• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Would Kodak get back into the instant film business?


I deal with average Joe public as a working stiff photographer. 'They still make film?' Is the #1 question I get asked when I pull out a classic SLR or TLR at a gig, #2 is 'Why? Why would you even bother?' and #3 is 'What is that even?'

People under 30, outside of the arts community don't even know what film is. People over 50 are offended that I'd even shoot film. They hate the stuff, your average person who was locked into film as their only option was glad to see the backs of it. They despise everything to do with film and are content with using their phones to capture all images. It's heaven sent. Outside of our filmshooting bubble people don't even know that film exists. Now, the kids think it's the bees knees and want to try it out. It's cool, hip and artsy at the same time, until they hear what it costs.

If Kodak puts out an Eastman line of ultra affordable films it would bring a whole new base back into the fold. These people would hopefully move to the better stuff at some point. We all don't start with a Cadillac, we start with a base Chevy or Ford and hope some day to drive something nicer. But if GM didn't make cheap cars they wouldn't be able to garner loyalty to get people to buy the nicer stuff.

Fender does this, Gibson, ESP, and just about every big guitar and instrument brand. Heck every big player in cameras does this too. No one trashes on Canon because they sell truckloads of dinky plastic DSLRs.

If anyone at Kodak is reading this first off Hi. I worked on campus back in '14. Fun times. Tell the gang hello. Second, make budget education value bulk rolls of at least black and white medium speed available. Why should I be buying Ultrafine Extreme 400 when Kodak is a half day's drive from my house? Why am I buying anything other than domestic American made film? It's 2025, chemical science has come a long way, I'm sure you can stabilize black and white film for a longer expiry date, or even give a more liberal time frame. We want to shoot more film and give it out to a new generation of film shooters. Help us out and by extension yourselves.

ezphotolessons said:
You would think that idea would be good.
Click to expand...

You'd think someone would be listening and poking around websites like this

gbroadbridge said:
I want. I want. I want.

I want a Rolls Royce and a driver to go with it.
Click to expand...

Do you already drive a rolls? I'm sure if you were a loyal rolls costumer they'd at least listen to you. As a loyal Kodak customer I'd hope they'd listen to the wants of a loyal customer. Otherwise who are they selling to?
 

Excellent advice! Not really sure why there's not an entry-level Kodak offering in black and white. It's probably that Alaris has a model that says to let it be.
I think that Harman have the best marketing folks. What a couple years ago was ordinary, now Ilford brand is a premium product. Kentmere is the value choice. Harman could bring out a third Ultra premium line, maybe gold plated cassettes
 
It might be great if the smallest amount of film that Eastman Kodak can make with any reasonable economy wasn't as huge as it is, as expensive to make as it is, and as expensive to distribute as it is.
The minimum size of master roll that they can make without the wastage consuming the potential profit means that short runs of economy film aren't in any way feasible.
 

Harman's coater is far smaller than Kodak's, and the equipment for confectioning/finishing - making master rolls into actual user film rolls - is also oriented to much smaller scale. Kodak's colour film volumes are far higher than Harman's film volumes, but Harman has much higher black and white film volumes than Kodak does.
If Harman was selling as much black and white (and now colour) film as Kodak, their costs would be higher than Kodak.

But if Kodak tries to make film in the relatively small batch sizes that correspond to Harman, or even worse the even smaller batch sizes that the low sales volumes of Kodak black and white film would normally justify, than the economies of scale that allow Kodak to keep prices from being worse than they are wouldn't apply.
 

Yep, and Harman coats paper on the same machine.

I betcha that EK could figure it out if Alaris wanted it. I agree that the machine in Rochester isn't setup for small runs.

I'm getting ready to start spooling 20 exposure rolls. I have TMY-2 and TMX on hand. Double X too. I may pick up some Kentmere 200, been shooting the Kentmere in 120, nice stuff.
 
I agree analog market is small and could be made larger by making affordable film. Foma is too expensive already to attract needed volume to make a sizeable dent in what is small interest in analog shooting.

What has been happening over last few years with some "stability" in film sales, it is not increasing to levels needed and make film a wow investment opportunity. Adox can't fix their system just to produce 120 film ? And it's an established brand with good film, yet no interests, no helping hands ?

Film in general remains niche on every level. It has made no inroads back into commerical photography. Few wedding photographers who use film have no impact. Art world may help stability at current levels, yet there are no signs there is a new wave in the waiting room. And once the "elderly" will start dropping out in droves in some 10-15 years, who is going to support this market?

To me there would have to be decent quality film available at 90s prices to make a hopeful change to required production volumes. There would have to be wide spread advertising to make millions aware there is a way other than digital.

What is needed is Ronco style TV sales pitch, you get one roll for $10, but wait .. there is more, if you buy now, you will get two extra rolls for the same $10, but wait ... if you call within next 15 minutes, we will double our offer and you get not one, not three, but SIX rolls of this highest quality film for the same $10, So call now, our phone lines are open.
 
Hassasin said:
I agree analog market is small and could be made larger by making affordable film. Foma is too expensive already to attract needed volume to make a sizeable dent in what is small interest in analog shooting.
Click to expand...

I don't get it.

Film is already dirt cheap. It's no more expensive than it was back in the 90's as far as I can see, when you bring to account cost of living and wage increases.
It's dropped to less than half the price here than it was 3 years ago.

Yes it's not $5, but neither is a dozen eggs $1, or a six pack of beer $3.

How much does it cost to fill up your car compared to a roll of film?

Photo paper expensive? Well inkjet photo paper costs about the same.

Nothing to see here.
 
Is it just me seeing every argument for meeting a few against in responses? And every single one, for and against, is pure speculation. What it means is that more on here chose to be sceptics. It's like reading through a social experiment, just to see where our minds stand. I mean it gets so bad at times, than even comparison to a Rolls Roys pop in.

They do sell happy pills.
 
Dirt cheap ? It's prohibitively expensive at its current lowest price to attract large waves of new users, needed to stop talking about short runs, lack of scale economy being applicable. You can get 64GB SD card for the price of one cheap roll.

What are those other comparisons for?

It's what I mean when I say, people are for some strange reason just negative about the concept of enlarging film offer and find all kinds of arguments, mostly not remotely applicable.
 
Hassasin said:
Dirt cheap ? It's prohibitively expensive at its current lowest price to attract large waves of new users,
Click to expand...

If they are interested they will find a way and budget for it - just like I did as a teenager.

But honestly, a niche like film photography will *never* find waves of new users.
Sure there is a current fad attraction, some of whom will stick around but for the rest, smartphones have replaced even P&S digital.

That is why Kodak are smart enough to not start up new production.
At the moment they are just miking what they can out of a fad.
 
ezphotolessons said:
I think the problem is they will have to make new cameras too since most of the originals have been turned into lamps and sold on Etsy.
Click to expand...

What is remarkable is that if you look at a site like shopgoodwill, there are still old Kodak instant cameras being unearthed and donated to (inflicted on) charity shops. Those cameras have been essentially bricks for almost 40 years. It is a testimony to the near-infinite storage capacity of the American basement.
 
I agree that film has become a luxury item. Part of the reason why Pentax decided on half frame for the Pentax 17. I suspect that this camera may be the end for Pentax film cameras.

When younger folks are trying to figure out how to pay rent pretty hard to get too excited about film.

Consider E6 film and the economics get absolutely nuts.
 
Film was never seen as cheap. The folks at home would have one cartridge of 12 exposures in the 126 for a year to capture all those special moments (usually, one special moment a month). Digital has made the photo-taking habits of non-photographers change.

Saying Kodak would likely not invest in making instant film isn't skepticism. In this instance, it's reality. The thread where Light Lens Lab claimed to be in the process of making their own film is where you find skepticism. If you believed people in that thread, no one ever would've been able to make film. But it's not a technical or intellectual issue that would prevent Kodak from making instant film - it's a practical economical one.

If they were not already making film, they wouldn't suddenly start doing that now, either.

They, for instance, don't make cookies, although there's lots of money to be made from selling cookies. Just ask the Girl Guides.
 

Like you I think it's a great idea but we're in a Roman Tragedy.
Economies of scale, no labs, people are down and out, Don't you hear the sad chorus too it's deafeningly soft

I think Kodak kind of jumped the shark tank when the former Hudson and Packard President declared film and Kodak being dead and started mining bitcoin instead. I have some Kodak Bitcoins they said I could redeem for processing at Kodak but I guess the joke's on me I forgot Kodak closed down their labs during their grande de-evolution process. Gold and Silver Pawn don't even want them and they are too fat a slug to fit in a vending machine. I wish I lived closer to a railroad.

I was friends with this customer service head at The Great Yellow Father, and I asked him the exact same question but mainly about coating a master roll to cut and box any size like Ilford seems now does. He asked up the food chain of commandos and tole me a week later they said it went against everything Kodak stood for.
At lease we know Ilford and Kodak employees fraternize.

We just have to keep walking through the wilderness and not look back. pillar of salt, frozen like a statue, beasts behind the trees ready to pounce, just keep walking the story and this thread will repeat soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Fuji sells 20 exposure of the Instax Wide for $20 which is $1 each of a print 2.4"x3.9" which is 9.36 square inches. An 8x10 sheet would be 80 square inches which is 8.55 times larger. So if they can make an 8x10 instant film for $10 a shot it's very cheap even compared to an inkjet print of the same size. I really want to see instant film in larger format than what Fuji is offering. I think the quality of the current Polaroid isn't good.
 

No idea why there's only pro B&W lines for kodak. There's no Ultramax or whatever line of black and white from Kodak.


This old excuse. I find that Kodak is full of excuses why they can't. It's do or die right now. The market for film is wide open right now. Today. Not in five years. Take the short term hit and do something! Anything! If Kodak doesn't use this opportunity they're going to keep limping into the grave.


It's not dirt cheap. We have alternatives to film these days if anyone hasn't been living in a cave for the past 25 years. In the 90's Kodak was able to charge whatever they felt. They were the only game in town. And even then they just coasted on momentum. I remember the late 90's when film was still king your average buyer was either buying a disposable camera or Fuji at that point. Kodak's so called cheap stuff was not looked at as the go to for Mom and Pop. Fujifilm's snazzy 4th layer 400 speed was what everyone was popping into their point and shoot or bridge camera. The professionals used Kodak. And the marketing was all over the place. Gold 400, Portra 400, Royal 400, Ultramax 400. Kodak was still doing fine because they had comfy contracts and Hollywood. I don't think they ever fully got rid of that attitude. They were never about the little guy.

BrianShaw said:
Crickets…
Click to expand...

They had other businesses on campus that hired laid off or former Kodak employees. As far as I'm aware that venture is still going and some of the crew are still around.


Kodak film was never seen as cheap but there was lots and lots of cheap film out there that frankly was just as good. It's just people didn't want to buy Costco branded film back then. Or Walgreens or whatever. Much like people won't buy Kirkland detergent even if it's really just repackaged Tide.

Local grocery chain to me had 4+1 packs of 400 speed film for a song. It was 3m sometimes, othertimes Fuji or Agfa or Ferrania. They processed 1 hour for .99 and you get 2x prints. Lab ran 24/7/365 at every location. Buy one get one free grocery branded disposable camera. Free with coupon. Short stock film was given away practically. But folks wanted Kodak or Fuji and that was it. Fresh stock, nothing else would do. No one shot slide after 1975. 110 or 35mm and by the time the 90's rolled around it was only 35mm. And even that only C-41 35mm. When C41 B&W came out it was a huge deal. I remember my mother shooting loads of it.


No one actually paid $7.57 a roll. That's sticker price. Am I the only one who remember this stuff? Retailer would buy in bulk, get a good deal from distributer and sell at a better price than listed value.

ezphotolessons said:
Its just the bot talking they're called hallucinations
Click to expand...

Bleep bloop.
 
Cholentpot said:
No one actually paid $7.57 a roll. That's sticker price. Am I the only one who remember this stuff? Retailer would buy in bulk, get a good deal from distributer and sell at a better price than listed value.
Click to expand...

Infant me was definitely not paying attention to film prices.
 
Cholentpot said:
Local grocery chain to me had 4+1 packs of 400 speed film for a song. It was 3m sometimes, othertimes Fuji or Agfa or Ferrania. They processed 1 hour for .99 and you get 2x prints.
Click to expand...

What you are describing was a short run of time when more film was shot and processed than ever before or ever again. It was really a different story before the 1-hour-photo was a reality. You didn't get much drug-store branded film prior to that. You also didn't get much selection of brands (although you got more selection of formats).
 
Cholentpot said:
If Kodak doesn't use this opportunity they're going to keep limping into the grave.
Click to expand...

It very well could be that if Kodak is limping into the grave, it is only the film part of Kodak limping. Overall, I'm not too sure that they are in peril. There's a much wider perspective that their annual and quarterly reports reflect...
 

1980-2005 is a pretty good run. That's my entire childhood and into my adult years. It might be short to you but for a vast amount of people that was the standard. I never knew anything other than dropping off rolls of 35mm at the grocery or drugstore and picking it up when shopping was done.
 
Good luck getting your photos developed in any grocery store I went to in the 1980s. Half the time, we mailed our film to York photo. Got it back in a month. Minilabs started rolling out in the early 80s but they weren't immediately adopted by grocery chains. Mid 80s, we could go to Black's in a mall and get photos developed in an hour. That mall was an hour's drive away. The local drug store never did offer any service faster than one week (and it cost more than York photo).
Anyway - what does any of this matter? That technology (the minilab) is what pushed the possibility of cheap, fast prints onto the public. The public doesn't want prints, anymore. They want photos on their phone. Film will never -- never ever -- dislodge that convenience. That day is done - doesn't matter how cheap you make film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register