Some Good News.... Kodak sees resurgence of film

Casey Kidwell · Oct 29, 2010

I think an ad in a prominent photo mag could do well for Kodak's black and white products. A nice image from one of the biggies and something about "real"?

perkeleellinen · Oct 29, 2010

This is what I wrote about the major photo mags in another thread:

Photo magazines at my newsagent are total dross; a mixture of computer programming, equipment fetishism, advertorials and articles about how to copy someone else's technique.

Photo mags are geared toward a very specific market - people wanting to buy new cameras. Editors know this and they also know that most people only stay with the mag for 12 months. Because of this the editors can regurgitate the same derivative topics.

My suspicion is that people come to film after they've already abandoned those dross magazines. They're more likely to see good film shots in places like flickr. That gets them curious and they research a little - something the magazines actively encourage you not to do, they are after all 'one stop shops' for all your digi questions. After a bit of research they sometimes find this place or one of the many film groups on flickr. A couple of questions later and they're soon hooked.

I think if we all posted our very best film photos to flickr and tagged them well, we'd be doing a far greater service toward film sales than Kodak wasting money by buying ad space in any one of the hundreds of derivative photo advertorial magazines.

hpulley · Oct 29, 2010

On flickr people say "nice B&W treatment", "nice conversion", "cool scratch and dust effects", "nice fake film sprockets", or they ask "which lomo app did you use?" and I have to say, "no, it is film!!!"

michaelbsc · Oct 29, 2010

perkeleellinen said:
I think if we all posted our very best film photos to flickr and tagged them well, we'd be doing a far greater service toward film sales than Kodak wasting money by buying ad space in any one of the hundreds of derivative photo advertorial magazines.

There is probably quite a bit of merit in this advice. I hadn't thought of it myself.

For another route, however, I think that film companies *WOULD* do well to buy some ad space in other venues besides the digi-photo rags. Tube audiophile rags are probably dying for advertisers, and they're readership is probably us.

No need to waste money in the belly of the beast, but certainly attack the periphery. That was how Walmart penetrated every market in North America.

On the other hand, I do think there's merit in a tag line that says:

25 Megapixles: $4.95

Kodak Ektar - Come see what you've been missing

Michael

DanielStone · Oct 29, 2010

25mp MAYBE.

not every lens is capable of resolving what Ektar 100 is capable of. Taking an older(30's vintage) Leica vs. a newer model of the same focal length/aperture even shows differences.

if the conditions are right, yada, yada yada, etc.... you MIGHT get 25mp. MAYBE. but the average joe loading up a roll of Ektar probably won't be getting that kind of resolution due to many factors.

something to consider

-Dan

michaelbsc · Oct 29, 2010

If it is theoretically possible, then Madison Avenue will claim it.

The average Joe has no business spending a dime on anything more than about 5MP. So even an old P&S will resolve better than he can use.

M.A.Longmore · Oct 29, 2010

.
Tobacco companies have no problem selling death sticks.
I'm sure that an advertising agency could develop some
amazing commercials promoting analog photography.
What's the worst that can happen, a few enthusiastic
photographers might have an allergic reaction to some chemistry.

Ron
.

nickrapak · Oct 29, 2010

That's what's called marketing, Dan

M.A.Longmore · Oct 29, 2010

DanielStone said:
25mp MAYBE.

not every lens is capable of resolving what Ektar 100 is capable of. Taking an older(30's vintage) Leica vs. a newer model of the same focal length/aperture even shows differences.

if the conditions are right, yada, yada yada, etc.... you MIGHT get 25mp. MAYBE. but the average joe loading up a roll of Ektar probably won't be getting that kind of resolution due to many factors.

something to consider

-Dan

.
Dan,

Are you with us ?
Or against us ?
Work with us please !

I'm Just Saying ...

Ron
.

michaelbsc · Oct 30, 2010

Ron LarFor4X5 said:
.
Tobacco companies have no problem selling death sticks.
I'm sure that an advertising agency could develop some
amazing commercials promoting analog photography.
What's the worst that can happen, a few enthusiastic
photographers might have an allergic reaction to some chemistry.

Ron
.

Well, the worst that could happen is that Old Yeller spends $4 million on an advertising campaign and gets an increase in sales worth $800K of increased revenue.

Curt · Oct 30, 2010

michaelbsc said:
Well, the worst that could happen is that Old Yeller spends $4 million on an advertising campaign and gets an increase in sales worth $800K of increased revenue.

"There's no way like the American way."

marylandphoto · Oct 31, 2010

The average Joe is not going to want a roll of Ektar for the same reason that drove the whole digital switchover in the first place...CONVENIENCE. Attention spans seem to be getting shorter by the day. Turn on, shoot, upload is a lot easier than, buy film, load film, shoot, rewind film, develop, hope it came out how you wanted it, scan, upload, and hope your friends don't make fun of you for shooting film. The one area I think film could be used more is in art...the random, romantic quality of the medium is not nearly as appreciated as it should be.

perkeleellinen · Oct 31, 2010

The slow food movement might be sympathetic to the claims of film shooters.

Photo Engineer · Oct 31, 2010

The slow food movement thinks that steak tartare is a good substitute for a hamburger. Wait until they pick up a parasite! In any event, there are "faults" in every movement and to carry out a conversion to film, we have to do it the right way by truly generating an interest in film for its merits.

PE

Steve Smith · Oct 31, 2010

marylandphoto said:
The average Joe is not going to want a roll of Ektar for the same reason that drove the whole digital switchover in the first place...CONVENIENCE.

Whilst that is the common belief, is it really more convenient to use a digital camera, download to your computer then print your pictures than it is to drop a film off then pick up some prints the next day?

Steve.

removed account4 · Oct 31, 2010

.......

Q.G. · Oct 31, 2010

Steve Smith said:
Whilst that is the common belief, is it really more convenient to use a digital camera, download to your computer then print your pictures than it is to drop a film off then pick up some prints the next day?

I one word: yes.

perkeleellinen · Oct 31, 2010

Most people don't print. In my family, a laptop is passed around to show photos.

Ian Grant · Oct 31, 2010

jnanian said:
.......

mine's atea pleas

michaelbsc · Oct 31, 2010

Steve Smith said:
marylandphoto said:

The average Joe is not going to want a roll of Ektar for the same reason that drove the whole digital switchover in the first place...CONVENIENCE.

Click to expand...

Whilst that is the common belief, is it really more convenient to use a digital camera, download to your computer then print your pictures than it is to drop a film off then pick up some prints the next day?

Steve.

I think the upload part is probably most significant to the digital crowd.

And I think that cell phone cameras will give the digital camera market rough competition in the near future. I can take just as good a capture with my Blackberry as most of my nieces or nephews can with a DSLR and upload it to Facebook or Flicker on the spot. So the bottom end of the digital market already has a competition in the phone market.

All film really needs to beat is the high end market.

Steve Smith · Oct 31, 2010

michaelbsc said:
I think the upload part is probably most significant to the digital crowd.

For the younger end of the digital crowd, I agree but I have seen a lot of older people who have bought digital cameras because that's what they thought they should do who only want prints and struggle with the computer part because it is unfamiliar. For them the drop off and pick up at a lab would be the the easiest method.

Steve.

michaelbsc · Oct 31, 2010

Steve Smith said:
michaelbsc said:

I think the upload part is probably most significant to the digital crowd.

Click to expand...

For the younger end of the digital crowd, I agree but I have seen a lot of older people who have bought digital cameras because that's what they thought they should do who only want prints and struggle with the computer part because it is unfamiliar. For them the drop off and pick up at a lab would be the the easiest method.

Steve.

Like the Kodak camera ad everyone roundly criticized last week?

I still think the target market can be the younger crowd looking for superlative images.

lns · Oct 31, 2010

Steve Smith said:
For the younger end of the digital crowd, I agree but I have seen a lot of older people who have bought digital cameras because that's what they thought they should do who only want prints and struggle with the computer part because it is unfamiliar. For them the drop off and pick up at a lab would be the the easiest method.

Steve.

I agree with you. And it's not just older people. It's people in their late thirties, or forties, or fifties, who just want, say, pictures for the Christmas card or pictures of the kid's concert. They cannot master these very complicated cameras: can't decipher the manual, can't figure out how to turn off the pop-up flash, can't turn out a decent print because the white balance is always off. Seriously, they are the first people to run and buy the latest thing, they are the reason photo processing stores are closing in droves, but they really don't like the results and wish for something simpler. Many bemoan how much easier it was in the film days. Without of course being willing to go back. They like the gadgets, but don't like the pictures. They don't print either; just load it onto their computers.

Apple really needs to make a digital camera for most people. They'd make a fortune. Another fortune.

Or Kodak or someone else needs to grow a brain and do something to make film and processing available and cool again. That would of course be my preference.

-Laura

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 31, 2010

lns said:
Or Kodak or someone else needs to grow a brain and do something to make film and processing available and cool again.

It will need to be someone else. Kodak's current CEO has chosen consumer inkjet, digital presses, workflow software, and packaging as Kodak's new lines of business to replace film. This is what he is telling us directly, even if we don't want to hear it or believe it.

Ken

jp498 · Oct 31, 2010

belittle flickr all you want, but it's the biggest place on the Internet to share analog captured images. I go there all the time to see how a film or film camera or old lens gets used in practice. And it's a pretty easy place to track/trend who likes what.

Targeted advertising would be if flickr had more ads, kodak could buy them where people tagged and used a kodak film or a certain types of cameras.

As far as developing new tech markets for old people, it's a dead end business. It's great to include and accomodate older non-techy people to the maximum extent possible, but building new markets for that is not wise or popular business in most cases. The old easy to shoot and develop systems (cameras film processing) worked very well, and they'd be still working if it were still financially sensible. You want to make new systems for young people and if older people take it up, great, you've made them feel young by selling them something, and successfully sold to a multigenerational market. Look in common culture at PBR. Until recently was unheard of in younger men unless their grampa collected beer memorabilia. Through marketing to young people and selling to all, it's apparently become a popular beer to all ages.

Some Good News.... Kodak sees resurgence of film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency