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

[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.