Kodak Clarification

Uncle Bill said:

Contrast that with Ilford with Simon Galley actively participating on APUG and if you look on Ilford's website, there is a page for news, you don't see that on the Kodak sites. Bill

Click to expand...

Bill, this is just plain WRONG. Kodak has a link to its press centre, which is where news articles, releases, etc., are posted. This is a common practice for corporate websites. Whether you think it is properly highlighted, whether it is the "right" way to do it or not is another question.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/8/2509&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=5196

Kodak is in a lot of markets, and is much, much larger than Ilford. While I admire Ilford as a company, am amazed at their participation in this forum, love many of their products and have used them longer than you have been an adult, making a judgment such as you have based on an incorrect statement about them not having a page for news stories ... well, I am confused.

How many of you here have taken the time to pick up the phone and talk to Kodak? There are real people, in Rochester, who answer the phone in the professional film products division. When people here were bashing Kodak because they hadn't gotten their free Portra yet, or got the wrong items (from a free offer), I simply picked up the phone and talked to a young man who was more than happy to communicate that people could call them and get any issues sorted out. I talked to a real person who supports film and communicated a very simple message: "We want people to try the film."

I am no Kodak cheerleader. While my favourite film of all time was K25, and my current choice for "best" is K64, the best b&w paper I used was Brilliant, and I use Fuji, Ilford and other products now. I mourn the passing of Agfa.

And no, their PR/marketing is not perfect. But when everyone who bitches about Kodak becomes a perfect photographer, then I'll take it more seriously.

But damn it, if people just hang on the net and bitch about things without picking up the phone to a TOLL FREE NUMBER to the very people who can deliver your message to decision makers, well then, I have no sympathy.

Maybe PE and I should get together for a coupla drinks soon.

Mark Layne said:

All this just reminds me to go and order a box of Ilford Galerie before the bashing Picker gave it in the early 80's takes effect. One of the finest papers left which we don't hear much about.
Mark

Click to expand...

Mark: Agreed. While I preferred Brilliant because I tried it and liked it, I never understood how he thought Galerie was so bad, save for marketing. I continued to use Galerie as well.

Earl Dunbar said:

Bill, this is just plain WRONG. Kodak has a link to its press centre, which is where news articles, releases, etc., are posted. This is a common practice for corporate websites. Whether you think it is properly highlighted, whether it is the "right" way to do it or not is another question.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/8/2509&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=5196

Kodak is in a lot of markets, and is much, much larger than Ilford. While I admire Ilford as a company, am amazed at their participation in this forum, love many of their products and have used them longer than you have been an adult, making a judgment such as you have based on an incorrect statement about them not having a page for news stories ... well, I am confused.

How many of you here have taken the time to pick up the phone and talk to Kodak? There are real people, in Rochester, who answer the phone in the professional film products division. When people here were bashing Kodak because they hadn't gotten their free Portra yet, or got the wrong items (from a free offer), I simply picked up the phone and talked to a young man who was more than happy to communicate that people could call them and get any issues sorted out. I talked to a real person who supports film and communicated a very simple message: "We want people to try the film."

I am no Kodak cheerleader. While my favourite film of all time was K25, and my current choice for "best" is K64, the best b&w paper I used was Brilliant, and I use Fuji, Ilford and other products now. I mourn the passing of Agfa.

And no, their PR/marketing is not perfect. But when everyone who bitches about Kodak becomes a perfect photographer, then I'll take it more seriously.

But damn it, if people just hang on the net and bitch about things without picking up the phone to a TOLL FREE NUMBER to the very people who can deliver your message to decision makers, well then, I have no sympathy.

Maybe PE and I should get together for a coupla drinks soon.

Click to expand...

Right on Earl.

Contact me any time. Drinks are on me!

PE

FrankB said:

As stated above, I bear Kodak no ill-feeling and hope they are a supplier of traditional photography materials for many years to come.

However...

I'll be doing my buying from companies that have expressed support for my chosen art-form rather than the opposite. (I fully appreciate that this will make no difference in the great scheme of things whatsoever!)

Click to expand...

Frank: Kodak got out of the b&w paper business. AFAIK that's their only public move that could be construed as moving away from analog photography. And that, as has been referenced here, was a simple business move ... financial losses, pure and simple.

Where have they not expressed support for film/analog? Where have they expressed any intention to not continue to support it?

Hey Trius - where have you been lately?

If you scroll around I think you'll see we're on the same page here.

Weirdest thing lately here was folks bitching at Kodak because they didn't get their "freebie" Porta film as soon as they expected!

And look at this thread. Some guy saying don't buy their products so you can teach them a lesson. And exactly what lesson would that be, duh?

Isn't that kind of like the 3 year old child telling his/her parent "I hate you"?

I'd hope we'd all be a bit more mature than that!

If anything, we should be damned grateful that Kodak has been staying in the business this far. We traditional photogs have NOTHING TO GAIN by losing any supplier - much less the most diversified film manufacturerer in the world!

Now, however, it would be nice if they were a bit more communicative "on line"....

George;

I talk 'on line' and no hit man has showed up at my door.

Oh, wait, doorbell, brb.........................................................

copake_ham said:

***

Now, however, it would be nice if they were a bit more communicative "on line"....

Click to expand...

George,

They are just old-fashioned analog guys, aren't they? They still answer the phone and talk to their customers. Of course if you want online information about film and the use of film they have more of it than all the other film manufacturers put together, and then some.

Best,
Helen

Well now I feel bad for trying to use this site as a resource for information. While I am doing a project on Kodachrome, I am not waiting like a vulture for it's demise. Kodachrome has got to be one of the most costly products Kodak makes, not a high profit margin at all at this point in time.

So instead of going about life, waiting around and getting caught off gaurd, I am doing something about it. in addition to my own shots, two Nikon FE2 cameras and 35mm lenses will visit 100 schools throught the U.S. and be used by children. Imagine a body of work produced on Kodachrome by our children....I thnk this is important.

I post a ton on here because it is important that I get as much information as I can so that as far as I am concerned, when Kodachrome does eventually exit, it does so with a bang, not a fizzle.

The very publicity of this could cause an upturn in the use of Kodachrome, so it might stick around later.

And enough of the Kodak bashing, that is just retarded.

Dorian Gray said:

For example, not a week goes by without a new rumour about the discontinuation of Kodachrome. Why on earth are we subjected to this?! It is entirely unnecessary. If the film is to remain for another while then Kodak should tell us that officially. If a decision to pull it has been made, then we should be told that clearly and unambiguously at the earliest date. Instead we get leaked emails and "insiders" and friends of "insiders" and probably genuine insiders too, all muttering dark rumours one way or the other, with the result that PKL and KL were discontinued and resurrected at least two dozen times, with varying degrees of official consent, until they finally lost the will to spring to life, genie-like, yet again.

Click to expand...

Helen B said:

George,

They are just old-fashioned analog guys, aren't they? They still answer the phone and talk to their customers. Of course if you want online information about film and the use of film they have more of it than all the other film manufacturers put together, and then some.

Best,
Helen

Click to expand...

Hi Helen,

Yes, you're right about the analog guys - and perhaps that's part of the "issue" folks have here?

Kodak is apparently a "house divided" these days.

The new "digi kids on the block" who are running the "other side" of Kodak are hip to the web and it's marketing prowess (I figure these are the folks that were behind that YouTube video that we all became aware of here).

Unfortunately, on "our side" are those guys in the chem labs who are still wearing white coats and thinking that everyone knows they're smart and make good products - so why bother with things like the internet.

Can you imagine how quickly Kodak could rejuvenate film photography if it did a "street guerilla" marketing campaign including a couple of YouTube posts?

George - I'd have absolutely no problem with #1 happening at all. As you say, it's worked for Ilford.

Earl - I'm thinking of Perez's widely-publicised statements and the recent YouTube guerilla marketing exercise amongst other things. The noises coming from Kodak are less than reassuring to me as an analogue user. Again, it's my personal opinion.

copake_ham said:

Hi Helen,

Yes, you're right about the analog guys - and perhaps that's part of the "issue" folks have here?

Kodak is apparently a "house divided" these days.

The new "digi kids on the block" who are running the "other side" of Kodak are hip to the web and it's marketing prowess (I figure these are the folks that were behind that YouTube video that we all became aware of here).

Unfortunately, on "our side" are those guys in the chem labs who are still wearing white coats and thinking that everyone knows they're smart and make good products - so why bother with things like the internet.

Can you imagine how quickly Kodak could rejuvenate film photography if it did a "street guerilla" marketing campaign including a couple of YouTube posts?

Click to expand...

George;

I wear a white coat here in my DR and did quite often at Kodak when in the lab. I was in a chem lab of some sort or another daily for over 32 years as were most of my analog associates at EK.

We were computer savvy and literate. In fact, I teach Visual BASIC, C++ and assembly coding and have done so locally and at Kodak for nearly 20 years. We wrote programs for Linux, Qnx and other operating systems to run our processes which were all computer operated. And, we networked them together and communitcated encrypted formulas world wide.

My work was so confidential that we were on a special Token Ring network within Kodak that isolated us via a firewall from the rest of Kodak to prevent access of the emulsion formulas, but final formulas were placed on stand-alone computers with a unique OS to isolate them even further.

I think you should understand that Kodak is a house united in their knowledge of computers, photography (imaging) and color. They are divided in marketing strategy. Many people in R&D move and have moved between analog and digital due to the many cross disciplines in these fields.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

George;

I wear a white coat here in my DR and did quite often at Kodak when in the lab. I was in a chem lab of some sort or another daily for over 32 years as were most of my analog associates at EK.

We were computer savvy and literate. In fact, I teach Visual BASIC, C++ and assembly coding and have done so locally and at Kodak for nearly 20 years. We wrote programs for Linux, Qnx and other operating systems to run our processes which were all computer operated. And, we networked them together and communitcated encrypted formulas world wide.

My work was so confidential that we were on a special Token Ring network within Kodak that isolated us via a firewall from the rest of Kodak to prevent access of the emulsion formulas, but final formulas were placed on stand-alone computers with a unique OS to isolate them even further.

I think you should understand that Kodak is a house united in their knowledge of computers, photography (imaging) and color. They are divided in marketing strategy. Many people in R&D move and have moved between analog and digital due to the many cross disciplines in these fields.

PE

Click to expand...

PE,

I wasn't doubting you or the "traditional" folks at Kodak's computer knowledge.

By "computer savvy" I mean the abiilty to use the internet as a means of creating marketing "buzz". Often the most capable programmers are unable to do this because it requires a different type of skillset.

The big joke about YouTube is that people still think it is dominated by the "home video" crowd sharing videos of stupid pet tricks. In fact, it has become a major advertising tool for what are known as "guerilla marketers".

In all honesty, I seriously doubt the film marketers at Kodak know what "guerilla marketing" even is, must less how to use it.

copake_ham said:

The big joke about YouTube is that people still think it is dominated by the "home video" crowd sharing videos of stupid pet tricks. In fact, it has become a major advertising tool for what are known as "guerilla marketers".

Click to expand...

More lile a site that advertizing workerbees can use when the boss drops in on them and says "Hey, loyal lackey, I've heard about this 'guerilla marketing' thing. You are going to get me one o' those" to drop uninspired halfassed attempts at guerilla marketing.

Photo Engineer said:

My work was so confidential that we were on a special Token Ring network within Kodak that isolated us via a firewall from the rest of Kodak to prevent access of the emulsion formulas, but final formulas were placed on stand-alone computers with a unique OS to isolate them even further.

Click to expand...

A Tolkein Ring???? Are you... Gandalf???

copake_ham said:

PE,

I wasn't doubting you or the "traditional" folks at Kodak's computer knowledge.

By "computer savvy" I mean the abiilty to use the internet as a means of creating marketing "buzz". Often the most capable programmers are unable to do this because it requires a different type of skillset.

The big joke about YouTube is that people still think it is dominated by the "home video" crowd sharing videos of stupid pet tricks. In fact, it has become a major advertising tool for what are known as "guerilla marketers".

In all honesty, I seriously doubt the film marketers at Kodak know what "guerilla marketing" even is, must less how to use it.

Click to expand...

George;

They do know about all of this stuff and are quite savvy, but being allowed to use it agressively or having the time is probably out of the question. We were discouraged from doing the sort of thing I'm doing right now, when I worked at Kodak.

Any discussion of film topics outside of the company was prohibited and if any contact took place it was to be reported.

PE

eddym said:

A Tolkein Ring???? Are you... Gandalf???

Click to expand...

I feel more like the Wizard of ID. And, as I'm sure you saw, that is a TOKEN ring.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I feel more like the Wizard of ID. And, as I'm sure you saw, that is a TOKEN ring.

PE

Click to expand...

I did, of course, but I just couldn't resist!

Earl Dunbar said:

Bill, this is just plain WRONG. Kodak has a link to its press centre, which is where news articles, releases, etc., are posted. This is a common practice for corporate websites. Whether you think it is properly highlighted, whether it is the "right" way to do it or not is another question.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/8/2509&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=5196

Kodak is in a lot of markets, and is much, much larger than Ilford. While I admire Ilford as a company, am amazed at their participation in this forum, love many of their products and have used them longer than you have been an adult, making a judgment such as you have based on an incorrect statement about them not having a page for news stories ... well, I am confused.

How many of you here have taken the time to pick up the phone and talk to Kodak? There are real people, in Rochester, who answer the phone in the professional film products division. When people here were bashing Kodak because they hadn't gotten their free Portra yet, or got the wrong items (from a free offer), I simply picked up the phone and talked to a young man who was more than happy to communicate that people could call them and get any issues sorted out. I talked to a real person who supports film and communicated a very simple message: "We want people to try the film."

I am no Kodak cheerleader. While my favourite film of all time was K25, and my current choice for "best" is K64, the best b&w paper I used was Brilliant, and I use Fuji, Ilford and other products now. I mourn the passing of Agfa.

And no, their PR/marketing is not perfect. But when everyone who bitches about Kodak becomes a perfect photographer, then I'll take it more seriously.

But damn it, if people just hang on the net and bitch about things without picking up the phone to a TOLL FREE NUMBER to the very people who can deliver your message to decision makers, well then, I have no sympathy.

Maybe PE and I should get together for a coupla drinks soon.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected in regards to the news section of their website.

You know, in days past maybe there was a need for industrial secrets regarding emulsion coating, but consider, nowadays, there really isn't any other manufacturer that could coat film in the same manner that Kodak does, particularly color stocks, therefore there is hardly any need for "spy like" secrecy. This "closed system" of industrial design is what has caused the loss of many traditional crafts.

PHOTOTONE said:

You know, in days past maybe there was a need for industrial secrets regarding emulsion coating, but consider, nowadays, there really isn't any other manufacturer that could coat film in the same manner that Kodak does, particularly color stocks, therefore there is hardly any need for "spy like" secrecy. This "closed system" of industrial design is what has caused the loss of many traditional crafts.

Click to expand...

Well, guess what, fellow APUG members who make emulsions will not exchange information. I have posted more here on that subject than anyone else. I gave a fellow member detailed information on spectral sensitizing dye sources and he refused to reciprocate with any information whatsoever.

Talk about Kodak and its secrets. I laugh. On line information is more rare than Kodak information. I can go to GEH and read all of George Eastman's formulas in his own handwriting.

PE

Here is an after thought for you too.

I have given you formulas here, and you can read "Silver Gelatin" or George Easatman's formulas, but you cannot generally make them work. It takes 'interpretation' to understand what is going on that is the art. It is like a foreign person reading very idiomatic English. It takes a bit of interpretation for full understanding.

PE

copake_ham said:

PE,

I wasn't doubting you or the "traditional" folks at Kodak's computer knowledge.

By "computer savvy" I mean the abiilty to use the internet as a means of creating marketing "buzz". Often the most capable programmers are unable to do this because it requires a different type of skillset.

The big joke about YouTube is that people still think it is dominated by the "home video" crowd sharing videos of stupid pet tricks. In fact, it has become a major advertising tool for what are known as "guerilla marketers".

In all honesty, I seriously doubt the film marketers at Kodak know what "guerilla marketing" even is, must less how to use it.

Click to expand...

Ahhh...

But, then, that's the reason why Google purchased YouTube, isn't it? Video is a much more compelling medium for marketing than the relatively staid content you get via Google. In effect, it was competing with Google.

It isn't going to survive as a "guerilla marketing" tool. Google will, after all the legal issues that YouTube has been plagued by are sorted out, introduce fees for its use in this capacity. That will spell the end of its use for "guerilla marketing".

copake_ham said:

Hi Helen,

Yes, you're right about the analog guys - and perhaps that's part of the "issue" folks have here?

Kodak is apparently a "house divided" these days.

The new "digi kids on the block" who are running the "other side" of Kodak are hip to the web and it's marketing prowess (I figure these are the folks that were behind that YouTube video that we all became aware of here).

Unfortunately, on "our side" are those guys in the chem labs who are still wearing white coats and thinking that everyone knows they're smart and make good products - so why bother with things like the internet.

Can you imagine how quickly Kodak could rejuvenate film photography if it did a "street guerilla" marketing campaign including a couple of YouTube posts?

Click to expand...

What would make you think that film can be rejuvenated? The "sea change" has already happened.

Whenever I show my prints to friends I invariably get asked two questions:

a) Why are my prints so much better than theirs?
b) Don't you think they could be even better if I switched to digital?

The answer to both is logically related. My prints are better because the photographs are taken with greater care and personal investment. That same care and personal investment keeps me committed to analog photography. Not because of any inherent belief that the medium is superior; it's just that I take photographs to please myself and I derive greather satisfaction through analog photography.

I concede that my preference for analog photography is subjective and I will make no attempt to put forth an argument that analog photography is inherently superior to digital photography.

But the truth is that nearly 90% of photographs captured through either analog or digital photography are viewed once and then forgotten or discarded. That statistic strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, just not all that many people care all that much about their photographs. My belief is that the act of "taking a photograph" is just that for most people - an act of taking posession. It's a material transaction.

And to the casual practicioner I don't think there's any doubt that digital photography IS superior. The risk of losing the picture is less, the workflow is simpler, and the investment in consumables is greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Most people do, at the end of the day, want to take snapshots of their kids, their grandkids, their friends, etc. - if they want to take pictures at all. Let's not forget that still photography has been in a secular decline in West Europe and the Americas since the rise of video in the 80s.

Do you really see a couple of "guerilla marketing" videos altering that? I can't.

I read a 2004 article in one of the British photography magazines that consisted of an interview with heavyweights from Samsung, Canon, Olympus, and Nikon discussing the future of digital photography. The Samsung, Canon, and Olympus reps were adamant in their belief that:

a) In the near-term convergence with hand-held devices (PDAs, iPods, etc.) would spell the end of the point & shoot digital camera market
b) In the longer-term the DSLR market would likely fall prey to advances in video. In effect, high quality still modes would be developed in video cameras and this would supplant dedicated DSLRs.

Nikon didn't agree with either point. Maybe that had more to do with the fact that they aren't in the video cam market any longer...Fat lot of good that does us, though, since outside of a Cosina-manufactured manual focus camera and a trickle of F6 production, they aren't in the analog camera business any more.

What I take away from this is that photographic products are really just another segment of consumer electronics now - and they are do not occupy a particularly esteemed position in the food chain.

Dedicated still photography equipment and technique is going to be "alt process" - regardless of whether it's digital or analog.

aldevo said:

But the truth is that nearly 90% of photographs captured through either analog or digital photography are viewed once and then forgotten or discarded. That statistic strongly suggests that, at the end of the day, just not all that many people care all that much about their photographs. My belief is that the act of "taking a photograph" is just that for most people - an act of taking posession. It's a material transaction.

Click to expand...

I believe you are right, though I would suggest that the percentage of "one-views" is higher for digital than for analog, simply because the latter produces those pesky prints that have to be dealt with: stashed away in envelopes, put into albums, or stuck under a refrigerator magnet. With digital, however, I do see people whipping out their cell phones or digicams and showing off their grandchildren on the little bitty LCD screen.
...

aldevo said:

a) In the near-term convergence with hand-held devices (PDAs, iPods, etc.) would spell the end of the point & shoot digital camera market
b) In the longer-term the DSLR market would likely fall prey to advances in video. In effect, high quality still modes would be developed in video cameras and this would supplant dedicated DSLRs.
...
Dedicated still photography equipment and technique is going to be "alt process" - regardless of whether it's digital or analog.

Click to expand...

I believe you are right on the first count, and the second is already happening in photojournalism. It was predicted by Dirck Halstead of "The Digital Journalist."

It's worth noting that the Grim Reaper has been busy cutting a swath through the ranks of Digital Photography makers as well...

- Agfa got out of the business in 2002 (they sold the most digital cameras of anybody in 1997)

OK - that won't startle anybody but...

- Kyocera (the global name for Yashica, and a HEAVYWEIGHT in consumer electronics) got out of the business in 2005 or 2006

- Epson is out of the digital camera business - though I think they still have inventory left to ship

- Casio has reduced their offerings to one or two models

- Konica Minolta is completely out of photography

- Pentax made a strategic decision to be acquired by Hoya. Analysts in Japan have commented that Pentax's point and shoots are likely to be dropped.

HP and Samsung (the latter choosing to focus on the opportunities afforded by the convergence with handhelds) could be next.