True dat. Even though I would like to see it in 120, I know there's likely not a big enough market. There are probably just enough shooters for 135 to be feasible, but not for anything else. Unfortunately we have nothing to blame but the fact that not enough people are buying it.
A couple of (almost rhetorical) musings about sales and marketing of new Ektar 100 compel me to speak up.
1) How is it that other manufacturers (Fuji, Ilford, etc.) are managing to merchandise versions of their product lines in non-135 formats without it destroying their bottom line? What are they doing (Fuji particularly) which makes them persistently able to reach the global market in ways which Kodak no longer does?
2) With regard to "boutique" formats (I say this semi-seriously to formats like 120, 4x5, etc.) and emulsions, centralizing merchandising to, say, only select online stores would eliminate the frequency of spoilage from staying on the shelves in thousands of shops. Reference case in point: manufacturers of high-tech equipment have for years offered online-only versions of select product lines unavailable in stores. The turnaround time for product "freshness" in that market is very high, and a workaround to offer a wider variety (of cosmetic or feature specialties) was only practical by centralizing the sales online and not offering them in brick-and-mortar shops.
3) Fuji is clearly doing something viable, if not right (on a much smaller scale, so is Ilford, but for this thought process, I'm only thinking of the "Big 2"). What is it, and perhaps more to the point, why?
4) I agree with another reader here that d*****l imaging is attracting new people to owning SLR cameras and knowing what film photography has known for years: better glass improves the image, but (something the digital folk don't necessarily connect with) so does emulsion size, type, etc. I am finding an increased curiosity by people wielding DSLRs when I walk around with my film camera (particularly the Pentax 645, because they aren't accustomed to the boxy shape). When I explain how and why I shoot film, they look genuinely intrigued (interestingly, a friend I was with yesterday insisted, "You must teach me how to use a film camera, because everything I see shot with film looks amazing," and I said I'd be thrilled to). I certainly don't expect this "reverse migration" to overturn what we already know about the imaging market, but what it
does enable is a wider awareness, understanding, and appreciation from those unaware of the benefits which only emulsions seem to be able to offer (and digital might not). I do see some market stability in film because of this "unintended education". This is why I suspect the new Ektar 100 has a cautiously promising future. But it's also why I feel Ilford's b/w offerings and the Fujichrome line also have a continuing hopeful outlook.
Edited to add (not necessarily for revisionism): I think Kodak's on the right track here. What would be nice is to see a simplified, streamlined, user-friendly version of Kodak sales online executed in the format of the long-successful Apple Store for Apple computer products. Given the consumers and pro folk who buy Kodak products of any kind, I wonder what percentage of them buy from Kodak directly? Chances are one bought their Kodak product through a reseller. A well-remembered online store makes it less ambiguous to guess where one can quickly and consistently find a product.
