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

<p>I can not imagine how Kodak must feel reading some of the threads full of bitching and complaining, people saying they want films like Kodachrome, Plus-X, High Speed Infrared and E6 back when we still have outstanding varieties like TMY, Ektar and Portra…..and the constant dissection of the restructuring.<br /><br />And you DO know who Kodak is, do you not? Kodak is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who Kodak is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of the brand that is Kodak. Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer who are still trying to help film find a way forward…besides buying the film, are you helping?<br /><br />There is something else we are not doing…something besides websites like Flickr, APUG, etc. Something besides buying and using film that is not being done and it kept me up until 5AM this morning…it is troubling me..<br /><br />Here is the trouble…<br /><br />If Kodak were to stop selling film and no one took it over, I think it would be very, very bad for film in general. Here is why: Public Perception based on internet hype. For example, when Kodachrome disappeared, I can not tell you how many people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film and some even thought that meant no film left at all. That's right, one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak and all the news that has followed….this is a bad, BAD pattern folks. Because what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be with the artistic resurgence of the medium, the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market segment that might otherwise give film a try.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />But I really do feel like we are missing the so called boat that Kodak has been said to have missed too…I am not sure what it is, but I am determined to figure it out.<br /><br />Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of an ad campaign that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like that can go viral real quick...I think it is something like this that needs to happen, honestly...</p>

I think most people see film in an inevitable decline. It's sad but it's the inevitable result of how things have gone with

digital. If we're lucky, film will stabilize at a new level of production capable of supplying the dedicated film users -- not

with the variety we once had, but with a small variety of good films. You could probably look at the 8x10 sheet film market

for and idea. A lot of my favorite films are already gone, but then I can only blame myself since I shoot mostly digital these

days too.

 

 

Though I have quite a lot of Velvia, Tri-X, Tech Pan, and Kodak HIE in the freezer.

<p>Well said and well written Dan! I agree completely! I have tried to promote film use and will always continue. I have been thinking about a campaign to get the message to moms that they should use film to capture their children's memories so that they will have them for a lifetime. </p>

<p>so that they will have them for a lifetime</p>

<p>I suspect I'll be castigated for this, but I do always wonder why people say that. I have absolutely no idea what happened any number of the untold thousands of negatives (and companion prints) I created since the 1970's. Moving, jumbled storage, laziness, some disorganization, damage - all the usual things that apply to any fragile, physical, unique thing. I'm pretty sure I've lost a few digital files along the way, too. But I do know where I have multiple, geographically separate, perfect copies of the vast majority of everything along those lines I've ever cared about keeping. <br /><br />Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I like film for certain things. But the "for a lifetime" message is probably <em>not</em> going to ring true as a "promote film" message to moms. Their first and foremost purpose seems to be the capturing and immediate, across-continents sharing of those images. Care with negatives and care with family digital archives are both a matter of discipline, and something that doesn't really differentiate the two media as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Promoting film use - for the huge majority of people who have never used it or have stopped doing so - comes down to plainly showing them something they can get (simple pleasure in the process? the unique properties of very large sheets of film?) that they're otherwise missing out on. If there are truly compelling reasons for re/adopting film, it should be a very easy sell to me, since I come from using miles of it in all sorts of settings. But I'm not getting it, not in the way that you're hoping a new mom will. Very tough sell.</p>

<p>What we are missing is a focused marketing effort by Kodak and other film companies. Where are the print and TV ad campaigns for the general public? As long as Kodak treats film as a limited market, instead of a mass market the only news getting out to the mass media is bad news. When times get tough, that's when you need to advertise most.</p>

<p>I was at the Photo Expo in NYC last year. The Kodak booth was pathetic! Two guys sitting on their collective butts, mindlessly giving away rolls. They looked defeated, not excited by their products, not promoting their products. It made me angry. I'll buy the stuff, I'll promote film to my students who are more interested than most think, but the companies have to pony up, get some smart people in there to target new and established market sectors...and start hammering away with fresh, laser focused messaging. Only then will the word not only get to the public that film is here to stay, but camera manufacturers will respond with new tools to use with them. If Kodak wants to change the paradigm, they need to use marketing muscle to do it. And be very selective of the individuals who represent them at trade shows. To me that represents yet another systemic problem within the company that needs fixing. Kodak has it's work cut out for itself. They will never see their former glory days but they got to stay in there and keep punching if they want to stay profitable in the film business.</p>

<p>What Louis said. It's up to Kodak to adapt. So far they've shown little ability or inclination to do so.</p>

<p>Film use in general is remarkably healthy - totally apart from Kodak's rotting corpse. That's due to the savvy and successful efforts of manufacturers and retailers who do understand the market and have adapted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film use in general is remarkably healthy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what planet this is in:) As far as I can tell, people are using their cameraphones. It might be healthy in a film specific forum, but in reality? It's like asking why brick and mortar shops are shutting down yet 90% of all photographers goto Amazon or BH, just to save taxes...</p>

<p>Ironically, I was at a bestbuy this weekend buying a $30 digicam. I saw that they had 5 rolls pack fuji's special for $3.99. I was going to buy it just for fun. Then, I check the expiration date and it read 2009! Did I mention they had like 8 or 9 packs? They might go if they were free...</p>

<p>It's basic supply and demand, and not (lack of) some swanky creative ad or promotion. Though film will probably never go completely away, it will never gain mass appeal like before...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Tokyo film market, I would say is the only "remarkably healthy" film market on Earth.</p>

<p>First off, they need to know who their market is, now, in 2012, as they restructure with a slashed marketing budget, and we need to help with that, tell them in creative ways. No matter how much you want to see $15,000 full page print ads in PDN, Nat Geo and the Sunday magazine of the NYT, it is not going to happen, that is the old way, we all need the new way forward and I can assure you it is not anything any of us have thought of yet. <br /> I can not tell you how much they feed off of positive talk from passionate film users, seeing fresh new work and hearing a good attitude from those who CAN make a difference. That not only has to keep up for the long term, it has to continue to ride innovation in terms of how creative we all get at showing creative use of film. <br /> I have not had a pro website for years, have not advertised, not by choice, I simply did not have time to deal with it until now. I have gotten by nicely with word of mouth, people talking about my products and services, being as passionate about what I do as I am. This is what film needs to do more than survive. <br /> Trust me, Kodak wants to market, but they are tied up in re-emerging as a company that can work in this new scale of economics with their best performing products, that is business. But film, man, we have to meet them half way and try real hard to put out the fire that is the publics misconception that film is gone entirely..</p>

<p>Leslie: Why is that? What's happening in Tokyo that's different than other places?</p>

<p>Alan, thanks for asking that, it might contain creative answers in broad terms. I don't care about the same old tired arguments about the slipping demand, I care about creativity and moving forward in innovative directions...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie: Why is that? What's happening in Tokyo that's different than other places?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if there is one sole reason. The demand is high, analog is very popular, great services in the area, big film cameras culture...You ought to get a better answer from a local. I'm just repeating what I read and heard. I would guess high (film lover) population density? A few film shooters told me that I have to goto to Tokyo if I like film. And these folks were from Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore...Sorta like analog mecca? And, of course, the Fuji connection... </p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I can not tell you how much they feed off of positive talk from passionate film users, seeing fresh new work and hearing a good attitude from those who CAN make a difference."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Understandable within limits. But I hope they're neither ignoring nor relying too heavily on internet chatter. These are biased venues with tendencies toward extremes of cheerleading or cynicism - often both within the same week. That's not marketing research. That's just licking finger to test the breeze. It works only in this particular moment in this particular place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I was at a bestbuy this weekend..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We all have our anecdotes. Yesterday I was at a party. Two people brought out cellphone cameras. I used a compact digicam. The youngest of our group, a college student, is into large format film photography for landscapes and didn't bring her camera.</p>

<p>According to my sampling group, 50% of photographers are using cellphone cameras, 25% are using compact digital cameras, another 25% are using large format film. Apparently dSLRs are dead and nobody uses 35mm or medium format anymore. And since photo.net is immediately and prominently Googled, I've just contributed to anecdotal noise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so that they will have them for a lifetime<br>

I suspect I'll be castigated for this, but I do always wonder why people say that. I have absolutely no idea what happened any number of the untold thousands of negatives (and companion prints) I created since the 1970's. Moving, jumbled storage, laziness, some disorganization, damage - all the usual things that apply to any fragile, physical, unique thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll wager that nearly everyone reading this has seen Mathew Brady's Civil War photographs. After the war ended, no one wanted to be reminded of the carnage, and Brady went bankrupt. Most of his negatives were used as greenhouse glass. Twenty years later they were gone; what you have seen is almost certainly a copy of a print - and only because thousands of prints were made during the war. Digital vs film is irrelevant to archival; what matters is that the importance of the image is recognized when it is captured, and the photographer (or someone) takes appropriate steps to preserve it. </p>

<p>In the abstract, I love Kodak. I thank them for Kodachrome - probably 90% of my pre-digital shooting was done on that film, mostly on the slowest available at the time I bought it. A bit of night shooting was done on GAF high speed film, but that's long ago passed into nothingness.</p>

<p>Although the later Ektachrome was much improved, I never cared as much for it, and the truth, I am ashamed to say, is that I have bought no more than 10 rolls of Kodak film since 2005. I have used lots of Fuji and Ilford films. Most of the students here who are shooting film don't seem to use much Kodak either, to judge from what's on sale at the local, still-functioning camera store.</p>

<p>If Kodak went totally out of business tomorrow, the main change to me and my use of film would be that I would have to find another source for D-76 developer (maybe Photographers' Formulary or mix up my own metol, borax, and suchlike).</p>

<p>This all makes me very sad, but as those turncoat politicians are always saying, "I didn't leave the party, they left me".</p>

<p>Guilty as well...I bought only Tri-x but used Fuji for color and Pan X and delta 3200 before digital.</p>

<p>Gulp. This is going to get me branded a troll, but if you have the patience, read on. But first, I've got to wonder about some of what's been written here.</p>

<p><em>a campaign to get the message to moms that they should use film to capture their children's memories so that they will have them for a lifetime . . .</em></p>

<p>Sorry, but IMO that's nonsense. Either format requires some care for archiving. But I am much more confident that when I die (I'm guestimating forty years from now), my kids will be able to access and use my digital image files than I am that they'll be able to use my film. The traditional B&W film will probably be in pretty good condition, if there is still a working scanner available to them, or if somehow a B&W wet darkroom is running. As for color stuff, the film will probably have deteriorated at least some--my parents' negatives from forty years ago have many fades and color shifts, but mine will probably last somewhat better--but they'll need a scanner, because I don't see a wet color darkroom running. And by the time my kids reach <em>their</em> twilight years, seventy to eighty years from now?!</p>

<p><em>Where are the print and TV ad campaigns for the general public? As long as Kodak treats film as a limited market, instead of a mass market . . .</em></p>

<p>Sorry, but film <strong><em>is</em></strong> a limited market, not a mass market. What truthful claims could Kodak make to the general public to persuade them to go back to film? IMO, there is no way that Kodak or anyone else is going to convince the general public to drop their iPhone cameras or Rebels and instant Facebook postings to go back to spending $10 to $20 per 24 or 36 frames for film and processing that takes time and effort. Just. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. And advocating it would be doing the public a disservice--for the average person's needs and skills, a decent digital point-and-shoot (something along the lines of my wife's Canon SX230 HS) is a much better picture (and video!) capturing device than any film camera.</p>

<p>Look, I want film to survive. Yeah, it bothered me the last time I went to order ISO 400 color neg in 4x5 and my options were very limited (IIRC, the only emulsion B&H offered was Portra 400). But we need to take a dose of reality--we meaning Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, and <em>especially</em> some people here. If film is to survive, it is as a niche medium. Something to be practicing in art school, and maybe clubs, or handed down one hobbyist to the next. Something to be taught, learned, and used like painting or maybe more like printmaking.</p>

<p>Will film survive? I think B&W film will survive for the foreseeable future. Ilford or somebody will be able to sell enough to make a going business. The chemicals and processes are not very exotic or toxic. Now color is another matter--harder to produce, demanding more exotic and/or toxic chemicals, harder to develop, harder to print. I hope a reorganized Kodak can make a healthy ongoing color film business. I really do. But I'm not confident that there's anything that anyone can do to make it happen. So enjoy it while you have it.</p>

 

<p>Dan,<br>

The next time I am visiting one of my local camera & photography retail stores, and they ask me, "why are you still shooting film?", I am going to have to say, " because it's a lot more convenient than glass plate negatives!" Any other statements about the qualities of film are debated in order to promote digital capture. When the attributes of film photography are sincerely discussed, concessions are often made. I shoot both, but at heart, I am old-school. I know why I love film, and you know why I love film. When I am out shooting digital landscapes, I often think of how I would love to return and get this shot on film -- and sometimes I do.</p>

<p>I have a revolving library of photography books, and lately I have been seeking and reading some older books devoted to black & white film. I am also shooting some black & white in 35mm and 6x7. It is a niche market for sure, and I am often alone in my photographic interests in film photography.</p>

<p>The photographic world revolves around digital capture now, and it is easy to understand why. But like you, I want to support Kodak and film photography -- whether it is landscape, street, weddings, or other commercial. When the Nikon Coolscan 9000 was discontinued, it was a blow medium format film. We still have to support the medium through buying, shooting, and promoting film photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Promoting film in our days is like promoting a thing of the past. World has changed, so is us and our habits. We are living in world where everything runs fast, so is technology, and we want the biggest information/convenience in the shortest time in the smallest package possible.<br /> Look around us, the world is full of mp3 and IPods, full of mobile phones equipped with so many gadgets for music, telephony, pc and ALL of them work mediocre!!! Strangely enough people declare satisfied with the "quality" so companies are pleased. Why change?<br /> Film shooters are like vinyl lovers. They will not extinct but they will get lesser by the day. New generation is very hard to be hooked up in something that's not "current" in fashion and needs "time" to get results. Companies know that.<br /> Companies will not promote something which is good or sophisticated, they will promote something that they will make money out of it, real money and not pennies. If people prefer mp3 over SACD, iPods over turntables or stand alone players, mobile phones for shooting pictures and videos over a camera, external HDs for storing everything instead the traditional stocking up of records, CDs, and photographic albums full of printed photos, don't expect a ressurection of the film. <br /> Still, there will be people who will continue shooting in film as long as there's the necessary medium (film) in stock out there, and some young people as well, who the same way they discover the warmth of a vinyl and the joy of "reading" the cover alongside hearing, they will introduce themselves to the film era. <br /> My friends, at a time when someone is willing to invest a fortune to get a Leica Monochrome or the cheapest substitutes (Fuji, etc...) in order to have "film quality" it is very naive to believe that companies want film back. Thank you for reading this!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well said and well written Dan! I agree completely!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too.</p>

<p>The incorrect premise (my opinion) is: The folks working at Kodak are mere pawns... like all other workers. Kodak - management, workers, retirees, and stock holders, like most other companies, is controlled by the accountants and short-sighted marketing people. Their total concern is making money today, with some amount of concern with making money in the future. And they have long ago decided that making money with film is not the way they can make money. Sad... very sad... but true.</p>

<p>Sad truth is that, today, everything is driven by "I want it now and I want it cheap". Film does not lend itself to this. Oh yes there are some among us who are prepared to wait a little longer and put in the hard yards to get quality but generally speaking most of the market embraces digital simply because it is instant. It also has to be said that the quality of digital has improved immensely over the years which has also pushed users towards using it. Another consideration is cost, basically digital is cheap.<br>

What would change this situation, well, maybe it is too late for anything now. Maybe if scanners were much less expensive and a lot quicker it might help but the last time I tried to scan some negs I almost gave up.<br>

Black and white will probably last longer because the results from neg are still better than those from digital, IMHO, but even more because it is a relatively simple process to do at home. Colour is not within the "easy" capability of most happy snappers.<br>

In the end I think we will all go with the new technology but I do not lose sleep over this. The new generations of digital are getting ever better and soon will, I believe, surpass film for quality. So why will we want to save film then? Probably purely for nostalgic reasons and to be honest I have to say it's a bit like cars, I would love to have an old M.G. but in reality they were unreliable, uncomfortable and uneconomical. If I have to go on a journey I will take a new Toyota or the like every time.</p>

Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past,

people use it with a passion.

 

Brian, so I guess the society changing innovations of Apple never occurred then and all those employees are just

pawns...

 

I have risked a lot in life in order to be a successful photographer, that and believing in what you do is how you live a life

that fills you completely until you slip into the ether....

<blockquote>

<p>Tony wrote: Sad truth is that, today, everything is driven by "I want it now and I want it cheap".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly what I am talking about, damaging generalizations that are born purely of web hype. It's impossible for "Everything" to be driven like that. If it were, no one would play a guitar, use a paint brush or buy a Silver Gelatin Print from me for $800+ that I made by hand in my darkroom.<br>

None of us are going to get anywhere by believing what you said and this is a far bigger problem in society than just photography, it is eroding intrepid, innovative thinking. If you just get out and talk to people, you will find that many are already tiring of the hype and are recovering from a technological hangover...they are realizing that none of this want it now living has given us more than 24 hours in one day and and if anything, is actually taking time away from it. </p>