Kodak Alaris Promoting Film

[Xmas]

And best!

Not if it is 300% the $, & it is not detectably better ...
And BW400CN was aimed at wrong market,
My other social site has impossible paid for ads drifting past in spare column.
If KA don't ad and only milk the cow they are relying on cine supporting them.
Posting on Facebook is free.

 

[AgX]

If KA don't ad and only milk the cow they are relying on cine supporting them.

That would be a very indirect support.

 

[Xmas]

That would be a very indirect support.

I would suggest quote not a practical statement, cine was 90% of Kodaks production about 1990... stills thus had a significant subsidy indirect or otherwise... as did movie camera film from projection print film.

By 2004-5 Kodak had closed down all the low volume coating factories. The expression in English is 'Painting oneself into a corner'.
.
Today Kodak has 4.5 years of exclusive contract with big studios for ECN2 camera film. So still an big commercial advantage relative to the minnows like Foma, and other EU coaters, note ive omitted the Ja company...

 

[AgX]

What I refered to is that profits from cine film manufacture will benefit Kodak not Kodak Alaris.

Kodak Alaris would only benefit in the way that their supplier Kodak still can run a coating plant and thus toll manufacture low volume films for Kodak Alaris too.


But yes, both companies are tied together via their personnel. And to a degree one also might consider Kodak Alaris as just an outlet for Kodak concerning still films.

 

[Xmas]

In business overhead costs are critical to profits.... KA pay any overhead costs as they buy film, e.g. Foma have more up front, e.g. Efke gave up...

Kodak Alaris would only benefit in the way that their supplier Kodak still can run a coating plant and thus toll manufacture low volume films for Kodak Alaris too.

EK cannot make low volume film at same cost, they can only coat and dry in 'football' sized fields, hence Plus-x, BW400CN, ...

But yes, both companies are tied together via their personnel. And to a degree one also might consider Kodak Alaris as just an outlet for Kodak concerning still films.

I think KA is a UK Ltd company and EK a USA Inc. company, some now ex-EK staff have signed new employment contracts with KA. They are only tied together by a chapter 11 exit court order, exact details are not public.

 

[Prest_400]

Not Alaris, but the movie guys are on a real Kick to promote film. (for movies). They have a current Twitter tag of #FilmWorthy. and if you go to http://www.kodak.com/go/motion the landig page is mostly about that promotion, BUT the graphics also have a stylized version of the old "giant K' Logo that Kodak dropped a few years back.

.

I see how they changed that logo for the new, quite plain "Kodak" for having the image of "a modern digital company". But for film they could take that one, quite more iconic.

Nice campaign. It could be adapted for stills as well, but that is Alaris' plus some legal stuff about the branding.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Not if it is 300% the $, & it is not detectably better ...
And BW400CN was aimed at wrong market,
My other social site has impossible paid for ads drifting past in spare column.
If KA don't ad and only milk the cow they are relying on cine supporting them.
Posting on Facebook is free.

From the number of complaints about Kodak film vs other films (Ilford excluded), I would say that those $ are well spent. You have obviously not read some of the other posts about cost vs defect.

PE

 

[Xmas]

.

From the number of complaints about Kodak film vs other films (Ilford excluded), I would say that those $ are well spent. You have obviously not read some of the other posts about cost vs defect.

PE

First I've no vesting interest in Kodak, Adox, Efke, Foma or Harman

There is a x3 price difference is between 100 foot of Kentmere 400 and 100 foot of Tx, I shoot a lotta film in IXMOO, FILCA, Contax, and Canon concentric cassettes loaded from bulk, so it rare that I buy factory cassettes.

Would you pay x3 times the price for the 'benefits' of a yellow box? Kentmere in Rodinal is grainy, but that is the signature I want for my 60s style period mono shots. The 3x is either KA being silly or EK being silly?

It was different in fall of 2013 when 400 foot of 5222 was cheaper then 100 foot of Tx (with special delivery) , when group of us bought a large enough number of cans to get a 5222 discount.

Id be reluctant to blame film on a few faults but Ive not have any faults with Foma, Adox, Efke or Harman.

Yes Ive read the web gossip on various films failing, and I understand that films are coated in a batch. So maybe Ive been lucky.

Or cause I process with strict temperature tolerance and a water stop bath I do not stress test non prehardened film. That was how I was taught to process film in 1958.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Noel, in several posts in several threads, users of LF sheet film describe the cost effectiveness of using Kodak and Ilford film. I'm not about to argue with them. That is real experience. And the "difference" was often 3x since they used 1 8x10 sheet of Kodak film vs several sheets of brand X which had problems.

Buy what you wish and use what works for you though.

PE

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Ron, save you "breath." Noel's manifold posts are solid evidence that he's a charter member of the "know the price of all things and the value of none" club.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Oh dear!

Do you know Noel personally? No, I don't think so.
No one has insulted you. So, why do you come "all guns blazing" like in a Western?
Say your apologies and be sincere.

 

[Rudeofus]

And the "difference" was often 3x since they used 1 8x10 sheet of Kodak film vs several sheets of brand X which had problems.

I understand that there are some cheap brand which increase the risk of ending up with defective products, but from what I read Ilford is not one of these "cheap brands". Yet their film, as claimed by Xmas, comes at 1/3 of the cost. Something must be off with KA's sales chain.

 

[mgb74]

If you're going to have a discussion, at least begin with accurate data. Ilford's film is not 1/3 the cost of Kodak, at least from the sources I buy from (US; others can chime in with other geographies). From recent shopping, it seems Kodak's roll films are comparable or slightly more expensive and the sheet films significantly (but not 3x) more expensive.

Even Ilford's 2nd tier line (Kentmere) is not 1/3 the cost of Kodak's film at B&H or Freestyle (where I buy).

 

[R.Gould]

This side of the pond Ilfords film is around the same as Kodaks, perhaps a bit more expensive than Kodak's the Kentmere film is around 1/2 the price, which is a little bit of a gripe over here, Ilford film appears to be more expensive here bthan in the US, whereas kodak film seems a little cheaper over here than in the US,

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Ron, save your "breath." Noel's manifold posts are solid evidence that he's a charter member of the "know the price of all things and the value of none" club.

...Do you know Noel personally? No, I don't think so...

Of course not. That's why my observation clearly stated it was based on his posts.

...No one has insulted you...

Nor did I say anyone had.

...why do you come "all guns blazing" like in a Western?...

Surely you jest. A simple conclusion based on years of reading "Xmas"-authored posts cannot be characterized as blazing guns. And your subtle attempt to denigrate my post with allusion to the wild west demeans only you.

What I wrote was directed to Ron Mowery, who, in my opinion, has contributed more effort toward educating APUG's readers than anyone else. Ron is polite and patient to a fault. In my opinion, many here don't deserve what Ron does.

...Say your apologies and be sincere.

Absurd. There's nothing to apologize for.

 

[Alan Klein]

I don't use Facebook either but maybe nearly everyone does and that's its main marketing campaign. Already non-internet connected people are the new 21st century's illiterate and ignorant.I fear that those not on Facebook will join them.

pentaxuser

I'm retired and don't use Facebook but use the web as do many older folks. Of course as an older person, I used film for many years and still have my film cameras. It seems that Alaris might find it beneficial if they could place an ad where us old fogies would find out that film is still around. I belong to a camera club in a 55+ community. I'm the only one who uses fiolm and I'm asked when I mentioned it "you still can buy film?" I don;t know how many oldsters might load a roll of film in their cameras they have on the shelf, but it may be interesting for Alaris to find out.

 

[Xmas]

Well in London brick shops... e.g.:

http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Kodak-Tri-X/products/191/
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Kentmere-Film/products/206/

There is some difference in both 135 and 100 foot, given I use bulk the majority of the time...

KA are just not bothering to cater for any one who bulk loads in UK.
Yes I could order from USA or EU but they are not London brick shops.

And Ive not had any problems with FOMA, Adox, Efke or Harman film yet.

On my other social media site Impossible are running paid for ads and they are only close to breaking even.

I have used Kodak when 5222 in 400 foot cans was cheaper than it is today, note that is EK...

 

[mgb74]

Well in London brick shops... e.g.:

http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Kodak-Tri-X/products/191/
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Kentmere-Film/products/206/

(snip)

You're comparing Tri-X to Kentmere. It would be more accurate to compare it to HP5+. In fact, at Silverprint for 135/36, there is a greater difference in cost between Kentmere and HP5+ than between HP5+ and Tri-X.

Now there is a huge difference in 100ft rolls at Silverprint. But the difference at B&H and Freestyle, while significant, isn't nearly as great. So maybe the issue is Silverprint.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Please don't place me in the middle of this.

I am standing outside and looking at fault vs cost and finding that LF and MF users are complaining about the cost of 2nd and 3rd tier films when one considers faulty product in the equation. I must add that I have no personal experience that is bad except with EFKE.

PE

 

[Xmas]

You're comparing Tri-X to Kentmere. It would be more accurate to compare it to HP5+. In fact, at Silverprint for 135/36, there is a greater difference in cost between Kentmere and HP5+ than between HP5+ and Tri-X.

But Kentmere or 5222 is what I use... as well as FOMA : Kodak's cheapest film is Tx, unless I buy 2000 feet of 5222, it is not my fault they dont do a cheaper film and this thread is about their marketing 'skills'?

Now there is a huge difference in 100ft rolls at Silverprint. But the difference at B&H and Freestyle, while significant, isn't nearly as great. So maybe the issue is Silverprint.

Yes the difference is near to four times

Silver print and Process Supplies are the cheapest brick shops in London, If I order from the USA they will disappear, I get my raw chemicals from them as well, they wont ship raw chemicals from USA.

http://www.processuk.net/Black__amp;_White/cat740598_2510141.aspx

Kodak has increased the 100 foot price from 121 GBP to 156 GBP some time last Fall they wont sell any at that price to anyone, they wont have been selling at 121.

This is a thread about Kodak, not about my film choice. FOMA are cheaper still...

Only Kodak fan boys (and girls) are buying Kodak.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Noel, in several posts in several threads, users of LF sheet film describe the cost effectiveness of using Kodak and Ilford film. I'm not about to argue with them. That is real experience. And the "difference" was often 3x since they used 1 8x10 sheet of Kodak film vs several sheets of brand X which had problems...

Please don't place me in the middle of this...

I'm afraid your initial post put you there already.

...I am standing outside and looking at fault vs cost and finding that LF and MF users are complaining about the cost of 2nd and 3rd tier films when one considers faulty product in the equation...

And this keeps you there.

...I must add that I have no personal experience that is bad except with EFKE...

Look where EFKE's "quality" got them.

 

[Element 6]

Only Kodak fan boys (and girls) are buying Kodak.

I believe your conclusion that Kodak is not competitive based upon your experience with BW film. However a very quick look online and for C-41 ISO 400 & 800, Kodak is equally priced if not cheaper than the competition.

I do not know the market share of color vs black/white but I am not on-board with your conclusion Kodak is overpriced in general.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Only Kodak fan boys (and girls) are buying Kodak.

I'm sure there are many Alaris customers who fit that description, but some of us buy Kodak-made still film products because they offer one or more characteristics unavailable from any other manufacturer today. An example is 320TXP, the only Kodak Alaris product I still purchase. It's impossible to analyze cost ratios compared to sheet TRI-X's competition; no competitors exist.

 

[georg16nik]

Kodak Alaris online ads are public fact and you can easily get approximate stats of their daily budget, film is not in the top 100 of the keywords / phrases they bid in the last year or so.
This “landing page” is a hint http://promo.kodakalaris.com/

I'm retired and don't use Facebook but use the web as do many older folks. Of course as an older person, I used film for many years and still have my film cameras. It seems that Alaris might find it beneficial if they could place an ad where us old fogies would find out that film is still around. I belong to a camera club in a 55+ community. I'm the only one who uses fiolm and I'm asked when I mentioned it "you still can buy film?" I don;t know how many oldsters might load a roll of film in their cameras they have on the shelf, but it may be interesting for Alaris to find out.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Efke had some great product for awhile, as long as you were careful with the handling - deep shade for changing roll film, being very careful
about stop bath strength and wash temp, etc. Apparently that was an oversized old plant that could not longer afford maintenance upkeep after losing state subsidies in post-Soviet era. Gradually more and more contamination. I heard rumors that they were using ordinary poly
sheeting to try to dustproof the coating operations there toward the end. But it didn't entirely work. In terms of scuff-resistance and sheer
quality control, Kodak is certainly still at the top of the reliability factor. I think pricing is largely a non-issue with any of the choices when
it comes to roll film, unless someone is utterly a machine-gunner. But with 8x10, let's just say I'm awfully glad I put a sizable stash of
Kodak film into the freezer back when it was dramatically less expensive than it is at the moment. I'd have second thoughts today.