kodachrome marketing project

<p><strong>Hi fellow forum members, <br /> <br /> I am Subho, a member of the photo net, and an irregular user of films. <br /> <br /> I am also a Marketing MBA student, doing a project on consumer insight, this Spring semester. My team's topic is to find out the situation with film photography in general and kodachrome brand in particular. <br /> <br /> I know most of you have used / some may be still using film frequently. I have a medium format and I use film for that. However, it is infrequent. </strong><br>

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

<strong>I would like to get some feedback from you about your thoughts and comments on the future of film photography. I read that it is almost dead. But I got to figure out - how dead and is there any hope or niche segment in the market for film usage. What is the possibility of a partial kodachrome revival, for a targeted segment of the market? <br /> <br /> I would love to talk to you individually or in a small group of 3-4 people via chat or something similar on this subject. I would greatly appreciate if you can send me a PM or an email (kibipod@yahoo.com) telling me how to contact you. I will provide my phone number, if you prefer to talk. </strong><br>

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

<strong>This is a MBA course project and I am not a Kodak employee. So there is no catch, no solicitation. I am only seeking your opinion and inputs.</strong> <strong>This will be used only for academic purpose. </strong><br>

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

<b><strong> Please help. </strong> <br /> </b> </p>

<p>Film in general will live on for decades. Much of the decline is behind us. There will continue to be some product cancellations, but 35mm motion picture film is still growing. 35mm still film may end where it started--using the short ends from motion picture film.</p>

<p>Kodachrome has nine months to live. Film sensitizing was done in August of 2006. Spooling and packaging operations were done last year. Retail outlets are sold out. Some film is still available on eBay. Processing will be available through December 31. </p>

<p>The only way Kodachrome could possible survive would be for an incredibly rich eccentric person to buy the business from Kodak. There is no longer any chance that such a business could be run profitably. I believe in miracles, but I'm not optimistic enough to fantasize about the continuation of Kodachrome.</p>

<p>This topic has been covered in considerable detail in this forum. In addition, check out: <a href="http://www.randrews4.com/kodachrome.html">Kodachrome</a> and <a href="http://www.kodachromeproject.com/"><img src="http://www.kodachromeproject.com/graphics/text/kodachromep.jpg" border="0" alt="The Kodachrome Project" width="263" height="36" /></a></p>

<p>Ron;<br>

The short ends from motion picture film: How does that film compare with the current films such as e100g?</p>

<p>For one thing it is color negative. Motion picture negative films compared to still color negative films are sharper, finer grained, have more subdued colors and shorter latitude. They are also designed for process ECN-2 rather than C-41. There are some big labs in Hollywood that run this process, but not too many in Peoria.</p>

<p>Motion picture films are very different from consumer films. Dale Labs in Hollywood, Florida majored in that marketing segment for years, and I read in a P/N thread here a few months ago that they are now out of it. If they couldn't keep it profitable as well as they did it for decades, probably no one can. It's just hard to let go of this way of imaging so many of us loved, isn't it? I'm trying to move on and do the best with digital raw. To my satisfaction, it is coming closer every year.</p>

<p>So being stuck with the short ends of movie film means that there will be no place except LA to get it processed. All those Noritsu's out there can't be reprogramed, so to speak? I make pictures with color negs, but I really like slide film. If I can't get slide film, e100g in particular, I will give up photography altogether. I have had very poor results trying to get good prints from scans of either negatives or slides ( and I have a decent scanner Nikon 5000) it's too much digital fidlly stuff and you have to spend hours staring at 7@!##() monitors. I mostly simply look at the slides projected or via a hand viewer -- little image jewels! I'm off topic I guess.</p>

<p>The problem with Kodachrome in particular is that the processing is expensive and complex, and requires precise controls. There have never been more than a handful of labs in the world capable of processing Kodachrome, and there's only one now, and it will be closing soon. The fixed costs of maintaining the lab made sense only when they were amortized over a large volume of processing. That volume is no longer available.</p>

<p>C-41 color negative film is comparatively easy to process. I've done it in my kitchen sink. E-6 color slide film is also easy. These films will be around much longer. The limiting factor here is probably the expense of maintaining the equipment required to manufacture the film, not the processing.</p>

<p>Black & White film is even easier to process and easier to manufacture. I can't foresee it ever disappearing entirely, though its days as a true mass market item mostly ended with the popularity of color film, and digital drove it even further into a small niche market. But the technology is so simple that it can continue even at low volume. We can always hand-coat our own glass plates even if all of the commercial film makers go out of business.</p>

<p>I'm not so sure the motion picture industry can be counted on to keep the still photography world supplied with film indefinitely. Motion pictures are moving to digital for the same reasons as still photography, and it's only a matter of time before their economies of scale are largely reduced.</p>

<p>There was a time when there were over 50 K-14 labs around the world. IMHO, the death knell was struck in November of 1984 when Kodak reorganized and set up the processing labs as a separate business unit. They were worried about the $0.15 they lost on each roll of Kodachrome processed. The Consumer and Professional Photographic divisions were earning considerably more than that on each roll of film sold, but they weren't sharing with the processing labs. Closing the lab in Atlanta was the first domino. </p>

<p>Before C41 /1 hour prints many folks shot slides.<br>

Common 4x6 prints got easy to shoot as color print films went from a 1970's asa 125 to 200 then 400 by the later 1970's.<br>

Todays iso 800 prints films are very color tolerant.</p>

<p>Folks ( average Joe) stopped shooting slides; they got 4x6 prints c41 1 hour.<br>

My own peak slide usage was in the mid 1970's;<br>

my peak C41 1 hour was probably about 5 to 7 years ago.<br>

I first shot digital in the early 1990's; first photos I shot were in the 1950's.<br>

My grandfather shot 8x10 and contact printed from 1910 ish to the 1940's.<br>

Kodachrome was in sheet sizes until the mid/early 1950's.<br>

There was a big stink then when sheets of Kodachrome got dropped.<br>

The 1940's had Kodachrome up to 11x14 sheets.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Subho, you've got to understand, first of all, that the "Big Three" (Kodak/Fuji/Agfa) for the past decade, have done NOTHING in terms of actively promoting if not encouraging film photography in magazines, or elsewhere where it might've mattered. And you, being a student of Business must understand the power of big companies to persuade, sell, influence, and brainwash the public (market place) into believing they need to have something in order to "keep up". That being said, I myself, just got back 4 rolls of Kodachrome from Dwayne's, citiscape/architecture shots at dusk. They were fantastic - razor sharp - buildings lit up and all, vastly superior than ANY digital print in terms of clarity. But you know in our hurry-up, mass-market world of today, everybody expects results immediately. The 1 week wait it takes to develop is well worth it to me - I just look upon digital users as fools who don't know nor understand what they're missing out on - and that's precisely what Kodak & Fuji want ! So, If you want to keep film alive & well, you're going to have to go to war. Like I've said before, big oil won't tolerate a world where electric cars exist, digital technology and the interests that are connected, won't tolerate a world where film/paper/chemicals/ darkrooms exist. That's the politics of it. But film can be saved...</p>

<p>When Kodak had new products to hawk; say dry plates and new roll films; it was all about advertising. This was from 1885 to say 1910 and more too.</p>

<p>Kodachrome is a 74 year old product; folks already know about it. A million dollar advert champaign two years ago would not have saved it. You cannot even buy it at Walmart; you have to mail order it.</p>

<p>Joe Six pack's slide projector has not been used in 2 decades. Kodachromes resent sales were are a fraction of 1 percent. There is only 1 lone lab left. There is not enough sales to have Kodak support it. It is a dead product; it died because most all photographers tossed it out. The reason Kodachromes last master roll was run is most folk have moved on; there is not enough sales to support Kodachrome and the lone lab anymore.</p>

<p> Kodachrome, Ektachrome GX, Agfa RSX, and Fuji 64T are SUPERP films WORTH saving. Of course any digital user who's rods & cones have been worn & dulled by constant exposure to electronic imagry won't agree. Gather 'Round all the Carl Icahns & Richard Bransons you can find, sit them at a GIGANTIC table ( oval or round) together with leaders in the film industry - disenting Kodak & Fuji executives, that Japanese guy who heads Cosina, and of course Me, put our heads together and we'll come up with something. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I just look upon digital users as fools who don't know nor understand what they're missing out on..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's very broad-minded...I quit using Kodachrome when Kodak closed the Palo Alto processing plant and you had to send it to Dallas...and Fairlawn was far worse than Dallas for quality control - scratches, water spots, finger prints, dirt, etc. You can claim Kodachrome is some magical photo product - it is not. I started using it in 1965 and switched to E6 films in 80's and never looked back. When I do use film it is rarely with miniature cameras which are required (today) for Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Statements like yours are laughable...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve,<br>

But you cannot argue with the archival quality of properly stored Kodachromes. Kodachromes a relative took in Europe right after the Second World War look like they were taken last week, not 50 years ago. Non-Kodachrome transparencies from that era (Agfa, Ansco, Dufaycolor) are unviewable.</p>

<p>Subho,<br>

I think film will remain around indefinitely, but more as a niche market. I switched primarily to colour print films in the 1990s to take advantage of the greater exposure latitude. Now I hedge my bets by having a CD burned at the time of processing. I do have about 25 rolls of in-date K-64 sitting in my freezer, which I will shoot and get off to Dwayne's before the curtain comes down on 12/31/10.<br>

I will continue to shoot film, but am now branching out to digital, which my wife has been heavily into for the last 10 years.</p>

<p>Kodachrome is historically a very important film, but it is dying/dead because most users have found E6 films can replace it (and might even be better) and E6 processing is easier.</p>

<p>Digital photography has also impacted it both directly (people no longer using film) and indirectly as Kodachrome is harder to scan successfully than E6 films. So even those who wanted to keep using film find E6 superior when using digital printing. In addition to this, its parent company has no more interest in the product and sees no future in it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If I can't get slide film, e100g in particular, I will give up photography altogether</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bruce: I can only say that in this case you cannot like photography all that much, so perhaps it is best.</p>

<p><strong>Thank you guys, so far, for your inputs. My team is analyzing the preliminary feedbacks from you and some other folks from other sources. My team is preparing a survey based on your inputs. We will use the survey response for our quantitative analysis. </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>Again, this is a marketing MBA project. So my team does not have to come up with a super positive result i.e. profitable brand revival. We are trying to figure out what is important to consumers (you) and if we can add those attributes to kodachrome (hypothetically), will it revive and to what extent?</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>I am sending some PMs requesting you to take part in the survey. So far, you guys have been very helpful, and I am hoping to get more support from you in the form of survey response for this particular project. </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>Cheers......</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>Subho</strong></p>

<p>E-6 films' color pallettes have certainly been more pleasing than Kodachrome's, which I admit, can be just plain blah. But inless you're shooting flower beds, which Velvia or discontinued GX render superbly, many outdoor scenes simply don't need the high-sat.s they give, but instead, the sharpness and contrast (hyper-contrast if you use a polarizer) that big K gives - architecture, buildings, bridges, etc. </p>

<p>Kodachrome became the professional standard for stock photographers shooting for magazines like National Geographic not only because it had the most accurate color of it's day, but also because optical color separation was the order of the day and transparency films were the original reference.<br>

Scitex workstations and other early digital scanning processes still standardized around the optical regime of transparency but by the early 90's other E6 films and C41 had superior color response v. Kodachrome. The inconsistency in processing in the early 90's under the Qualex regime, was what broke the near monopoly of Kodachrome, and set the stage for Fujichrome's ascendency.<br>

Too, E6 films last longer when projected, and color negative film is now superior to transparency in almost every metric besides archival dark storage. That transparency films still persist has much to do with the the long tail of embedded processes (printing from Ilfochrome, being one such example).</p>

'Still waiten to hear from you, Subho...

<p>Dear Subho,<br>

Kodachrome and the future of film photography are two completely different topics, and they are <strong>not related</strong> to each other.<br>

Kodachrome: The main reason for the stop of Kodachrome production ist that E6 films surpassed Kodachrome in most relevant parameters. E6 films deliver much finer grain, higher resolution (yes, indeed, I have tested it), often more natural (E100G, Astia, Sensia, Provia) colors, or much more saturated colors (Velvia, E100VS), much easier developing process and color stability when projected.<br>

I have shot lots of Kodachrome 20 years ago and then switched to E6 films. My Kodachromes, which were regularly projected, have the most faded colors, whereas E6 slides with the same age are looking perfect, especially the Fujis.<br>

So better E6 technology is the main reason for the end of Kodachrome.</p>

<p><strong>The future of film: </strong>Film is <strong>not</strong> almost dead.<br>

- during the last 4 years every film and photopaper manufacturer has introduced new and / or improved films; there is a lot of R&D in this industry<br>

- There are lots of film manufacturers worldwide: Kodak, Fuji, Agfa-Gevaert, Lucky, Ilford, Foma, Fotokemika, Filmotec, InovisCoat,Tasma, Era, Shanghai. With InovisCoat(<a href="http://www.inoviscoat.de">www.inoviscoat.de</a>) there is even a complete new, modern film and paper plant, recently build in 2008/2009.<br>

- do you know the most succesful company in the whole photo industry (both digital and film)? It is the Lomographic Society in Vienna (<a href="http://www.lomography.com">www.lomography.com</a>).<br>

They are a film only company, no digital at all, and have yearly growth rates of 30-50%! They have created a mass market for experimental and snapshot film based photography with so far over 1 Million Lomo photographers worldwide. Every 3 months they are opening a new big gallery store worldwide. The last ones in London, Rio de Janeiro, Berlin and Los Angeles.<br>

They are an example for an extremely succesful marketing strategy.<br>

And that is exactly the problem with Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma etc. They don't have marketing strategies for photo film at all. It is a real shame, that companies with thousands of employees working in film business like Kodak, Fuji, Agfa-Gevaert are not able to do efficient marketing, whereas a small company like the Lomographic Society with about 160 people is able to do extremely efficient marketing worldwide, especially via internet.<br>

- look at the "I shoot film" group at flickr. Every day dozens of film photographers are signing in, most of them young people. Lots of them have begun with digital and are now interested in film photography<br>

- 30 years ago Super 8 small film was considered to be killed by viedeo. And Super 8 ist still alife and well. The film choices in this format are even more widespread today compared to Super 8 boom in the seventeens.<br>

Kodak has recently invested in Super 8 production and is still producing millions of feets of this film format on a daily basis. Here is a very interesting report about it:<br>

<a href="http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/info/kodak/kodak-de.php">http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/info/kodak/kodak-de.php</a> german version<br>

<a href="http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/info/kodak/kodak-en.php">http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/info/kodak/kodak-en.php</a> english version</p>

<p>The market for photo film has always been much, much bigger than the market for Super 8 film. And 30 years after the introduction of video Super 8 film is still produced in large quantities. The lifespan of photo film will be much longer because of the much bigger market.<br>

- film is unsurpassed for long term storage (pictures, documents, movie film). All digital made Hollywood films (the majority is still shot on film because of better image quality) are exposed on special archiving film for long term archiving. Because this method is much more safe and much cheaper than digital long term storage</p>

<p>Film will be there for many decades to come.</p>

<p> I have never seen a scan of Kodachrome from the original 1935-1938 product. Either it was quite rare or the image stability was poor. Starting with the selective re-exposure process introduced in 1938, the dark keeping stability has been outstanding. I have examples in the family archives from this era and many examples survived until scanners were invented (<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/earlykodachromeimages/Home">link</a>). In these days, the image stability was miles ahead of the competition. When the Process E-6 was introduced in 1975, the image stability of Ektachrome took a great leap forward, but it still was inferior to Kodachrome. In more recent years, Ektachrome films have continued to improve and have now surpassed the dark keeping of Kodachrome. This <a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_05_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf">link</a> has a wealth of details.</p>

 

<p>Folks on Photo.net are mosty artist types with little street business sense.</p>

<p>(1)One can develop E6 Ektachrome at home;</p>

<p>(2)Kodachrome only has one lab in the entire UNIVERSE; one in Kansas</p>

<p>One product can be developed in a zillion locations; another has this many million buck lab that has massive overhead.</p>

<p>Even if all E6 was dead Kodachrome would die; few folks shoot slides anymore. It is not in the DNA of most all Photo.net vistors to understand overhead, costs; insurance; maintaining a dying weird expensive process like Kodachrome. There is this slacker mindset that folks want welfare; ie for others to support a dead lossy project. If Kodak was the *ONLY* film maker; it could still support Kodachrome via jacking up prices on all other film products; but that just puts off the killing of Kodachrome; plus it kills off film faster; ie more folks will go digital.</p>

<p>In the old pre digital days Kodak had more cash flow to support bastard obsolete films and formats. ie we had 4x5 film pack in the 1970's; 616 films; 828 Kodachrome; 9.5cm Kodachrome cine.</p>

<p> Today there is less cash flow to do the welfare gambit; ie supporting weird formats and processes.</p>

<p>The average person in the USA who has a 35mm camera has not shot a roll of slide film in 2 decades; in either E6 or Kodachrome. Even 10 years ago a friend who had a camera/lab store developed many hundreds of rolls C41 35mm each week; and got a few rolls of Kodachrome to send off.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>film is unsurpassed for long term storage (pictures, documents, movie film).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a statement frequently made, but is it actually true? The era of digital imaging for the masses is in its infancy, so how will we know whether digital has inferior long term storage? I suggest that any photo archive worth its salt will make it their business to maintain their digital images and given this, your "historical" statement may not be true.</p>

<p>Dear Robin,<br>

yes, it is true. That is the reason why all administrations (e.g. governments) and companies who really need absolutely safe and cost efficient long term storage of pictures and documents are using archiving and microfilm (on PET base). Cost efficiency is quite important, film storage needs almost no maintenance, whereas digital storage needs regular maintenance (continuous copying to new media and formats). From the hard ware side: There are no hard drives etc. which have a lifespan comparable to archiving film, which has a lifespan of more than 500 years.</p>

<p>From the software side: The whole business model of computer equipment relies on introducing new systems and formats permanently. And the compatability of formats over decades is a real problem. Even if you get it managed, it will cost a lot, because continuous maintenance over decades is necessary.</p>

<p>The Hollwood studios, which archive their digital productions on film, say that long term film storage is 5x - 10x cheaper than digital storage.</p>