Kodak used to advertise heavily including the Olympics, but they found that the advertisement did not increase sales.
Kodak failed again. It's largely known that Fuji's success in the USA was kicked off by its participation in the 1984 LA Olympics. Tremendous visibly was gained by Fujifilm using their blimp and they gained a foothold in the US that they never lost.
A "Fujifilm" blimb has been around here for years but the same time there were no traces of Instax cameras in the shops.Tremendous visibly was gained by Fujifilm using their blimp and they gained a foothold in the US that they never lost.
That's true. But even with the wide latitude I still end up blowing out my highlights no matter the medium
The fact remains that Fujifilm's market share was distinctly second to Kodak's pre-1984 and took off like a rocket after the Olympics. Kodak once again missed the boat. Their hubris cost them virtually every chance they had to stay an American icon.I was shooting Fujichrome regularly for 10 years or more by 1984, having tried it shortly after its early 1970s U. S. introduction. While Fuji's high-profile Olympics presence no doubt converted a good part of the pro shooters market segment, amateur enthusiasts like me were long since on board. The vibrant colors, especially when underexposed 1/3 EV, and sharpness at a competitive (lower) price made the decision easy.
It was a little tongue in cheek.If you are blowing out highlights in a negative you are grossly overexposing. If seeing it only in prints, there is a problem elsewhere. In my experience it is much easier to blow highlights in digital than negative film. Slide film, on the other hand is similar to digital.
Missed this post the first time around, but +1. These are the exact same experiences I’ve had with film.The path for black-and-white is clear, and I can see the issues with color-negative, but I feel there is a market for slide film that isn't fully serviced yet. To think the film market will ever be like it was is a mistake; the people that will make up the market of the future are not like the people that made up the market during the 80s and 90s. (The majority of) People getting into film today aren't adopting it to take better pictures, or to replace digital, they're doing it for nostalgia, novelty, or 'authenticity'. Take a look at the return of other analog mediums. New-pressed records are largely not the music of the generation that grew up with them. Also look at the rise of subscription box services; certainly some of the success can be attributed to the gratification of getting something by snail-mail. This is where I think slide film has an edge over color-negative film, but first a couple anecdotes.
At Canadian Thanks Giving this year I brought along my Instax wide with 3 packs of film. As a side note, everyone thought it was a camera from the 70s, because even with the popularity of Instax, I was the only one in a group of 20 that had heard of it; it was always referred to as a 'Polaroid' camera. By the end of the night I had a pocket full of photos that I spread out on the table for every one to take home, and I can be sure the excitement around the table will top anything that was felt when viewing photos from the same night on Facebook the next morning.
On a recent trip home, after purchasing an Ektapro projector, I started testing it with some of my parents' slides from the early 80s. This turned into 4 nights of my family, and a few friends with no investment in the images, sitting around a slideshow typical of the 80s for hours. The comments were often about how interesting the process of viewing a slide was. I can guarantee there would have been far less engagement had I projected the same images from my laptop.
There is something to be said for the process that film images go through, and how people perceive that as a benefit. This is where I feel slide film has an edge over color-negative in today's market. Color-negative had the advantage when film was the only method of photography; it made sense, easy, fast prints. Like tedr1 said, digital has taken over this market, and does a far better job at it. Slide film, on the other hand, has that element of authenticity and novelty of being projected, and being able to see your image in true color on the film. I'm sure the argument will come up about color-negative's improved range, but like has been said, those of us using film for its image quality are the minority; just look at the rise of Lomography. We've been sold on it, so there's no point marketing to us. Film and developing prices being equal, I think we would have seen color-negative emulsions be discontinued like positive emulsions were.
It was a little tongue in cheek.
If there is a problem it is color. Digital does color so much quicker and better than film. I can get really good quality color prints from digital in minutes at my local CVS store for pennies, I think Walmart probably do the same thing (I believe the Kodak package used by CVS makes dye-sublimation prints). The color fidelity and black density is streets ahead of yesterday's prints from color negatives. In the same store I can get color film processed, send out for processing, turnaround a week or more, print quality unknown. In my mind there is no contest, for color digital wins hands down. The days of mass color film processing are gone and not coming back. The days of color film are numbered and the clock is ticking, no amount of marketing is going to bring it back.
The fact remains that Fujifilm's market share was distinctly second to Kodak's pre-1984 and took off like a rocket after the Olympics. Kodak once again missed the boat. Their hubris cost them virtually every chance they had to stay an American icon.
126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;
Whenever I see a comment like this, I realize how many people who don't have trouble with 135 or 120 film don't realize how much of a barrier the technicalities of handling those films were to so many people.126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;
True enough, and there were so many instances of hubris and corporate arrogance to cite going back to the 1960s (and folks older than I can probably cite prior examples) that make one wonder how they didn't implode sooner. A few examples from personal experience and observation:
126, 110, disc, and APS film formats;
Maybe they could sell film better if they advertised that you can get high on the processing chemicals.
With young people, it’s a novelty and it’s the tangibility of the medium that is very cool.
Don't you already know most of the stuff that would be in their marketing campaign already? Or at least know where you can already get that information?I, at times, wish film companies would market better, but don't really have a good idea of what cost-effective marketing would look like in 2017.
I agree about Ilford, they rose from the ashes of bankruptcy ten years ago and have their act together. However black and white is a niche market, and one that IS taught, at least in some parts of the USA. But that's black and white, which probably has a future.
If there is a problem it is color. Digital does color so much quicker and better than film. .
1. It is obvious He was making an Impromptu joke.....even supplied a Smiley Face..... not that it did any good.I'm guessing we use rather different chemistry... "Enjoy a slight nagging headache with a chance of feeling mildly unwell for a few hours or even days after working with chemistry..." doesn't sound like a great selling point.
Sorry, only half true. The increase in image area size is 43 percent. The image is placed at the side of a perforation hole. A sound track area is provided on the side opposite to the perforated edge. These are the positive aspects.I think the only time Kodak both simplified the handling and improved the format (image quality) was in going from regular 8mm spools (so-called double eight) to Super 8 magazines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?