Hi Jaf-
I have altered your text
I normally carry a chromogenic mono in gbag just in case I need to do available darkness I don't mind the ISO 1600 signature.
But I have given them away to NOOBYs who have just bought a film camera of a street seller.
Normally you need to get (show) them (how) to load the film and close the door, ...
And download the free manual to smart phone and read it in coffee shop before they shoot any shots, the camera is typically a OM1n or K1000!
And tell them where a Minilab is...
People are magpies they buy shiny bright things...
Maybe, but lets look at another example: lomography - they are selling 35mm and 120 films and new cameras, and they are standing very good in the big market.
I think that Kodak could do better sales (and not discontinue the films) if they try harder, and adopt more to market. But more probable way will be slow agony, bankruptcy and total shutdown of all films soon.
By the way, did you see that Kodak has launched a new micro 4/3 mirrorless digital camera?
Oh I know Kodak/KA could do better - I don't dispute that. I just don't think the loss of BW400CN means much at all.
Sheesh, this is a film that was barely used, not widely liked, and that many people did not even realize was still made, for a market that pretty much died when the minilabs did.
It doesn't prove a thing. Impossible film is a niche product made in tiny quantities for a tiny market so it has to sell for a high price and they can get it. Very, very different from 35mm and 120 or even conventional sheet film.
Sheesh, this is a film that was barely used, not widely liked, and that many people did not even realize was still made, for a market that pretty much died when the minilabs did.
I think that Kodak could do better sales (and not discontinue the films) if they try harder, and adopt more to market. But more probable way will be slow agony, bankruptcy and total shutdown of all films soon.
You nailed the significance right there. Kodak Alaris took over film sales and *nothing changed*. Film sales continued to decline even with an "owner" that is ostensibly interested in maintaining or improving film sales (unlike Eastman Kodak which declared film a non core business).
Even with that improvement, Kodak Alaris' sales dwindled to the point that a film died.
There is *no reason* why BW400CN had to die. Ilford's XP2 shows that a C41 monochrome film *can survive* in today's film market.
Kodak Alaris' ownership of film has not stopped the bleeding.
To me it's obvious why it is of huge symbolic significance.
(1) Film is not safe in the hands of Kodak Alaris.
(2) Kodak Alaris makes no effort to promote their films before cancelling them.
(3) The cancelled film BW400CN was key to the recruitment of new film users.
(4) The loss of competing products is harmful to consumers in the long run.
Even if CN films are not that interesting to most apug users, they are hugely important to new film users. They make it possible for any kid to buy film locally, have it processed locally and to get usable scans with no effort.
Someone called CN film a gateway drug to film photography, and I agree with that in the best possible sense.
sorry i disagree with pretty much everything you have said
in a lot of places there is no place left for a kid or an adult to have any c41 film processed locally
that is precisely one of the problems with the c41/e6 film markets, the infrastructure to have them processed locally vanished...
...in the mail &c it is not an option, just like processing at home is not an option. not to forget fuji labs is a shadow of what it used to be
and is the only massive lab that picks up from pharmacies, walmart &c these days, in the states, and a lot of the places that still have send out service to fuji ... fuji doesn't return the negatives.
Please do not forget that there is film-life outside the USA too.
With film availaible at the local drugstores and give-in and take-out of industrial processed films and prints.
And despite all the info we graciously get from Ilford, we still don't hear what the smallest coating run they can do is, at least that I have heard.
Dear Daniel,
at the Ilford factory tour last year Simon told us the maximum width they can coat is 1,42 meters (you can order paper rolls in that width).
The maximum length of the parent rolls is about 2500 meters.
Both width and length can vary depending on the product.
They can produce one single parent roll of a certain product. And they are really doing such niche productions.
So their minimum production volume is about 2500 m².
So if I am not mistaken, this is actually a larger amount of production run requirement than even Kodak is constantly lambasted for having....?
Kodak's max / nominal width is 1.37 meters and 1,609 of usable stock, I am assuming the 2,500 meter amount for Ilford is the minimum run?
What ever the case, thanks for showing that Ilford is indeed *not* capable of the much speculated smaller runs of film that people arm chair report.
sorry i disagree with pretty much everything you have said
in a lot of places there is no place left for a kid or an adult to have any c41 film processed locally
that is precisely one of the problems with the c41/e6 film markets, the infrastructure to have them processed locally vanished
pro labs have shut down and for the person that doesn't really want to send out because it is a PITA and they don't wan to risk having their film lost
in the mail &c it is not an option, just like processing at home is not an option. not to forget fuji labs is a shadow of what it used to be
and is the only massive lab that picks up from pharmacies, walmart &c these days, in the states, and a lot of the places that still have send out service to fuji ... fuji doesn't return the negatives.
if 400cn was the only b/w choice i had, and the only lab i could have it processed at locally charged me $$ to develop and print my film, but didn't return my negatives
i would stop using that film too ...
alaris is not a charity, if things don't sell well enough to have 100 miles coated, they should be able to say, they don't want to distribute it without people suggesting they are incompetent ...
i mean if you just took over the sales and distribution of product of a bankrupt company and you were given an option to have another 100 miles of product made that cost more to make than sell
and most will probably go unsold because so much has to be made at once and sales are down ... or not sell it, what would you do ?
To me it's obvious why it is of huge symbolic significance.
(1) Film is not safe in the hands of Kodak Alaris.
(2) Kodak Alaris makes no effort to promote their films before cancelling them.
(3) The cancelled film BW400CN was key to the recruitment of new film users.
(4) The loss of competing products is harmful to consumers in the long run.
Even if CN films are not that interesting to most apug users, they are hugely important to new film users. They make it possible for any kid to buy film locally, have it processed locally and to get usable scans with no effort.
Someone called CN film a gateway drug to film photography, and I agree with that in the best possible sense.
So if I am not mistaken, this is actually a larger amount of production run requirement than even Kodak is constantly lambasted for having....?
Kodak's max / nominal width is 1.37 meters and 1,609 of usable stock, I am assuming the 2,500 meter amount for Ilford is the minimum run?
What ever the case, thanks for showing that Ilford is indeed *not* capable of the much speculated smaller runs of film that people arm chair report.
...There's a decent amount of people, who at the very least would like to try and use film, they just don't know its still out there. They'll walk right on by the displays at drug stores, because, when you're at a drug store, how many people are ACTUALLY looking for film there? ...
Thanks Henning! I appreciate your level headed insight, now if we could just get rid of the person who constantly drives Kodak into the ground at any chance they get, this site would be a much, MUCH better place.
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?