You are incorrect.
Fujifilm sells at least 3 models of film cameras, excluding the INSTAX variety.
Nikon sells 2 models of film cameras.
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.
F6 and FM-10? If so, the FM-10 is made by Cosina, not Nikon.
(in a falsetto voice)...and you must chop down the largest tree in the wood....with......ah Herring!
ah, hah, hah, hah, ah...
...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.
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.
It was a Kentmere paper last year: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
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
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.
You are absolutely right that Kodak has always been poor at communicate with the public. You nailed that perfectly.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?