all days every year. Attach a warming filter and any transparency film will look great. The inherent higher contrast of the film type itself is not a liability. In fact, most dull, cloudy days here it's a real asset.

On a tripod, that is. Losing 400-speed up here is a serious loss. Hand-holding gets relegated to that other 10% of the days. And I have to work 5/7ths of all of those, dang it...

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 8, 2013

eddie said:
Have you ever worked with a Holga, or Diana?

I want one of those wide aspect ratio Belairs. Is that what they're called? But I swear if I so much as whisper out loud that I want another camera my other half will use a steak knife to behead me in my sleep...

Ken

MattKing · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
I want one of those wide aspect ratio Belairs. Is that what they're called? But I swear if I so much as whisper out loud that I want another camera my other half will use a steak knife to behead me in my sleep...

Ken

Just tell your other half that that would create such a mess ...

PKM-25 · Nov 8, 2013

I am rooting for Kodak Alaris and I am glad to hear that they won't be risking the currently fantastic product line by doing something fiscally idiotic like trying to bring back E-6, Techpan or Kodachrome. As 2013 comes to a close, I am both grateful and inspired by the choices we have from Kodak.

Thanks for reading the thread Colleen, you folks have worked your butts off! Just focus on the photographers proudly using great Kodak films to lure viewers into their personal vision. Especially the young people who are not bitter and pissed off at the new world of film, desperately clinging onto the hope of bringing back products that simply will not have enough demand to exist.

StoneNYC · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
I want one of those wide aspect ratio Belairs. Is that what they're called? But I swear if I so much as whisper out loud that I want another camera my other half will use a steak knife to behead me in my sleep...

Ken

I wanted one before I had my 6x12 back. But I wanted to get a better lens in it.

PKM-25 said:
I am rooting for Kodak Alaris and I am glad to hear that they won't be risking the currently fantastic product line by doing something fiscally idiotic like trying to bring back E-6, Techpan or Kodachrome. As 2013 comes to a close, I am both grateful and inspired by the choices we have from Kodak.

Thanks for reading the thread Colleen, you folks have worked your butts off! Just focus on the photographers proudly using great Kodak films to lure viewers into their personal vision. Especially the young people who are not bitter and pissed off at the new world of film, desperately clinging onto the hope of bringing back products that simply will not have enough demand to exist.

I'll come on Dan, you don't want some crazy new film like Alarichrome? Haha Alariroyal... Alari-X

kb3lms · Nov 8, 2013

Whenever I hear LOMO, I think film sales

+1 to that!

Maybe after Kodak Alaris has a chance to stabilize and see where things are at then possibly they can decide if an E6 (or other new) product could be made in a sustainable volume. I doubt there is much good marketing data from EK to really tell them much of anything since Perez clearly was not interested. And they have to have a chance to do some actual marketing - which I hope they will do.

Trask · Nov 8, 2013

I started out in the 1950's with an Ansco 120 "TLR" that had a little knob to rotate a filter or a closeup lens into the optical path. Look through the red window, wind to the next number, and push the red button. The equivalent of a Diana or Holga, 30 years ahead of time. I managed to move from there to where I am today, having learned f/stops and shutter speeds etc along the way. I simply don't understand the attitude that people who are entering photography via Lomo etc are to be looked down on. Everyone starts somewhere, no one emerges from the womb uttering the Scheimpflug principle. Maybe the "I so hip" bit can get wearing, but from the point of view of preserving analog photography, what do we care? I'll only get upset if someone takes away all my quality gear and forces me to shoot with a Lomo; until then, welcome aboard. And if what remains of Kodak continues to produce stuff for me to use, well, I'll thank them for that.

StoneNYC · Nov 8, 2013

Trask said:
I started out in the 1950's with an Ansco 120 "TLR" that had a little knob to rotate a filter or a closeup lens into the optical path. Look through the red window, wind to the next number, and push the red button. The equivalent of a Diana or Holga, 30 years ahead of time. I managed to move from there to where I am today, having learned f/stops and shutter speeds etc along the way. I simply don't understand the attitude that people who are entering photography via Lomo etc are to be looked down on. Everyone starts somewhere, no one emerges from the womb uttering the Scheimpflug principle. Maybe the "I so hip" bit can get wearing, but from the point of view of preserving analog photography, what do we care? I'll only get upset if someone takes away all my quality gear and forces me to shoot with a Lomo; until then, welcome aboard. And if what remains of Kodak continues to produce stuff for me to use, well, I'll thank them for that.

The perspective of use is different, when you were a kid things weren't so fast and that camera was your only option.

Now kids have cell phones with auto exposure so the camera is a novelty not a tool. But when you're used to auto everything, and you get a camera that appears to be auto with only one button, and then you get the results back and they aren't really very good because they are over or under exposed etc, you give up and chalk it up to film being lame. But given a few directions and options, they might have a better experience and have decent results to show for it.

donkee · Nov 8, 2013

RattyMouse said:
Jeez.....so much hate towards Kodak. Sorry I posted that link guys. I won't do so again.

For me it isn't hate. They just don't offer anything I want anymore so there is nothing for me to buy.

Fuji and Ilford have what I want. Looks like Agfa transparency film is going to be an option for me too.

StoneNYC · Nov 8, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Stone, I hope the "real hipsters" you know were of age in the 1950s. If not, there is little distinction to be made between contemporary "real" and "fake" hipsters. They are all fake. It's just another retro fad, whether you shoot lomo or iPhone.

Haha those evolved into hippy's who evolved into corporate moguls lol!

But truly I know what you mean, it's a new generation of NYC hipsters, I think they are similar enough though.

DREW WILEY · Nov 8, 2013

You don't have to be any kind of hipster to appreciate Lomos and I-phones. You just have to enjoy skeet shooting. It's always nice to have
something different to toss into the air beside thousands of computer discs.

PKM-25 · Nov 8, 2013

donkee said:
Fuji and Ilford have what I want. Looks like Agfa transparency film is going to be an option for me too.

Great, then talk *positively* about those products, moving film use into a positive light, not a negative one. Kodak is not bringing back E6, Plus-X or Techpan, period. So why keep asking for it, that sounds negative. I have been trying for *years* to tell people how bad this looks but you just don't get it!

For example, about three months ago while out shooting with my Blads, I ran into a couple of photo-keen 20-somethings who were really intrigued by my cameras. We got to talking about a lot of things, including Kodak films. At the end of it all I recommended this site as a resource. About a week ago I ran into one of them in town. We got to talking about film, Kodak again and this guy mentioned that while he found a lot of good resources in terms of developing, printing, etc on this site, he was somewhat put off by people always talking about what they don't have and not being positive about what we do have.

We all need film to stay in a positive light, this constant asking for what we don't have and never will again is a sickness and it is a sad one at that...you are totally missing the point if you continue to do this folks, really.....so stop it for once!

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 8, 2013

PKM-25 said:
We all need film to stay in a positive light, this constant asking for what we don't have and never will again is a sickness and it is a sad one at that...you are totally missing the point if you continue to do this folks, really.....so stop it for once!

An alternate interpretation is that it's just the market making it's wishes known. In a pre-Internet era companies used to spend fairly large sums of money to hire and fund market research efforts to figure out what their customersand potential customerswanted. Now that information can be had directly by simply reading online, where the whole damn world is more than happy to tell you what it wants. For free. Until your eyes bleed.

The APUG membership is not a statistical outlier to be ignored simply because it's not saying what you want to hear. Rather it's a repository of 66,474 once or greater enrollees who felt strongly enough about the product category of photographic film to sign up as members. And the product preferences expressed here by them are genuine. People aren't gratuitously lying about the products they want to buy and use, if those products were made available. Why on earth would they do that?

It's not a sickness. It's the market at work.

My humble advice would be that one ignores the expressions of this cost-free market research at one's own risk.

Ken

ntenny · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
An alternate interpretation is that it's just the market making it's wishes known.

That's if you believe that what people say on the internet reflects how they will actually behave (and if you believe that the things said by the relatively few active posters are a good model of the views of the lurking majority). Personally, I betcha it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure there's recent research showing that inet discourse skews negative compared to "real-world" offline behavior. Trying to market products in such a way as to keep people from complaining online is a fool's errand; you could bring a film to market that had an RMS granularity of 0.00000000003204, a dynamic range of 68 stops, loaded itself in your camera and could be developed in full daylight while the snipped leader polished your shoes for you, and people would still find something to complain about.

-NT

PKM-25 · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
It's not a sickness. It's the market at work.

Yes, it is a sickness and no, it is not a market that works, because this is a re-emerging market with low demand, still declining in some areas such as color. So it is a niche and within this niche people have been told time and time again by the likes of Simon Galley, Colleen Krenzer, Eric from Freestyle and Henry P from B&H that there is NOT sufficient demand for the products that have been discontinued, *Full Stop!!*

So when ever you fill the wunder-kind internet with wanting what will NEVER come back, it is not positive for film, not positive for the films that are left, not positive for Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc and I gave a perfect example above in how this is DAMAGING the movement of film as a niche. That 20-something that I inspired to shoot film chose not to join this site based on this old washed up guard attitude, I can't blame him.

If we as film users fail to inspire others to use what we DO have left, we risk losing that too, I'm sorry but as a professional who wants to continue to depend on film, this annoys me to no end Ken.

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 8, 2013

ntenny said:
That's if you believe that what people say on the internet reflects how they will actually behave (and if you believe that the things said by the relatively few active posters are a good model of the views of the lurking majority). Personally, I betcha it doesn't.

Perhaps...

But then again, the people who do market research already know that. And how to correct for it. That's their job. And that job was no different in decades past when they had to decipher how many of those customers who made their product wishes known down at the bottom of all of those mail-in warranty registration cards were also serious about what they wrote. Nothing new here.

More information, whether it be raw or corrected, is always better than less information. Especially when it's essentially free for the taking.

Ken

StoneNYC · Nov 8, 2013

PKM-25 said:
Yes, it is a sickness and no, it is not a market that works, because this is a re-emerging market with low demand, still declining in some areas such as color. So it is a niche and within this niche people have been told time and time again by the likes of Simon Galley, Colleen Krenzer, Eric from Freestyle and Henry P from B&H that there is NOT sufficient demand for the products that have been discontinued, *Full Stop!!*

So when ever you fill the wunder-kind internet with wanting what will NEVER come back, it is not positive for film, not positive for the films that are left, not positive for Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc and I gave a perfect example above in how this is DAMAGING the movement of film as a niche. That 20-something that I inspired to shoot film chose not to join this site based on this old washed up guard attitude, I can't blame him.

If we as film users fail to inspire others to use what we DO have left, we risk losing that too, I'm sorry but as a professional who wants to continue to depend on film, this annoys me to no end Ken.

One thing I did because of all this talk about old film, is spent a bunch of money trying out the old stuff, compared to new, and besides Panatolmic-X and Verichrome Pan, neither of which will come back.

Besides wasting a bunch it money on eBay, ya know what it did? It got me to NOT buy currently available film from the supplier that would help keep film alive.

Dan is right, all this lamenting is bad for business all around. Appreciate, but don't complain.

Prof_Pixel · Nov 8, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
The APUG membership is not a statistical outlier to be ignored simply because it's not saying what you want to hear. Rather it's a repository of 66,474 once or greater enrollees who felt strongly enough about the product category of photographic film to sign up as members.

I wonder how many of the 66,474 user names actually even check-in at least once a month. It seems to me, that only about 100 people actually participate on a several times a week basis.

Anybody have the figures and care to share the numbers?

RattyMouse · Nov 8, 2013

I agree with PKM-25. People whining about Kodachrome even today are really off putting. It is an absolute fact that Kodachrome never will come back. Every last post about Kodachrome is a complete and total waste of time, missing what is still available.

A Conversation with Kodak Alaris

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency