Kodak Alaris discontinues BW400CN film

[RattyMouse]

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.

You are incorrect.

Fujifilm sells at least 3 models of film cameras, excluding the INSTAX variety.

Nikon sells 2 models of film cameras.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You are incorrect.

Fujifilm sells at least 3 models of film cameras, excluding the INSTAX variety.

Nikon sells 2 models of film cameras.

F6 and FM-10? If so, the FM-10 is made by Cosina, not Nikon.

 

[RattyMouse]

F6 and FM-10? If so, the FM-10 is made by Cosina, not Nikon.

Irrelevant who actually builds it. Fujifilm's film cameras are built by Cosina as well.

The point is, film cameras ARE being made and sold TODAY.

 

[BradS]

(in a falsetto voice)...and you must chop down the largest tree in the wood....with......ah Herring!
ah, hah, hah, hah, ah...

 

[removed account4]

(in a falsetto voice)...and you must chop down the largest tree in the wood....with......ah Herring!
ah, hah, hah, hah, ah...

thanks mr oz. ( not the wiz, but frank )

 

[MartinP]

...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...

I think you are referring to the Direct Positive paper which was dropped earlier this year? That was a successful product. Unfortunately it was a casualty, perhaps the last, of the historical bankruptcy and split of the "old Ilford" empire.

The emulsion production, and the intellectual rights to its formula, were split off to the "old Ilford" subsidiary in Switzerland and that company went bankrupt -- hence no more emulsion produced in Switzerland for transport to Cheshire to coat the Direct Positive paper, and also no immediate way to get the rights necessary to recreate it locally. As the remains of the Swiss company are liquidated, the rights for the unique emulsion 'may' become available to Harman, fingers crossed.

You might also mention the new fibre-based papers introduced by Harman recently, or their camera production which has taken off in the last year or so, or the marketing and support services through school and university darkrooms etc. etc.

 

[StoneNYC]

I think you are referring to the Direct Positive paper which was dropped earlier this year? That was a successful product. Unfortunately it was a casualty, perhaps the last, of the historical bankruptcy and split of the "old Ilford" empire.

The emulsion production, and the intellectual rights to its formula, were split off to the "old Ilford" subsidiary in Switzerland and that company went bankrupt -- hence no more emulsion produced in Switzerland for transport to Cheshire to coat the Direct Positive paper, and also no immediate way to get the rights necessary to recreate it locally. As the remains of the Swiss company are liquidated, the rights for the unique emulsion 'may' become available to Harman, fingers crossed.

You might also mention the new fibre-based papers introduced by Harman recently, or their camera production which has taken off in the last year or so, or the marketing and support services through school and university darkrooms etc. etc.

No that wasn't what I meant, I agree the DPP was a supplier issue, but there was a print paper that they discontinued earlier this year, it specifically was a "this isn't selling enough" kind of deal.

As far as my non-CLA'd camera, "need" is relative, if it works and takes a picture with no issues, it doesn't need anything but film to feed it.

Recently, the mirror has been getting stuck for vertical shots (the last 4 months) and now it does need a CLA but the point is the statement that the majority of cameras are all broken was very inaccurate, and I might point out that a $100 CLA is a heck of a lot cheaper than buying a new camera of the same level. And the ones that are in the $100 range are very good even for "toy" cameras.

Point is, there's enough supply out there for years to come and still new being made.

You can even still buy a brand new Canon 1V at 2001 prices ...

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

It was a Kentmere paper last year: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[removed account4]

As far as my non-CLA'd camera, "need" is relative, if it works and takes a picture with no issues, it doesn't need anything but film to feed it.

relative is a relative term. typically when a camera is lying around and not use or exercises the shutter over and over again
firing it at all the speeds to try to loosen up the built up gunk inside the camera. and a new user without coaching will have no clue and will get frustrated after the shutter hangs at slow speeds and is inaccurate at most others and not use it again. and the internet isn't much help because everyone and their uncle seems to think they are an expert in doing a "cla" on the cheap, because they are too cheap to spend the $40 to have it done by a professional who knows what s/he is doing. you suggest " just fires " is good enough but it isn't because without experience it is a waste of time

 

[pdeeh]

Oh boy I wish I could find someone in the UK who would do CLAs for $40 (=£25).
The reliable ones over here charge at least £90 (=$150) minimum for a basic 35mm camera, and that's assuming no parts are needed

 

[StoneNYC]

It was a Kentmere paper last year: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thank you

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh boy I wish I could find someone in the UK who would do CLAs for $40 (=£25).
The reliable ones over here charge at least £90 (=$150) minimum for a basic 35mm camera, and that's assuming no parts are needed

$100-$150 is typical here also, not sure where $40 came from.

 

[removed account4]

last time i got a k1000 cla'd it was 40$ last time i gor copal shutter cla'd it was 50$ same for a betax
several years ago i got an m3 cla'd, releathered and 3 lenses cla'd i think it was 180$
rolliecord was cla'd for i think 50$ maybe 70$tops about 1.5 years ago .... sorry yor repair and cla guys are so expensive pdeeh

=======

just sounds very strange when someone claims old found cameras dont need a cla when they do just because the shutter fires ... it is like suggesting the 30 year old car in the garage doesnt need a tune-up after not being driven for 30 years ... " because it starts " ... mechanical things need to be cared for ... and if they aren't, they sort of stop doing what they are supposed to do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

You are absolutely right that Kodak has always been poor at communicate with the public. You nailed that perfectly.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

You are absolutely right that Kodak has always been poor at communicate with the public. You nailed that perfectly.

I strongly disagree with the term 'always'! That may have become true in the late '90s when Kodak replaced its TSRs (Technical Sales Representatives) with 'order takers', but before that, the TSRs were very customer aligned and active in keeping their customers informed. During my 10 years with the Professional Photography Division ('83 - '93) I worked closely with many of the TSRs and made many presentations to trade shows, photographic associations (like the PPA), camera clubs, universities and labs.

 

[removed account4]

You are absolutely right that Kodak has always been poor at communicate with the public. You nailed that perfectly.

throughout the 1970s and 1980s and the olympics they sponsored they saturated tv and print with advertising.
there wasnt a magazine i remember reading a magazine that didnt have a kodak ad in it ... and all those kodak moment ads on tv?
doesnt sound quite right to suggest they were poor to communicate to the public...
and if you were a working professional you easily heard from your supplier what was being discontinued
and when the prices were going up ... this was as true when i was assisting a portraitist in the 80s, when i was a student buying from stores in boston, and from what i was told from seasoned, aged working professionals ( who had been shooting for 50 years ) that was the way it had been before as well. ... and the professional divisoin 800# was able to answer any questions you might have had, no matter how mundane or complicated.
the telephones were answered by RIT graduates as well as seasoned technical wizards who knew what they were talking about. i went to trade shows with my boss at one point
and the kodak booth was there and people answering questions.

im not going to get into annual reports, but i am sure they conveyed additional "company direction" information as well.... to keep their stockholders in the loop.

 

[miha]

Oh boy I wish I could find someone in the UK who would do CLAs for $40 (=£25).
The reliable ones over here charge at least £90 (=$150) minimum for a basic 35mm camera, and that's assuming no parts are needed

A year ago a very known Olympus repair service from the UK overhauled my Oly XA for GBP 48.

 

[pdeeh]

Excellent. There's thread somewhere for recommended UK repair services - can you add their name to the list?

 

[miha]

It's Luton.

 

[Roger Cole]

F6 and FM-10? If so, the FM-10 is made by Cosina, not Nikon.

What difference does it make who makes it when it works fine and is available new at an affordable price? That was the point.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

 

[StoneNYC]

What difference does it make who makes it when it works fine and is available new at an affordable price? That was the point.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

+1

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I strongly disagree with the term 'always'! That may have become true in the late '90s when Kodak replaced its TSRs (Technical Sales Representatives) with 'order takers', but before that, the TSRs were very customer aligned and active in keeping their customers informed. During my 10 years with the Professional Photography Division ('83 - '93) I worked closely with many of the TSRs and made many presentations to trade shows, photographic associations (like the PPA), camera clubs, universities and labs.

Have to agree with Fred on this point. And my opinion is based on direct personal experience during the years (mid-80s) I worked professionally in a small commercial darkroom. The Kodak rep was one of the most knowledgeable sources of photographic information I ever knew. And anxious to share that knowledge whenever possible, even when it wasn't just about making a sale. Great guy.

It's that past baseline experience, I think, that often contributes to my dismay over what Kodak chosen to turn itself into today. At least on its vestigial film side. There was a time when Kodak was a killer best-in-show company.

Ken

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

What difference does it make who makes it when it works fine and is available new at an affordable price? That was the point.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Well, not much. Except the FM-10 seems to be only available on the US market and its production status is unknown. Nikon UK doesn't have any reference to it and I only see that model on the used market.
Dead Link Removed

 

[Xmas]

Hi

Well Ricardo's post may be abstract like mine, more formally it was probable manufactured more than three years ago and is more exactly new old stock (NOS).

You can't be sure cause Cosina are JIT Ja people and normally can do short runs at need.

It probably would need a service what you guys call a CLA...

Id not give one to a 'noob' without a health warning like be better borrowing my beater FG which is uber reliable.

If you leave a used or new camera on a shelf for an interval dependent on time temperature and humidity changes are it won't work after.

I have two bodies from -

Leica IIIc '75
OM1 '79

that are reliable neither has been serviced apart from foam seals in OM neither shows problems or errors on speed test, but I don't adjust to 1/3 of a stop...

Similarly Bessas NOS...

Dead Link Removed

Nikon F6 and (probably) Leica MP are built to order. Will a Noob buy either a shooter M2 is 1/10£.

Most Lomos are not as good as the free camera I got with a gallon of auto oil, eg a Lubitol needs the interior flocking. A Lomo Lubitol is more expensive than a Canon P and CV 35mm /2.5 used, in the UK.

The local Uni arts people need to acquire used K1000 or similar, saw one buy a 4x5 MPP with six double dark slides...

So you can still get film in local pharmacies here mini labs c41 and convention processing but cameras are much more difficult. There is indeed a brick Lomo shop too. If you can use plastic. My Lubitol works ok but it is not a Lomo one.

If you need to take a photo it is a lot easier borrowing a camphone and emailing to self.

It is not me who is buying less film it is there are fewer NOOBs...

Lots of digital people would use film if it were easier...

 

[railwayman3]

Have to agree with Fred on this point. And my opinion is based on direct personal experience during the years (mid-80s) I worked professionally in a small commercial darkroom. The Kodak rep was one of the most knowledgeable sources of photographic information I ever knew. And anxious to share that knowledge whenever possible, even when it wasn't just about making a sale. Great guy.

It's that past baseline experience, I think, that often contributes to my dismay over what Kodak chosen to turn itself into today. At least on its vestigial film side. There was a time when Kodak was a killer best-in-show company.

Ken

I can just remember the time when Kodak here in the UK supplied lectures for photo societies, both recorded and live talks, as well as masses of general and technical literature and a postal query service, all for free. Also supporting local societies by paid advertising in exhibition programmes and printed meeting lists.

My Dad was the secretary of the local photo club for many years, and quite a lot of the weekly meetings were based on content and lectures supplied by Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Johnsons, and the other big makers of materials and equipment.