Kodak Alaris responses and dispatches

[Dinesh]

...The rest of these people are just pissed Kodak doesn't want to friend them on facebook.

Spot on!

 

[Snapshot]

I suppose, but even simple strides may be deceptively complex. I thought, for example, it would be great if Kodak took some of the sheen off the emulsion overcoat, which can cause Newton ring fits. However it seems they may have done this purposely for some sort of scanning benefit, which galls the hell out of me. But it is what it is.

Yes, you're right. Sometimes, it's not easy as it seems. I still wet print so anything that detracts from that process bothers me as well. I'm sure the engineers have realized a feature of a product would be a PITA at some level but incorporated it because must offer a net advantage. Scanning is very popular and I must admit, I am slightly mystified why people shoot film only to just digitize it. I know they have good reasons (and there are a few good ones), but still...

And there will always be complainers no matter what you do!

 

[omaha]

Really, the only thing to complain about is that for the vast majority of applications, film has been superseded by digital.

The only people shooting film are either those (like most here, I expect) who see it as an artistic advantage, hipsters who think carrying around a Rollei gives them street cred, and I suppose the occasional older person who has yet to go digital. Hollywood will soon be all digital. Movie distribution has gone almost entirely digital in the last few years (to the great consternation of the small, independent cinema houses who are faced with the need to install expensive new projection systems or shut the doors). Medical applications (x-rays and such) are all digital now. Printing is almost entirely digital with the emergence of direct-to-plate technology. Silk screen shops are eliminating film positives with direct-to-screen burners. On and on and on. If its light-sensitive, it is or soon will be all digital.

Does anyone really expect a 20-something mother who just wants to take pictures of her kids to shoot film? Not going to happen.

There is just no mass market for film left, and billion dollar companies are only interested in mass markets. KA won't be selling film in 20 years. I hope Illford will, just as I hope that some entrepreneur sees an opportunity to take over KA's C-41 products when the day comes that KA bails.

 

[Xmas]

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.

The CEO is distributing EK film to retail or whole sale his supplier (EK) is not scaled for current demand let alone next years. EK just increased their cine products $ by 15% citing reduced demand,( Jan24).

If EK folds it won't hurt the CEOs future? It would be silly for him to say our future depends on film, if it then stops...

My chums are baling out of film... last Sat I got a free bulk loader and stache of bulk.

All he can say we took it as a cash cow cause we were owed the $.

 

[pbromaghin]

There is just no mass market for film left, and billion dollar companies are only interested in mass markets. KA won't be selling film in 20 years. I hope Illford will, just as I hope that some entrepreneur sees an opportunity to take over KA's C-41 products when the day comes that KA bails.

I had high hopes that the new Kodak would turn out to be something like Harmon - run by people who are jazzed up by film and the idea of making it an attractive product in the 21st century. But such is not the case. The fact that they will milk is as long as they can is still a better situation than we had when EK seemed to be actively trying to kill it. Let's just hope that KA are smart enough to feed the cow to keep it alive until your entrepreneur shows up.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

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.

Absolutely correct. Not being able to meet basic demand is a commercial disaster.

I need 100 film in the summer months beause it's just too bright to shoot 400. So I had to buy Delta 100 instead of T-MAX 100. This will probably last me through the summer, so Kodak unforunately lost my business here. Delta wasn't what I wanted, but what can I do if Alaris is not interested in selling Kodak film?

It is also becoming apparent that Alaris is fudged up. They started with a company and now they are looking for a business idea. It has to be the other way around.

 

[Roger Cole]

Why are we banging on KA again?

Playing whack-a-mole. Every time they pop their head up they say something arrogant ("no improvements are necessary" - well film isn't necessary, photography itself even digital isn't necessary very few things are necessary...) or at least are very non-committal saying things like "we'll keep making it as long as it's profitable." Well no #$% Sherlock, I'd expect that. Of course they'd also quit making it if they can't do so profitably. The whole thing is noise, a non-statement. If they said something like, "we are committed to the film market and will take initiatives to grow it and appeal to more people, will aggressively market our film to the existing film shooters as well and take steps to ensure our distribution and delivery make it available at an affordable price to all photographers who want to use it" that would go a long way toward reducing the banging on the moles.

But they just pop their heads up again periodically to say "we'll keep making it as long as y'all keep paying for it" while raising the price of 8x10 B&W to over $7 a sheet while Ilford is still $4 (most dramatic case, but 4x5 is a similar comparison, just lower numbers for both) and 4x5 C41 to roughly $4 a sheet. Granted the other color alternative is Fuji E6 at more like $3.60 a sheet (current B&H price for Provia 100F, Velvia is slightly more.) Ok, granted that so far (see thread on bulk 100' Tri-X though) 35mm and 120 haven't been priced uncompetitively. But then why must B&W sheet film be so much more than the competition? Is it THAT MUCH better? For most uses, no. Yes TMY-2 is possibly the best black and white film every made, ever, I agree, but it simply isn't THAT much better.

 

[Snapshot]

Playing whack-a-mole.

I think my comments were misunderstood as KA bashing on my part, which was not actually the case.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think my comments were misunderstood as KA bashing on my part, which was not actually the case.

No, they weren't. Your comments in this thread are excellent examples of well-thought-out and well-presented points of view derived from looking much deeper below the surface than those whose contributions simplistically parrot the "Why are we beating up on Kodak again?" line of reasoning.

By looking deeper you will be misunderstood, and often beaten up yourself, just for trying to get to the real meat of the issue. It goes with the territory around here. I know. But also know that there are a few of us who do appreciate the effort. And the insights. And the well-honed exposition skills.



Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

Bingo. Including fairly recent R&D (see TMY-2, frankly a peerless product). The rest of these people are just pissed Kodak doesn't want to friend them on facebook.

You are, once again, incorrect. First off, I don't do Facebook. I'm disgruntled with Kodak for reasons well articulated by others here. Someone wrote, "KA is milking the cash cow for as long as it can before sending it to the slaughterhouse. That's reality. ".

That's why I'm unhappy.

Your nonsense argument is a pitiful attempt to hide this fact.

 

[RattyMouse]

Spot on!

Absolute nonsense. I can't believe the level of misunderstanding here.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding innovation, the appeal of some Kodak products, like Tri-X is precisely the classic look, and users might prefer that they leave well enough alone, "innovating" only as needed to keep it in production by improving production efficiency as demand changes, making it more environmentally friendly, etc.

 

[omaha]

Given the state of things today, the last thing we would want is "innovation" from KA...since the people involved would probably innovate by trying to make film look more like digital.

 

[omaha]

FWIW, here is the email I sent to ceo@kodakalaris.com just about a month ago:

I watched with interest your introductory video. As a film photographer, I can't help but think that roll and sheet film sales will necessarily play a small (and declining) roll in your revenue stream over the coming years.

It is my view that, to the extent roll and sheet film products remain a viable market at all, it will be served by small, niche companies, possibly with a direct sales model.


My specific questions are: How long do you expect roll and sheet film to remain in your product portfolio? Have you considered selling your roll and sheet film product lines to a smaller company? Would you consider such an arrangement in the future?

I haven't heard back.

 

[Xmas]

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."

Thanks...
well done good question
I'd paraphrase the quoted answer as 'buy a fridge' if they were prototyping coating or finishing at a KA factory there would be every reason to tell you. It would be likely that all the locals would know anyway.
You normally over hear such things in bars.

 

[MartinP]

In reading this, the umpteenth wailing thread on the end of Kodak, it is disappointing that the real world position of Kodak's film products (as distributed by KA) has largely been ignored. I think unease at the actual position lies behind a lot of the sniping, but that this 'unease' has not led to any progressive thoughts.

Kodak's film products are top of the field, and so possibly qualify for best-ever status. However, they are made in one building. That facility is, we hear, not running at anywhere near capacity and it's main product is becoming redundant. Cine print film is being phased out by all significant distributors in the industry, and is almost gone from main cinema markets at the moment. Digital distribution of their blockbusters is financially very beneficial for those companies -- especially as it also limits the options for any smaller competitors.

The last contracts for cine negative and print films will soon end. The single Kodak manufacturing facility will become un-viable for the quantity of still-photography products we can buy. The question to which we really want an answer is, what happens then??

KA have a paper-coating plant in UK as part of Kodak's bankruptcy and failure and, indeed, this fits well with their plan to preserve or grow the pension-plan assets in photo-finishing and kiosks and so on. That RA4 plant did, long ago, have a possibility to coat film, but it is still a very large scale production plant and the technical requirements for moving film production to UK would be huge - together probably giving insurmountable problems in practice.

The problem is that there is no 'right-sizing' option left, and no noticeable discussion or hints as to what comes after Rochester is scrapped. I suggest that KA will commission, and store, as much of a stock of Kodaks products as they can manage, to match with expected demand for a period. How long can those huge rolls of Portra be stored before confectioning (by a third-party, maybe even Harman) and retail?

If there really is no available 'right-sizing' method, as successfully achieved by Harman Technologies after their management buy-out of Ilfords film manufacturing, then marketing and distribution problems will cease to matter....

 

[Roger Cole]

Given the state of things today, the last thing we would want is "innovation" from KA...since the people involved would probably innovate by trying to make film look more like digital.

Well maybe. But I can imagine all kinds of ways that modern films could be further improved. (That is, not being a chemical or photo engineer, I can imagine the improvements, not how they could be done...)

How about a film like Ektar 100 in a 400 or faster speed? Something even more saturated like the old Agfa Ultra 50? So many people are enamored of Velvia or cranking up the saturation in digital, that might go over well. How about an intentionally low saturation film with near pastel color? How about a Portra with the grain of 800 and a speed of 1600 or 3200? Bringing back E6 wouldn't really count as innovative, I suppose, but we could dream about better E6 films - something akin to Provia 400X but in 800 or faster speed.

In black and white we haven't seen any real innovation (possible exception of some Adox stuff - I haven't tried the CHS II or Silvermax) since t-grain films came out. How about a truly faster film with a real ISO speed of at least 1600, not just a "low contrast so it pushes well ISO 1000 or so film" like TMZ was and D3200 is? How about something with the grain and sharpness of Tech Pan but without the excess red sensitivity and need for special ultra low contrast developers? How about...

Oh I can imagine a LOT! ;-)

 

[Lee Rust]

In reading this, the umpteenth wailing thread on the end of Kodak, it is disappointing that the real world position of Kodak's film products (as distributed by KA) has largely been ignored. I think unease at the actual position lies behind a lot of the sniping, but that this 'unease' has not led to any progressive thoughts.

Kodak's film products are top of the field, and so possibly qualify for best-ever status. However, they are made in one building. That facility is, we hear, not running at anywhere near capacity and it's main product is becoming redundant. Cine print film is being phased out by all significant distributors in the industry, and is almost gone from main cinema markets at the moment. Digital distribution of their blockbusters is financially very beneficial for those companies -- especially as it also limits the options for any smaller competitors.

The last contracts for cine negative and print films will soon end. The single Kodak manufacturing facility will become un-viable for the quantity of still-photography products we can buy. The question to which we really want an answer is, what happens then??

KA have a paper-coating plant in UK as part of Kodak's bankruptcy and failure and, indeed, this fits well with their plan to preserve or grow the pension-plan assets in photo-finishing and kiosks and so on. That RA4 plant did, long ago, have a possibility to coat film, but it is still a very large scale production plant and the technical requirements for moving film production to UK would be huge - together probably giving insurmountable problems in practice.

The problem is that there is no 'right-sizing' option left, and no noticeable discussion or hints as to what comes after Rochester is scrapped. I suggest that KA will commission, and store, as much of a stock of Kodaks products as they can manage, to match with expected demand for a period. How long can those huge rolls of Portra be stored before confectioning (by a third-party, maybe even Harman) and retail?

If there really is no available 'right-sizing' method, as successfully achieved by Harman Technologies after their management buy-out of Ilfords film manufacturing, then marketing and distribution problems will cease to matter....

This is the big picture for Eastman Kodak film production. It is not so much a problem as it is a predicament, just like the melting of the glaciers and the rising of the sea.

 

[Película]

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'm not sure how old you are but in the twenty-something demographic, film has become of interest as an alternative to digital. I have taught at several university and college art departments and all of them still have film developing and printing facilities. In the California higher ed system (community colleges, the CalState system, and the UC system), students majoring in photography are required to have a working understanding of film processes. And as their mentor part of my duty is to inform students about the choice of media that is available to them as new photographers. They aren't required to use a particular medium in their work, but I do need to inform them about the differences between digital and film, the consequences of each, and the history of the media, etc..

I could tell them that film is too much work and that digital is their better option. Or I could tell them that digital is 'bad' and that film is 'better.' They would believe me either way, and I could give compelling reasons for each option (as we all could.)

I think the point here is obvious. If I talk about film in a positive and enthusiastic manner, then they will get interested in film. And if I don't, and just be ambivalent about it all, then they won't be very interested either. If KA sends the schools material and offerings about using their film, then students will notice and feel good that a company is interested in what students are doing (e.g., Freestyle and Ilford send us materials all the time.) If KA is on social media and emphasizes using film as a viable choice for new photography students, then the students will notice. Young people like it when the 'old folks' are actually interested in them and what they are doing. If KA designs a few ads directed at young people and emphasizes why film is still a viable alternative to digital, those young people will definitely take notice.

The world of film users isn't just 'blowhards' (as you call them) on a forum. There is a fairly large sized group of young creatives out there who are using film and/or are wanting to use film. And when the corporate world pays attention to them, they will respond. And in that group are many 'on-the-fence' people who aren't so sure if they should invest in film because they've heard too often that 'film is dead.' If KA becomes an ally to those folks through advertisements and social media (both are effective devices for the youth market), and tells them that film is alive and well (and that KA has the best products available), they will listen.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It must be so terribly hard on you. Still, this was a fairly disappointing bit of pseudo intellectual pontification from someone who usually makes valuable contributions here.

It's OK to disagree with me on some things while agreeing with me on others, Michael. That's what civilized discussion is all about. I may disagree with you on this thread topic, but I still value your knowledge and contributions in many others that don't deal with this issue.

I've been trying very hard to stay out of this one. The previous thread was closed, and David has already served notice that this one is being monitored.

But I did want to take the opportunity you highlighted earlier to lend a bit of support to 'Snapshot' because I felt that his point-of-view was not only extremely on-point, but it was also extremely well expressed. That's a somewhat rare combination around here.

In fact, he expressed my own thinking so well that I dropped a post I had been writing, as I did not feel I could say it any better than he had already said it himself.

Far from being terribly hard, I very much look forward to reading posts from individuals who can see past the obvious and cut to the fundamental heart of an issue. Even when—no, especially when—their point of view might be in opposition to my own. I just really enjoy that when it happens because it often highlights something I may have missed. So I get to learn something.

Regarding EK/KA, they do have real problems, most of them of their own making. But many of the inherited ones are not directly of KA's making. And none of them revolve around the quality of their few remaining film products. None.

But there are still problems, as evidenced by the continuing unhappiness of many here. These people are not outliers. They are mainstream film consumers. And it's not just a case of deviant personalities either, as most of these same individuals are also quite happy with a number of the other film companies. The empirical data here is trying really hard to say something.

And to ignore these data is to be less than intellectually honest with oneself regarding this situation.

Ken

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I just had a terrible vision that I have to clear my freezer of burgers to make room for Kodak film.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I still haven't seen anything constructive offered. Just complaints and idealization.

How about post #104, above?

'Película' seems to have summed it up quite nicely as well.



Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

But there are still problems, as evidenced by the continuing unhappiness of many here. These people are not outliers. They are mainstream film consumers. And it's not just a case of deviant personalities either, as most of these same individuals are also quite happy with a number of the other film companies. The empirical data here is trying really hard to say something.

And to ignore these data is to be less than intellectually honest with oneself regarding this situation.

Ken

This is really great writing. I agree 100%.

 

[Lee Rust]

For many of us here of a certain age, especially Americans, Eastman Kodak has been the bright yellow star at the center of the photographic solar system for all of our lives. Our photographic hobbies and careers have been fashioned out of Kodak films, paper and chemicals. We've taken our pictures with Kodak cameras, sent countless rolls of film to Kodak labs for processing, labored for untold hours in Kodak supplied darkrooms, shown our slides on Kodak projectors, and honed our skills reading Kodak publications. Eastman Kodak was like a respectable, trustworthy member of the family upon whom we could always rely. Of course, this public image was the result of relentless corporate marketing, but the products and the services fully supported it. We believed in Eastman Kodak in the same way that many believe in Apple today.

A corporation known as Eastman Kodak does yet exist, but it is only an imposter with a similar logotype, a doppelgänger that makes inkjet printing equipment and produces commercial packaging materials for other corporations. It has no interest in our family snapshots and artful imagery. The old Kodak that we knew and admired lies brain dead and immobile in a dark hospice room with only a faint filmic heartbeat remaining. A distant British cousin has been appointed executor to settle family affairs with the rest of us, but there's no love in that relationship and it will fade when the end finally comes for our old friend.

Sooner or later, each of us will have to mourn this passing in our own way. The demise of the old Kodak and its products is as inevitable as our own. Arguing about what might have been done or what should yet be done to save Kodak is a cathartic way to express some grief and anger, but it serves no other practical purpose. We should all get together and organize a fine wake to celebrate the accomplishments, acknowledge the failures and pardon the sins of George Eastman's Kodak. Then we should move on.

The rest of the world has already done so.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I don't normally advocate closing threads. But if ever there were an appropriate time to close one, this would be it, David...

Ken