Kodak Alaris discontinues BW400CN film

[Jaf-Photo]

So how do I get in on this online gambling thing? Extremely fast money and very little effort is exactly the kind of job I'm looking for.

Just set up a web server in an offshore location. Order a web casino from asian programmers.

Although, I do not recommend it.

 

[RattyMouse]

That's a ridiculous thing to say. They are trying to figure out how to survive.

It sure seems like KA is embarrassed to sell film. Today's Linkedin post from Alaris talks about parents and how they save memories of their kid's first day of school. The post is a pitch to get people to use KA's printing kiosks to print out their digital photos of this important day.

A PERFECT chance to market film along side (not instead of) their kiosks. Such precious memories, why not record them on an archival medium and allow it to be passed generation to generation? You think these kiosk prints are going to last 50 plus years?

There are almost countless missed opportunities from KA and their film marketing.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

It sure seems like KA is embarrassed to sell film.

Not embarrassed, just realistic.

Today's Linkedin post from Alaris talks about parents and how they save memories of their kid's first day of school. The post is a pitch to get people to use KA's printing kiosks to print out their digital photos of this important day.

People have already shot the pictures on their digital devices. KA is just trying to make some money by making people aware of how great prints are. BTW, no consumer buys film for the film - they buy it to get prints.

A PERFECT chance to market film along side (not instead of) their kiosks. Such precious memories, why not record them on an archival medium and allow it to be passed generation to generation? You think these kiosk prints are going to last 50 plus years?

Yes, I know film is better from an archiving basis (and have written and made many presentations making that point). People take pictures for the 'now' (like first day of school) with no thought to the future.

There are almost countless missed opportunities from KA and their film marketing.

Life is full of missed opportunities. You can only try to do your best and we all take different approaches.

 

[markbarendt]

Then perhaps they need to turn a few more unturned stones. Markets changed. This isn't the 1980s.

Ken

That's right, what changed between then and now?

Hint, it isn't digital cameras that are the problem.

Computers, the internet, and smart phones/tablets have turned many, many old business models on their ears. Film photography is just one business type that has been "disrupted".

 

[markbarendt]

BTW, no consumer buys film for the film - they buy it to get prints.

Yes, or just something to text to grand dad or the significant other.

People take pictures for the 'now' (like first day of school) with no thought to the future.

Yes, the average Joe or Jane just wants it to work, they don't want to think about it.

Life is full of missed opportunities.

Yes, I can think of more than a few in my own life. Most were one-or-the-other choices.

---

Recently I learned a possible explanation of the significance of "42" from Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. It is the number of dots on two dice. In essence it is suggesting that much of life is governed by chance, a roll of the dice.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

That's right, what changed between then and now?

Hint, it isn't digital cameras that are the problem.

Computers, the internet, and smart phones/tablets have turned many, many old business models on their ears. Film photography is just one business type that has been "disrupted".

Disruption is a consequence of arrival at inflection points. And inflection points—be they technological, societal, cultural, or personal—define the moments of greatest opportunity. They also define the moments of greatest risk, for those who choose to ignore them.

Many will offer the simplistic platitude that change is inevitable. But everyone already knows that. What they fail to recognize is that it's not the change itself that matters. It's what one does or does not do with change when it happens that matters.

Those who navigate successfully across inflection points will be those who doggedly keep turning over stones until they finally discover the secrets to their own survival. Those who stand motionless will perish.

And no amount hysterical appeals to the anatomical placement of Cherrios can change any of this. One either gets it, gets moving, and does something. Or one does not, remains motionless in denial, and suffers the consequences.

Pretty simple really...

Ken

 

[PKM-25]

In essence it is suggesting that much of life is governed by chance, a roll of the dice.

Chance favors the prepared mind.....

When homeless and living in my friend's mom's attic at age 15, I figured out I could do and be anything I wanted to if I just stayed positive and worked smarter than harder. Thus far, it has worked.

I choose to look at the future of film the same way, Kodak Alaris included. The things I know I can do something about, I do. The things I can't do something about, I store in the back of my mind as gathered intelligence for my next strategic move.

A good friend of mine tonight commented on how much more industry banter over knowledge and passion sharing there is on this site in the past few years.

17 invoices done, 3.4TB of offsite data backed up.....see ya next year folks!

 

[RattyMouse]

Not embarrassed, just realistic.

Realistic, but in who's world? The realism you point to is one where film has no future. The public won't shoot film so there is no effort required by those who make film. That's Kodak's realism.

I think you are right, Kodak does believe this. I get no vibe whatsoever from Kodak that film has a future. Ilford, and soon Ferrania offer a vision of the future that is palpable. Thank god for them.

There's almost no vibe at all from Fuji. A TINY pulse can be detected on occasion, but mostly not (they did bring back Neopan 400, even though that effort didnt succeed.

 

[pdeeh]

BTW, no consumer buys film for the film - they buy it to get prints.

.

I'd challenge that assumption.

Although I have no evidence for the next assertion, I reckon that many if not most of the new adopters (and re-adopters) of film are not having prints made at all (in the same way that they rarely have prints made from photographs taken with their digital cameras or phones).

(including me, as I consider so few of my photographs worth setting up the darkroom for)

The modus operandus for many people is scan-and-post-online

 

[NJH]

Funny thing that, printing for me likewise is only a thing for a select few images. I have met a couple of others still shooting film by pure chance and same for them, I haven't met anyone in years who regularly gets 6x4 prints made although some must do otherwise labs wouldn't offer this service. I can get a much more definitive answer on this however when I next visit my local lab, I do know they do a lot of scanning as they had to buy another machine (Fuji Frontier) as their other scanner a Noritsu was a bottle neck in the business.

 

[Xmas]

Well in past peoples would any off

loupe negs
light box negs
proof a 10x8 of 36 frames or 12 6x6 etc.
then maybe

enlarge a keeper to postcard for contrast/density appreciation

you also needed a retrieval mechanism for reprints.

If you shot slides you only needed to load a magazine and turn out lights.

Today the cheap fast scanners can be used for first look on screen and you can proof x36 on flatbed. Density contrast etc.

The cheap fast is good enough for web but kiss goodbye to copyright...

You can keyword index to file number for retrieving.

Many customers will prefer gilee prints some will want real prints if you need to spot a wet print you need to charge more.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

There is a natural progression in everything.

People don't go from taking snapshots with a mobile phone one day to setting up a darkroom the next.

But I know that many people have their interest in photography ignited by using a mobile phone camera. The next step will be to buy a digital compact. After that they may get a DSLR. Further down the road they may start shooting raw and using image processing software.

If they engage with other photographers, online or in the real world, they'll come across images shot on film. They'll probably like the look and maybe try a few rolls in dad's old camera. The rolls will probably be sent off and scanned. A few may want more control and progress into photochemical work.

Today, the progression into film is becoming more and more difficult. Film manufacturers can do a lot to make it easier.

 

[markbarendt]

Disruption is a consequence of arrival at inflection points. And inflection points—be they technological, societal, cultural, or personal—define the moments of greatest opportunity. They also define the moments of greatest risk, for those who choose to ignore them.

Many will offer the simplistic platitude that change is inevitable. But everyone already knows that. What they fail to recognize is that it's not the change itself that matters. It's what one does or does not do with change when it happens that matters.

Those who navigate successfully across inflection points will be those who doggedly keep turning over stones until they finally discover the secrets to their own survival. Those who stand motionless will perish.

And no amount hysterical appeals to the anatomical placement of Cherrios can change any of this. One either gets it, gets moving, and does something. Or one does not, remains motionless in denial, and suffers the consequences.

Pretty simple really...

Ken

I agree.

 

[pdeeh]

There is a natural progression in everything.

People don't go from taking snapshots with a mobile phone one day to setting up a darkroom the next.

But I know that many people have their interest in photography ignited by using a mobile phone camera. The next step will be to buy a digital compact. After that they may get a DSLR. Further down the road they may start shooting raw and using image processing software.

If they engage with other photographers, online or in the real world, they'll come across images shot on film. They'll probably like the look and maybe try a few rolls in dad's old camera. The rolls will probably be sent off and scanned. A few may want more control and progress into photochemical work.

Today, the progression into film is becoming more and more difficult. Film manufacturers can do a lot to make it easier.

It seems as if you are viewing "progression" from the point of view of one who considers the natural progress is someone going from snapshottery to wet printing.

My suggestion is that for many, the taking of the photograph and the presentation of it for viewing on the web is a single process that doesn't "progress" to anything else. It doesn't need to "progress", it is an action of it's own kind. And this is regardless of whether the image is originated digitally or on film.

It's a perfectly legitimate aim and one shared by millions (?billions) of people now.

It may be that film companies with some elastic thinking and forethought recognise that and thus also recognise that piling effort into promoting wet printing is probably putting their efforts in the wrong place if they are to continue in business.

I'm not disregarding Ilford's efforts (the darkroom finder project for instance) but note how that sort of initiative relies heavily on the userbase to cooperate in the process and keeps the project costs under sharp control.

It's no good sitting around saying "Well they should be wet printing or they're not doing real photography" either ... the general public don't give a hoot for what anyone at APUG thinks about these things.

 

[markbarendt]

Funny thing that, printing for me likewise is only a thing for a select few images.

That is normal for almost everyone.

There is no way I could, or would want to, print all of the 1/4 million or so shots I've taken. Nor would I want them all online.

Shooting for me is like prospecting, not every shot is important or worth keeping, in fact most aren't, one just keeps turning over stones as Ken put it until one finds what they are looking for.

National Geographic photographers have a near epic reputation along that line. Truly special "Printable" shots are in the 1 in a 1-2,000 or so range.

A fairly normal film format portrait sitting uses one roll per sitting, so 1:10 or 1:24 is the target for keepers.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I know some film shooters who exclusively share their work online. They use web-based services to develop, scan and download images for sharing.

Although it's not an appealing solution to most apugers, I think it's miles better than nothing.

Some of them shoot really good photos too. Anything that uses and promotes film should be encouraged.

 

[markbarendt]

My suggestion is that for many, the taking of the photograph and the presentation of it for viewing on the web is a single process that doesn't "progress" to anything else. It doesn't need to "progress", it is an action of it's own kind. And this is regardless of whether the image is originated digitally or on film.

I agree. I'd suggest that most photos today are simply "part of a casual conversation" and never meant as more.

 

[Roger Cole]

Funny thing that, printing for me likewise is only a thing for a select few images. I have met a couple of others still shooting film by pure chance and same for them, I haven't met anyone in years who regularly gets 6x4 prints made although some must do otherwise labs wouldn't offer this service. I can get a much more definitive answer on this however when I next visit my local lab, I do know they do a lot of scanning as they had to buy another machine (Fuji Frontier) as their other scanner a Noritsu was a bottle neck in the business.

I regularly get 5x7s from my color negs, often double prints.

Granted my black and white is all contact sheeted (or printed to one sheet for 4x5 - unless I can see the negative isn't worth it) so only if a contact sheet counts as a print of each is each printed. Only select ones are chosen for printing. I never scan negatives. I do get scans of color film I send out, however.

 

[Xmas]

Does it matter if that monkey who took the selfie wanted a print or copyright?

 

[ambaker]

No, not everyone who starts out with a digicam, will progress to a wet darkroom.

Just the same as not everyone who buys a car, will progress to the starting grid of F1.

Some will find their muse in photography. Others will never want more than to drive to the store.

It is the others that should be sought out, and shown the way...

 

[Xmas]

Once upon a time some people only ever dropped the film off at pharmacy and collected the prints few days later.

Then kodachrome came along and people bought an projector.

A wet darkroom was always an option but with very low take up.

Youngest uncle used glass plate two bits of wood and metal filing clips to do PoP paper prints, enamel dish for
fixer, borrowed box brownie.

PoP paper did not need a dark room.

He was a time served blacksmith but only ever repaired mechanical watches when it was dark.

 

[Simon R Galley]

All photography to me is 'valid'...and has worth, if it is printed or not, and actually, however it is originated and however it is used.

I have long pontificated on the value of film and the value of printing....my views are predictable but genuinely held.

Film is simple to me, you produce a unique image no one else can, even if they have the same film, the same camera and take the same shot, when its processed it will be different, print it and its even more different.

I have no issues with people scanning and sharing film images, why should I ? BUT why have only half the creative process, why loose the satisfaction of the ultimate expression, the final 'keeper' print, to me the most creative and enjoyable part of photography. Completing the circle brings true satisfaction.

Where I do have an issue is the loss of the 'photographic' image, the print, the shared experience, the visable evidence of a single or collected memory preserved for you, your family or for posterity, this is being lost and that does matter to me, and should to everyone who takes photographs, however they take them.

The other area I have a concern is mis-information, where people profess that inkjet images ( of any type) are now accepted in the 'Photographic Fine Art' market....firstly, if someone wants to make an inkjet print, good on them, better than no image, better than a few years ago and a perfectly acceptable form of printing and entiry valid in my eye's ( do not forget we coat inkjet paper ). BUT it is not acceptable as a true archival medium as recognised in the 'Photographic fine art collector market' it does not mean you could not sell an inkjet print, Polaroids are not archival, colour is not archival , but a huge amount depends on the photographer. The true 'Fine Art' collector market is Silver Gelatin, be it monochrome, polaroid or colour but it is silver.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The only reason prints even exist is because there was not the ability to scan negs, nor was there computer monitors and smart phones at a time in photography's past to display one's work. If there were I sincerely doubt printing would have become that popular and certainly would never have evolved or expanded the way it did. It would likely still exist though as a tiny fraction of the end result of photography, as it is now. I know this is APUG but I will admit I'm a hybrid photographer, I shoot 98% B&W film but scan with my Nikon 4000, 9000 and Leafscan 45. 95% of my images I display only online and maybe only 5% I print. Of the ones I print though I have sold for some for $500+ and have had some in charity auctions go for as much as $900. Nobody would pay that for one of my online scans!

 

[pdeeh]

The only reason prints even exist is because there was not the ability to scan negs, nor was there computer monitors and smart phones at a time in photography's past to display one's work.

Quite.

Photography as it is (along with many if not most of mankind's technological artifacts) is an accident of history.

There is nothing preordained or necessary about silver-based photography.

Accordingly there's no need to mystify or make nonsensically sententious claims for it.

 

[Simon R Galley]

I look forward to seeing you enjoy or sell your first edition Tolkien loaded on your kindle :

Sententious....... ? there is nothing preordained or necessary about silver-based photography....?

In your opinion to which you are most certainly entitled...I would and will disagree until I am no longer
warm or upright.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :