New look to Kodak Ultramax

[Arcadia4]

New packaging - A 'cleaner' less fussy look - What do you think? Even the '400' doesnt state iso.

 

[MattKing]

Can you show us the "small print" elsewhere on the box?

 

[AnselMortensen]

Looks like it should be a box of Ektachrome.
And furthermore...when was the "a" in Kodak changed to a schwa?

 

[Oldwino]

Looks like a bootleg.

 

[cmacd123]

Looks like it should be a box of Ektachrome.
And furthermore...when was the "a" in Kodak changed to a schwa?

"The minimalist Ted logotype was redrawn in 2006, switching the typeface to a smoother and a more progressive one. Now only two “K”s had their vertical bars straight and angular, all other letters featured rounded and smooth bottom parts. The new typeface was created by the Identity Design agency."

FROM: https://1000logos.net/kodak-logo/

 

[cmacd123]

Yes I would also love to see the fine print, and if that is just for the UK market?

 

[Moose22]

Thanks for the link @cmacd123 . I do wonder about what defines a "progressive" font, though. Never cared for the term when studying design because what's old is new and what's new soon enough becomes old, but i digress.

I don't like the schwa lower case a, personally. As far as the whole box, it kind of looks like they paid for printing by the letter and are trying to minimize everything, to me.

Seriously, though, it's fine. Branding works with the colors. That orange/gold is definitively Kodak. Other that not having the ISO larger, I think it's good.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Blue = Ektachrome, traditionally.

 

[cmacd123]

Blue = Ektachrome, traditionally.

yes, although the Ultramax boxes have also featured Blue of quite a while.

 

[Moose22]

 

[AnselMortensen]

Fair enough!
I'm 'out of the loop' regarding 35mm color print film...I use 120 and sheet film.

Along with the schwa, I also don't like the fraction "1 36/400" at the top right. ISO and number of exposures are important information, and should be larger.
That was designed by a graphic designer with little, if any, knowledge of photography.

 

[Arcadia4]

Yes I would also love to see the fine print, and if that is just for the UK market?

its currently on sale at B&H in the US. They tend to keep their product shots upto date. Q&A states its a different sku but same film.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/826742-REG/kodak_6034078_kodak_gc_ultramax_400_color.html

 

[Agulliver]

It's very simple. It may stand out more in the shelves that way? It's certainly simple, almost minimalist. The only thing I'm not so sure about is the card above the box, maybe it's too clean and simple?

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes the card mount packaging - the packaging designed for hanging from a hook on a display - gets updated before the box only packaging.
It tends to be distributed through different channels, although it is accessible by every retailer.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The color scheme has gone a bit pastel, probably piggybacking on the popularity of Portra which has a similarly pastel but purple branding.

Cardboard is all well and good but what Ultramax could use is a redesigned canister. The 2 color black & gold 'KODAK 400' is as bland as can be. They probably don't want the canisters being too cool though... people might keep them and load them with bulk film!

 

[Oldwino]

I also don't like the fraction "1 36/400" at the top right.

Would you prefer 1.09?

 

[faberryman]

Along with the schwa, I also don't like the fraction "1 36/400" at the top right. ISO and number of exposures are important information, and should be larger.

It is not a fraction. Above the line it says "36 exp" and below the line it says "400". I don't know what the large "1" refers to. Maybe 1 roll of film?

Sure the labeling is dumb, but I really don't care what the packaging looks like. It is a Kodak color film for $9.99/roll and in stock at B&H, which is something to cheer about.

If you like the packaging on Ektar or Portra better, you can buy those films instead.

 

[Moose22]

It's 1 roll of film, I would assume to separate it from three packs or other multiples that are sometimes sold on cards.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Would you prefer 1.09?

Definitely.
1.09 exp.

 

[AnselMortensen]

It's 1 roll of film, I would assume to separate it from three packs or other multiples that are sometimes sold on cards.

Good. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[AnselMortensen]

If you like the packaging on Ektar or Portra better, you can buy those films instead.

Thanks, I do.

 

[albada]

And furthermore...when was the "a" in Kodak changed to a schwa?

And the "d" looks like a flipped-sideways sigma. At least it matches the schwa. Whatever...

 

[Moose22]

Good. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Don't get snarky with me. Go bitch to the people who designed this. I was just positing at their logic.

 

[foc]

View attachment 338549

New packaging - A 'cleaner' less fussy look - What do you think? Even the '400' doesnt state iso.

I like it. Clean looking and simple. (a bit like myself ! )

I am not confused by the fraction notation mentioned earlier. It clearly says to me, a box of 1 film of 36 exposures in 400 speed.

Anything that helps put film in a good light and If it sells more film then I am all for it.

 

[Xylo]

I like how simple, clean and elegant the new packaging is. It doesn't make the design messy by adding useless stuff.
It's also a great penny saver for Kodak as they only need to print in 4 colors when compared to the old one which used something like 6.