Kodak product line, Please keep the variety!

<p>I stand corrected. Hope nobody's hair set on fire because of that statement LOL!</p>

<p>For film sales the NON NICHE market of the soccer mom; Joe Six Pack; teenager; holiday/birthday picture shooter needs to be considered; since it is the LARGEST piece of the film sales pie:<br>

If one looks at the USA's largest retailer Walmart;many carry few if any 35mm cameras anymore; ie ones that are non-deposables; ie reloadable. Some have a one or two token ones on display; others one or none; some have new old stock kids bubble pack 35mm reloadables with themes; ie Hannah Montana; Spiderman.<br>

In many places in the USA there is really no "local camera store" anymore; it is now Walmart; Office Depot; Frys; Walgreens; Best Buy; Office Max; Dunder Mifflin.:).<br>

A Joe Six pack shooter who drops his trusty P&S 35mm Olympus Stylus today is hard pressed to find a local replacement. Thus it is mailorder; ebay to buy another 35mm P&S that works. Even if somebody likes film and prints; local replacements for a simple P&S are often harder and harder to find. Many folks do not use mailorder or Ebay; thus a *replacement* of a broken 35mm P&S is a digital; because that is what is only available; accept for 1 shot film cameras.</p>

 

<p>In consumer film (the non-niche market), I understand one-time-use cameras now outsell individual rolls. This will keep 800 speed film around for awhile.</p>

<p><em>"I actually play with my film cameras so that I'm not rusty at using them, but I never push the button to take a picture."</em><br>

<br /> Then why hang out in the Film Forum? Morbid Curiosity? ;) Honestly, this is akin to sitting a Jaguar E type and just turning the steering wheel in the drive way.<em> </em> Surely you can find a cheap place online to process film and then scan it. <em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Hahaha, morbid maybe, but I still like my film cameras no matter what. If I could snap my fingers and make film be popular again, I'd do it in a heartbeat. As I am typing this message, I've just put down 4 rolls of film that I shot at the family turkey dinner today. I guess I MUST get these developed. Feels good to feel the motor advance when I push the button. I'm just saying I see the writing in the wall even if others don't. I can't blame them, I'll miss it too but each year that passes, there's less and less. I'm still shooting if that make anyone happy. LOL.</p>

<p>Hi Sonja, Definitely nothing personal, and I know that your view is likely the clear majority, but I feel that people such as I must speak up, lest this becomes even more of a self-fulfilling prophecy encouraging even more people to give up on film. This, "because everyone's doing it" reasoning that so many seem to follow reminds me a lot of the seeming inherent "herd mentality" that so many humans seem to be governed by. The same thing that begets phenomenon like real estate and stock bubbles. Not quite the same, but there are some striking thinking process similarities to me, at least. I actually had a middle aged man tell me recently that he wanted badly to have taken pictures at a recent event with his older, but in fine shape, film camera, but was afraid that people would laugh at him. He seemed very encouraged to talk with someone like me, but I thought it was so sad and a sign of these strange times, and perhaps of human nature. Encouragingly, though, I've talked with more young people in their early twenties and late teens that want to use film after growing up with digital. And my early-teens nephew told me he much prefers a print in his hand to one on any sort of screen. I'm not anti-technology; for me the technology of photography lies in having just enough so that it enables me to most easily, simply, and economically pursue the craft or art. For me, that means modern films and a scanner.</p>

<p>Here's my situation: I've been in love with photography for at least a dozen years. Bought a dedicated scanner at least 7 years ago, a Nikon Coolscan IV, that still works perfectly today. Between that and a good image editor (Photoshop) and a good printer also purchased at least 6 years ago, an Epson 2200 and still in fine working order, I'm good to go. Kodak films have clearly never been better, imho, and although they've become moderately more expensive, I don't shoot so much that it is too much of a factor. Development, ditto, and I can still get very decent 35mm negative processing 7-days per, develop only w/ an index print for less than $4 w/tax. My bodies and lenses seem to be timeless relative to digital bodies, and they are well built, simple to operate, not terribly sensitive to dust, and a real pleasure to use. For flash and exposure technology, my early '90's era body has all that I need and more.</p>

<p>Someone lent me a Nikon D80 recently, I used it a bit, but it had nowhere near the appeal for me that my film bodies do, and I was turned off by the many cords, CD's to read, etc. I'm not putting it down though, as I'm sure if that's what one started out with, maybe it's great! I guess what I'm trying to say is that film is still quite viable, even preferable, for many of us. I want simplicity, not complexity and don't want to be obsessed with the technological features of my camera. As far as your shooting four rolls today, perhaps that is justified, maybe not, I can't say. What I will say, is that as I've become further experienced in photography, for any given purpose, I shoot less, not more, than I did starting out, and the percentage of "keepers" actually has gone up. If you wait for the moment, so to speak, it's a lot more economical- not everything is worth an exposure. For me at least, all factors including economics are clearly in favor of staying with film and I think my reasoning is rational, and I really hope it will be there and be affordable for us.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro photographer. And my knowledge of photography, technically and in the marketplace is incidental.<br>

I believe what would help most is more people having prints made in their neighborhood.<br>

Because for me, film is the simplest and oftentimes least expensive, workflow on my way to a print. My Nikon FE cameras and AIS optics are paid for. Long ago. Maintenance is minimal. Performance is reliable.<br>

I need to save my money for computer and software upgrades.</p>

<p>I recently made a attempt at my first autumn shoot with a loaner Canon 30D ( I know,I know, this is ancient 2006 technology)and was so ticked off with all the washed out higlights,erratic focus issues,weak and unnatural colors (required lots of time in Photoshop to correct) that I dusted off a ancient 1995 technology Canon ElanIIe (I usually shoot Canon FD,630's or a 3),loaded it with my favorite slide film (Kodak Elitechrome 100) for just a good laugh.Fantastic accurate color,focus,and acceptable highlights every time using the exact same Canon EOS prime lenses.Plus as a bonus a no brainer readable hardcopy good for 80 plus years.Please Kodak don't throw in the towel just yet.There is still hope for film and people who appreciate how good it still holds up in a digital world.I'm sure many will say learn how to use the 30D you idiot (I've been shooting digital at work for 10 years)or try a more current body ($1200 - $2800?)but the facts are as a moderate shooter I can't buy anything digital for $50 US (current value of a ElanIIe),a roll of Elitechrome ($3.75 - 36),processing ($8.00)and match this kind of quality for the money during hard times. </p>

<p>Hey Douglas V, I used to have the Elan IIe back when it came out, I loved this camera!!!!</p>

<p>Watching Kodak spin round and round is almost like playing Monopoly.</p>

<p>A cousin of mine works for Fuji and had worked previously for Kodak. He tells me that Fuji is much more aggressive in their R&D as to film than what he saw at Kodak. I've been shooting film for 45+ years but as a UPI photog in Vietnam, I would have died to have digital capture. For making deadlines in the news biz, digital cannot be beat. We shot Tri-X in the field, had to get it choppered back to the lab for processing and contact sheet printing, then wire transmission if something was really essential, otherwise the end product had to be physically couriered here and there. There was no FedEx back in 1968 after the Tet Offensive!</p>

<p>That being said, I don't think film will ever totally disappear. It will remain as a niche and may even be "rediscovered" by a generation of photographers who cut their teeth solely on digital. I chat with he minilab operator at the local Target store and he tells me he has seen no drop off in rolls of film left for processing. The big difference is that most film shooters order a CD of their film rolls.</p>

<p>I am semi-retired and still shoot film for family events and for my own personal landscape and street photography, but my wife has gone totally digital. You can't stop progress but the death of film has been greaty exaggerated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A cousin of mine works for Fuji and had worked previously for Kodak.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was this person by any chance Ken R.? If so, there is a good explanation for his observations.</p>

<p>No, not a Ken R., a Bob F., ready to retire in a year's time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Doing a better job of marketing film is difficult when you also want to market digital cameras. "When the photo really matters (showing a cute baby) Kodak film is the right choice." The people over at the Kodak digital camera division would complain that people are being told that their digital camera line is no good for important shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem for Kodak is that their digital cameras are not good for important shots - or any other shots for that matter. A couple of years ago, I bought a Kodak digital P&S as a carry-around camera, and the camera is absolute junk. It will not focus on anything, and the 'shake' warning would come on while it was on a tripod in bright light. Maybe 1 out of 10 photos were of reasonable sharpness, the rest were unusable.</p>

<p>For decades, Kodak had a reputation for making reasonably priced cameras which took photos of reasonable quality. Unfortunately, these days have passed as well.</p>

<p>I place much of the blame for this lack of quality (and the demise of film) squarely on Antonio Perez, Kodak's Chairman, whose official biography at Kodak proudly boasts that he, "has led the worldwide transformation of Kodak from a business based on film to one based primarily on digital technologies." </p>

<p>It is interesting to me that Mr. Perez has spent most of his career as an executive with HP in charge of digital imaging and inkjets - a company that is not known for producing quality products. He is someone who not only does not understand the photography business, he is likely someone who does not understand the importance of keeping a company's reputation for quality products. </p>

<p>As for me, I will continue to use Kodak films, and Kodak-branded chemicals - but as for their digital products, I will never buy a Kodak digital camera again.</p>

<p>HP has a long history of producing quality products. I'm still using the HP-11c calculator I got in 1984. Their ink jet printers may not have lived up to the standards of the rest of their products. <br>

Before I left Kodak it appeared to me that Perez was betting the rent money on the ink-jet printer strategy. We all have a stake in the success of these printers. If they fail in the marketplace, Kodak will go the route of Polaroid and we wont have any more film from them.</p>

<p>Ron, I agree on the previous quality of HP's products. I still have a 1991 HP LaserJet III in perfect working condition. The problem is that, especially over the last 10 years, HP has becme intent on selling cheap, crappy printers with expensive, small ink cartridges. In the early to mid 1990s, I spent about 200 dollars on a mid-range HP inkjet that I used before I became interested in photography. The cartridges held (IIRC) 30ml of ink for the black, and 15ml for each color, and cost about $30 for both. The newest mid-range HP inkjet costs less than half of the original printer's cost, but the ink cartridges cost the same and are only 10ml black and 5ml each color.</p>

<p>With the recent announcement about Kodak discontinuing certain b&w chemicals I decided to start stocking up. I bought 10 1-gallon packets of D-76 Replenisher for $1.20 ea. With shipping the whole lot was under $23. One packet is obviously bad because it's hard as a rock. I threw that one out. I mixed up one packet and replenished the quart of D-76 I mixed up a while ago. I developed about 15 exposures of FP-4+ 35mm, one 36 exp. roll of Tri-X, a roll of 120 Tri-X and two 220 rolls of PXP. Every roll was fine. Now if I can get a dozen 1-gallon packets of Microdol-X and a few gallons of Selectol I should be set for some time. I think the guess that E-6 film and processing will be around for the next 10-20 years is a bit optimistic. I want them to last even longer, I just don't think they will. </p>

<p>Wow, this has turned out to be quite a topic :=)</p>

<p>Nicholas,</p>

<p>The most profitable operation I can think of is at the bureau of printing and engraving where they turn high quality paper into $100 bills. The second most profitable manufacturing used to be Ektachrome sheet film that cost about $0.25 to make an 8x10 sheet that sold for $2 or $3. Clearly ink jet cartridges have surpassed this markup. They take $0.15 worth of ink and sell it for $30. The business model of the Kodak ink jet printers is to take $0.15 worth of ink and sell it for $15. </p>