Kodak Alaris responses and dispatches

[AgX]

“No improvements are necessary.”

To my mind this comment says it all - the mistakes of the past are sure to be repeated...

Aside of Impossible (due to their low quality) no manufacturer at all is spending any money on improvement on user related film performance.

 

[MattKing]

Does it matter?

Absolutely, it matters.

KA only controls the price they charge to their customers - the distributors.

If the distributors and retailers are the ones that are hiking the prices, then that is where we, as end consumers, need to apply pressure.

Practically speaking, that means applying pressure at the retail end.

Historically, Eastman Kodak did their own distribution, so end users had a much more direct route to influencing the manufacturer. That hasn't been the case though for 20+ years (IIRC).

 

[AgX]

Historically, Eastman Kodak did their own distribution, so end users had a much more direct route to influencing the manufacturer. That hasn't been the case though for 20+ years (IIRC).

Not quite true. That is dependant on country.
In a case Kodak did even the majority of their sales via wholesalers.

 

[RattyMouse]

I think people are looking for a firmer commitment to the future of film. The CEO of Alaris has gone on record saying...

We will continue the film business as long as there's a profitable market out there. Film is still in demand. We're happy to provide this ... as long as it makes sense for us. And at the moment it makes sense for us.

No exacting inspiring or reassuring and certainly doesn't motivate customers to invest time and money into their products. Consequently, this sort of stance disconnects the confidence or loyalty client may have in the product lines. Simply providing a technically superior product at the moment isn't enough.

Absolutely. Spot on. Kodak simply does not inspire people. You get no feeling that they have ANY faith in their own product's future. None at all.

 

[MattKing]

Not quite true. That is dependant on country.
In a case Kodak did even the majority of their sales via wholesalers.

True. I generalized too much.

In North America and I believe the UK they were their own distributors, but in some other markets where their operations were smaller, they relied on others.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

After reading these answers, it's clear that that the film business should not have been combined with the digital business.

A roll of film probably wouldn't get the time of day from the current management. To be fair, Gerbertshagen's background i mobile phones and e-commerce probably means that film falls completely outside his frame of reference.

But it would have been better with a small film division, managed by aficionados who would understand the needs and sensitivities of ther customer base.

I don't know what Alaris cash flow looks like, but I hope that the are not using film sales as a way to keep the company going while they are working on their digital dreams.

Which seem a bit tenuous.

On a similar note, I went to stock up on TMAX 100 (135) yesterday only to be told that it was out of stock and unavailable from the distributor. It seems they are not able to keep up with demand.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Aside of Impossible (due to their low quality) no manufacturer at all is spending any money on improvement on user related film performance.

Yes, I agree with this. What i meant can be summarised by the old addage "look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves". If you believe your product is perfect (hence no improvement needed) it's only a short hop away from arrogantly believing that you don't need to adjust to your markets - a mistake that saw Kodak pushed to the brink of extinction.

Ilford have "seen the light" - why haven't Kodak?

 

[RattyMouse]

On a similar note, I went to stock up on TMAX 100 (135) yesterday only to be told that it was out of stock and unavailable from the distributor. It seems they are not able to keep up with demand.

Yes, but not in a good way. A broken distribution system is not a success story. Kodak Portra 400 is STILL hard to come by here in Shanghai, months after the problem developed.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ilford have "seen the light" - why haven't Kodak?

Because film is a core product to Ilford's existence. If Ilford stops making film, they disappear. Kodak Alaris can and will drop film and will simply keep on making their digital tripe.

 

[Xmas]

Aside of Impossible (due to their low quality) no manufacturer at all is spending any money on improvement on user related film performance.

I thought that Adox needed to change CHS 100 from type I to II out of necessity cause the producing factory stopped but the type II is better and dearer?

 

[MattKing]

Why does everybody seem to think that film is the most important Kodak product that Kodak Alaris sells?

I am sure that photographic paper is the largest volume product that Kodak Alaris sells, and they manufacture it as well!

 

[Xmas]

Because film is a core product to Ilford's existence. If Ilford stops making film, they disappear. Kodak Alaris can and will drop film and will simply keep on making their digital tripe.

My Kodak printer/scanner is a very good product and it was cheap to buy and is cheap to run - Not what Id call tripe. The Kodak ink cartridges are in my local small supermarket, which does not do Kodak film.

KA are merely distributing EK film? If EK stop production then KA will not have the IPR to clone EK film or do they? Ignoring that none of their sites make or finish film currently?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Well, keep in mind the most recently reformulated, state of the art B&W negative film out there is Kodak's TMY-2. That's nice enough behaviour for me.

I thought that Adox needed to change CHS 100 from type I to II out of necessity cause the producing factory stopped but the type II is better and dearer?

Noel is spot on. Adox CHS II is one the latest films to be introduced (BTW another one is Rollei RPX 25) and it is produced in Germany in a state-of-the-art factory.

Is Ilford introducing new films? They seem to have a fairly broad established line-up as it is.

They've introduced the Kentmere range of films as recently as 2009. Also, they produce custom runs (newer emulsions) for other companies.

 

[Tom Duffy]

I'm just glad I can still get Kodak film if I want it. It very easily could have gone the other way.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I'm just glad I can still get Kodak film if I want it. It very easily could have gone the other way.

That's a good point. It's important to always count one's blessings.

But to use a metaphor. If you rescue someone from a pond and then throw him back in. Do you deserve praise or a slap on the wrist?

 

[Xmas]

If you like Kodak film Id buy a fridge and stuff it full of your favorite.
Trix may be marching to gallows.
If there was a market then KA would have asked for IPR and finishing machines but I don't think they did.
No one has asked them that question?
The pension fund had Kodak on floor with their foot on throat.

I thought that the Kentmere was a rebadged Ilford film it still would have cost money to start it up again and it is nice film?

I was upset when CHS 100 type I died, I'd a stocked up if Id known.

I've only liked three Kodak products

Kchrome 25
Double-X
the printer scanner I use

and

Bromesko

 

[RattyMouse]

Marching to the gallows........wow...........

 

[jonasfj]

I have to agree with the comment below. Kodak really offers a quite complete range of films. What else could anyone expect?

RG:Our current product portfolio delivers the very best films available in the world today. In fact, these are the best films that the company has ever produced. No improvements are necessary.

Skickat från min GT-P5210 via Tapatalk

 

[omaha]

While I think its natural to bristle somewhat at the arrogance of a company saying "no improvements are necessary" to its products, in this case I do tend to agree. At least sort of.

In any case, there is no budget for R&D. None. KA is milking the cash cow for as long as it can before sending it to the slaughterhouse. That's reality. They are in this to make money, not for the love of film.

The best that can be hoped for is a seamless transfer of the product line to a "right sized" manufacturer when the time comes.

 

[Snapshot]

So, I really think it is important to differentiate "engagement" from the product offering. If you want to slam Kodak for not being excited about promoting film - ie preaching to the choir, that's fine I guess. But if you really think the products need improvement, you're no photographer.

I'm not sure promoting film and "preaching to the choir" are the same thing. Businesses actively promote their product via a myriad of marketing mechanisms; to grow the business or protect their market share.

I believe what many are advocating is that Kodak should actively support film and inject a vision of the future and not simply go through the motions of being a mere dispenser of product. By way of example, Apple nearly went out of business in the mid 1990's because it failed to innovate. It's a classic case study of how innovation took the company from the brink of disaster to being very profitable.

As for suggesting there is room for no improvement, I beg to differ. There is alway room for product differentiation and innovation. Today's cars are far more fuel efficient than vehicles made a five years ago and they will continue to get better. Further innovation will allow such improvements. It's Kodak's innovation that brought us TMY-2 and other fine films. Are their products great? Yes. Can they be improved? Of course.

 

[Dinesh]

Why are we banging on KA again?

 

[wblynch]

Anyone that doesn't wet print their pictures is a blow hard!

Okay then

 

[Snapshot]

I don't think the Apple case can be compared to Kodak's film business. Apple may have failed to innovate, but this was in the context of computing - a massive next generation wave. Analog photography is exactly the opposite. The vast majority of potential photographers will not be convinced to choose film over digital, no matter how many TMY-2 commercials Kodak decides to run during the superbowl, or how much R&D they dump into making TMax 100 even finer grained.

As for improvement, well, obviously anything can be improved if the investments are made, but that has to be justified by potential demand or you're sunk. If film was still the big thing, Kodak would obviously still be doing what they did all those years at KRL, funding massive R&D and putting out products we probably wouldn't even recognize. By now you might have an ISO 1600 film with finer grain than TMax 100, radically different chemicals, a wide selection of papers, etc. But you can't constantly pour money into innovation when the market for the product is tiny, and already well served. In that sense, again the car analogy is a red herring. Car companies innovate because everyone buys cars. Very few people buy film. Even fewer print negatives in a darkroom. In that context, no, improvements are not required.

Further, such improvements take time. The digital world moves too fast. Suppose Kodak introduced the sharpest, finest grained film ever, with an ISO of 3200. Yeah that's pretty cool for us on APUG. But high end digital cameras have already gone way past that kind of speed. Not to mention more and more people will likely continue to abandon the idea of the purpose-built camera altogether. They'll use their phones, or some wearable technology.

I think you raise a number of interesting points, which may or may not be valid. However, the main objections by many here is the disposition of KA. It's their outright dismissive posture that has rankled people. The examples given are not to approximate an approach to but to validate what makes companies successful. Innovation is not simply providing technical improvements but providing a medium for their use. Apple's success is centered around having a positive experience with their product, not mere technical merits.

It's not about 'turning a tide' but about an attitude.

 

[Snapshot]

I get it. They seem to be disengaged in comparison to Ilford. But I still haven't seen anyone actually propose anything concrete and specific, and explain what they think the tangible impact might be in relation to the availability of Kodak's products. Everyone's just complaining the CEO guy isn't excited about film.

I know. Many are emotionally invested in the hobby and in their favourite films. They want someone that make's their product to appear to be a colleague or enthusiast. It's only natural. The concern, I believe, is that someone that isn't as engaged as them regarding film isn't going to try as hard to keep it viable, fun or make even simple strides to improve product. I, for one, wouldn't mind T-max a little to easier to get that purple/pink hue out of the negative. No biggie, but it would be nice.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...If there was a market then KA would have asked for IPR and finishing machines but I don't think they did.
No one has asked them that question?...

I asked it multiple times, first in threads here and later in email to Gabershagen. There was no response when Kodak's PR person participated here last year and Gabershagen's delegated response (from Alaris' film manager) was "for contractual and commercial reasons, we can't answer."