The Promotion of Film use....what are we missing?

[Kodachrome25]

I can not imagine how Kodak must feel reading some of the threads full of bitching and complaining, people saying they want films like Kodachrome, Plus-X, High Speed Infrared and E6 back when we still have outstanding varieties like TMY, Ektar and Portra…..and the constant dissection of the restructuring.

And you DO know who Kodak is, do you not? Kodak is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who Kodak is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of the brand that is Kodak. Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer who are still trying to help film find a way forward…besides buying the film, are you helping?

There is something else we are not doing…something besides websites like Flickr, APUG, etc. Something besides buying and using film that is not being done and it kept me up until 5AM this morning…it is troubling me..

Here is the trouble…

If Kodak were to stop selling film and no one took it over, I think it would be very, very bad for film in general. Here is why: Public Perception based on internet hype. For example, when Kodachrome disappeared, I can not tell you how many people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film and some even thought that meant no film left at all. That's right, one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak and all the news that has followed….this is a bad, BAD pattern folks. Because what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be with the artistic resurgence of the medium, the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market segment that might otherwise give film a try.

This is not just Kodak's problem, it is Ilford's, Fuji's, Efke's problem and it is OUR problem. As much as I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market to the potential film user, I think we are missing something really, reeeeally important as the film user. We say we use film, post images, fill our freezers, we do a lot, but we do it for us first, not to help out our film making companies, the ones who depend on us not only to use the product, but get the word out.

But I really do feel like we are missing the so called boat that Kodak has been said to have missed too…I am not sure what it is, but I am determined to figure it out.

Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of an ad campaign that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like that can go viral real quick...I think it is something like this that needs to happen, honestly...

[Sal Santamaura]

...Your comment about seeking help has been both quoted and reported to a moderator...Dan, you might do what I did -- add that commenter to your ignore list. Unless someone quotes him, I no longer need experience his attitude/slurs. :)

To your topic's question, I don't think "we" are missing anything. The public's warm embrace of easy/convenient/inexpensive/inferior technologies is ubiquitous. I don't like it, but have come to accept the reality. No ad campaign, viral or otherwise, will prevent the inevitable discontinuation of Kodak film. Irrespective of Kodak's Chapter 11 outcome, the only open question is how long it will take. I'm not ready to conclude that secondary effects of that eventual end will be fatal for Ilford. In color, I believe Fuji will self-extinguish whether Kodak exists or not. Again, only "when" is unknown.

My own approach has been to purchase and cold-store a lifetime supply (I'm old enough that it's practical :D ) of 5x7 320TXP. I'm currently printing it on Ilfobrom Galerie and Multigrade Warmtone FB. Should those eventually become unavailable, I also have 6,000 8x10 sheets of Azo stored. If I outlive the supplies and Ilford's gone, I'll reminisce about "real" photography in my rocking chair.

I sincerely advise that you continue to pursue film photography with all the enthusiasm you displayed in your Kodachrome Project. Staying awake thinking about how to stop the digital freight train would waste your energy and make a good case that your name should be changed from Dan to Don. As in Quixote. :)

[Kodachrome25]

Thanks Sal,

I just feel like that while we have time, I am going to try to innovate as much as I can in making sure I am doing all that I can to make positive strides for film. If I don't try, and just continue to stock up like you have, then it will bother me if Kodak kills film without any effort from me to find a way forward. If I try and fail, then at least there is Ilford and my 20 year supply of what I need.

But the perception by the public that film is already gone, a lot by older film users complaining, it has to be curbed in any way we can:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1925151&postcount=48

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, you should change your screen name to Clementine, as in miner's daughter, lost and gone forever.

If you believe Arri's propaganda about the Alexa, color film's last refuge is under strong assault. When movie theaters have finished the transition to digital projection, that may be it for production of color film in volume, Kodak and Fuji.

I miss KM badly. I used it a lot for macro work with flash. Shooting faster E6 emulsions with ND filters to turn the ambient down just isn't as good. Shooting faster E6 emulsions with lenses in shutter that will sync with flash at 1/500 or 1/400 just isn't as good. Unfortunately there's no going backwards. For that kind of photography, I continue to hope that some manufacturer will release a digital Nikkormat. Full manual control, low "ISO" when wanted, 24x36 or larger sensor, ... I doubt it will happen.

Not every film manufacturer rationalized production of b/w films as well as EKCo did. Now EKCo's rational taking advantage of economies of scale may kill us, but the smaller scale producers might survive a while longer.

Cinematographers seem to understand that what they do is tell stories with moving pictures and that the image capture medium isn't that important. We're still hung up on technology ...

[Sal Santamaura]

...If I don't try, and just continue to stock up like you have, then it will bother me if Kodak kills film without any effort from me to find a way forward. If I try and fail, then at least there is Ilford and my 20 year supply of what I need...I should add that I'm also using as much Delta 100 as I can, saving the 320TXP for if/when Ilford's site lease doesn't get renewed -- around 15 years left on that. I find Delta 100 on Galerie to be a particularly exquisite combination.

Both the Delta 100 and 320TXP are developed in XTOL. Within the last few months, I've purchased 40 five liter packages of that and stored it in redundant laminated vapor-proof bags. I hope you succeed and inspire a revival, but am prepared just in case a less positive future happens.

[photobymike]

wow Kodachrome that was passion .. I am doing my part, i have a fridge full of film and insulin....When the end comes, i will die with a stocked fridge of film.... While the people at Kodak are people that are passionate about what they do, i am also sure they are business people also. You cant run Kodak like a charity.... It is times like this that we need a new film product. For instance i really like Ektar; it is a quantum leap in film technology.... I really wish that 4x5 Polaroid PN 55 would come back.... i loved that film... if i won the lottery i would invest all my money in making 4x5 PN55 again.... I have thought long on this subject.... and i have come to a weird conclusion ... To make film popular again we need an advancement in scanner technology... A scanner so sharp it would rival digital ...oh low cost and easy to use..

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can not imagine how Kodak must feel reading some of the threads full of bitching and complaining, people saying they want films like Kodachrome, Plus-X, High Speed Infrared and E6 back when we still have outstanding varieties like TMY, Ektar and Portra

I am one of those hoping (not bitching) for the day when are really true infra-red film such as what Kodak once produced... but how can you put it in the same catagory as TMY, Ektar, and Portra??

[Brian C. Miller]

What are we missing? How about good concepts that really touch a person's heart?

From Kodak Endura Professional Photographs (http://www.realenduraphotographs.com/):

"A photograph never grows old. You and I change, people change all through the months and years but a photograph always remains the same. How nice to look at a photograph of mother or father taken many years ago. You see them as you remember them. But as people live on, they change completely. That is why I think a photograph can be kind."
-- Albert Einstein

[Jay DeFehr]

Ken,

You're playing a pretty free hand with your moderation here. None of my remarks were rude, or if you're extremely sensitive, no more rude than Sal's comment:


Dan, you might do what I did -- add that commenter to your ignore list. Unless someone quotes him, I no longer need experience his attitude/slurs.

Do moderators get a pass, or just people you like/ agree with?

[vinny]

Dan, you should change your screen name to Clementine, as in miner's daughter, lost and gone forever.

Cinematographers seem to understand that what they do is tell stories with moving pictures and that the image capture medium isn't that important. We're still hung up on technology ...

Cinematographers would all love to shoot film but the vast majority of them have little to do with making that decision. That decision is made before the cinematographer is hired. It all comes down to profits. If the producers feel they can do it with video, they save money. Money that buys more cars, homes, plastic surgery, and louis vuitton hand bags.



When I'm out shooting, I do what I can to explain why I'm "not shooting digital" and often hand out a biz card. When the public buys a print, they don't care what it was shot on as long as they like it.

[Dan Fromm]

Vinny, I remember when Sony subsidized a few productions to get cinematographers to use their latest most best video gear. At the time, the camera was tethered to a truck. Shooting the Sony way was difficult and there were loud complaints in American Cinematographer about the difficulty of lighting with the Sony rig. It had very narrow exposure latitude, greatly limited what could be done. With that in mind, go read the Alexa propaganda. If I were EKCo and Fuji, it would bother me a lot.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Hope for film as anything more than an arcane lost process will have to come from a wider appreciation of precisely when or why film is a better choice to achieve a more compelling image in a given situation. As good as digital has become, that's not easily done in a great many situations. But working in large format, I can easily articulate what they are, and use film for those purposes, e.g. Extreme resolution, wide SBR, gallery prints.

[vinny]

Vinny, I remember when Sony subsidized a few productions to get cinematographers to use their latest most best video gear. At the time, the camera was tethered to a truck. Shooting the Sony way was difficult and there were loud complaints in American Cinematographer about the difficulty of lighting with the Sony rig. It had very narrow exposure latitude, greatly limited what could be done. With that in mind, go read the Alexa propaganda. If I were EKCo and Fuji, it would bother me a lot.

I don't need to read it. That camera is the first video camera I don't mind being seen standing next to. The images don't look like all the previous crap sony, and panasonic have been forcing down our throats for the last 20 yrs.

sorry to get your thread off track........

[John Kasaian]

Back when I was shooting a lot of aerials, Kodak's tech reps were a huge help. I agree Kodak's people "in the trenches" are very passionate about their excellent products. But Kodak today is a different animal---I seriously doubt those tech reps are still employed by Kodak (a LOT of good people lost jobs) and I tend to think Kodak drank the corporate Kool-aid when it lost it's greatest assets---the bulk of it's employees. Does anbody left at Kodak pay attention to whats being said on the forums? I doubt it. I really doubt it.

[Kodachrome25]

Jay, read, enjoy, contribute, refute, discuss and endear a potential new friendship, but don't say silly things that assume something, OK? I am going to sleep fine tonight and do most, but I took in a lot of info yesterday, it got me thinking.

Simply put, I see a problem in the public's perception of film falsely being entirely gone, so I know there are opportunities in solving it that have not been thought of yet.

Take the high road and take a step back a bit....


Ken,

You're playing a pretty free hand with your moderation here. None of my remarks were rude, or if you're extremely sensitive, no more rude than Sal's comment:



Do moderators get a pass, or just people you like/ agree with?

[Kodachrome25]

Back when I was shooting a lot of aerials, Kodak's tech reps were a huge help. I agree Kodak's people "in the trenches" are very passionate about their excellent products. But Kodak today is a different animal---I seriously doubt those tech reps are still employed by Kodak (a LOT of good people lost jobs) and I tend to think Kodak drank the corporate Kool-aid when it lost it's greatest assets---the bulk of it's employees. Does anbody left at Kodak pay attention to whats being said on the forums? I doubt it. I really doubt it.

Not only are some of those people still there, one of them who has a lot of pull in the film arena is reading this in earnest right now. I want to say I have read all of this and while I appreciate it, why we are here, where it might go, the premise of this post is that while we are doing all we can and thinking we are doing all we can, let's double check, listen to new blood and be willing as old blood to undergo a transfusion.

Keep in mind I started using digital full time at one of the very first newspapers in the country to go totally digital...in 1994, so I am not at all against or not familiar with the medium, I just know that I personally am not done with film....I am just getting started in fact, and I have been using it for 35 years.

[Kodachrome25]

I want to share something that a young man wrote in another forum, he is cool with me spreading it around, it kind of does illustrate part of the problems film as a niche, alternative process is facing.

I had written the following in reply to a rather defeatist statement on the topic: "I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconceptions the most, not the digital zealots..."

The 18 year old college student replied with the following:

"This.
Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.

When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.

The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.

This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.


Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me."

This is just one young person, one of many who are using film, but are subject to impressions, emotions and reactions based on what they see, hear, think and feel...

I know there is uncharted territory for the film user out there, but there is also uncharted territory in terms of how we move the medium back into the spotlight....

I am simply making a call out to everyone to unlock what those innovations could be....

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, read, enjoy, contribute, refute, discuss and endear a potential new friendship, but don't say silly things that assume something, OK? I am going to sleep fine tonight and do most, but I took in a lot of info yesterday, it got me thinking.

Simply put, I see a problem in the public's perception of film falsely being entirely gone, so I know there are opportunities in solving it that have not been thought of yet.

Take the high road and take a step back a bit....

Dan,

I absolutely harbor no ill will toward you. My response was aimed at your rather dramatic and, in my eyes, misguided approach, for which you seemed to be seeking support. I can't imagine my response surprised you, and I certainly don't feel I was aggressive or rude -- just responding in the tone you set for the thread. Best of luck in your endeavor.

[John Kasaian]

I agree that the public perceives film as an anachronism. For snap shooting family photos, digital is cheaper, smaller and lighter and dosen't run out of film(but eats battery life). For portraits, weddings, and event photography digital has the market sewn up. For editorial use, no publishing houses seem to (seem to?) No one wants color transparencies or b&w prints anymore. If a client desires a retro looking image, that can be handled with PS. Sure one of Mr Galli's vintage lens will make it look better, but few can appreciate that once an image has been digitally reproduced.
For most people I know film is off the radar.
But you and I know films not dead, not by a long shot. The market has changed, and the photo culture that Kodak originally spawned has changed.

A lot of the belly-aching about dropped products were sour grapes IMHO, espoused by photographers who were seemingly unable to comprehend supplies in envelopes other than yellow.
But a lot of what went on at Kodak was insulting, at least from the viewpoint of this consumer. A couple of times over the past decade, Kodak and Ilford 8x10 film prices were only a few cents per sheet apart. Not that long ago Kodak film was, briefly, even cheaper than llford so it couldn't cost Kodak that much more to manufacture B&W sheet film than llford Now Kodak is about twice the price and a special order item as well. This probably isn't an issue for pros(who mostly shoot digital)---clients are the ones paying for the bill---but for hobbyists, it's death, man! The issue of boxes---which is certainly no small expense--is just crazy. The explaination given here was that the 10 sheet box would allow students to try out Kodak's new incarnations of TMAX at less expense, but the 25 and 50 sheet boxes vanished so consumers have to buy 3 or 4 of those nifty not-cheap boxes to get the same amount of film, adding the burden of a needless expense to customers already paying top dollar (and now it's become so expensive, that buying a 25 sheet box would be economic suicide for many of us!) I don't know if Kodak can survive making sheet film. I suspect not, at least formats larger than 4x5 (and since 8x10 is all special order anyway, I see it as the 8x10 version of the "kiss of death" by Kodak as that has been Kodak's SOP for dropping products lately)
But surely you've heard all this before.
What can turn it around for film, especially Kodak film? They need to find a market that will buy a lot of film.
Niche companies from overseas will cater to the product needs of hobbyists and "Art" photographers---Kodak has effectively dropped the ball in that court.
I don't know if the movie industry is still a big film buyer or not (I hope they are) nor do I know if a share of the "casual photographer" digital market can be won back, but certainly with the demise of the corner drugstore, just getting the stuff developed will be a battle royal.
Plastic film cameras like Lomos and Holgas do have a following (and resultant share of the film market) and it is odd that Kodak doesn't appear to have a horse in that race, if they are serious about selling film.

I think ultimately what it will take is a cultural paradigm shift away from the current instant gratification on demand mentality.

[IanG]

Dan makes some good points, at a wedding this weekend someone asked a young (digital) photographer if he'd used a camera like my Rolleiflex and he said no using film was too complicated. (The bride has been known to use LF :D and has a Nikon film SLR)

It's the misconceptions about using film that need to be addressed and unfortunately much of the damage has been done because most photo magazines abandoned writing about and discussing film many years ago. I bought a UK magazine Practical Photography's B&W issue about 5 years ago and film wasn't mentioned at all despite a few advertisers sellng film & paper etc.

There is a need for younger people to speak out about their use of film, many of us who are older nad have been using film for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years and are seen by implication to be Luddite in attitude despite also embracing digital capture.

One thing I have noticed in the past 5 or 6 yeras is an under current of change by young people many now realising film is an alternative, the Lomography movement may well be having an impact.

Ian

[John Kasaian]

"...unlock what those innovations could be?" Get kids to enjoy the process of working with film.

[Kodachrome25]

I agree that the public perceives film as an anachronism. For snap shooting family photos, digital is cheaper, smaller and lighter and dosen't run out of film(but eats battery life). For portraits, weddings, and event photography digital has the market sewn up. For editorial use, no publishing houses seem to (seem to?) No one wants color transparencies or b&w prints anymore. If a client desires a retro looking image, that can be handled with PS.

A couple of the magazines I shoot for have really enjoyed getting film based images from me lately. I don't use it for everything but what I do use it for they pay for, so it's not all a write off. For example, I don't shoot weddings but an admirer of my work who is the executive VP of a financial institution is kind of insisting I do his daughter's wedding. So I told him I would shoot along side of the hired digital gun and shoot black and white in medium and large format for a few hours and hand print selected shots in my darkroom....that is costing him a good chunk of change.

The market for film in going forward is niche, Ilford does well at this scale, Kodak needs to see if they can too....and innovate new ways of reaching their potential customers that do not cost an arm and a leg.

I am personally trying to come up with fresh work all the time, for example in color:
http://kodachromeproject.com/blog/

[Brian C. Miller]

... and I tend to think Kodak drank the corporate Kool-aid when it lost it's greatest assets---the bulk of it's employees.

What was Kodak supposed to pay them? Reduced purchase of product means that there's just no money for the employees. At some point, people have to be let go. That's just the way it is.


Does anbody left at Kodak pay attention to whats being said on the forums? I doubt it. I really doubt it.

Supposedly somebody from Kodak does read APUG.

But where's the "eureka" idea which results in a resurgence of film usage? People started switching to digital when the quality of a digital camera was greatly inferior to the current generation. The losses at Kodak are slowing down, but they are still losses, and Kodak is burning its cash reserve.

Here's my guestimate of film usage, excluding movies:
Professionals, such as wedding and portrait photographers, and industrial and scientific users.
Connoisseurs, such as people who develop their own film, and maybe even use weird cameras.
Curmudgeons, who have a film camera, and just don't care about buying a digital camera.

So far, the "toy" camera market has resulted in a "coolness" factor being associated with film. While many here bemoan these cameras, I'm just happy that there's a small, viable market. I have no idea how many of the toy camera users have bought the Harman Titan pinhole kit. I'm guessing that it's mainly been LF photographers who want a durable toy camera for LF film, as they already have supporting equipment for it.

Now, as for the "eureka" idea: film is fun. Kodak needs a "fun" division, which isn't about marketing or evangelism or any other strange stuffed-shirt thing. Just fun. Film isn't hard to use. It's really forgiving for exposure. It's got resolution like you wouldn't believe (I just noticed that I'm getting a 350Mb file from a 645 negative). The images are going to be with you, reliably, for decades. Old cameras work just fine with film. If you've got a scanner at home and send the film out for processing, then you can have fun for about $20/roll total, and another $10 for a proof sheet. What do you get from LF? A camera that's funkier than a Holga, resolution that makes 645 whince, more flexible than a Lensbaby, and is proof positive that you can really look like you know what you're doing.

[JBAphoto]

New Markets

I feel much of this thread, well, the bits I have read, is too negative (groan all you like, I intended no pun). The approach I am taking in my photo-printmaking is to consider silver jelly photography in the same light as etching and lithography as continuing graphic arts media following the introduction of offset lithography (for offset lithography read digital imaging). Etchings and lithographs now sell for sensible money to the print-collecting market and SG photography can do the same, in fact did so for a while until collectors of photography started to collect C type and digital squirt prints

Without sounding like I am up my own arse, which I doubtless am, I think the only way to re-establish silver jelly is by selling and showing good silver jelly work. I am doing my own bit in this regard by making it very clear to viewers of my work in galleries that the prints are silver based. I then leave it to the image and print quality to say the rest

I am now selling good silver jelly via agents in Asia. I have given up on the Australian pubic as a waste of time and effort, but hopefully something will trickle down to here and keep silver jelly alive in Australia. America is a long way away and with the death of good photographic magazines (Camera Lucerne, Aperture, Infinity and Creative Camera) I have not a clue what is happening there

John
Quinninup
Australia

[Kodachrome25]

Brian, very much the way I feel about it. Those who use film for reasons of adding value to their fine art work or because of loving the process don't need to be sold on it as much as the "Fun" crowd. I got the Harman Titan because I had the film holders laying around and the ability in my darkroom to print the negs, pretty much a gateway drug to a 4x5 system that I now have thousands invested in.

Even the mailing of those Holga images can be made fun, special packaging, way out of the box thinking here. I know of one Summer camp in Vermont that loves their darkroom.
And John is right on point too, I personally would love a t-shirt that says I am a "Silver Jelly Belly" by the way...

These are the steps, who is film's market in terms of both now and potential and how through commited partnerships of both film makers and current film users do we come up with ground breaking, go viral in a big way types of ideas in terms of marketing? Scanning is another big question mark, people want to share these images and there is an obvious lack of affordable tools and services to the consumer, Josh Root from Photo.net brought this up to Kodak brass in June of 09 when several of us were in "that" meeting...

[John Kasaian]

What Brian says, "Kodak needs a Fun Division."
There are plenty of aspiring photographers running around with expensive DSLRs. How about a series of competitions with low tech cameras with humorous or "campy" themes using Kodak film? Winnning prints could be used in advertising or packaging materials (like Ilford) and prizes could be in product & bragging rights.
I'll add that there is still plenty of interest in big cameras in the National Parks. Set up a camera at Tunnel View and prepare to get mobbed by tourists ("Where do you get the film?" they all ask---really) I think if someone offered simple introductory, informal classes employing not view cameras (although that would sure be nice) but low tech fantastic plastics in the National Parks would stir up some interest. Kodak sponsorship would add name recognition and instructors who can show tourists how to get the very best from a fixed focal length lens (remember those Kodak Foto Spots?) to bag a print worthy of hanging on a wall or sitting on the mantle.

I'll add the Kodak also would do well to market to schools with existing darkrooms. Students likely will continue to work with materials they are familiar with, be they "institutional" brands from Freestyle OR Freestyle could sell them Kodak (or Ilford). If Kodak could come up with pricing attractive to school budgets, they'd open a door to the future.

Scrap booking is another arena I'd hope Kodak would explore. People spend a lot of money on scrapbooking but it is entirely supported by digital imaging these days. If Kodak could come up with attractive, fresh ideas dependent on film, buyers will give it a try---new techniques seem to be what drives scrap booking.

There is no arguement that Kodak dosen't have great products and (whats left of the) good people to produce them---making those products fun and affordable and winning back customer loyalty probably will go a long way towards selling more film.

[BrianShaw]

Vinny, I remember when Sony subsidized a few productions to get cinematographers to use their latest most best video gear. At the time, the camera was tethered to a truck. Shooting the Sony way was difficult and there were loud complaints in American Cinematographer about the difficulty of lighting with the Sony rig. It had very narrow exposure latitude, greatly limited what could be done. With that in mind, go read the Alexa propaganda. If I were EKCo and Fuji, it would bother me a lot.

I remember those days too (maybe mine were later than yours, who knows). Sony had extensive training offerings at the American Film Institute (of all places). I took several of those courses in the early 1980s. We were using Sony Betacams. We heard no complaints about video capture, but honestly that could be because few "film people" were taking the Sony courses.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . This is not just Kodak's problem, it is Ilford's, Fuji's, Efke's problem and it is OUR problem. As much as I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market to the potential film user, I think we are missing something really, reeeeally important as the film user. We say we use film, post images, fill our freezers, we do a lot, but we do it for us first, not to help out our film making companies, the ones who depend on us not only to use the product, but get the word out. . . .

In suggesting that people here should help the film companies not only by buying film but also by getting the word out about film to others (presumably to people who aren't now using it) I think you're being a little naive.

For the calendar year 2010 Kodak had gross revenues of about $7.2 billion dollars. I don't know exactly how many members this forum has but let's say we have 2,000 members and in 2010 we got the word out about film so effectively that we convinced 2,000 more people to go out and each buy 100 boxes of TMax 100 film at $80 a box (50-sheet box). That would have added $16 million to Kodak's revenues or, if I've got my zeroes right, an increase of 0.00226% (i.e. roughly 2/1000ths of one percent) in Kodak's revenues. In other words, despite doing an outstanding job of getting the word out, we would have increased Kodak's revenues by an amount so negligible that Kodak probably wouldn't even have noticed. Double those numbers (i.e. we get the word out so well that 4,000 more people buy 100 boxes each) and we increase Kodak's revenues by roughly 4/1000ths of one percent, again a negligible amount.

We would have to be some kind of marketing and promotional geniuses to help out Kodak in a meaningful way by getting the word out about film. In fact if we were that good we probably should get together, buy Kodak ourselves, and turn it around.

The way some here talk about getting people to use film you'd think it was a brand new product that nobody knows about and if we can just publicize this great new product people will abandon digital products and switch to film. The facts of course are just the opposite - most people who use digital products either are former users of film or at least know film exists. And they gave up film or never used it in the first place because for them digital products are better. A few here can dump on digital cameras and processes all they want and it isn't going to change the fact that digital products are better products than film for the vast majority of people. Trying to convince them to drop digital cameras and processes and go back to using film is about like trying to get them to abandon computers and start using adding machines and typewriters.

[Kodachrome25]

I'm sorry Brian, but this is pre-restructure you are talking about in terms of GR. They are now ever closer looking at each individual product line as it's own performing line up, this is how they are deciding what to dump completely, sell off or scale back according to what are potentially profitable businesses to split off. This is not like rearranging the spice cabinet at home, they are still a huge company with complex layers of infrastructure.

We just don't know what is possible here besides speculative Wall Street born calculations that have not played out yet. So while this plays out, I am making it my personal goal to help them to better market film in the meantime, along with all players of film for that matter. We still have color film in large format for Pete's sake, why on earth would you not innovate ways to promote it while it is still around?

I love this kind of thing, it's what you do when you are passionate, you get on it and make it happen until it can no longer happen.



In suggesting that people here should help the film companies not only by buying film but also by getting the word out about film to others (presumably to people who aren't now using it) I think you're being a little naive.

For the calendar year 2010 Kodak had gross revenues of about $7.2 billion dollars. I don't know exactly how many members this forum has but let's say we have 2,000 members and in 2010 we got the word out about film so effectively that we convinced 2,000 more people to go out and each buy 100 boxes of TMax 100 film at $80 a box (50-sheet box). That would have added $16 million to Kodak's revenues or, if I've got my zeroes right, an increase of 0.00226% (i.e. roughly 2/1000ths of one percent) in Kodak's revenues. In other words, despite doing an outstanding job of getting the word out, we would have increased Kodak's revenues by an amount so negligible that Kodak probably wouldn't even have noticed. Double those numbers (i.e. we get the word out so well that 4,000 more people buy 100 boxes each) and we increase Kodak's revenues by roughly 4/1000ths of one percent, again a negligible amount.

We would have to be some kind of marketing and promotional geniuses to help out Kodak in a meaningful way by getting the word out about film. In fact if we were that good we probably should get together and buy Kodak ourselves.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm sorry Brian, but this is pre-restructure you are talking about in terms of GR. They are now ever closer looking at each individual product line as it's own performing line up, this is how they are deciding what to dump completely, sell off or scale back according to what are potentially profitable businesses to split off. This is not like rearranging the spice cabinet at home, they are still a huge company with complex layers of infrastructure.

We just don't know what is possible here besides speculative Wall Street born calculations that have not played out yet. So while this plays out, I am making it my personal goal to help them to better market film in the meantime, along with all players of film for that matter. We still have color film in large format for Pete's sake, why on earth would you not innovate ways to promote it while it is still around?

I love this kind of thing, it's what you do when you are passionate, you get on it and make it happen until it can no longer happen.

Good luck.

[Bill_1856]

I happily shot Kodachrome for over 40 years. In the last few years the quality of the product, especially the processing, had deteriated to the point where one could no longer count on it's quality. There has never really been a substitute for it. I much prefer my digital results to any of the alternatives. And B&W is fast approaching that situation, if not already passing it. My darkroom is closed -- presumably forever.

[jp]

What can turn it around for film, especially Kodak film? They need to find a market that will buy a lot of film.
Niche companies from overseas will cater to the product needs of hobbyists and "Art" photographers---Kodak has effectively dropped the ball in that court.
I don't know if the movie industry is still a big film buyer or not (I hope they are) nor do I know if a share of the "casual photographer" digital market can be won back, but certainly with the demise of the corner drugstore, just getting the stuff developed will be a battle royal.
Plastic film cameras like Lomos and Holgas do have a following (and resultant share of the film market) and it is odd that Kodak doesn't appear to have a horse in that race, if they are serious about selling film.

I think ultimately what it will take is a cultural paradigm shift away from the current instant gratification on demand mentality.

The cultural paradigm shift has already happened and Kodak needs to figure that out and get re-oriented. "Kodak moments" became digital point and shoot moments and are now iphone/android moments. "You press the button and we do the rest" is the opposite market that film users are in. See how things change?

The progression of a technology from research to business to consumer to "just for fun" pervades the market. Look how computers have traversed this; the biggest sales of computing power to consumers is for people to play games with now or be entertained. Lomo has figured out a fun niche. Ilford has bridged fun and academic with their Titan pinhole. Polaroid's only business is fun cameras and consumables. Kodak has simply made their big film harder to buy. How much more every-man American retro can you get than Tri-x?

[BrianShaw]

Good luck.

Ha ha ha... that was my parting statement in the parallel discussion of Dan's on another forum. At some point good luck is all we have with regard to the future of film. Right now I'm satisfied (as a result of knowing that there are many "uncontrollable" factors in play) with the offerings of Kodak and the other film manufacturers. I can get enough to satisfy my needs. But "getting enough" is why I don't shoot anything larger than 4x5. I certainly would like to have some the discontinued emulsions, but I also would like a 1930's era Packard... and they, too, were discontinued and no amount of passionate effort will likely revive them.

Good luck, Dan... and I sincerely mean it!

[Brian C. Miller]

In suggesting that people here should help the film companies not only by buying film but also by getting the word out about film to others (presumably to people who aren't now using it) I think you're being a little naive.
...
The way some here talk about getting people to use film you'd think it was a brand new product that nobody knows about and if we can just publicize this great new product people will abandon digital products and switch to film.

I would not characterize the OP as "abandon digital and switch to film." I view it as use film for its merits, and yes, there are many who don't know its merits. There are those of the digerati who are just as rabid as those of the chemists, and no amount of chatter will ever cause them to pick up a film camera. But that isn't what will help film to hang on.

You are absolutely right that digital is a better choice for most people. The labs have mostly gone away. In Seattle, there are three labs left. At Panda Labs, a roll of 120 (appx $7/roll from Glazer's) costs $15 to develop with a contact sheet. Shipping is $8, unless you live close by. So $30/roll total to feed a Holga. That's not cheap, and after 10 rolls you've paid out enough for a decent point & shoot. But there's enough people around burning film to keep the lab in business.

What will cause film to hang on is people getting the word that film is just fun to use. Why do people like a cherry, teak, or mahogany table instead of pine plywood? The plywood table is just as functional, and it can be made to look as good as the other woods. So why do people buy the nicer woods? Precisely because the are nice. Film is also nice.

That's why I posted the Einstein quote:
"A photograph never grows old. You and I change, people change all through the months and years but a photograph always remains the same. How nice to look at a photograph of mother or father taken many years ago. You see them as you remember them. But as people live on, they change completely. That is why I think a photograph can be kind."
-- Albert Einstein

Film is nice. Film is kind. Film is fun. Film is that comfy teddy bear that's fun to hug. You keep picking up a film camera, right? There's a reason behind that, one that others may share.

I don't expect there to be a film renaisance. I just want to see enough users so that commercial production doesn't die. I don't want to see the end of the line in this graph (http://www.krlretirees.com/files/Kodak_Employees_in_Rochester.pdf).
77300

[Kodachrome25]

This adds to the discussion of great new ideas for promoting film how?

Don't know what to tell you on the Kodachrome you shot sir, the nearly 1,300 rolls of it I shot between August of 2006 and the very last frame shot in history in January of 2011 look just as good if not better than the first roll I ever shot in 1981, same with what Alex Webb, Steve McCurry and Jeff Jacobsen did. Been shooting digital nearly 20 years Bill, what I am doing in my state of the art darkroom today makes digital entirely an afterthought as far as I am concerned...


I happily shot Kodachrome for over 40 years. In the last few years the quality of the product, especially the processing, had deteriated to the point where one could no longer count on it's quality. There has never really been a substitute for it. I much prefer my digital results to any of the alternatives. And B&W is fast approaching that situation, if not already passing it. My darkroom is closed -- presumably forever.

[Kodachrome25]

I think I am signing out because I am worn out, been beat down too much. I'll talk to people in person, young people who are not bitter or claim digital as their personal lord and saviour...

It's amazing to me the drone of negativity on the internet, one of the most destructive things I have ever seen...:-(

[Jay DeFehr]

I'll talk to people in person........the drone of negativity on the internet, one of the most destructive things I have ever seen

At least there is some symmetry in your cause and your approach.

[jp]

It's amazing to me the drone of negativity on the internet, one of the most destructive things I have ever seen...:-(

That happens in real life meetings far too easy just like on the Internet. What you observe on the Internet is just a reflection of society. Optimism however seems to be more easily portrayed in person because your whole demeanor factor in rather than just your words.

[John Kasaian]

The cultural paradigm shift has already happened ...

I'm referring to another paradigm shift!

[John Kasaian]

What we got here, is a failure to communicate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
A healthy market for film is important to film photographers.
The Kodak guy wants suggestions on creative ways to market film.
I'm flattered he asked us.
Using film is fun.
How can Kodak interest a new generation of customers to have fun with(Kodak) film?
its a simple enough question.
To not try and come up with suggestions makes film photographers look like elitist snobs, as if we're the only ones with the chops to really appreciate film.

[Jay DeFehr]

The problem (as I see it) with your "film is fun" approach is that film isn't. At least not in the way digital is fun. For me, the fun is in experimentation, using old cameras that shouldn't still work, but somehow do, making something with my hands, and yes, sharing my results with others who might understand the process enough to allow intelligent conversation about it. I suspect the one thing that does more to promote the use of film than any other, is social networking and image sharing sites like Flickr.
There's no point in pretending film is easy -- it's not, at least not compared to digital -- or that it isn't demanding, because it is. There are a million ways to screw up a roll of film, and it's not much fun to be disappointed when your expensive (relative to digital) prints come back from the lab because you screwed up the exposure, or forgot to wind the film, or any of a million other potential disasters befell your film.

If you want to emphasize fun with film, I think it's best to stay near the primitive end of the scale, with pinhole cameras, box cameras, Holgas -- the funkier the better. Market the experience as luxury fun ( because it's expensive, but that can work for you, too), and not a path to technical supremacy.

Develop an app for inverting an image (if there isn't one already), that will transform a smart phone into a lo-fi film scanner, for easy image sharing.

And perhaps most important of all, keep photographers as far away as possible from anyone wanting to have fun with film.

[MDR]

Jay I fully agree with your post seeing old men under a dakrcloth might look funny but it isn't very cool or easy to most people. The easisest film unfortunately went the way of the dodo Polaroid. And I especially agree with your last sentence, tech talk is no fun.

Dominik

[Brian Ellis]

The problem (as I see it) with your "film is fun" approach is that film isn't. At least not in the way digital is fun. For me, the fun is in experimentation, using old cameras that shouldn't still work, but somehow do, making something with my hands, and yes, sharing my results with others who might understand the process enough to allow intelligent conversation about it. I suspect the one thing that does more to promote the use of film than any other, is social networking and image sharing sites like Flickr.
There's no point in pretending film is easy -- it's not, at least not compared to digital -- or that it isn't demanding, because it is. There are a million ways to screw up a roll of film, and it's not much fun to be disappointed when your expensive (relative to digital) prints come back from the lab because you screwed up the exposure, or forgot to wind the film, or any of a million other potential disasters befell your film.

If you want to emphasize fun with film, I think it's best to stay near the primitive end of the scale, with pinhole cameras, box cameras, Holgas -- the funkier the better. Market the experience as luxury fun ( because it's expensive, but that can work for you, too), and not a path to technical supremacy.

Develop an app for inverting an image (if there isn't one already), that will transform a smart phone into a lo-fi film scanner, for easy image sharing.

And perhaps most important of all, keep photographers as far away as possible from anyone wanting to have fun with film.

Exactly. Where did this idea that film is "fun" come from? Film wasn't "fun" for the vast majority of people. They put up with it when there was no alternative. But few people actually enjoyed loading film in a 35mm camera (one of the main reasons the APS format was created), taking the film to a drug store, waiting for it to be processed, then going back to pick it up, dealing with duplicates and enlargements ("let's see, is this picture #24A or 24B?"), etc. etc. Not to mention the other things Jay points out, such as all the mistakes that could ruin the result. As soon as a decent alternative became available and affordable (digital) they dropped film as fast as they could.

The whole idea that film can be resurrected as the medium of choice for enough people to have any effect on Kodak, Fuji, etc. is, I'm sorry to say, unrealistic. The horse has left the barn and it isn't coming back.

[Rayt]

Ditto what Jay wrote. Just look at all those failed formats Kodak invested in these 20 years. They are all for people who are too dumb to load film properly. Snapping on the iPhone is fun for the majority of the long lost consumer film market.

[RichardSperry]

The LOMO people are making film fun. Or at least selling it as such at a great markup.

The Ilford pinhole looks fun.


I think Kodachrome25 has a great idea, honestly.

[BrianShaw]

I think Kodachrome25 has a great idea, honestly.

So do I, but only if the goal is to satisfy a niche of a niche. I don't know about you guys, but I have only seem Lomo photographers in the ads and never in real life. They must exist, but they are even more scarce than "normal" film photographers these days. How much does that generate in film $ale$, I wonder?

What we need to help here is a MBA who knows how to do a valid business case analysis for us.

I still shoot film 99% but keep coming back to a very realistic viewpoint (my opinion, nobody has to agree with me... I don't care if you do or don't) that was just expressed by B. Ellis -- post 44, last paragraph. It is a sad fact, but true.

[John Kasaian]

What is the big reason for so many hobbyists who buy big cameras and sheet film to, well, buy big cameras and sheet film?
Chick magnets? Well, yeah.
Resolution? If that were the driving force all the Speed Graphics, Kodak 2Ds, Petzvals and Dagor lenses would be relegated to the scrap heap of History and we'd be discussing imaging with equipment like NASA or JPL uses.
But the majority of us don't and aren't(or could afford to.)
LF, quite frankly, is fun!
Look at all the "reasons why we shoot" posts and the majority will be from computer geeks who prefer film to digital because they spend too many hours each day in front of a monitor and slowing down with film is a relaxing and fun challenge. Or retired geezers who like to mess with old optics and old processes because for them, it's fun. Or young photographers taken in by film because they find it adds a fun new dimension to their talents.
Ask anyone who schlepps an 8x10 around the mountains and you'll likely hear that yes, the world dosen't need another B&W photograph of Half Dome taken from Ansel's tripod holes, but being there, doing that, using your own skills and pull your own view of that big hunk of granite (I use as an example)out of the soup is indeed,a lot of fun.
How can Kodak show a newer, bigger and more profitable market how much fun film is?
I think thats a fair question. Its a difficult question, but good questions are seldom easy ones to answer.

[BrianShaw]

What is the big reason for so many hobbyists who buy big cameras and sheet film to, well, buy big cameras and sheet film?
Chick magnets? Well, yeah.

Are you kidding? That got me branded as a nerd and geek when I was younger. Not too many chicks available to nerds and geeks. So I stopped using the big camera and started using a point-and-shoot. Met the most beautiful woman to whom I am now married. Then I went back to big cameras and sheet film. Now that I'm both married and older I seem to have graduated to being merely quirky.

[jp]

Are you kidding? That got me branded as a nerd and geek when I was younger. Not too many chicks available to nerds and geeks. So I stopped using the big camera and started using a point-and-shoot. Met the most beautiful woman to whom I am now married. Then I went back to big cameras and sheet film. Now that I'm both married and older I seem to have graduated to being merely quirky.

The world has changed. Nerdy/geeky man has proven itself in contemporary society as valuable and attractive. On the women's side, more curvy non-waif/barbie shapes are becoming attractive.

I'm happily married and 100% taken, but young women of artistic inclination see the old cameras and express an instant interest in film and how to get it and use it. If I were a young single man, it would exceedingly beat bars or fast cars as ways to get to know women. It's probably right up there with singing and playing an acoustic guitar well. Film shows a confidence that you know what you're going to get and don't need instant gratification and that you have more skills and education than the average camera user.

Film isn't just about making photos, it's about making beautiful art out of silver.

[John Kasaian]

When I'm out with the V8 'dorff I can hardly keep the Gretchen Bundschen and Famke lookalikes at bay long enough to take a meter
reading and set the f-stop LOL!

[Jay DeFehr]

If a LF photographer is asked why he (almost always a he) bothers with big cameras and film, his response is much more likely to be given in technical terms about resolution, enlargement factors, dynamic range, etc. than anything approaching whimsy. That being said, I think lots of people do see old cameras as being very cool, and there is often a hint of admiration that they can be made to work at all. It's discouraging that old cameras are seen as novelties, but encouraging that people find them interesting. It's discouraging that people are impressed by the ability to make a film camera work, but encouraging they think it's cool. I think the best thing any of us can do to promote the use of film is to emphasize the experience, and not its results.

[MDR]

One of Films main problems is that most people want easy instant gratification. Modern people lack the attention span for something that takes a while. Proof are modern movies with about 60 cuts a minutes only 20 years ago people were watching movies that had at the most 1 cut a minute. Show an old movie to most people and their attention will wander because of the lack of speed. Polaroid was at least somewhat able to offer the instant gratification, maybe we should all use high speed monobath developers and make contact copies max time 30sec from photo to print :) Large cameras + instant gratification must be a winner.

Jay maybe you could develop a monobath developer that is cool and attracts future film shooters. :)

Dominik

[rdenney]

There's a difference between an activity that is fun and one that brings deep satisfaction. And there is a difference between fun and joy.

People use film because it is deeply satisfying and brings them joy, not because it's merely fun.

Holgas are not marketed as fun, they are marketed as hip. The difference in marketing strategy might not be that visible to the old, I admit. Is hipness sustainable as the hip age? Only if the activity transitions to joy and satisfaction. Mere fun or a desire to be hip won't keep people enduring the inconvenience.

In any case, one does not ask a population of people who know satisfaction and joy to preach their cause on the basis of fun and hipness. They have perhaps outgrown that. That does not make them negative, or elitist, but it does put their motives beyond the reach of those of any age who lack a willingness (or the maturity) to seek joy. Most who take pictures are happy with images on Facebook or snapshot-sized prints. They seek neither joy nor hipness; only convenience. The film market will have to survive without them.

Digital is fun for me. Film is satisfying, and brings me joy.

Rick "build a marketing campaign around that" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Digital is fun and fast, but we all know the gut feeling you get when you see a LF image in-person. It doesn't come across on the internet very well.

When non-photographers see that print from 4x5 or an 8x10 Polaroid or a platinum contact, they generally "get it" instantly. It's like the difference between a Snickers bar and a high-end chocolate cheesecake.

[rdenney]

Digital is fun and fast, but we all know the gut feeling you get when you see a LF image in-person. It doesn't come across on the internet very well.

When non-photographers see that print from 4x5 or an 8x10 Polaroid or a platinum contact, they generally "get it" instantly. It's like the difference between a Snickers bar and a high-end chocolate cheesecake.

Your strategy is aimed at the users of photographs. But the customers of film are mostly the makers of photographs. The users have already made their decision.

Rick "knowing the difference between stakeholders and customers" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Lomos and Holgas are a short-term cornball fad that will turn sour just as fast. Wouldn't
place much trust there. And contrary to the reactions some of you get, around here just
about every time some young folks see any of my view cameras propped up on a Ries tripod along the trail, about the first thing they do say is, "Cool"; "Wish I had one of those
things" ... then ask to look under the cloth and ask a bunch of other questions. And mind
you, the locals are way more tech saavy than most. The bigger hurdle is the lack of darkrooms. It's getting real difficult for young folks to buy a house, even at the relatively
low current mortgage rates, let alone have extra space, cash, and time to print properly.
Lots of them are amazed that film still exists. But they do seem to understand the difference qualitatively, at least with large format. They still refer to it as a "real camera"
and "real film".

[John Kasaian]

Lomos and Holgas are a short-term cornball fad that will turn sour just as fast. Wouldn't
place much trust there. And contrary to the reactions some of you get, around here just
about every time some young folks see any of my view cameras propped up on a Ries tripod along the trail, about the first thing they do say is, "Cool"; "Wish I had one of those
things" ... then ask to look under the cloth and ask a bunch of other questions. And mind
you, the locals are way more tech saavy than most. The bigger hurdle is the lack of darkrooms. It's getting real difficult for young folks to buy a house, even at the relatively
low current mortgage rates, let alone have extra space, cash, and time to print properly.
Lots of them are amazed that film still exists. But they do seem to understand the difference qualitatively, at least with large format. They still refer to it as a "real camera"
and "real film".
True that!

[Kodachrome25]

The problem (as I see it) with your "film is fun" approach is that film isn't. At least not in the way digital is fun. For me, the fun is in experimentation, using old cameras that shouldn't still work, but somehow do, making something with my hands, and yes, sharing my results with others who might understand the process enough to allow intelligent conversation about it. I suspect the one thing that does more to promote the use of film than any other, is social networking and image sharing sites like Flickr.
There's no point in pretending film is easy -- it's not, at least not compared to digital -- or that it isn't demanding, because it is. There are a million ways to screw up a roll of film, and it's not much fun to be disappointed when your expensive (relative to digital) prints come back from the lab because you screwed up the exposure, or forgot to wind the film, or any of a million other potential disasters befell your film.

There is a young photographer who posted on Photo.net that said the following, and I agree with him:

"I am one of those younger photographers who began shooting digital (save from a few shots when my dad would let me use his yashica) and eventually turned to shooting film too.

I think the number one barrier to my getting into film in the first place was a misguided perception about the level of knowledge I would need and the relative difficulty of getting great results with film and wet processing.

I think that many, like me, fear letting go of the training wheels of digital exposure. I think that many, like me, love it once we do.

That being said, film shooters could do a few things to support their cause which may be a little irksome to the quality die hards.

For one, we need to be able to explain that processing film and scanning or printing really isn't that difficult (gasp) even if we all know that doing so well and doing so according to an artistic vision may be.

We need to not fly off the handle when recommending equipment, or things we think that a new photographer needs. A tank, somewhere completely dark (bathroom with towels stuffed around the door or a changing bag) a reel, developer and fixer are all you really need to get started in processing your negatives. The rest can be acquired as you go, or even used as modified equipment from other sources (i.e. using a glass measuring cup for measuring chemicals vs. a graduated cylinder).

I spent hours trying tog figure out just what I needed to get started because it's too easy to begin to think that you need these premium negative clips and stainless steel or plastic tanks.

Simplify what someone from the outside perceives as a complex process and you remove much of the fear or uncertainty from the equation.

Another point is that most of your new shooters will have a similar workflow to mine, meaning that you will more likely see a digital/film hybrid, rather than a purely film workflow. We need to be more understanding and willing to point out how the two can complement each other. For instance, while I still have an F100 and FM2N I have a hard time justifying shooting them, because they are either bulkier than my X100 or the results are equal or worse than what I get with my D700. Yes, this comes down to many variables on my end, but I'll be frank, once I finish the last of my 35mm film these cameras are going out for sale. For me 35mm just doesn't have a place in my workflow.

However, my Rollei, Pentax 67, Bronica ETRS and my Speed Graphic all see regular use and I put hundreds of rolls (not as many sheets) a year. And it's not all about quality. It's about style, and it's about the feel of the camera and the look of the scanned image as well as the wet darkroom print.

We need to encourage this type of exploration.

I particularly think that we need to encourage newer shooters to look at medium format and large format for a couple of reasons. First, because it is often such a different way of shooting (WLF anyone), and because it's much easier to get a sharp scan from even a crummy scanner than it is from 35mm. As much as a new shooter may love the distinctive look of film, many will be much more likely to stick with it if they see that they can get that look plus a sharp image. Secondly, I know that many new shooters would love to shoot a Rolleicord or Yashica 124 if they got the chance, just because they are so different and I think once they try it they are very likely to stick with it.

I'm sure there is far more that film shooters could be doing, but aside from keeping on shooting film, these are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

Also, for those of you who are interested, take a look around flickr if you need some encouragement. You'll find that the ranks of new film shooters are surprisingly thick."

It is simple, you just have to make it that way and embrace the unexpected as you hone your personal journey with it.

[Drew Wiley]

It's analogous to books, and how people are saying books will be extinct because electronic readers are now available. Nonsense. There will always be people who want to
relax on a rocking chair on the porch or beside the fireplace with a good book. It's tactile,
still perfectly usable for decades, easy to find the page in, not eye-straining, and you
don't have to worry about it going techno-obsolete every two years. I'm more worried about the next generation going blind from staring in screens at two young an age, or
dying of childhood diabetes from junk food or lack of exercise, or of ending up just plain
illiterate. Or else they'll be taken away by Social Services because their parents were too
cruel to buy them the latest computer game. Take 'em on a long hike or horseback ride in the woods with a 35mm film camera and let them get hooked. Then get a good ole slide
projector and let them see how good the shots look real big and bright - and tell Aunt
Maude to leave her slides of the Peoria vacation at home!

[Lynn Jones]

I've been a photographer longer than most of you have been alive (over 65 years), a camera manufacturer, lens creator, hi tech film processor designer as well as a shooter. The reason some of the great films (the last Plus X as an example) is that we didn't buy enough of the stuff to make it profitable.

What would happen if Kodak stopped making film?
First, Fuji would get much more profitable.
Second, the Kodak Coating Alleys would be sold to the highest bidder and making film of questionable quality.
Third, the European and Asian film makers would make a bit more.

However, before that, Kodak and Fuji would still be making "car loads" of color print paper since that is what all of the pro labs use to print digital images with. Ink jet color prints cost 4 to 6 times as much as conventional color paper, other methods are even more expensive.

Eventually, there would be NO MORE FILM!

Lynn

[Pawlowski6132]

I've been a photographer longer than most of you have been alive (over 65 years), a camera manufacturer, lens creator, hi tech film processor designer as well as a shooter. The reason some of the great films (the last Plus X as an example) is that we didn't buy enough of the stuff to make it profitable.



Lynn

I think that's crap. If film sales volume went down and Kodak couldn't (or more likely wouldn't) retool than they suck. They needed to figure out ow to make film cheaper and they couldn't be bothered. They get what they deserve.

[RichardSperry]

So do I, but only if the goal is to satisfy a niche of a niche. I don't know about you guys, but I have only seem Lomo photographers in the ads and never in real life. They must exist, but they are even more scarce than "normal" film photographers these days. How much does that generate in film $ale$, I

I'm one I suppose.

My first MF camera was a Holga. I'm not cool or hip or anything. And have since got a lot of MF and LF stuff after. I have way more invested in film now than digital, and my digital stuff ain't crap. I've spent more on consumables than what I have spent on my digital stuff probably.

Just wanted to have fun with film. And the price of admission(a $25 camera) was very reasonable.

I was just in SF for a couple days. Went into a trendy clothes store on Powell by Market. There was a ton of LOMO stuff, camera, film, instax stuff towards the front. Taking up about half a wall up by the door. The packaging was all fun looking, like "see how much fun you can have with this stuff". The film prices were reasonable, but all the camera stuff was three time what I would expect to pay. To have all that expensive real estate dedicated, they must be selling it.

Made a trip into Gassers, kinda like a pilgrimage. Old dusty not fun place. And they didn't even have the film I needed. They are doing it wrong.

[Brian C. Miller]

Lomos and Holgas are a short-term cornball fad that will turn sour just as fast.

Yeah, they've been marketed since about 1995 or so. So maybe there's another 10 years left in them. I've had interest shown when someone sees me with my Holga. "Ooh, you have a Holga!" But only if they've heard about it first. It's not a head-turner like my view camera. View cameras are "alien" beasties, and start just as many conversations as having a weird (http://www.a-bike.co.uk) bicycle (http://www.dahon.com/bikes/2011/curve-d3).


The bigger hurdle is the lack of darkrooms. It's getting real difficult for young folks to buy a house, even at the relatively low current mortgage rates, let alone have extra space, cash, and time to print properly.

There's a sticky thread over on APUG about "temporary" darkrooms (link (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum43/46964-bathroom-other-temporary-makeshift-darkrooms.html)), like bathrooms and utility closets. Basically, how much you can get on a cart and the setup/tear-down. The real problem for the novice is the convenience of getting the film developed. There's lots of places that still develop 35mm film. But 120 and sheet film now absolutely require a "pro" lab, or do it yourself. There aren't any mom & pop labs all over the place. When I first started shooting, I was living in an 18ft travel trailer, and there was no place to set up trays. I did go through a lot of Polaroid, though. I didn't do any printing in that trailer, but I did develop a lot of B&W roll film.

At least B&W isn't hard to print. Sure, it takes a while to develop some skill, but at least you can make some reasonable progress inside of a few weekends. The biggest problem is devoting the time to learning how to print well.

And to have some fun and get results, you don't have to have a masterpiece. My first print was of my plain white cat. And yeah, I was soooo proud to have made a print of my cat.

[John Kasaian]

Thats the thing--- if Kodak wanted to cater to a LF niche market they could be very competative, but thats not the direction they've chosen. If Kodak could hype color film the way Ilford hypes B&W they might be on to something if they aren't afraid of Fuji!

[Brian C. Miller]

Thats the thing--- if Kodak wanted to cater to a LF niche market they could be very competative, but thats not the direction they've chosen.

The reason some of the great films (the last Plus X as an example) is that we didn't buy enough of the stuff to make it profitable.

John, you need to note what Lynn wrote. These days, films are going away because of a simple lack of a market. Kodak E-6 is gone for the same reason that the last film made on Plus-X was The Ghastly Love of Johnny X (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20754139/burbank-mans-1950s-genre-homage-is-last-film). Nobody bought the film, so Kodak stopped making it. Kodak isn't catering to LF users, we are riding the coat tails of x-ray film production. Why do you think x-ray film is priced at $25 for 50 sheets? If medical radiology went all digital, do you think that there would be any LF film at all?

The reason that we aren't seeing cuttings of Kodak 8x10 is because there just isn't enough usage any more to make a normal run of it. Kodak production facilities are massive, scaled massively, and something like that doesn't scale down easily or efficiently, and even the cutting facilities can't turn on a dime to go from 4x5 to 8x10.

Yes, film costs a bit now. Ilford isn't making Universal 400, and Agfa is out of business. Of course, there's Freestyle Arista for $2.79 for 120, and $17 for 25 4x5 sheets ($0.68/sheet). And the street corner druggist doesn't develop 120 any more. 35mm maybe, but not 120.

Lynn, when was the last time that 4x5 was conveniently developed? Like, by druggists, or the corner film store?

Kodachrome25's best idea in this thread is the most sensible: go out, shoot film where people can see you, and talk to them about it. Combine with my idea, have fun doing it. Infectious fun, even!

That's all we can do, really. Go out and have fun with our cameras, and talk to people.

[Michael_4514]

Like everybody else here, I love the photographic process (been doing it about 50 years), but in my opinion it's delusional to think that the masses are ever going to get turned on to film again. The masses don't give a rat's behind about anything but seeing their pictures as fast as possible. I'm in NYC everyday in heavily touristed areas. Do you know what direction photography for the masses is going? Cell phones. Good luck convincing these people to carry a film camera, not know instantly whether their pictures are any good, schlepp to some processing shop and wait hours for their prints, which they can't email, post to facebook or do anything that they want to do with them.

The world changes. Film photography for the masses is dead. There will always be those who like the process, and it will continue for at least a while. Stock up on film just to be sure.

[BrianShaw]

(The) best idea in this thread is the most sensible: go out, shoot film where people can see you, and talk to them about it. Combine with my idea, have fun doing it. Infectious fun, even!

That's all we can do, really. Go out and have fun with our cameras, and talk to people.

I've been doing that for years. It isn't difficult, and can be fun. There are some people who will be genuinely interested. Some are learning about film for the first time; others consider it nostolagic talk. At times, it can be frustrating. Some will try to "talk you out of it"; others will go out of their way to show disinterest/distain. In my experience the number of "converts" has been zero (0). But that is no reason not to keep shooting film, or being visible while shooting film, or explaining why we still shoot film if asked. Who knows... something good could come out of it. For me it was a free Nikon, which became one of my favorite daily shooters.

[BrianShaw]

If medical radiology went all digital, do you think that there would be any LF film at all?

... and then there are Kodak's other major customers. I once heard that one of Kodak's major customers was archiving digital images on film. Lots of digital images, and lots of film. I don't know if that has changed or not, but imagine the fallout if it did/does. Consumer sales are rarely what fiancially props up big companies like Kodak.

Maintaining, just like establishing, an industrial base capability is very costly. Millions are invested toward those ends and often it is a fruitless investment.

But that's no reason for us consumers to stop buying, etc, etc.

[John Kasaian]

I ran this by a computer prof at the local junior college last night at a Boy Scout meeting. He said that talking someone into going back to film would be like talking someone into using corn cobs instead of toilet paper.

I think film has become and will safely remain a niche market for LF but that doesn't answer the Kodak guy's question. As others point out the Holga/Lomo fad is just that, a fad and like all fads will eventually go out of style.
What makes film worthwhile & fun? The hands-on creative process and it's results. The difference is not unlike the difference between landing a 747 in LAX and landing a Super Cub on 300' of rock beach in the middle of Nowhere, Alaska. A 747 is a technological wonder while a Super Cub is a rag wing taildragging throwback to the 1930s. Mastery of either aircraft is a point of pride and not for the faint hearted and each aircraft offer unique advantages over the other.

I can, if the situation dictates, coat paper or glass and make my own media for negatives & prints---much like a Super Cub driver "makes" his own airport out of a stretch of beach. OTOH, the digital point and shoot my bride bought me can produce and deliver good images faster than I can fathom but when I use it I have to rely on computers and batteries and printers or I have nothing to show for my effort (effort-less-ness?) Just as the pilot of a 747 must rely on a large army of technicians to keep the aircraft, coommunications, navigational systems and ground support infrastructure working or the ship won't be able to move an inch off the apron, much less fly anywhere.
Film is somewhere in between, I think.

[BrianShaw]

He said that talking someone into going back to film would be like talking someone into using corn cobs instead of toilet paper.


That's hilarious... May I please re-use that analogy?

[cowanw]

Of course, there are millions of people using both technologies. In the middle of the Yucatan, It may be important to have knoeledge of all technologies. By the way you use the leafs.

[Drew Wiley]

John - it would be confrontational, but you could invite that JC dude's students to a BBQ
to compare their digital shots, or even his, with some LF work of your own. It would be an
eye opener. It's exactly this kind of neo-Nazi "latest is greatest" religion, constantly fueled by the commercial motives of the electronics industry which sustains ignorance at this level. I'm sure grateful that my parents let me take my own path and study all kinds of
things, practical or not.

[Sal Santamaura]

...What would happen if Kodak stopped making film?...the Kodak Coating Alleys would be sold to the highest bidder and making film of questionable quality...When (not if) Kodak stops making film, the highest bidder for its coating equipment will be a scrap dealer. Kodak has stretched humankind's ability to eek profitability out of a massively oversized (relative to market for the product it produces) manufacturing configuration to and beyond the limit. There will be no bidders who want to join in that fun. Just those who will dismantle things and recycle them.

The only open question is when "when" will be. This post


http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1367632

might offer some insight.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't worry, Sal, the recycler would have to wait in line behind all the trucks disposing of
obsolete digital imaging equipments - trainloads of cell phone and desktop printers. There
are a couple of those outfits right down the road from here, probably shipping the stuff
illegally to China (it's allegedly a mob-controlled activity). Stolen copper pipe & wire, and
outdated electronics - that's what "recycling" is all about nowadays. Doubt they'd even
be interested in coating machines.

[John Kasaian]

That's hilarious... May I please re-use that analogy?
Be my guest.

[John Kasaian]

John - it would be confrontational, but you could invite that JC dude's students to a BBQ
to compare their digital shots, or even his, with some LF work of your own. It would be an
eye opener. It's exactly this kind of neo-Nazi "latest is greatest" religion, constantly fueled by the commercial motives of the electronics industry which sustains ignorance at this level. I'm sure grateful that my parents let me take my own path and study all kinds of
things, practical or not.

I do plan of showing him some 8x10 contacts, and they'll knock his socks off.

[Dan Fromm]

I do plan of showing him some 8x10 contacts, and they'll knock his socks off.

And if he doesn't wear socks?

Dan "live by the metaphor, die by the metaphor" Fromm

[Jay DeFehr]

When it comes to choosing between film and digital, and let's be honest, for most people, film never enters their minds as a viable option to digital, it's not about results, and despite what is often claimed, it's not even about instant gratification -- Polaroid died in the digital age, too -- it's about sharing. This also explains why so many prefer their phones to dedicated cameras. With a smart phone a user is never more than a few gestures away from sharing an image, or video, with the world. It's not useful to think about process, or results, because there is essentially no digital process, and results only need to meet expectations, and those expectations include instant sharing. An image un-shared is a non-image, or at best, a potential image. Any strategy for promoting imaging of any kind that doesn't make image sharing a primary consideration will fail. This is why it doesn't matter what a contact print looks like compared to an ink jet print, or any other comparison of prints. If what you're promoting can't be seen on a monitor, your promotion will fail. This might sound more narrow than I mean it. A description of an experience can be read on a monitor, as in a blog about WPC, etc., etc., but the images that accompany the writing are what matter most. WPC is one of the processes that translate to the monitor very well. By that I don't mean that a screen image looks very close to an Ambrotype, I mean that screen images of WPC work look substantially different from screen images of images made in other processes, including digital images.
The point is that a person is far more likely to become interested in WPC by seeing screen images than by seeing actual Ambrotypes or tintypes, because of the disparity in the ease in which the two types of images can be shared. This is why I think an iScanner app would do more to promote film use than anything else mentioned in this thread. Promote the easy sharing of film-made images, and the rest will take care of itself.

[Brian Ellis]

John - it would be confrontational, but you could invite that JC dude's students to a BBQ
to compare their digital shots, or even his, with some LF work of your own. It would be an
eye opener. It's exactly this kind of neo-Nazi "latest is greatest" religion, constantly fueled by the commercial motives of the electronics industry which sustains ignorance at this level. I'm sure grateful that my parents let me take my own path and study all kinds of
things, practical or not.

I don't think John's eyes would be opened by seeing how well the professor's digital photographs compared to his own. John already seems pretty knowledgeable about digital work.

[Drew Wiley]

As usual, you got it backwards, Brian. Anyway ... I'd just like to take even a 20X24 Ciba
I made back in my beginner days in a bathroom dkrm made from a highly grainy 4x5 Agfachrome which went out of production half a century ago and have that JC dude compare it to ANY digital color print made today. .. But who cares ... two years from now
everyone's cell phone camera will be in the trash and they'll all want the latest Dick Tracy
Secret Decoder Ring gadget that will do everything including launch cruise missles.

[Kodachrome25]

I ran this by a computer prof at the local junior college last night at a Boy Scout meeting. He said that talking someone into going back to film would be like talking someone into using corn cobs instead of toilet paper.

Obviously he is speaking from experience...

Seriously, that is like asking Marvin Odum when Shell Oil is going to just sell nothing but solar panels. And it does not always have to mean someone going back to film, it could and should be the potential new film user.

I, on the other hand, asked this same question last night of a photographer (http://www.arno-rafael-minkkinen.com/) who gave a presentation of his work who is teaching a workshop locally, his answer was sincere, well thought out and had nothing to do with what was up his you know what. He finds that a lot of people, including young, are just straight up sick of the hype, the computer and the internet noise, so they take a workshop, get out of the rut they might be in and embark on a new journey.

And I am not the "Kodak Guy" by the way, I use Ilford, Rollei and some Fuji. I am a full time professional photographer who is sick of both piss poor crotchety attitudes from film based photographers who are bitter and web born fallacies and I am trying to do something about it.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno ... two nites ago PBS ran a ten minute segment on their primetime news of the
"hottest thing" in the DC area art venue. Hundred year-old gal still using a hundred year-old 8x10 mahog stand camera w/o tilts, and a brassy big tube lens. Contact prints, with
recent portrait commissions of famous people as well as stuff going clear back. Sorry but I didn't get the name - was catching snatches of it while helping the wife cook. Heck, even
a Deardorff would have been an unnecessary innovation to her.

[Brian Ellis]

As usual, you got it backwards, Brian. . . .

As usual, you missed the joke Drew.

[Sal Santamaura]

I am a full time professional photographer who is sick of...piss poor crotchety attitudes from film based photographers who are bitter...I decided after dipping my toe into photography that it would not be wise to spoil an extremely enjoyable hobby by making it a job. Recently retired after 36 years as an electrical engineer in a non-photographic industry, I'm doing my best to reap pleasure from the hobby and not be crotchety about digital, despite it having sprung from those of my ilk. I do have a digital camera, but it's only used for snapshots and to illustrate the occasional magazine article my wife writes for specialty publications. Their editors begged for files rather than transparencies; at the time a Canon G9 was cheaper than a scanner that would do my 4x5s justice.

Perhaps I sometime succumb to temptation and post in threads like this because, despite that old admonition to "say nothing if you've nothing nice to say," reality always triumphs and I feel compelled to give it voice. My advice to "throw in" with Ilford is a sincere suggestion based on what seems to be film's best hope for the longest. It's not bitter at all; it is instead intended to promote film use in a way that might, just might, make that privately-held company successful enough to last beyond its site lease.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Brian ... I suspected you were being ironic, but had to cast the fishing line anyway ...

[Kodachrome25]

Sal, I hear ya sir, really. I simply send scans to the magazines if I want to work with film, they often cover the price of the material which is almost always less than $100, being more selective in how I shoot.

I used to be the crotchety guy, but started using digital in 94 and think it is incredible now. Ilford is obviously the act to follow for the sake of long term, but I am always of the belief that as long it is on the menu, spread the word. The situation at Kodak is like treating a cancer patient...

You know it could turn out for the worst, but you don't stop living for today and look forward to a tomorrow, those who fight the good fight always win something...

[John Kasaian]

I dunno ... two nites ago PBS ran a ten minute segment on their primetime news of the
"hottest thing" in the DC area art venue. Hundred year-old gal still using a hundred year-old 8x10 mahog stand camera w/o tilts, and a brassy big tube lens. Contact prints, with
recent portrait commissions of famous people as well as stuff going clear back. Sorry but I didn't get the name - was catching snatches of it while helping the wife cook. Heck, even
a Deardorff would have been an unnecessary innovation to her.

A gal in my town had a booming portrait biz with just such a camera. She made platinum prints and put examples of kid portraits in the high end frock shops with cards saying how special as well as archival her platinum prints were. Well-heeled moms beat a path to her door withLittle Max and Muffy in tow. She did so well she could afford to move her schtick to a better climate:cool:

[BrianShaw]

I saw that article (one like it) on PBS, but it was a long time ago... like when she was 90. Nice to hear that she is still active.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, that same camera and lens were no doubt well used and somewhat technically obsolete when she bought them at the start of her career. Nice to know that lovely images
are still appreciated by those able to pay for them, and who don't have an obsession with
neo-technology. Often around here it's the techie engineers who give me compliments for sticking with LF film - they know the difference.

[adam satushek]

The situation at Kodak is like treating a cancer patient...

You know it could turn out for the worst, but you don't stop living for today and look forward to a tomorrow, those who fight the good fight always win something...

I certianly hope this is the case...that there is still hope for Kodak. While I understand why people might prefer Ilford and throw their cards in that ring I personally cannot as I am a color shooter. Hopefully Fuji would start bringing c-41 sheet film to the states if the unthinkable happened to Kodak...but have no idea. I am afraid that color neg sheet film is in the greatest danger of demise...i really don't want to have to resort to shooting tri-neg black and white composites to make large format color images...

As far as finding new users of film, I think its a great idea, but I have a feeling that most who pick up film now days are interested in shooting black and white as it is a very different process and can give very different results than digital. I doubt that even a huge resurgence in black and white film sales would help insure the future of c-41 film....

woe is me...

...sorry just complaining, and wildly speculating

[Drew Wiley]

Unless you go back to the days of the box Brownie or Hawkeye, the whole amateur mkt revolved around rapid obsolescense just like it does now in electronics. You just HAD to have some allegedly new film tweak (or relabel) in the endless wars between Fuji, Kodak,
and sometimes Agfa too; and every time you turned around, there was a new model of
35mm camera out with some silly new gadget or program in it. The good new for us is that
by ending much of the redundancy and concentrating on a limited number of really good
pro films, this greatly increases the odds of those particular films surviving profitably to the
mfg. But the long-term appeal of film is really from a quality standpoint, for those who
appreciate hands-on technique, or hopefully, for those of the next generation who will
simply rebel from the monotony of the status-quo.

[cowanw]

That would be Editta Sherman
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172822/Editta-Sherman-Photographer-stars-celebrates-100th-birthday-images-old-Hollywood.html
http://www.theawl.com/2012/07/photographer-editta-sherman
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/the-duchess-of-carnegie-hall-turns-100/
http://solikefashion.blogspot.ca/2012/06/bill-cunningham-i-love-you.html

[John Kasaian]

And I am not the "Kodak Guy" ...
And all this time I thought you worked for the Great Yellow Father in Rochester:rolleyes:

[Kodachrome25]

And all this time I thought you worked for the Great Yellow Father in Rochester:rolleyes:

No, I am just trying to lend a hand to the entire industry, it's not only Kodak that benefits from the promotion of film use. I have gotten a few good ideas lately from people in private. So if nothing else, if weeks down the road, you have a lightbulb go on in your head, give it a shot.

Like that Gretsky quote says, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take...

[MDR]

No, I am just trying to lend a hand to the entire industry, it's not only Kodak that benefits from the promotion of film use. I have gotten a few good ideas lately from people in private. So if nothing else, if weeks down the road, you have a lightbulb go on in your head, give it a shot.

Like that Gretsky quote says, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take...

Fully agree with your assessement especially the Gretsky quote.