"Kodak Bets on Film Lovers"

<p>So says the article in the Rochester newspaper:</p>

<p>http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090104/BUSINESS/901040325&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL</p>

<p>This is the first semi positive article about film coming out of Kodak through the Democrat & Chronicle in years.</p>

<p>Well, there goes my respect for the Rochester Institute of Technology. Those quotes at the end make the academics look like they're clueless. I totally disagree with their closing remarks. </p>

<blockquote>"I see film as a nonissue, pretty much," owner Richard Rowe said. "The prices continue to escalate. At a certain point in time, even the purists are going to say this is way too much of an investment."</blockquote>

<p>I'm already there - Ok, maybe a couple rolls here and there. But at $18 per 36 exp. roll for film and processing, Yikes! it ads up! $0.50 a shot with film (that's with a free camera) whereas a Mark III (300,000 clicks per body @ $8,000) is $0.03 a shot. And the Mark III has better IQ!</p>

<p>Thanks for this most informative posting. The price of 8x10 Tri-X is now about $4.20 a sheet at the cheapest. Sounds like a lot, but it means I can get about 4700. shots, far more than I will use in this lifetime, for the price of a LF digital back.</p>

<p>Wow....$18 for film and processing. I pay about $8 CAD for Reala and $3 for processing....for a total of $11. Or, I buy 100 rolls of Reala for about $200 on Ebay....giving me a total of $5 a roll for film and processing.....or about $0.13 a shot. B&W is less than half that.</p>

<p>If you're concerned about quality, then shoot MF or LF. Better quality than that MK3. And really, 300,000 frames. Did Adams or Weston even shoot that many in their lifetimes? Maybe the problem nowadays is that people are too busy spraying and praying rather than using their eyes and minds to compose a shot. Honestly, if you're capturing good photos, then the price of film is hardly a concern.</p>

<p><em>if you're capturing good photos, then the price of film is hardly a concern<br /></em><br />Well, unless price <em>is</em> a concern, right? Ever done event coverage or shot action/sports? In a competitive market? Things have changed. And it ain't 'spraying and praying' - it's action bracketing. The number of worthy exposures I can get, per dollar, goes up with a high speed digital camera and the ability to easily dismiss, in moments, the less useful shot that was a fraction of a second before or after the one that pays. "Capturing good photos" happens in a lot of different contexts, and under the influences of many different economies, markets, interests, timeframes, and workflows. </p>

<p>The cost of photography is different for each of us, but I certainly wouldn't be shooting much film if it cost me $18 for each 36 exp. roll.<br>

However, I have part of my fridge full of various types of Fujichrome that cost me between $2.00 (eBay) and $5.00 (B&H) per roll, and I use Fuji mailers. At the most, I'm spending about $11 per roll. For slide film, that's more than a few years ago. But for print film it's not much different than 10+ years ago when developing & printing for a 24 exp. roll of print film cost $7 or $8, and that's still pretty much the case. Although finding reliable service is now a concern.<br>

At least one of two "pro" shops where I live doesn't even do E6 anymore so I don't have to feel guilty about using mailers. As long as mailers and film deals on eBay are around, film will be perfectly economical for me.</p>

<p>Well, that is a "tongue-in-cheek" article. Seems to indicate that Kodak read the tea-leaves wrong and threw way too much empahsis and marketing into digital products .. when loyal film customers were in fact content with the quality they were getting from film.</p>

<p>It is interesting to note how the article explains the paradigm shift to digital as a result of the closure of traditional film processing labs, lack of consumer demand, etc. .. as if Kodak was correct in its' own reading of market trends and was merely reacting to the wants of consumers .. I find that less than genuine in that Kodak was one of the first to throw in the towel on film based upon its' own marketing research .. and thrust considerable R&D and marketing strength into digital products while shunning loyal film customers. <br>

We all know the power of marketing from big corporations .. who can easily steer the most loyal customer into new product lines they normally would not embrace .. all the while being told it is better and cheaper, while that same corporation withdraws its support for its' previous customer base and uses it corporate muscle to eliminate the obstacles of traditional models of success. Competition is indeed a good thing, but marketing, like economics, is not a pure science and this shift from Kodak reflects that some decisions were made in haste .. for all the right reasons of course.</p>

<p>I'm pleased that Kodak still produces film. I consider their film a great product. And, despite their on-going affair with digital products, I'm glad they have stirred the tea-leaves to understand that there is more than nichc-logic to justify the continued production of film. Kodak is too big a company to entertain catering to the whims of a niche .. my guess is that this article understates tremendously the continued desire for photographers of all classifications to choose between film and digital imaging.</p>

<p>I am a huge fan of Kodak and I always will be. I am film all the way. No Digital!! It now costs me $20 a roll to have my Portra developted and printed through the mail but it is worth it!</p>

<p>Those prices are out of the ball park. I process my own and it cost very little. I use bulk film and stuff I find on sale. This is though not new for me I have always been a cheap arsed skin flint.</p>

<p> I send my E6 out and it is under 5 bucks a roll my freezer is full I gave all my C-41 to my dauchter except for some 220 and 120 because she prefers 35mm.</p>

<p> Film will be around a long time. Like any Hobby it cost money to do it right but you can save money if you just do much of the work yourself.</p>

<p>Well Larry that is what I have found to be good quality. I have it printed on Endura.</p>

<p>I understand Patrick. You do what you think is right I an not here to fight with anyone on their choice that is why I don't go to the Digital forum I use Film.</p>

<p>After correcting for a lot of inflation, film and processing <em>dirt cheap</em> compared to prices I had to pay for color film and processing in college in the late 1970's. Kodacolor was totally unaffordable after processing and 3R prints, I shot Kodachrome 64 and the occasional High Speed Ektachrome.<br>

Inflation is about 3 times since then. Meanwhile, dollar prices of film and processing are lower than then.</p>

 

<p>I can still get Tri-X abet in the guise of Aristra Premium 400 for the Price I payed for it 20 years ago in 100 foot rolls.</p>

<p><em>...whereas a Mark III (300,000 clicks per body @ $8,000) is $0.03 a shot. And the Mark III has better IQ!</em></p>

<p><br />One wonders if the Mark III has the IQ then to figure out that computers, printers, memory cards, DVDs, hard drives, print paper, computer programs ect. and all their replacements over time as well aren't free.</p>

<p>or how much it cost compared to its film equivelent?</p>

<p>As one who was always involved with film during my career at Kodak, I tend to agree with Michael. I lived through three technology subsititutions. When I first joined the company, the largest profit film product was 16mm color reversal movie film used mostly for TV news. When "Electronic News Gathering" became available, Kodak quicly surrendured and quit promoting the product. It was another 5 years before this category stopped growing. How much more 16mm film would have been sold with a little promotion? With super 8 movies, sales nosedived in 1979 when marketing withdrew advertising support. This was long before consumer video cameras were widely available. If we had promoted the improved films we introduced in 1981, we could have sold a lot more. The switch from P&S film cameras to P&S digital cameras has been a difficult transition. We all knew it was coming. There was no way that film sales were not going to suffer. It would have been reasonable to promote a "best choice" strategy where film was promoted for its qualities and digital was promoted for its qualities. Instead, corporate management, in their finite wisdom, decided that film was not in keeping with the new age digital image the company was trying to project. In 2005 CEO Antonio Perez said, "By 2007 we will be a digital company or we will be out of business. Film will still be around, but it wont matter to the business." This recent article is an admission that Perez was wrong. Recent company reports show that digital sales far out pace film sales, but film profits are just about the only profits the company gets. Film still matters.</p>

<p>It is interesting that outside this forum, Kodak is criticized for being too slow to adopt digital. I will admit to considerable bias, but I have always felt that there will be a market for silver halide imaging tgechnology for decades to come. </p>

<p>Ron</p>

<p> You are my new friend. Not that I already did not like you or your informitive postings.</p>

<p>Larry</p><div></div>

<p>Maybe someone at Kodak is reading this forum and promoting the logic of a future world that includes limited film based photography.Modern business has a bad habit of burning their bridges and later regretting the bad decision after it is too late (factories are closed and workers let go).Lets hope the Kodak board of directors step back and reconsider the path the company is on now.Unless they have some mind blowing technology waiting in the wings they would be wise to milk film for everything it is worth.Digital has so many players fighting for fewer sales in a oversaturated market that they are doomed unless they can come up with a better act for the moment.With film it is pretty much only Fuji as the competition.The "Logic Of Film" would be a good start for reentry into a film products promotion. </p>

<p>Larry-<br>

Ron has always been a great guy. I always look foward to reading his posts. He thinks very logically. Thank you Ron.</p>

<p>One good thing about digital is that it gets a lot of new people into film. Not everyone who picks up a DSLR gets into film, of course. But I have consistently seen a good percentage of college students pick up B&W film after learning photo basics of digital. They are amazed at how cheaply one can get a quality 35mm SLR, and the cheapness of B&W film developing. From that archival B&W negative one can scan and print, or go to the darkroom and make a print. I read that Canon's DSLR sales nosedived this year....would one conclude that digital photography is dead? Of course not. But as money get tighter people will cut back on high ticket items like DSLRs. Like Larry said, if you "roll your own" film is dirt cheap. The quality is also better than it has ever been. Film sales will never be what they were, but they will be steady for years to come.<br>

And $18 for a roll of 35mm film developing? That dude must be getting his processing done at Tiffany's!!</p>

<p>Russ but he likes the results.. If I was to do a roll for a person I would charge around that since I use my Dark bag in my apartment and would transfer it to a CD with my Epson 4490. :-)</p>

<p> I have processed rolls of film for people and I do it for my fun not their liking.. small town that is now a city forgot about many things.. we have a large Art community with no processing left after November when a lease agreement for a Wallgreens killed the last e-6 and custom C-41 processor.</p><div></div>

<p>Only click on the photo if you have High speed internet. LOL</p>

<p> I hit the wrong file.</p>

<p>Russ My $20 a roll is from <strong>Dale </strong>not <strong>Dale Tiffany's. </strong>lol</p>

<p>I just developed two rolls of of the re-branded Tri-X (Arista Premium as pointed out above) at a cost of $1.99 each and probably about $1.00 for the chemistry. If I shot color, it would be a different story, but I'm happy being a strictly b&w shooter. If it was Kodaks decision to do this to move more product, it's working at least as far as I'm concerned. I've never used Tri-X before but I am really impressed with this film. It's everything I've heard it was. I usually pick up a brick (regardless if I need it or not since I shoot about 4-5 rolls a week) whenever I stop into Freestyle.</p><div></div>