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

<blockquote>

<p>I ca not define who the market is...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a problem then. Well at least I'm helping you narrow it down. I will check out that Kodak Facebook page you mentioned and see if there is anything worthwhile there. Heck I might find some new uses for film for myself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And as for Holga / Lomo, I can not for the life of me figure out why so much I'll will is flung at this fun and creative sector of the film movement other than the old farts on here feel like is mocking the precision of their tools and methods.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you see this quote from this forum... "<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00abV7?start=50">It's interesting that this type of discussion never occurs in the amateur/professional astronomy community.</a>" If a piece of equipment is overpriced junk it is overpriced junk. No need to go on a religious jihad about it. <a href="http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/camera-best-sellers/la-sardina-camera-and-flash-splendour">$200 for a crappy range finder with a cheap lens with ONE fixed aperture (f/8)</a>?! I can buy a semipro film SLR off of eBay with a NEW tack sharp 50mm prime for a fraction of the cost of this piece of garbage. If this is the type of business you want to get into no thanks. I have ethics. If I recommend something to someone I want them to come back and thank me not accuse me of being a fraud. A nice and very reasonably priced film SLR like the Canon Elan 7NE is a great introduction to film for amateurs. They have on board metering and automatic exposure as well as automatic settings for portraiture, sports, landscapes, etc. Of course if they want the lomo experience they can just set the camera on F/8 and smear some Vaseline on the lens. Why would you pay MORE money for a crappier camera that is a one trick pony?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tough turnip guys, there have always been varying levels of tools out there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice strawman. Who said there aren't "varying levels of tools?" My question is why would you pay MORE for an inferior tool? For someone that is interested in marketing film you are missing the biggest recent positive development in the film world... the excellent equipment is dirt cheap!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For example, it was ok for commercial photographers to pull in over million a year, some might say that souping a great negative film in E6 is promoting junk photography, they would be wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who said anything about cross processing? Have you ever cross processed? You end up making certain image quality compromises when you cross process... which is why I start off with a precisely exposed tack sharp transparency. Please show me the rule that says you must use an over priced crappy hipster camera to get beautiful cross processed images?</p>

<p>You need to learn about marketing. True marketers run the scam on other people. They don't fall for the scam. Lomography is about lining the pocket of some smart entrepreneurs. It is not about the longevity of film. It is about teaching people film is low resolution, unpredictable, expensive, and cumbersome. For someone that is interested in dispelling myths about film you have fallen in with the biggest liars in the industry.</p>

<p>Thats it. There's a new generation of myths. Digital compared to Lomo, which one looks better to you? Lomo is the best thing to happen to digital.</p>

 

 

<p>>>><em>Incredible how the term "Mass Market" and "Those Days Are Gone" keep coming up over and over again. The mass market is not what I am talking about guys.</em><<<</p>

<p>You're whole discussion was about educating the masses and how any big film production discontinuance would be a disaster and how a broad approach was needed...</p>

<p><em>"how </em><strong><em>Kodak</em></strong><em> must feel... ...you DO know who </em><strong><em>Kodak</em></strong><em> is, do you not? </em><strong><em>Kodak</em></strong><em> is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who </em><strong><em>Kodak</em></strong><em> is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of </em><strong><em>the brand that is Kodak.</em></strong><em> Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer... ...</em><strong><em>If Kodak were to stop selling film</em></strong><em> and no one took it over, I think </em><strong><em>it would be very, very bad</em></strong><em>... ...I can not tell you how many </em><strong><em>people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film</em></strong><em>... ...That's right, </em><strong><em>one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public</em></strong><em>. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak.. ...t</em><strong><em>his is a bad, BAD pattern</em></strong><em> folks. Because </em><strong><em>what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be... ... the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market</em></strong><em> 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... ...</em><strong><em>I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market</em></strong><em> to the potential film user... ...Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of </em><strong><em>an ad campaign</em></strong><em> that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like </em><strong><em>that can go viral real quick</em></strong><em>...</em></p>

 

 

<p><em> </em><br>

<em>they need to know who their market is, now, in 2012... ...</em><strong><em>Kodak wants to market... ...we have to meet them half way and try real hard to put out the fire that is the publics misconception</em></strong><em> that film is gone entirely... </em></p>

<p><strong><em>I am looking for a more broad approach.</em></strong>"<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em><br /></em></strong>Even if you desire mass or broad marketing to appeal to a niche market (which makes little sense), its very difficult to help you when the criteria of what you seek is so unclear or changing.</p>

 

 

 

Ok, let me re-think this a bit and see if I can not come up with a more understandable request...

I need to take a break from it today and get my full frame 4x5 neg carrier built...

<p>Got in on this late but informed photographers know what is going on and know who Ilford is, etc. It is the know-nothing masses who would be dumb enough to believe all film has come to an end because Kodak goes out of business or quits making Kodachrome. These same know-nothing masses don't know Ilford, etc., even exists.</p>

<p>Next, to promote film use I'm going to have to have to open a g-mail account named "Film pimp".</p>

<p>Tom, you're going to want to go around shooting with a gold-plated, jewel-encrusted Russian Leica copy. :-)</p>

<p>Anyway, I found this over at another site:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding consumer films, she said that they are considering restructuring<br /> a new approach aimed at producing these at a reasonable cost in much<br /> smaller volumes than in the past... She said that basically, as long as they had sufficient orders for<br /> a minimum of a single master roll "54 inches (almost 1-1/2 meters) wide by<br /> whatever length - no minimum stated", they would consider examining<br /> production in terms of the economics involved... She<br /> added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of<br /> the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=55564</p>

<p>What's interesting for me is not the Kodachrome comment (who's going to develop it, anyway?) but the fact that they can make customized batches in small quantities. That makes possible movie film without Remjet.</p>

<p>The Lomography Society seems to me like they do a good job of promoting film. I'm always interested in looking at their website to see what's up, plus it's nice to see a website that's optimistic about film. The Lomography Society though promotes a certain kind of film photography, rather than film photography in general, and that's fine - more power to them. The other downside of the society is that the products and services they sell in general seem very overpriced to me. </p>

<p>First, many of the cameras they sell are basically plastic toys yet they sell for at least $30. If that's what you want, that's fine. But to promote film to new users, they should know that these days you can find a very nice 35mm SLR and lens at KEH with a warranty for less than that, and it will deliver quality photos.</p>

<p>Second, the film the society sells is very expensive compared to what you can buy for general purposes most anywhere else. WalMart still sells 4 rolls of Fuji in a box for $6.94 at my local WalMart. Why pay $30 for something of similar or less quality from the Lomography Society, unless you just want to, and if so that's fine. But people should know they don't have to pay that much for film.</p>

<p>Finally, on their website the Lomography Society promotes their own film processing service. It's great they are offering the service, but in my opinion the cost is high. People should know there are other options for film processing that cost less.</p>

<p>So I guess what I'm saying is maybe we need a commercial organization somewhat like the Lomography Society but that promotes film to a broader market. Blogs and user groups are fine, but we need an organization that can DRIVE film and chemical production rather than just be a consumer of those goods and services.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm in my late 50's and the only ones I've been able to convince to shoot some film are the ones who have experienced a major loss of digital data that was not backed up (like 90% of digital files).Our IT group at work are my best allies with their 'war stories' about the downside of our brave new world.Face it when the vast majority start to really believe a download from a smartphone camera is as awesome as it gets we know we are in big trouble.Kodak already burst my bubble when they pulled E6 and after Fuji does likewise I'll probably shoot digital too.I'll save the B&W for the important stuff.</p>

<p>I just read your post William Y about lomo films. I shoot them. Actually I shot one roll one time and was happy with it so I did purchase their redscale, 100 and 400 speed films. Yes they are pricey as you mentioned, but i was told, at one of the photo places I frequent, that , in August, their prices on their stock of fuji/kodak film is going up %15 in price so those films will probably be more expensive then lomo film.</p>

<p>Postscript: If film were coated on a polyester base instead of gelatin, you'd gain maybe 40% in the number of frames you can fit in a given space. That means up to 50 frames in a 135 cassette. That is worth considering.</p>

<p>William, I didn't know about the Lomography Society. It sounds like a good thing. I agree that their stuff is too expensive, though.</p>

<p>Discovered today that my local Target no longer processes film. I had not used Target before, but someone suggested they did ok. So I stopped by, asked the kid in the photo/electronics department where the dropoff box for film was. He told me it was up at Customer Service desk in the front of the store. I went up there, but didn't see any drop off box. Asked the guy at the Customer Service desk, and he told me they no longer process film.<br>

So locally, that leaves me 2 options. One is WalMart, which takes several days and no longer returns negatives. The other is Walgreens which does a great job, does it in one hour, but is kind of pricey.<br>

I have to wonder - how much money are these places actually saving by hatcheting the film processing? For the big stores it's usually just a box that someone collects once a week and sends off the orders off to process. How much can that cost? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If film were coated on a polyester base instead of gelatin</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It is. That and acetate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Lomography Society seems to me like they do a good job of promoting film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>William Y, what's interesting though is your post then goes on to say all the negative things The Lomography Society does. I agree that outside of academic institutions (ie community colleges, high schools, universities) The Lomography Society is the only other major driving force introducing people to film and actually getting them to buy film cameras. The problem is unlike academic institutions they are not showing people the true benefits of film in terms of sharpness, resolution, and faithful color reproduction. Like I said I feel very conflicted about those guys. On the one hand they have at least temporarily gotten more people to buy film which is good for me but I have to seriously wonder about the long term damage they are doing with their misinformation campaign.</p>

<p>Yep the Lomography Society is rather a double edged sword. On the one hand they promote film but on the other hand they don't really promote what film is really capable of, it's kind of a LoFi funky experience with them that could leave their customers looking at another medium when they need a more regular kind of result.</p>

<p>I don't see anything seriously wrong with the Lomo industry, in terms of what photography 'is' in any authentic or artful sense, or even 'can be' in terms of the limits of technical craft.</p>

<p>There is now, and has for a long time existed, a segment of the population that views the benefits of commodity fetishism above any other activity that would be more 'involved', so to speak. I may purchase a lomo camera one day and I don't expect that to determine anything more about me than the fact that I intend to also purchase the film to go in it.</p>

<p>We can also read a lot into the reasons for buying high end digital or film camera equipment and using it, conspicuously or not. Identity is important for most of us and it is only enhanced once we accept that it is multiplied (in and out) to everyone's benefit.</p>

<p>I think William Y's idea is great and it should appeal to anyone currently limited by a lomo-type awareness, as it will attract those who naturally like to 'belong' here and there. I would be among the first to join a 'World Federation of Film Photography Users'.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with lomo film or their cameras. I have a lomo action sampler. It has 4 lens on it. I purchase their film as well. I use different types of films and film cameras for different type of styles and effects. I would rather get it in camera then use any post computer production. That is why I cross process all my slide film for the unpredictable color shifts. I try and be different with my photography and when I do art shows, I want to stand out in that respect. I was at an art show 2 years ago. The artists was primarily a painter. He was displaying expired refridgerated polaroid film he shot. He then scanned it on his printer and printed to poster size. No post production. I was blown away at the results he achieved.</p>

<p> A podcast dedicated to film. <a href="http://filmphotographyproject.com/">http://filmphotographyproject.com/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>ross b, try Sam's Club. They develop in house at your local Sam's club so take in a few "test" rolls first to see if they know what they are doing at your location. It's a $1.50 for one roll. They do NOT do medium format. That's what I used to use Wally World for. And I assume Wally World still sends back transparencies... since they are not negatives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would give Sam's Club a try I suppose but I do not think they are on the West Coast. Definately not in my area. Right now what I do have is Target in town, we have a Cost Co in the next town over but they quit on film which was a huge loss for me. About 60 miles from the house is a pro lab and they do a great job but it's just to far to go. Wall Mart is not an option as I will not set foot in that awful place. Luckily we do not have a WallMart anyway</p>

<p> I dropped off a roll of film at Target this morning for processing. They are still processing film anyway. The last place in the county. I just scan at home on my Plustek. I think it is worth it for them as I then went over and bought some Old Fashioned Oatmeal and milk for breakfast. If it was not for the film I would have just had a piece of toast for breakfast and they would have sold me nothing at all. Usually I buy Oatmeal at CostCo as the place is awesome and they say it's a left wing business. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing wrong with lomo film or their cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is something unethical about selling a <a href="http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/camera-best-sellers/la-sardina-camera-and-flash-splendour?clickid=0004c559ec8908490ae08917cd570c90">$200 fixed aperture rangefinder</a> with a crappy lens to amateurs that don't know any better. Not sure how that is even a discussion let alone an argument.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use different types of films and film cameras for different type of styles and effects.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good for you. Most consumers don't own a film camera. And of the few who do they don't have multiple cameras for multiple purposes. Selling someone an overpriced specialty niche camera as their first general purpose film camera is unethical. It's not illegal... but it is unethical. I cross process... I would never advise someone to go on vacation with their children and record all the memories on transparency film and then cross process.</p>

<p>People need to stop looking at this from the perspective of their own niche passion and think about the target market and the longevity of film. Leaving consumers with the impression that film is just about overpriced cameras and film, blurry low fi images, funky color shifts, and tons of light leaks definitely causes harm. It serves to reinforce tons of myths that are already floating around the internet.</p>

<p>I've seen some cool images taken with a lensbaby... I would not recommend it as someones first lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I may purchase a lomo camera one day and I don't expect that to determine anything more about me than the fact that I intend to also purchase the film to go in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you purchase the <a href="http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/camera-best-sellers/la-sardina-camera-and-flash-splendour?clickid=0004c559ec8908490ae08917cd570c90">$200 crappy rangefinder</a> I pointed out what it would indicate is you don't know how to use ebay or contact a used camera store. Or it could simply mean you care more about being a fashion plate than taking great pictures.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00abV7?start=50">It's interesting that this type of discussion never occurs in the amateur/professional astronomy community.</a><br>

-<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love this quote. It sums this forum up perfectly. You show people how they can get a camera that is easier to use, takes better pictures, and COSTS LESS and you get back some metaphysical treatise saying why you are 100% wrong. A camera is just a tool. You can discuss tools objectively. Art comes from within an artist not a camera. Using a cheaper sharper lens will not render you incapable of producing art. Some images call for a little soft focus and/or blur, but that does not mean you have to have softness and blur in EVERY picture in order to be an artist. Between Lomo on the "low" end and Instagram on the expensive iphone 4s end we are going to be inundated with all sorts of kitsch "art" for years to come. The judicious use of SOME Lomo cameras or Instagram here and there can have some interesting results but using either for EVERY SINGLE shot for months and months at a time is nauseating... particularly in the hands of inexperienced amateurs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I dropped off a roll of film at Target this morning for processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lucky you. None of the Target's near me have photo processing. I was getting desperate when I discovered Sam's Club and the Walmart send out service. I hope Sam's Club continues processing. But I still need to find a medium format color print film option. I wonder if Walmart's no negatives policy extends to medium format?</p>

<p>Hey Jeff. If someone is willing to pay that amount of money then there is a market for that. I think it is unethical to sell someone a digital camera when the camera will be obsolete in less then a year as well as the comoputer and software to go with it. And if they drop it it then they are really out some big money. I also think it is unethical to sell a medium format digital camera for close to $45, ooo dollars as well but I have not heard anyone say that was unethical . I saw a digital hasselblad. It looks like a box attached to a flash bracket. Again if you drop it you you are out a mortgage payment.</p>

<p> Well for me Target is the last man standing. When they quit on me then I have no place to go. I suppose I could develop the film myself or take the DSLR out of mothballs and shoot that. I suppose I will just have to wait until then and see what happens. I tried mail order and I cannot handle it when they lose the film. I am not mailing stuff anywhere again. </p>

<p>Hey Ross. Sam's club is owned by Walmart.</p>

<p>I have slogged my way through this ten page thread but haven't found a single post which clearly reads that prints from film are superior to digital prints. They are superior, for two very simple, objective reasons.</p>

<p>First, digital enlargements, especially those with large enlargement factors, stink. Digital enlargements display the pixels as little boxes but enlargements from film negatives might, at worst, be grainy. As you go from 1:1 to more and more enlargement from digital sources, you go from excellent resolution to little pixel boxes, with nothing in between. With enlargements from film, however, all that happens is that the print gets more and more grainy.</p>

<p>Remember the film "Blow-Up?" The film revolves around David Hemmings discovering what might be a murder as he blows a 35mm negative up to massive size. The plot would be nonsensical if he had used a digital camera rather than a Nikon F.</p>

<p>Second, digital prints have bad bokeh. Out-of-focus parts of the image aren't pleasing. They are based on pixels. Circle of confusion is meaningless in the digital world.</p>

<p>I'm an amateur, although I worked in a photo lab while I was in high school 45 years ago. I use a Nikon D300 for table-top photography, and Nikons F and F3HP and various 2x3 large format cameras for pleasure.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They are superior, for two very simple, objective reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You left out a word, and misspelled another...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>two very simple, <strong>incorrect, nonobjective</strong> reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There might have been a grain of truth to your comments, back in 1990. This is 2012, and you don't get the little boxes you describe unless you manage to select a "nearest neighbor" resizing algorithm, which has not been the default for many years. Any more current algorithm interpolates information, adding intermediate shades, and sometimes regenerating edges, between pixels as you enlarge. Even a simple bilinear interpolator, like Photoshop got in version 3, back in 1994, could do that. Better interpolators, like the Lanczos approximation, started appearing in university settings in the 70s, high end RIPs in the 80s, and made it into the consumer desktop with programs like Irfanview (free since 1996) Genuine Fractals (a $80 photoshop plugin, also from 1996) or Qimage (a $40 printing program from 1999).</p>

<p>(you can also add film grain, to hide the reduced edge accutance, just like real film grain does on real film when you enlarge past the resolution of the original optics that shot the picture. That's the "other" thing that happens as you enlarge film images, the thing that's more important than "the print gets more and more grainy")</p>

<p>As far as the bokeh, interpolation makes the smooth backgrounds <strong>smoother</strong>, it doesn't make them "meaningless" due to pixels. </p>

<p>Your sort of comments are what gets all film advocates branded as a bunch of loons and Luddites. By not making even the slightest bit of effort to learn what the capabilities of the equipment you're bashing actually are, it is you, not the digital image, that gets perceived as "meaningless". It only takes one or two people like you to spoil the efforts of hundreds of people who advocate film from a position of actual knowledge of the differences between film and digital.</p>