Kodak Alaris discontinues BW400CN film

[markbarendt]

Everyone of us can do something in this direction.

Best regards,
Henning

That's true.

 

[lxdude]

I half wonder if Simon Galley cringes when people talk of all Kodak film going away as some form of an infantile tantrum, because like it or not, some of Ilford's sales have to be riding on the fact that Kodak's good news of staying afloat allows at least the notion that film is still around.

Simon has stated that the presence of Kodak and others in the film market is good for photography and good for Ilford.

 

[MartinP]

That question about whether people know that film is still produced . . . When Kodachrome was end-of-lifed with the last process run at Dwaynes, the publicity had many people I spoke to saying that they thought film stopped years ago and now "this was the last one being made wasn't it?". So by now most people are totally certain there is no such thing as film any more - and this is in Europe, where the position is actually much better than the US (we have a larger population of course, but also a variety of small manufacturers).

 

[PKM-25]

Hi Daniel,

you're welcome.
My personal view on all this:
Film is my preferred photographic medium, I just love it. And I want it to stay, as healthy as possible.That is why I am working in several projects to support film and to get young photographers interested in classic film photography.
I am using Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, Adox, Rollei / Agfa and Foma films.
I am using colour and BW transparency films, colour and BW negative films, instant film.
I love projecting my slides in their unsurpassed quality.
And I am making prints in my own darkroom.

I don't want to see another product or manufacturer go. But as I know the market and the numbers, I also know what is realistic and what is not.

The best all we can do here is
- shoot more film
- shoot all the different types of film to keep them alive
- don't waste our time in forums on speculation and doom and gloom threads, better to go out and shoot film instead
- get other photographers interested in film (with the internet and social media it is indeed much easier compared to former times)
- support those projects which already do promote film.

Everyone of us can do something in this direction.

Best regards,
Henning

I'm staking my career on film, have put off buying a home in order to do so. So I agree 100% with what you are saying although I can't really use all films available as this is somewhat sacrosanct to truly mastering any of them and is a bit of a distraction from creating a powerful style.

But in terms of this site and it's effects on the perception of film, what do we do about.......?.....PM sent....

 

[markbarendt]

I'm staking my career on film, have put off buying a home in order to do so. So I agree 100% with what you are saying although I can't really use all films available as this is somewhat sacrosanct to truly mastering any of them and is a bit of a distraction from creating a powerful style.

But in terms of this site and it's effects on the perception of film, what do we do about.......?.....PM sent....

I don't believe we each have to do "everything" with "every material". We need to do everything in the aggregate sense.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But in terms of this site and it's effects on the perception of film...

On this site the membership is constantly bludgeoned with two mutually exclusive blunt instruments wielded by those who profess to be insider experts,

(1) Any post containing so much as a single critical utterance that in any way might be remotely perceived as questioning the practices of any of the remaining film companies is tantamount to high treason. If (when) the entire industry finally comes crashing down, it will be solely the fault of that specific poster for destroying the entire photographic medium of film. And the careers and lives of those who depended on it. So watch what you say. The gods are listening.

(2) All of you here on this site, and your combined opinions and aggregate film purchasing power, don't amount to much more than a mosquito adds by pissing in the ocean. All of you are nothing more than a bunch of uninspired, lazy, elitist, self-centered, delusional morons. Get over yourselves. In the bigger film world you don't account for diddly squat. So nothing you say counts for anything. And the gods couldn't care less.

For the life of me I can never, at any given moment, figure out which one I am. And which one I've now become only a moment after that. All I know for certain is that I can't be both...



Ken

 

[PKM-25]

I don't believe we each have to do "everything" with "every material". We need to do everything in the aggregate sense.

That is what I thought too but he lists a lot of film brands and types that he uses, with the exception of special use films like IR and Techpan, I am trying to keep it to 2-3 at most.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

On this site the membership is constantly bludgeoned with two mutually exclusive blunt instruments wielded by those who profess to be insider experts,

Ken,

I suspect that reality is a mix of your points 1 and 2.

Point 1. I don't believe that any manufacturer would want to maintain a visible presence here if they are subjected to continuous 'bad talking'. They may occasionally stop by anonymously, but if all they see are negative comments, I can't believe they would want to return.

Point 2. I think some people here tend to over estimate the importance of APUG to manufacturers. There may be over 70,000 members, but it seems to me that only a couple of dozen people are really active participants - and many of those won't even identify the country they are from.

Several people have indicated that they have sent mail/messages to Kodak Alaris management, and if they are well thought out - with no unrealistic suggestions like "please bring back Kodachrome" - are probably the best way to meaningfully reach the corporate management.

To summarize: making negative comment here won't help get your message out, but writing well though out messages to the corporate management might.

Remember that you can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ken,

I suspect that reality is a mix of your points 1 and 2.

Point 1. I don't believe that any manufacturer would want to maintain a visible presence here if they are subjected to continuous 'bad talking'. They may occasionally stop by anonymously, but if all they see are negative comments, I can't believe they would want to return.

Point 2. I think some people here tend to over estimate the importance of APUG to manufacturers. There may be over 70,000 members, but it seems to me that only a couple of dozen people are really active participants - and many of those won't even identify the country they are from.

Several people have indicated that they have sent mail/messages to Kodak Alaris management, and if they are well thought out - with no unrealistic suggestions like "please bring back Kodachrome" - are probably the best way to meaningfully reach the corporate management.

To summarize: making negative comment here won't help get your message out, but writing well though out messages to the corporate management might.

Remember that you can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

My messages to Kodak are sent via the marketplace. I can never, ever have a message stronger than this. My message is worth, at most 300 rolls or so of film per year plus the bottles of developer and fixer needed to process my film. My message will never be more than that, nor should it. Why should my message have more weight than others?

Any posting that I do here is strictly for the consumption of fellow APUG'ers. If they want to read it, great. If not, there's the ignore function for those who understand what it is there for.

 

[markbarendt]

Point 1. I don't believe that any manufacturer would want to maintain a visible presence here if they are subjected to continuous 'bad talking'. They may occasionally stop by anonymously, but if all they see are negative comments, I can't believe they would want to return.

I doubt that KA is that immature.

It's business not personal.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

My "go to source" on illogical and random non-sequitur thinking comes through as always. This is a great source of amusement. Keep your day job.

You don't seriously think that bullying tactics work on me?

Before you criticise someone else's post, maybe you should go to your profile and read your own stream? I did. It is quite unclear why you wrote most of them. There seems to be a lot of dismissive one-liners from you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to write them?

Anyway, it's plain to see that some people only want to look as far as their own noses, while others try to see the big picture.

 

[RattyMouse]

My "go to source" on illogical and random non-sequitur thinking comes through as always. This is a great source of amusement. Keep your day job.

Can you state a way that KA promotes film? No, I didn't think so.

You really believe that consumers are not harmed when choice is lessened?

Your comments would have more force behind them if you were actually able to connect them to the person to whom you were responding to.

 

[PKM-25]

Can you state a way that KA promotes film? No, I didn't think so.

I can, through it's current users and social media like Facebook ( Kodak comback, Kodak Professional ) which is far more effective than LinkedIn. It just so happens that is where Ilford finds it's most effective marketing as well. I bet Ilford would benefit even more if Simon Galley were to post on dpreview, large format forum, rangefinder forum, Leica user forum and photo.net because the sense I get in the active non-mainstream photo communities is that film is coming back into a vogue of sorts, ripe for promoting

But I also believe a marketing consortium is needed, a voice that somehow combats the voice of the mainstream media in that most average consumers think they can't get any film anymore. There was no mention in the articles about movie producers funding motion stock that Kodak still films stood on more solid ground in that arrangement.

It would be great if APUG members donated to help fund that consortium, I would put up $1,000 a year for it....well for that and to ban the bashing of any maker of film that is...

 

[madgardener]

In the ADOX forum, Mirko suggested a logo of sorts, saying something to the effect of "Captured by film". While not a huge user of film, I do buy it (30ish rolls a year). I would be happy to add the logo when I post my pictures on my Picasa site. Instead of debating endlessly, and resorting to name calling, can someone who has artistic abilities step up and design something? I would but stick figures are high art with my abilities.

 

[removed account4]

hi madgardener

good idea !

how about just a rectangle with sprocket holes
or notch codes that just says made with film on it ?
simple to make and to the point ! ( the apug logo is the same thing )

 

[Prof_Pixel]

My message is worth, at most 300 rolls or so of film per year plus the bottles of developer and fixer needed to process my film. My message will never be more than that, nor should it.

Even at $10 a roll, I doubt if $3000 has much impact on anyone's planning.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can you state a way that KA promotes film? No, I didn't think so.

You really believe that consumers are not harmed when choice is lessened?

Your comments would have more force behind them if you were actually able to connect them to the person to whom you were responding to.

If you go back, even just a few years into APUG's threads, you will see a lot of documentation that Kodak found that advertizing including extensive advertizing produced no increase for film sales for many years. Unfortunately film advertizing does not work for Kodak, Fuji or Ilford.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You don't seriously think that bullying tactics work on me?

Before you criticise someone else's post, maybe you should go to your profile and read your own stream? I did. It is quite unclear why you wrote most of them. There seems to be a lot of dismissive one-liners from you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to write them?

Anyway, it's plain to see that some people only want to look as far as their own noses, while others try to see the big picture.

You deflect the criticism and look away from your illogical statements. You still maintain your standing.

 

[StoneNYC]

I think that I'd like to make 2.1 is that if you didn't notice there's a huge complaint by many people that Kodak never communicate anything and they simply just kill films for no reason, obviously based on that link they are exactly explaining the reason they are unable to make this film and are basically acting just like Ilford does when they make an announcement about a discontinuation like the paper product that Ilford discontinued earlier this year.

The demand is so low that they cannot produce and sell enough of it before it expires and I can't make a smaller run then the one that they currently make so they have to discontinue it it's something they are forced to do and it makes complete sense so we shouldn't be angry about it we should just recognize that as time goes by there are certain films that just can't be supported, something that EFKE as an example did not recognize and we're trying to make the customers happy by continuing to make products that weren't selling enough, and then they folded...

Secondly when it comes to advertising I'm not sure when the research was done and I haven't looked at the documentation, but my perspective is that at the time in which the advertising was happening in the research was happening, The world functions differently, either digital was becoming very popular and advertising just wouldn't work for film because people were interested in it they were interested in the new technology of the day, or film existed already as the only medium for taking pictures and sell advertising film didn't really increase sales because people can only consume as much as they are using and not more, however in this new day and age, people are often searching for something different to create and to capture imagery with and I think that given the new paradigm advertising would actually help increase sales it just has to be the proper type of advertising.

Fin

 

[RattyMouse]

Even at $10 a roll, I doubt if $3000 has much impact on anyone's planning.

Exactly.

 

[Xmas]

I can, through it's current users and social media like Facebook ( Kodak comback, Kodak Professional ) which is far more effective than LinkedIn. It just so happens that is where Ilford finds it's most effective marketing as well. I bet Ilford would benefit even more if Simon Galley were to post on dpreview, large format forum, rangefinder forum, Leica user forum and photo.net because the sense I get in the active non-mainstream photo communities is that film is coming back into a vogue of sorts, ripe for promoting

But I also believe a marketing consortium is needed, a voice that somehow combats the voice of the mainstream media in that most average consumers think they can't get any film anymore. There was no mention in the articles about movie producers funding motion stock that Kodak still films stood on more solid ground in that arrangement.

It would be great if APUG members donated to help fund that consortium, I would put up $1,000 a year for it....well for that and to ban the bashing of any maker of film that is...

There is denial in your post.
Few people have a film camera that still would work, eg without a reform, my youngest camera a 96 FM2n needed a reform - when I last needed a SLR, normally Im only rfdr.
You can't buy a new film camera cept a high end Nikon or Leica.
Used to get 35mm cameras given as gifts with gallon of auto oil.
Everyone has a camphone.
Lots of people can't load a 35mm, but it is easy for a monkey to take selfies and 'chimp'.
Wedding invites now sometimes are only emails with a ps saying email all wedding photos/videos and I'll make an ealbum on honeymoon.
Many 'trained' photogs are dependent on auto focus, auto exp, VR and have never seen a depth if field scale.
etc.
In my day job I needed to have a current training for CPR and the critical thing was to check for any pulse or medi alert and start the CPR ASAP.
Kodak and Fuji now past saving IMO YMMV.

 

[removed account4]

It would be great if APUG members donated to help fund that consortium, I would put up $1,000 a year for it....well for that and to ban the bashing of any maker of film that is...

that's not a bad idea ...

 

[StoneNYC]

There is denial in your post.
Few people have a film camera that still would work, eg without a reform, my youngest camera a 96 FM2n needed a reform - when I last needed a SLR, normally Im only rfdr.
You can't buy a new film camera cept a high end Nikon or Leica.
Used to get 35mm cameras given as gifts with gallon of auto oil.
Everyone has a camphone.
Lots of people can't load a 35mm, but it is easy for a monkey to take selfies and 'chimp'.
Wedding invites now sometimes are only emails with a ps saying email all wedding photos/videos and I'll make an ealbum on honeymoon.
Many 'trained' photogs are dependent on auto focus, auto exp, VR and have never seen a depth if field scale.
etc.
In my day job I needed to have a current training for CPR and the critical thing was to check for any pulse or medi alert and start the CPR ASAP.
Kodak and Fuji now past saving IMO YMMV.

*baffled*

Not a single thing you said is even remotely correct...

"Few people have a film camera that still would work, eg without a reform,"

Where on earth did you get that one from? The SLR I got when I was 12 that was made before I was born still works just fine and has never had a CLA and it's entire life... I know tons of people who have SLR cameras sitting around from long-ago, collecting dust, but if I pick it up and use it it still works just fine...

"You can't buy a new film camera cept a high end Nikon or Leica"

Lomography, Holga, Fuji, pro master all doing well, new, and affordable.

"Lots of people can't load a 35mm,"

pretty sure even a monkey could load a 35mm camera after being shown how just like anybody else learned as a kid, you still have to be shown at least once before you can use something...


"Wedding invites now sometimes are only emails with a ps saying email all wedding photos/videos and I'll make an ealbum on honeymoon."

if you're poor enough that you can't even afford a photographer for the wedding that is a professional, yes some people who have really low-budget wedding don't actually have a photographer, but that is not in any way the majority..

"Many 'trained' photogs are dependent on auto focus, auto exp, VR and have never seen a depth if field scale."

what do you define as "trained" because I'm pretty sure even those who use only digital who actually went to school to learn how to use their camera did and every single lens I've ever seen has a depth of field scale, even the most modern digital SLR's have them, the exception being of of course point-and-shoot cameras which are basically the same thing as Instamatic 126 cameras which also didn't have DOF scales...

Sorry but I had to call BS on your whole post...

 

[PKM-25]

Couple things about cameras ( and darkroom equipment )...

As time goes on, demand for mechanically if not artistically restored cameras *and* darkroom equipment will rise. This is a future cottage industry that should be a basis for investment from Ilford, Kodak, Adox, etc. The makers of film, chemistry and paper products should, if they are not already, be thinking of innovative ways to not only make sure these fine tools are not discarded but artistically restored like classic cars. This is currently all the rage with bicycles, amazing restorations that far exceed the beauty of what they looked like stock.

In late June, while shooting for a client, I talked to one of the nations leading innovators of 3-D printing about parts for cameras that are out of production. Basically, right when we might need those parts the most, the ability to accomplish this in a affordable and scalable manner will be there, could be a team approach with SK Grimes and the 3-D printer.

So right now, good used 35mm, 120 and even 4x5 cameras are to be had at a price well below when they cost new, certainly cheaper than their digital counterparts and some are damn near if not free. As these cameras dry up, I would expect the cottage restoration industry to have fully ramped up, been buying up good used cameras that just need a little love, a few parts replacements and the worst thing that will happen is that the price will rise to 75-200% of what they cost new...a bargain when one considers inflation and opportunity cost on the big film, processing and used camera spread sheet.

If Simon Galley came on here and said that Ilford Harman is wanting to raise the price across the entire product line by 10% in order to finance this cottage hardware acquisition & restoration industry, I would fully support it.

I strongly believe for every problem we face in analog photography's niche re-emergence, there are not less than 3 solutions...

 

[removed account4]

just because a camera doesn't get a CLA or its foam replaced doesn't mean it doesn't NEED, or shouldn't have it done.
anyone who thinks that they never need to have their cameras cla'd is in serious denial.
a lot of shutters that are being used on a regular
basis are 1/3 of a stop off.. or more ( and the user has no clue )...
i find it funny that anyone would claim a 20 or 30 year old camera covered with dust and in a closet
that hasn't been used in a long long time doesn't need a CLA ...
its like someone buying a shuttered lens or camera on ebay or someplace like KEH and not bothering to get it CLA'd
and then complaining that it doesn't work right and wanting to return it... and that happens all the time.

===

couldn't agree more pmk