A Conversation with Kodak Alaris

[StoneNYC]

I choose to not use Twitter, but here are some thoughts on it:

The Ilford Photo twitter page has about 1,000 more followers than Kodak and while they do have more of a variety of posts including photos, they also emerged from re-structuring 10 years ago, so the following they have on twitter is indicative of a following in general in that I suspect Ilford followers have felt more "safe"....the photo world was hugely different 10 years ago compared to now, things have settled for Ilford Harman.

Stone, can't you just start posting images to the Kodak Twitter then? I mean, what is the technical difference between posting to the Kodak or the Ilford one? Ilford's Twitter feed is lively because of the people who contribute to it, if we stand around waiting for folks to show up to the Kodak one without making our own contributions, then we are part of the problem.

Well were talking about two different things, I was simply referencing Kodak as the fact that they only had a Twitter page, Twitter is sort of like blogging at this point no one really does it anymore, and I'm not saying people don't go on Twitter they do often, but everything is cyclical and it's not the hottest thing anymore it's old, heck Instagram is pretty much at the end of its most popular lifespan, vine is the next thing, it's always changing me think about it 10 years ago everyone had a blog know how often do you really read blogs? And certainly the people 30 and under don't really spend any time reading blogs, and sure they're probably on Twitter little bit but not as much, I know more people who use Instagram and they do Twitter.

Anyway I'm sort of getting off track here my point was simply that Kodak only had a Twitter and didn't have an Instagram Instagram being the thing that is the most photo oriented of the social media networks out there... So it's sort of like a duh moment.. Why don't they have one?

Also your comment about Twitter doesn't make sense, Twitter is something that you post on your own feet, you can @ ("at")someone to get there attention, and sometimes others that follow them will see you're @, but it's not quite the same thing as them "re-tweeting" your post of an image, which is what they should be doing, rewarding people for using their products through attention, contests, etc, like TIP (The Impossible Project) does on their Instagram.

People would rather look at images then they would read many sentences that's why Instagram is so popular that's why photos are so popular you know the old saying the pictures worth 1000 words, well you only get 140 CHARACTERS on twitter... Unless you add a photo

I'm also not saying that Ilford shouldn't do the same thing. In fact I've mentioned to Simon that I would love to be part of his product catalog is one of the images that they use as examples of how amazing Ilford is, I've just been bad about submitting things. But I think they should also do a contest like that why not "hey this month we'll pick one lucky winner's image to be on next years box of 4x5 Ilford film! Submit your photos today!"

As I mentioned earlier it gets people shooting film, it gets people involved, and it gets people excited about the product, and best of all it doesn't cost the company anything. In fact they're getting free product advertising because the people submitting also have their own group of followers and those followers will see the images of Milford film and then they might be tempted to try some too, AND they get a free stock image that they don't have to pay for to put on a box, although I don't think they pay for those images anyway, it's still something to mention.

Ok that was a lot, and repetitive, sorry.

 

[PKM-25]

Also your comment about Twitter doesn't make sense, Twitter is something that you post on your own feet, you can @ ("at")someone to get there attention, and sometimes others that follow them will see you're @, but it's not quite the same thing as them "re-tweeting" your post of an image, which is what they should be doing, rewarding people for using their products through attention, contests, etc, like TIP (The Impossible Project) does on their Instagram.

AND they get a free stock image that they don't have to pay for to put on a box, although I don't think they pay for those images anyway, it's still something to mention.

The first paragraph...which comment I made does not make sense?

The second one, good god Stone, I would think you would be the last one to advocate rights grabs. If they do a contest, they should do it for wholly good reasons, that people are entering it to show how good their product is, that should be enough.

 

[StoneNYC]

The first paragraph...which comment I made does not make sense?

The second one, good god Stone, I would think you would be the last one to advocate rights grabs. If they do a contest, they should do it for wholly good reasons, that people are entering it to show how good their product is, that should be enough.

About the Twitter comment, you basically said that someone could post ON their (kodak) Twitter feed, but it doesn't work like that you simply post AT them and potentially they could choose to re-tweet it onto their Twitter feed, but it's not something that you as a follower can actively put on their feed / page it's something that they would have to choose to put on their feed.

Yes of course obviously I think that it's important for photographers shooting stock to get paid for their work, however this is simply an example of the way things work now and something about our times, you'll have to ask Simon if I'm correct, however any of the images that they use I believe are from generous photographers who simply want to show their work and are proud of Iilford, and are not paid for images. However there is value in having a credit on every single box of Ilford film going out for an entire year or for your image to be put into their catalog as an example, and again your name credited underneath, that's huge advertising and is mutually beneficial to both of you.

Either way it would happen regardless even if no photographers that were professionals submitted the photos, it's the way things work now. I wasn't saying it was good for us, but it's good for film which in turn is good for us. It's all a balance...

 

[Simon R Galley]

We did do a competition a few years ago with APUG where 4 APUG member images where chosen to go on an ILFORD / APUG branded box.

We are extremely carefull to recognise and negotiate for the photographers rights in relation to all images we use in our promotional and packaging materials....'image rights are customer rights' as far as we are concerned ( and always will be ).

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Film Guerilla]

Hey Stone, i'm with you on this. Although, it has some good news but i bet this would have some bad news in the future.. Film price etc etc..

I'm also a Vinyl lover although i'm not into Hi-end audio stuff. I'm a digger.. These hipsters makes the Vinyl world go crazy.. What i noticed lately is the record prices are going up higher especially the new releases. Years ago you can get $8.99-$10.99 new releases, now it's going up because of the resurgence... I don't think that's getting any better. New album cost almost double, reissue and stuff.. Oh well.. I just hope these two (Film and Vinyl records) won't turn into very expensive hobby that i won't be able to afford in the next few years.

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!


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...


hehe *snicker*

 

[StoneNYC]

Hey Stone, i'm with you on this. Although, it has some good news but i bet this would have some bad news in the future.. Film price etc etc..

I'm also a Vinyl lover although i'm not into Hi-end audio stuff. I'm a digger.. These hipsters makes the Vinyl world go crazy.. What i noticed lately is the record prices are going up higher especially the new releases. Years ago you can get $8.99-$10.99 new releases, now it's going up because of the resurgence... I don't think that's getting any better. New album cost almost double, reissue and stuff.. Oh well.. I just hope these two (Film and Vinyl records) won't turn into very expensive hobby that i won't be able to afford in the next few years.

I would bet that the vinyl prices going up has more to do with the oil prices going up there anything else, but I'm sure the hipster movement doesn't help, it's also very specialized so it cost them more to produce and distribute then say a CD or even less than that iTunes Store purchases that everyone is using now.

Good luck!

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, looks like they (Kodak - Alaris) are doing something....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[analoguey]

Well, looks like they (Kodak - Alaris) are doing something....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Popped up in my mail now - lovely isn't it? Kodak is going where a ready and un-complaining market exists!!
It will definitely do a good deal for the market share. I wonder if lomo is going to be a hub now!

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Popped up in my mail now - lovely isn't it? Kodak is going where a ready and un-complaining market exists!!
It will definitely do a good deal for the market share. I wonder if lomo is going to be a hub now!

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

Oh don't worry, lots of old photographers will start to gripe about this too, how kodak is going "amateur " or some crap... lol

 

[removed account4]

Oh don't worry, lots of old photographers will start to gripe about this too, how kodak is going "amateur " or some crap... lol

?
kodak INVENTED the amateur market

 

[StoneNYC]

?
kodak INVENTED the amateur market

Yeah I suppose it's kind of ironic, Kodak cameras though some of them in the early days were more elaborate, then all of a sudden it seems like they just produced a bunch of plastic junk for a while, film was always good, but their cameras sometimes sucked just like the Lomography cameras do.. Good point John.

 

[Ian Grant]

?
kodak INVENTED the amateur market

I read that somewhere a few years ago and it's just a US illusion. A bit like Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography.

That doesn't mean either is false rather that they are purely US viewpoints and have little in common with the wider reality in the rest of the world. Kodak certainly didn't invent the amateur market but they learnt how to milk it That's good business.

Ian

 

[StoneNYC]

I read that somewhere a few years ago and it's just a US illusion. A bit like Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography.

That doesn't mean either is false rather that they are purely US viewpoints and have little in common with the wider reality in the rest of the world. Kodak certainly didn't invent the amateur market but they learnt how to milk it That's good business.

Ian

If you consider the difference between the ultra professional view camera users, and the Kodak folder / Autographic type users as amateur versus pro, I'm sure it's pretty clear that Kodak had a big hand in the amateur market, even if the quality was decent.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The George Eastman House has a great new exhibit: The Kodak Camera at 125 see: http://www.eastmanhouse.org/events/detail.php?title=kodak125

It includes a teardown of the rotating cylinder shutter used which was quite innovative.

 

[removed account4]

I read that somewhere a few years ago and it's just a US illusion. A bit like Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography.

That doesn't mean either is false rather that they are purely US viewpoints and have little in common with the wider reality in the rest of the world. Kodak certainly didn't invent the amateur market but they learnt how to milk it That's good business.

Ian

hi ian

you are right
they capitalized on it ..
and even after they nearly lost their shirt when the person who
invented roll film sued them for millions ( and won! ) .. the history writers
have most people brainwashed in saying kodak invented roll film thats good business+marketing too

Yeah I suppose it's kind of ironic, Kodak cameras though some of them in the early days were more elaborate, then all of a sudden it seems like they just produced a bunch of plastic junk for a while, film was always good, but their cameras sometimes sucked just like the Lomography cameras do.. Good point John.

as soon as it was possible to make cheap / inexpensive cameras ( inexpensive materials ) kodak did
millions of box cameras and other stuff just like everyone else in the usa and abroad between ww1+2 and then
even more so afterwards. the lomo cameras aren't really much different than what was being sold already (by kodak )
except they ( lomo ) have capitalized on the crowd that want to shoot lofi/low tech stuff.
( if kodak continued to make cheap 35mm and 120 cameras until their demise they would have given lomo and holga a run for the $$
seeing they have a 100+ year history doing just that )

i agree with their (lomo ) philosophy quite a bit and think that with fewer controls ( focus aperture shutter speed ) it frees
the photographer to just take photographs instead of everything else. yeah i know, i have full control cameras too
but they aren't as much fun

 

[StoneNYC]

hi ian

you are right
they capitalized on it ..
and even after they nearly lost their shirt when the person who
invented roll film sued them for millions ( and won! ) .. the history writers
have most people brainwashed in saying kodak invented roll film thats good business+marketing too



as soon as it was possible to make cheap / inexpensive cameras ( inexpensive materials ) kodak did
millions of box cameras and other stuff just like everyone else in the usa and abroad between ww1+2 and then
even more so afterwards. the lomo cameras aren't really much different than what was being sold already (by kodak )
except they ( lomo ) have capitalized on the crowd that want to shoot lofi/low tech stuff.
( if kodak continued to make cheap 35mm and 120 cameras until their demise they would have given lomo and holga a run for the $$
seeing they have a 100+ year history doing just that )

i agree with their (lomo ) philosophy quite a bit and think that with fewer controls ( focus aperture shutter speed ) it frees
the photographer to just take photographs instead of everything else. yeah i know, i have full control cameras too
but they aren't as much fun

Depends on your perspective, I think the more control I have more fun I have, it's a slower process but my enjoyment is in the creation, rather than in the luck. That I can easily see how the fun crazy I'm not sure what's going to happen mentality can also be fun, it's just not as satisfying for some people as it is for others. But either way I'm glad the Kodak is hopping on the Lomography bandwagon rather then completely falling apart.

 

[removed account4]

naah has nothing to do with luck .. if you know your equipment, and materials
it is just as easy to take a great photograph without controls as it is with controls ...
look at some of the stellar holga work done by eddie and jersey vic ( just for 2 ) ... absolutely mindblowing and no controls.

i hope next they send some master rolls to photo warehouse so THEY can start doing custom sheet sizes again....

 

[StoneNYC]

naah has nothing to do with luck .. if you know your equipment, and materials
it is just as easy to take a great photograph without controls as it is with controls ...
look at some of the stellar holga work done by eddie and jersey vic ( just for 2 ) ... absolutely mindblowing and no controls.

i hope next they send some master rolls to photo warehouse so THEY can start doing custom sheet sizes again....

There's a company that does, I just emailed them about doing a custom 4x5 in double-x... They said they might... So.. If they can do that, the sky's the limit on other stuff.

 

[removed account4]

There's a company that does, I just emailed them about doing a custom 4x5 in double-x... They said they might... So.. If they can do that, the sky's the limit on other stuff.

thats kind of strange since super-xx hasn't been made in ages
and kodak has never let anyone else cut master rolls of their film ..

 

[erikg]

Double x vs. super double x. Didn't think they coated double x on a estar base, at least not in recent years. Thought it was MP only.

 

[StoneNYC]

Double x vs. super double x. Didn't think they coated double x on a estar base, at least not in recent years. Thought it was MP only.

It IS MP film, and it's DOUBLE X that's why I said EastmanXX (or I thought I did...) Eastman indicated Movie Stock...

Anyway I asked if it was possible and they are contacting kodak to see, I said I didn't care about the base, and I don't, the base on double-X is fairly thick so it should be able to process fine.

 

[MattKing]

I'll quote my father:

"There have been far more great photographs taken with Brownies/Instamatics than all the SLRs and high-end cameras combined."

I think Stone is too young to know that at one time, in North America at least, people used the words "Kodak" and "Camera" interchangeably.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'll quote my father:

"There have been far more great photographs taken with Brownies/Instamatics than all the SLRs and high-end cameras combined."

I think Stone is too young to know that at one time, in North America at least, people used the words "Kodak" and "Camera" interchangeably.

I'm too young to remember, for sure, but I am aware of that, I read it here on APUG many times..

Or should I say AKUG...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think Stone is too young to know that at one time, in North America at least, people used the words "Kodak" and "Camera" interchangeably.

"Hey Buck, get the Kodak."

 

[StoneNYC]

"Hey Buck, get the Kodak."

Hmmm but was that shot on Kodachrome?