Email Campaign to save Kodak HIE-135

Dear Fellow Photographers,

As you may be aware, Kodak has announced plans to discontinue manufacture distribution of HIE-135 infrared film by the end of December 2007.

Below I have copied an email I sent to Patrick Hamilton, Public Relations Director, Kodak CDG EAMER:
patrick.hamilton@kodak.com. Mr. Hamilton has encouraged me to write Kodak and is aware that I am attempting to start an email campaign to save HIE-135. He has assured me that he will get the messages to the appropriate people.

I ask each and every one of you to please take a moment and write an email to Kodak. Copy my letter if you like or simply write “I urge you to continue manufacture and distribution of HIE-135 infrared film. Please reverse the decision to discontinue it.” Even if you don't ever plan to use film again, consider those of us who do and make this tiny effort.

I plan to post a very similar message to forums and IR groups, such as WJ’s Infrared Forum, The Infrared Forum, APUG, Flickr, and Photo.net. If any of you know of other forums I should post to please send me that information. Please contact me if you like: nighthawkjw@gmail.com

Thank you all for your assistance. I know we can make this happen if we try!

Sincerely,
James C. Williams

________________________________________________


Dear Kodak,

This message is to be distributed to those responsible for the choice to delete or discontinue Kodak's HIE-135 infrared film. The purpose of this message is to persuade those people to reverse that choice.

Among the many applications of photography there is a unique type of film that produces very unusual photographs, infrared film. It's initial and major commercial purpose has been for scientific and security purposes. However, aside from these mundane applications, a much more visually appealing application is fine art photography using infrared film.

Many fine art photographers recognise the great benefits of using film and prefer film to digital. In the case of infrared photography, there are many people trying different approaches to using digital cameras, but that system has problems to be solved and the results are not nearly as good as those produced by HIE-135.

Among other infrared films, HIE-135 is also unique and superior. The extended range of 900nm produces a greater sensitivity to the infrared spectrum, and the absence of an anti-halide backing makes it ideal for producing images evoking surreal and ethereal properties that no other film produces. No other film manufacturer producing infrared film today makes a film like HIE-135.

Discontinuing the manufacture and distribution of HIE-135 infrared film will mean that photographers like myself will have to compromise future bodies of work. It will mean that perhaps the best infrared photographer, Simon Marsden, who has dedicated 35 years to producing thousands of images on HIE-135, will have to either adapt or end his career now.

The responsibility of a creative medium for many people lies in this decision. It not only represents the choice to stop making a specific type of film, but is indicative of the future of all film. Kodak was responsible for the popularity of photography, and needs to be responsible for safeguarding the future of it as well.

--
Sincerely,
James C. Williams

Photographer specializing in infrared photography

I don't think you understand how film manufacturing works. In all probability the last coating run for this film was a year ago. When it came up on the rotation for coating again, the decline in sales of this emulsion caused Kodak to decide to not coat it again. The notice that is would be discontinued by the end of the year is just based on how long it will take to sell existing stock. It is discontinued when they have no more stock to sell, not when they stopped manufacturing it. For all practical purposes the last coating was done a year ago, or more. Kodak is not producing "new" stock now, other than possibly cutting down from the last master roll and spooling into 35mm cassettes.

If they had all of the chemicals still available including the IR senstizing dye, a run could be made. This would be better than incinerating the chemistry.

PE

My Nikon uses the DX technology so I can't use HIE in 135. Now that I have started developing film, I would consider trying HIE in 120.

Steve

Done!

nighthawkjw said:

Dear Fellow Photographers,

As you may be aware, Kodak has announced plans to discontinue manufacture distribution of HIE-135 infrared film by the end of December 2007.

Click to expand...

Time to move along guys, HIE is gone and at $13 a roll I can see why. This is a film that I used almost exclusively for 3 years but I'm done with it. I do regret it's loss but I could see this one coming.

How about since it's Thanksgiving over here in Rochester we instead send Kodak thousands upon thousands of letters thanking them for their hard work over the years in bringing us these products

That may make more of an impact than an email brigade to try and save 1 film ..that I'm sure was getting slaughtered since digital took over

Sirius Glass said:

My Nikon uses the DX technology so I can't use HIE in 135. Now that I have started developing film, I would consider trying HIE in 120.

Steve

Click to expand...

Hi Steve
Why does DX technology preclude you from using HIE in 135? Are you talking about DX coding on the cassettes or DX lens which are for digital cameras. Or am I missing something?

Michael

msage said:

Hi Steve
Why does DX technology preclude you from using HIE in 135? Are you talking about DX coding on the cassettes or DX lens which are for digital cameras. Or am I missing something?

Michael

Click to expand...

I think DX enabled cameras use IR light to read the bar code. It can therefore fog IR film.

Dave Miller said:

I think DX enabled cameras use IR light to read the bar code. It can therefore fog IR film.

Click to expand...

The DX code is read by electrical contacts, not IR. I think he may be referring to IR sprocket hole counting which is used by some cameras during wind on.


Steve.

The DX code is normally read with plain electrical contacts.

I'm not a infrared photographer but I've just done it!!!!

Some cameras use an IR sensor to measure the frame advance. The sensor has nothing to do with reading the DX.

I suppose the amount of film being sold has a larger impact on production schedules than emails from individuals that don't use the product.

If actual sales don't support the allocation of resources for HIE, it's time to move on to other films and enjoy the memories.

Mike

I applaud the effort here, but think it a little disingenuous if photographers who have no intention of using HIE petition Kodak to make it again.

The Nikon instruction manual states that the DX feature for film identification will fog IR film. It then specifically states that this model camera should not use IR film.

I will not go out to buy a camera for a discontinued film in hopes that an email attack on Kodak would accomplish anything positive. However, if available I may try IR film in my Hasselblad.

Steve

photo8x10 said:

I'm not a infrared photographer but I've just done it!!!!

Click to expand...

So Kodak, now aware of people doing this now have a heap of emails/letters asking for HIE to be produced again and they have no real idea of how many of them are people who really want HIE ...

They could simply guess "hmmm, lets guess at %90 aren't true" - More likely their 'guess' will just conform to the sales/market research data they have already ...

Besides the point ... I'd actually like to use it ... in 120 that is :rolleyes:

I use the F-100 and HIE all the time and never have had an issue with fogged film.

One of my younger Contax cameras registers the date on the edge of the film. This fogs IR film.
Another of the much older ones has a small window to light the viewfinder information. This also fogs IR film.
I think the middle aged one is just right.
Regards
Bill

Dave Miller said:

I think DX enabled cameras use IR light to read the bar code. It can therefore fog IR film.

Click to expand...

I have used HIE very successfully in my N80. I was told this was impossible. Yes, there is an issue with the IR sensor, but I have never had fogging past the rebate/sprocket holes. My image frames have always been fine.

I'll stay out of the other debate for now... I've edited this about a dozen times and I haven't even clicked "send" yet. Suffice it to say that this is a market issue in a declining sector. Regretfully, HIE has been doomed for some time.

Cheers,

DX is not a problem for IR. I've shot HIE in both an F601 and an F90 without any fogging damage at all.

There are Nikon bodies with manual wind available in the $20-40 range, although you rightly point out that buying a camera for a declining film may not make sense.

PhotoJim said:

DX is not a problem for IR. I've shot HIE in both an F601 and an F90 without any fogging damage at all.

There are Nikon bodies with manual wind available in the $20-40 range, although you rightly point out that buying a camera for a declining film may not make sense.

Click to expand...

Ah, but there are other positive reasons to purchase manual wind camera bodies, since they will last much longer than electric wind. All cameras with built-in motors will eventually fail, and parts will no longer be available. We can still use manual-wind cameras from the 1920's and 1930's just fine. I have a Leica III from the 1930's that winds just as good as new.

nick mulder said:

So Kodak, now aware of people doing this now have a heap of emails/letters asking for HIE to be produced again and they have no real idea of how many of them are people who really want HIE ...

They could simply guess "hmmm, lets guess at %90 aren't true" - More likely their 'guess' will just conform to the sales/market research data they have already ...

Besides the point ... I'd actually like to use it ... in 120 that is :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

The discontinuation of is HIE "fait accompli". While there is no perfrect replacement for this product I think it makes the most sense to simply explore and use the remaining alternatives in the marketplace.

aldevo said:

The discontinuation of is HIE "fait accompli". While there is no perfrect replacement for this product I think it makes the most sense to simply explore and use the remaining alternatives in the marketplace.

Click to expand...

I have some Ilford SFX 200 and a red filter here waiting to be trucked out to the beach

PHOTOTONE said:

Ah, but there are other positive reasons to purchase manual wind camera bodies, since they will last much longer than electric wind. All cameras with built-in motors will eventually fail, and parts will no longer be available. We can still use manual-wind cameras from the 1920's and 1930's just fine. I have a Leica III from the 1930's that winds just as good as new.

Click to expand...

You're considering the exception rather than the rule. Most manual wind cameras after the early 70s do not have anywhere near the mechanical robustness in their film transport mechanisms as Leica rangefinders.

Do not forget that Leica IIIs have robust resale values and their parts are scavenged. That is not necessarily true for other marques and makes.

I prefer manual focus/winding cameras and that's what I use. But if I were basing my decision solely on fiscal sense and long-term "survivability" of my choice it simply makes more sense to buy several auto-wind cameras (whose values have, generally, fallen far more precipitously) and carefully store them. Most electrical motors, servos, and integrated circuits can last a very long time if they are not suspected to wear, dust, or other environmental factors. On the other hand, most lubricants used in mechanical cameras will simply dry out and require servicing after about 30 years.