Kodak Alaris responses and dispatches

[RattyMouse]

I see two potentially successful ways forward.

1. Find a new use for film, or something close enough to it that it keeps the machines and chemistry we need running. Yes it is a solution in search of a problem, which has been successful before.

2. Position film as the next step beyond digital. Beat the drum hard for those areas where film compares favorably with digital, and ignore the rest. Much like every other marketing campaign.

Neither is a sure deal... One of the biggest problems I see is lack of new equipment. A lot of people see the idea of starting out with 20 year old equipment as less than favorable.

Otherwise, it is selling to the choir... And, really how much advertising does the choir need, unless it is to make us feel like things are OK?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The Klasse cameras really need to be sold everywhere, not just Japan.

 

[omaha]

I rsather say the knive cuts at both sides: Many People curious about analog photography value the fact that they can get cameras for next to nothing.

That's what got me back...when I discovered on eBay a bit over a year ago that the MF gear I lusted after and couldn't begin to afford back in college was available at give-away prices. I now have a smokin'-awesome RB67 setup all for way less than I paid for the last lens I bought for my Nikon.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way "anti-digital". I think digital photography is wonderful in any number of ways. But I have had one epiphany after another since returning to film...not the least of which is that a well exposed Portra/Ektar negative absolutely smokes anything I've ever manage to get off my Nikon. Plus, I feel like a photographer again. Time was when I had an intuitive feel for exposure and could adjust stops in my head and all that. All that went away over years of digital shooting. Digital made me lazy. And sloppy. And careless. It was a crutch.

Now, that's all on me. I get that. There is no inherent reason that a photographer can't shoot digital with the same level of care you shoot with film. I just see value in being forced to really pre-think your shot, knowing that you have to get it right because you won't get a second chance.

I just got back from a shoot I've been working on for a number of months. Mostly, we had to wait for the grass to green up to get the shot. This is an homage to "Two Young Women Picking Grapes" by Jules Breton. (forgive the digital snapshot).



The "real" shot was made on film on my RB. This is something of a first for me, because this is the first time I felt confident enough not to do a "digital polaroid" to test exposure. We'll see in a couple of days if my confidence was justified.

Anyway (having taken way too long to get there) back to the topic: I don't know if there are a meaningful number of photographers like me who just need a nudge to re-discover film or not, but I do wish KA would make at least a minimal effort to encourage them.

 

[Película]

I rsather say the knive cuts at both sides: Many People curious about analog photography value the fact that they can get cameras for next to nothing.

This video on YouTube was just posted a couple of days ago by the popular DigitalRev TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38plXCYCvKQ

It was nice to see the amount of comments it generated. No pessimistic comments about film being 'dead' or digital being superior, etc., but instead just a lot of comments asking about film and film cameras. I said it before and I'll say it again: there is a large contingent of young people (and it's growing) who are into using film, wanting to get into film, and thinking about film as an alternative (these are people who have grown up on digital; film is something 'new.') Every year I get more and more students who express a genuine interest in using film.

And I've also said this before: positive attitudes about using film and about manufacturing it, about selling it, etc., will attract potential new users and motivate current users. This ambivalence coming from KA serves no purpose. A little more enthusiasm from them would go a long way in making those just getting into film feel good about it. And yes, the cynics will say that this demographic is too small and won't help Kodak anyway, etc., but that's being defeatist. The reality is that for now, KA has the film and they are the ones selling it. There's really no reason why KA can't exhibit some excitement about promoting and selling their own film products. Their film products may indeed be exceptional but new users want to hear about it, and in a positive and upbeat manner.

Consumers of film aren't just a bunch of jaded old farts on a forum. There are a lot of creative young people out there interested in film, in the history of the medium, and alternatives to commercial mainstream digital photography (as an aside, here in the Los Angeles metro area there are many high end commercial and wedding photographers offering film services in addition to digital, and commercial labs that cater specifically to those professionals using film.) And Super 8 film and 16mm film are also popular here. Before reversal cine film was discontinued by Kodak, there was the 'pure' cine crowd in town who screened films straight out of the camera (no editing except for in-camera editing such as some of the effects that are available on certain Super 8 cameras.) J.J. Abrams got his start as a filmmaker in Super 8 films while a teenager (and is what his feature film, "Super8" is loosely based on http://filmmakermagazine.com/34904-gerard-ravel-and-the-super-8-festival-that-launched-j-j-abrams/) Projecting film was (and is) popular and I think that Ferrania can sell a lot of reversal 8mm and 16mm around here. I still own and use an Eclair ACLII (converted to Super 16.) Sure, non-linear editing is great but the telecine costs are high (in LA and Burbank there are several labs catering to Super 8 and 16mm), and so projecting film is just another option.

 

[RattyMouse]

Película's post really is essential reading for those who think Kodak Alaris should give up (not that they even started) messaging film.

I see what Película is describing all the time, because when I buy film, it is in a film STORE. Yes, an actual brick and mortar store that sells nothing but film and related equipment. EVERY time I go to this store there are plenty of young folks there. I often have to wait for service. When I am with the owner, I am constantly stepping aside and letting him conduct some business transactions (because I want to take my time and make sure that I walk away with everything I need; I'm a poor shopper and so am pretty slow).

There IS a market out there for film, if only Kodak Alaris would recognize that.

 

[Película]

I don't know if there are a meaningful number of photographers like me who just need a nudge to re-discover film or not, but I do wish KA would make at least a minimal effort to encourage them.

There are.
And they should.

when I buy film, it is in a film STORE. Yes, an actual brick and mortar store that sells nothing but film and related equipment. EVERY time I go to this store there are plenty of young folks there. .

I buy my film from a brick and mortar, too. I like supporting the local businesses and their employees end up spending some of their paycheck in the community. So it all comes full circle. And my local vendor matches internet pricing anyway.

And yeah, there are lots of young people buying film there. The film section is separate from the main store and is staffed by young people who seem to be enjoying themselves and are enthusiastic about film.

 

[giannisg2004]

Kodak would benefit from a "Think Different" style of campaign like Apple's.
Take for instance take "Here's to the crazy ones":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjgtLSHhTPg

Replace the historical figures with great/recognizable photographers of the past (like Cartier Bresson, Koudelka, Manos, Adams, Weston, Webb etc.) that naturally shot film.

Make the connotation that film is for the artists, those with a vision, that are not afraid to go for it.
Those that many people call crazy for sticking with film nowadays, but they keep at it and succeed.

It's cheesy and pretentious, but would probably appeal to younger audiences and maybe could boost sales enough to make some difference.

 

[Película]

There IS a market out there for film, if only Kodak Alaris would recognize that.

I assume everyone is familiar with this website: http://tokyocamerastyle.com/

My students will sometimes show me a camera from there and ask whether they should get one....

 

[Dr Croubie]

Make the connotation that film is for the artists, those with a vision, that are not afraid to go for it.

Is Simon reading this? There's your (next) ad campaign right there. Even if only 1 of ilford/kodak/fuji or even adox/ferrania take this on, the glow-effect will rub off on the others anyway.
Or maybe we as apuggers could make such a non-brand-specific campaign, share it on social media, try to get it viral, total cost nothing...

 

[Película]

There's your (next) ad campaign right there. Even if only 1 of ilford/kodak/fuji or even adox/ferrania take this on, the glow-effect will rub off on the others anyway.

I agree that it has the potential to be a good type of ad campaign. It seems to work for Leica AG.

 

[PKM-25]

This video on YouTube was just posted a couple of days ago by the popular DigitalRev TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38plXCYCvKQ

It was nice to see the amount of comments it generated. No pessimistic comments about film being 'dead' or digital being superior, etc., but instead just a lot of comments asking about film and film cameras. I said it before and I'll say it again: there is a large contingent of young people (and it's growing) who are into using film, wanting to get into film, and thinking about film as an alternative (these are people who have grown up on digital; film is something 'new.') Every year I get more and more students who express a genuine interest in using film.

And I've also said this before: positive attitudes about using film and about manufacturing it, about selling it, etc., will attract potential new users and motivate current users. This ambivalence coming from KA serves no purpose. A little more enthusiasm from them would go a long way in making those just getting into film feel good about it. And yes, the cynics will say that this demographic is too small and won't help Kodak anyway, etc., but that's being defeatist. The reality is that for now, KA has the film and they are the ones selling it. There's really no reason why KA can't exhibit some excitement about promoting and selling their own film products. Their film products may indeed be exceptional but new users want to hear about it, and in a positive and upbeat manner.

Consumers of film aren't just a bunch of jaded old farts on a forum. There are a lot of creative young people out there interested in film, in the history of the medium, and alternatives to commercial mainstream digital photography (as an aside, here in the Los Angeles metro area there are many high end commercial and wedding photographers offering film services in addition to digital, and commercial labs that cater specifically to those professionals using film.) And Super 8 film and 16mm film are also popular here. Before reversal cine film was discontinued by Kodak, there was the 'pure' cine crowd in town who screened films straight out of the camera (no editing except for in-camera editing such as some of the effects that are available on certain Super 8 cameras.) J.J. Abrams got his start as a filmmaker in Super 8 films while a teenager (and is what his feature film, "Super8" is loosely based on http://filmmakermagazine.com/34904-gerard-ravel-and-the-super-8-festival-that-launched-j-j-abrams/) Projecting film was (and is) popular and I think that Ferrania can sell a lot of reversal 8mm and 16mm around here. I still own and use an Eclair ACLII (converted to Super 16.) Sure, non-linear editing is great but the telecine costs are high (in LA and Burbank there are several labs catering to Super 8 and 16mm), and so projecting film is just another option.

This is perfect, this is what I experience too and I also would love to see newly formed Kodak Alaris use inventive and cost effective measures to promote film and show it in a positive light. They did that with the fun film they supported in which folks interviewed a lot of young and talented film shooters.

But the best part about your post, it largely devoid of the nastiness that I see in other posts on here that TRULY do NOTHING to promote film in a positive light. I want KA to come out singing in terms of getting more people to use the amazing products they offer, but I will not bash them, I depend on their products and I take it one day at a time in terms of what their next move is.

I won't waste my creative time in joining in on the arm chair speculations about what will happen next because frankly it is BS to do so, no one here works for Kodak so no one has any basis for doing so. It's a self indulgent excuse to not go out and make better photographs happen.

So who knows what is next, maybe they will do nothing, maybe they will burst out of nowhere with a truly remarkable marketing plan for film. Either way, I have no reason to bash them and will continue to buy and use their outstanding products which happen to need no improvements, they are *that* good & I am glad they did not candy coat that statement, just tell it like it is.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Polaroid had offered an integral b&w instant film before.

Yes they did. Just as they offered Type 55 P/N before. But in both cases the films had to be reengineered completely in order to be reintroduced (or recycled). The point being, reengineering (or recycling) of a film is not always a pie-in-the-sky notion.

And while many here might turn up their noses at the early TIP results (which do continue to improve), that attitude comes from having still-available alternatives from Fujifilm. Make the alternative one of total extinction, and suddenly all of these recycling efforts start looking pretty good.

That might be especially true for any Ferrania E-6 offering. Scotch Chrome 100 wasn't exactly the emulsion of choice for National Geographic in their film heyday. But it wasn't chopped rat meat either. And a newly reengineered version of that film, when compared to the possibly soon-to-be alternative of... absolutely nothing... starts to look real good indeed.

What's the old saying? If you haven't eaten rat meat before, it's only because you haven't been hungry enough...



Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

But it wasn't chopped rat meat either. And a newly reengineered version of that film, when compared to the possibly soon-to-be alternative of... absolutely nothing... starts to look real good indeed.

What's the old saying? If you haven't eaten rat meat before, it's only because you haven't been hungry enough...



Ken

Can we get a different analogy please? Me and my people are offended by this one!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Oh no!! Wrong species, sir...

What's the old saying? If you haven't practiced cannibalism before, it's only because you haven't been hungry enough...

Ahh, much better. An internationalized post. Instead of singling out and selectively insulting only one people, we'll treat everyone equally and just insult them all.



Ken

 

[Xmas]

At Derry they celebrate the merchant ship dismantling the barrage across the estuary under Jacobite fire and altering their menus.

It is only rescently politically correct to comment

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprentice_Boys_of_Derry

 

[AgX]

Scotch Chrome 100 wasn't exactly the emulsion of choice for National Geographic in their film heyday. But it wasn't chopped rat meat either.

In all this discussion of Ferrania/Film Ferrania it must not overlooked that Ferrania in the 90's were in the top with their films even outperforming Kodak in the high-speed range.

 

[Xmas]

They may be last E6 cine man standing as well.

With Adox reengineering film and paper and Kodak exiting chapter 11, it is interesting times.

 

[Snapshot]

And I've also said this before: positive attitudes about using film and about manufacturing it, about selling it, etc., will attract potential new users and motivate current users. This ambivalence coming from KA serves no purpose. A little more enthusiasm from them would go a long way in making those just getting into film feel good about it. And yes, the cynics will say that this demographic is too small and won't help Kodak anyway, etc., but that's being defeatist. The reality is that for now, KA has the film and they are the ones selling it. There's really no reason why KA can't exhibit some excitement about promoting and selling their own film products. Their film products may indeed be exceptional but new users want to hear about it, and in a positive and upbeat manner.

The cost of doing this is nil (or virtually nil) making the ROI immense.

 

[AgX]

Película's post really is essential reading for those who think Kodak Alaris should give up (not that they even started) messaging film.

I see what Película is describing all the time, because when I buy film, it is in a film STORE. Yes, an actual brick and mortar store that sells nothing but film and related equipment. EVERY time I go to this store there are plenty of young folks there. I often have to wait for service. When I am with the owner, I am constantly stepping aside and letting him conduct some business transactions (because I want to take my time and make sure that I walk away with everything I need; I'm a poor shopper and so am pretty slow).

There IS a market out there for film, if only Kodak Alaris would recognize that.

I know a photo shop too. Even one with a whole shop window devoted to 2nd hand film cameras. In a city of 1/4 million. Design academy next to that shop. They barely sell standard film. And instant films are bolted to the shelfs.

Thus the situations can be different, even where brick&mortar shops are around. Though I see some increase in interest.

 

[Wayne]

On a recent trip that I documented with fujiroid, young people were fascinated by it and wanted to know more. The most fascinated were two young Chinese journalism students who were taking a photography class. Older people who had been around it were interested as a nostalgic blast from the past, but showed no interest in it as a valid modern alternative (the exception was a poor, elderly minority couple who are not computer savvy in the least). Mostly the middle aged and up would be the ones with mildly derisive, smart ass comments like "don't you own a telephone"?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Mostly the middle aged and up would be the ones with mildly derisive, smart ass comments like "don't you own a telephone"?

My smart ass (but deadly truthful) reply?

"Why yes, I do. It's at home plugged into the wall. Where it can't bother me every five minutes..."



Ken

 

[Wayne]

I think the humor would be lost on a world that equates dependence on electronica with "freedom".

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

A lot more than just humor is lost on a world that has allowed itself to become entirely dependent on electronica...

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

My smart ass (but deadly truthful) reply?

"Why yes, I do. It's at home plugged into the wall. Where it can't bother me every five minutes..."



Ken

I, and I suspect most photographers, am not a Luddite nor am I against smart phones. I sometimes only half jokingly refer to my iPhone as "my precioussss." And I do use it for snapshot moments. For one thing, I ALWAYS have it with me, not so a film camera. I use it too like a writer uses a small notebook to take notes as inspiration hits; I'll see something and photograph it with the iPhone, make a note on the phone notepad about it, to come back to later with film. I can even drop a pin on the GPS map to find the spot again. It can't "bother me" unless I let it. I leave it on vibrate most of the time and only respond to it if I feel like it. But I feel almost undressed and a bit disconnected without it. I'm 50 years old and certainly remember all my formative years without mobile phones much less pocket computers with a phone ap, but I took to it right away. I'm still enjoy film photography.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I, and I suspect most photographers, am not a Luddite nor am I against smart phones.

I couldn't be further from the working definition of a Luddite. But I just made a lifestyle choice way back that I wasn't going to tether myself to these things. I've never regretted that decision.

My problem with these devices is not that I can't control them. That it can't bother me unless I let it. It's that I can't control the expectations of everyone else with one. See, if they are aware that I have a mobile phone (and having one and keeping it a secret sort of defeats the entire purpose), then they will have an automatic expectation that they can contact me any time they like. And I don't necessarily want to be contactable any time they like.

Now, I can turn the thing off. Or just not answer it. I'm plenty disciplined enough to do that. But I can't discipline or stop them from always expecting me to answer because they know I have one. Invariably this leads to conversations the next day like,

"I called you yesterday. Why didn't you answer?"

I can no longer claim I didn't hear it because I was in the basement, as the thing is by design functionally welded to me. So I mutter something like,

"My hands were busy at the moment?"

"But I left you a message. Why didn't you call me right back?"

A little more desperately now,

"Umm... My hands were busy for a looonng time??"

Followed by the default, dismissive, can't-be-defended-against stern admonition,

"Well, if you're not going to answer whenever someone calls, why even bother having one?"

Which, of course, is precisely the question I posed to myself, then answered, when I made that wonderful lifestyle choice all those years ago...



Ken

 

[MattKing]

I recall hearing the story about an older farmer who resisted having a telephone installed at his home for many years. Finally, as his health deteriorated a bit, he relented and had one installed.

A relative visited him, and was perplexed when the phone rang, but the farmer didn't seem to respond.

Finally, the phone rang again, and when the farmer again seemed to be ignoring it, the relative asked: "Aren't you going to answer that?

The response from the farmer:

"I got that thing for my convenience."

I have a cel phone, which I use mostly for keeping in touch with my wife.

I don't give the number out to many people, and when I do, I stress that the best number to reach me at (and leave a message, if necessary) is my home number because, as I tell them, I don't always have the cel phone on, and I don't always answer it when it is on.

It works reasonably well.

I also don't text, and if anyone tries to text me, I either don't respond or respond by phone or person, stressing I don't text.