Kodak product line, Please keep the variety!

[vrankin]

<p>To follow up on Ron's question, I'd like to see the "tooth", "grain" (rather than ugly chrominance noise) and outstanding acutance I remember in the best films, along with a palette of film brands and types to emulate through post processing software.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>The point of my letter is I can not vote with my dollars if they don't make the products I need and desire.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

You already voted.</p>

<p>They obviously know that some people buy those films and not other products. The letter gives them a signature (which you portray as worthless) and no dollars they don't already have. Suggesting that people won't buy products they don't sell is beyond obvious. Your good efforts could be spent on convincing others to buy the products when they ordinarily would not. Those are the votes that actually matter. </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Quinn...</p>

<p>You’ve written a good and thoughtful letter. Unlike some of the other posters, I see your letter as telling them that you really do want to do business with them, if only they would continue to make the products you would like to buy from them. It seems simple enough, but of course doesn’t address corporate arrogance, stupidity, infighting and the not-made-here syndrome. Being an old man, I remember when companies took letters like yours seriously and actually considered acting upon them to increase or keep sales. Unfortunately that’s not the corporate culture today. There is an old Irish saying, “You cannot teach a pig to sing; it’s a waste of time and just annoys the pig.” In today’s corporate culture and, especially, I would suspect at the top of Kodak, letters from people like you are an annoyance they have to put up with. Furthermore, when they say you should use another one of their products as a substitute, they think you’ll see it as receiving the word from God.</p>

<p>As a fellow film enthusiast, I appreciate you making the effort, and it was a good one to boot.</p>

<p>Mr. Degroot...</p>

<p>You certainly make some good points. Although many of the lower and middle level employees and managers are aware of customer wants and needs, and the likelihood of their purchase, the people at the top are truly out of touch with reality. I watched the three heads of the big three auto companies on C-SPAN begging for money from us, without the slightest idea what it would be used for, how much would be needed, or what possible results the infusion of money would create.</p>

<p>Your second point about corporate decisions being made because of politics, both company and government, is 99 44/100% true.</p>

<p>The answer to the question raised in your third point, concerning Ilford, is simply because they won’t. </p>

<p>Kodachrome unavailable? A recent article cited Kodak as having total film sales of $500,000,000 for a three-month period and that Kodachrome was less than one percent. Kodachrome is certainly going to be less than one percent when the major retailers have it in stock for two days that quarter and out of stock for the other 88+ days. Don’t they get it? If you don’t make it, you can’t sell it. If low sales of Kodachrome were due to lack of customer demand, and not corporate foolishness, then why is it scalped every day on eBay?</p>

<p>Ahhhhh...Kodachrome ISO 100. Kodak came out with a line of smaller Kodachrome processors which would be more suitable to serving a city, rather than three or four states, as was previously done. In order to sell those to naïve suckers, the suckers were told that Kodachrome was coming out in a 100 speed that would be both sharper and finer-grained than the 25 speed. Previous posts from knowledgeable Kodak semi-insiders have indicated that Kodak never really got too far with the Kodachrome 100 project. A few suckers got stuck with the processing machines. Do you think they’ll ever deal with Kodak again? Other suckers became non-suckers after watching the debacle and didn’t buy many machines, which proved to upper management that the whole idea of Kodachrome was no good anyway.</p>

<p>Mr. Flanigan…..</p>

<p>I would agree with you per se that I don’t expect Kodak to extend charity. I will say they can make a self-fulfilling low sales prophecy by cutting production and distribution channels. There is also the thought that some grocery chains continue to carry products that might not warrant the shelf space by themselves, but attract customers into their store to buy all the products that do keep them in business.</p>

<p>I have to wonder what would have happened, with all the negative publicity that Kodak has gotten about dropping Kodachrome, despite the best spin their corporate PR guys could put on it, if only after about 30 days, they would have done a 180 degree turn and said they’re going to keep it running to make the 75th anniversary before dropping it. Kodak certainly got a lot of name recognition from the furor, but it was mostly negative. It also reminded investors that things were going downhill for the company, not a good thing for stock prices. If after 30 days, having gotten their name in the paper and on the TV, they made a corporate concession in the name of customer service, would the increased sales of their other products have justified the cost of keeping Kodachrome? Conversely, will the negative publicity not only cost them sales, but reputation, thereby hurting their stock price?</p>

<p>Mr. Root….</p>

<p>I too have been in touch with the film division people at Kodak. Their enthusiasm for film is both genuine and could well help their continued employment. Unfortunately, they’re not on the board, nor are they the top officers. That’s too bad. If some of the division level people had more influence at the top, I suspect Kodak would be doing better in all of their efforts.</p>

<p>I think there is a place, perhaps not for emotional letters, but where customers by lobbying executives can still make a change, even in this day and age. Take Ektar 100 for instance. I was one of the early letter writers and e-mailers, trying to persuade them to roll it in 120 size. For months, I got a “no way, Jose” response, although most polite. Several of us kept at it. One of the tactics I used was to cut and paste threads from Photo.net and several other photo enthusiast sites where the posters were wanting 120. The tone of Kodak’s answer began to change and of course now we have 120. Perhaps our efforts were just a coincidence, but I do think we made a difference. I’m not quite out of Ektar 120 yet, but I’m going to start looking for it now, because the last several times I tried to buy it, it has been on back-order at the big New York mail order retailers. Back-order status certainly doesn’t indicate lack of demand, nor that its inclusion in the product line was a bad decision.</p>

<p>Yes, I’d like to see Kodak keep going and not discontinue altogether. However, we as customers can only do so much to help them. They have to start making better decisions and help themselves. It’s also a lot harder to turn around a company that has started to decline because of poor policies and decisions, than to have kept it going well in the first place. It can be done. I made most of my retirement by taking over failing companies during hard economic times, and actually increased sales and profits, while the general market and/or economy continued to head downward. It didn’t happen because I continued to use the failed policies of those who preceded me.</p>

<p>I’ve also never really understood why each time I had a success with a product, division or company, the more-senior officers or board of directors immediately wanted to return to the failed policies. Perhaps it is just a reflection of what I call the cry-out of the lowlife: “You’re no better than I am,” done in a grade school-sounding sing-song voice. If someone or some management group does come into Kodak and turns it around and keeps it going, returinig it once again to a proud and prosperous American company, I wonder how badly they’ll be punished by stockholders and board alike.</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you again for the deletion. Sorry your child was sick that night. Even though it’s just part of life, it’s always distressing to a parent to see their child suffer.</p>

<p>Mr. Andrews…..</p>

<p>Thank you for the information in your answer to Mr. Vrankin. Big company obsession most often leads to big company failure. Perhaps they are right and that persisting mentality of theirs will eventually pay off. However, I don’t think so. I suspect the results are going to be closer to their obsession with APS. We shall see.</p>

<p>I agree with the three items on your list of digital improvements.</p>

<p>Again to Mr. Quinn…..</p>

<p>Yes, you’re right. Kodak…please keep the variety…for your own sake too.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Eventually we will be back in the same place where 35mm photography started. We will be buying the short ends of motion picture film from Hollywood and sending the film to the nearest ECN-2 process.</em></p>

<p>How long do you honestly think ECN-2 will stick around? Once Moore's Law over takes the steep data requirements of a feature length film I expect Hollywood's transition to digital capture to unfold as quickly as the transition for still work did. We're just about there now. I don't think it's a stretch to predict that in 10 years the majority of movies will be captured digitally. I have to honestly wonder what sales of still or motion film will be like in just another 10 years.</p>

[allardk]

<blockquote>

<p>since in the business world we have to vote with our dollars not our signature</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess the question is: how much would you pay for that film? I don't know the numbers so this gets sort of handwaving but let's say for the sake of the argument that to keep the production lines going Kodak needs at least half the income that it had 10 years ago. And maybe the volume on those specialty films has gone down tenfold, or twentyfold. That would mean you would have to pay 5 or 10 times as much for your roll of film. Would you? Not everyone will, so the number of customers will go down even further. Would you pay twenty times as much as you used to?</p>

<p>If anyone has an idea of more accurate numbers please correct.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>i no longer support Kodak. no other company has done more to kill film than Kodak. nikon and canon are giving it a good shove though.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>i no longer support Kodak. no other company has done more to kill film than Kodak. nikon and canon are giving it a good shove though.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Please do explain.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Digital has killed film; NOT Kodak. DEMAND has dropped for film; thus it is much harder to make a profit with low production speciality films that have a HUGE capital production line to maintain.<br>

<br /> Look how long digital has been out; we got your first 35mm slide scanner 20 years ago; ie in 1989. In the early 1990's I used VGA digitals to shoot assembly images in the disk drive industry; and CCMAILED them or used a BBS modem to send them from Calif to Singapore and Bangkok. In Calif Realtors used digital cameras 15 years ago and placed the images on their BBS's. Somewhere in the mid 1990's one could buy a VGA digital for only 500 bucks and even amateurs go on the digital wagon.</p>

<p>The growth of websites fueled growth. many of us used digital to shoot our digital images 12 year ago for Ebay photos. Look how dumb dialup grew. Back in the late 1970'ss our leased 300bps modem was 600 per month ; one had toll charges to connect across country . In the 1980's folks with PC's got 1200 modems; then 2400; One had the 9600 and 14.4s to be common in the early 1990's. Our first 28.8 modem cost us 350 bucks four our BBS service. Our ISDN 128k service was 550 per month to Ma Bell in the mid 1990's. Now one can get wimped down dsl that is the same speed for 30 per mont; some folk get cable for this cost too.</p>

<p>Users of film have dropped; I know hard core film users that today NEVER shoot any film anymore; that have shot film for many many decades.</p>

<p>Look how local E6 has died off; by my one business; it died off over 10 years ago; thats why we got a digital scan back in 1997; a 35 megapixel. The lab died because they did not have enough business; we grew tired of flakey film developing. We buy radically less film becauses we use digital. We got digital because lack of local 120/220 film processing.</p>

<p>Look at other industries that have seen declines and products slashed due to digital. The old process camera industry started to decline rapidly 15 years ago when printers got digital scanners and digital printers. We got ours in 1992. Customers got use to the quicker turnaround of enlargements and copies. Cranky old customers got real bitchy when the cost of materials skyrocketed; and we had tp raise prices. ALOT of old farts really want folks to keep an old process going; that only sees a few jobs per month; that once had many per day.</p>

<p>Look at dumb erasers used in old electric erasering machines; once there was about 12 varients of erasers; now there are only about 3. Look at dumb Vellum used in manual drafting; its cost has doubled; there are only 2 players making it today. Look at any industry that makes a product that is rapidly declining; many players exit; some die; prices rise; one has a *SMALLER* subset of products</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>What we need to do is discontinue Kodak all together. Ask the Kodak people to hand over their recipes for making film to a reputable dealer and be done with this story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that Kodak should quit producing. However if there is enough demand for Kodachrome, I don't see why they wouldn't be interested in selling the rights to produce it and take payment via turn-key or royalties.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>i no longer support Kodak. no other company has done more to kill film than Kodak.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but this is a statement born of emotion and not fact. It simply isn't true.</p>

<p>The only way you could even come close to having some semblance of accuracy in that statement would be to base it around the idea that Kodak engineers were, at one point, the ones on the forefront of digital sensor evolution and thus ushering in the digital age that has caused film sales to decline. But even then, there is more than enough blame to go around on that issue. You couldn't just lay it at Kodak's feet.</p>

<p>Everyone wants to blame someone else for the decline in film sales. But Kelly has it right above. Digital photography (and the web) has caused the decline of film. There is no more to it than that. Film will stick around for a long time. But we will all have to watch as fewer and fewer emulsions (and perhaps processes) are available until the market reaches some sort of stasis between consumer demand and production costs. That is just the way things are.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>However if there is enough demand for Kodachrome, I don't see why they wouldn't be interested in selling the rights to produce it and take payment via turn-key or royalties.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would have been surprised if anyone had any serious interest in this. The environmental issues with creating the film, the complexity of processing, the fact that only one processor in the world still existed, the general decline of film sales (and Kodachrome sales specifically), and so on make this sort of thing a fairly risky investment for the kind of person who would have the money to make it happen. And the people who have that money don't typically make risky investments without the chance for a huge upside, which an orphan film process in the year 2009 does not have. I think the moment anyone who was interested enough to open talks with Kodak saw the sales figures and production costs, they would walk away from the table quickly.</p>

<p>Now, the above is just my opinion and I have no concrete facts to back it up. But if Kodak thought they could make a few bucks on licensing by outsourcing kodachrome production, they probably would have done it. But I really can't imagine anyone looking at the reality of the situation and saying "yeah, I'll sink a pile of cash into this project!".</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>What I would like Kodak to do is simply <em>MARKET FILM!</em> They market their inkjet printers, Fuji Markets and advertises their film line to wedding pros...I mean, come on Kodak! It really seems to me that what the film people at EKC say on one hand is totally contradicted by someone in Marketing. I had one joker come up to me at a Photo Fair this Fall and say "I heard Kodak stopped making film". I explained to him they stopped making just KODACHROME. This "Joe Public" would not listen. He INSISTED that he heard on the news "Nope Kodak stopped making film".<br>

It seems Kodak has left the advertising and marketing of film up to us analog photographers! What if they actually came to the college where I teach and handed out a few rolls of film to my Photo students or Video students? Remember the old days when the Kodak Rep came to schools and camera stores with lots of free goodies??? Now you're lucky to get a free PDF explaining what they killed off.<br>

I love Rochester and the workers at EKC. I used to live there. But when I go to make a film purchase with my hard earned cash, I wonder if I should support the company with a dubious track record of supporting my needs as an analog photographer, or should I go with another company which at least has a public commitment to continuing film manufacture?<br>

There is a resurgence in analog photography right now among people aged 16-24. All Kodak has to do is launch a cheap, grungy <strong>"FILM IS NOT DEAD" campaign.</strong> If the Execs at EKC aren't smart enough and quick enough to pick up on this, then Economic Darwinism will take its natural course.....</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I converted to digital not quite five years ago. But I still occasionally shoot film, whenever a compact point-and-shoot makes more sense than a DSLR (which isn't often enough to invest in a digicam). My preferred film was 400UC, which was close to perfect for what I needed. Kodak discontinued that, presumably on the orders of bean counters whose spreadsheets told them it wasn't pulling its weight for the shareholders. I could choose to support Kodak by paying a hefty price for one of the Portra 400 films that doesn't quite replace 400UC and isn't quite what I want. Or I could pay much less for Fuji's Superia 400, which is closer to what I want. The choice is obvious.<br>

Yes, Kodak can tell users of discontinued Product A to switch to Product B, which has some of the characteristics of Product A but is a "fit" only in the minds of optimistic marketeers. But those users are more likely to choose a Fuji product, since Fuji apparently has the resources (and/or management mentality) to keep a wider variety of products in stock. If a Kodak user has to start over with a new film, why shouldn't he consider Fuji? Each discontinuation will only accelerate the inevitable death spiral-- of Kodak as well as film.</p>

[hjoseph7]

Trivia question : Why are Fuji and Ilford not feeling the effects of lower film sales ? and if they are how do they manage to stay afloat ?

[mt4x4]

<p>Josh, I agree; there probably isn't enough demand for anyone to make the investment to produce it and make a profit. I seriously doubt the guys who are tying to produce polaroid film are going to make any money from that endevour. <br /> <br /> My only point was that <em><strong>if</strong> </em> there was enough demand that Kodak would be silly to not at least consider selling the rights or outsourcing the production of Kodachrome. With all of the free publicity that Kodachrome has received lately, you never know.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>We often see these threads resort to emotion about the best media, the greed of the corporations and I guess the perception that people are only buying what's in front of them - as if something different was offered (ie cheap film) they would buy that instead. Quite frankly this is a situation where photography has been completely re-invented for the AVERAGE person in the past decade, and it will never be the same. I've been looking for some statistics that talk about the impact on film - and found this NY Times link:<br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/business/09film.html?ref=business">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/business/09film.html?ref=business</a><br>

The short story is that digital technology offered to the vast majority of the buying public something they had lost - a simple way to create good pictures (by their own standards) quickly, and a wonderful way to share them. Film never had that appeal - and as soon as a better mousetrap came along the average consumer went with it. I share that perspective - digital has recreated an interest in photography - I believe I am taking better pictures than ever, and I don't have to worry about the cost of a mistake. I know that's not how everyone feels, but I think it is how a majority opinion.<br>

I hope film survives - I really appreciate the craftsmanship required to use that medium. I sometimes wonder if the internet had been around a hundred years or so ago if there would have been a "horses.net" blog full of reasons why horses were better than cars and it was only a matter of time until people came back to them. Well, one interesting fact is that there are more horses in most states now than at any time in history - but of course not for day-to-day use on the highway, and not at all used by most people. Maybe a bit of a parallel - the challenge will be whether the statistics quoted in the above link point to a tipping point where it is just not economical for anyone to create the film, chemicals and processes to keep an important media alive.</p>

[nicholas_rapak]

<p>Harry,<br>

Fuji and Ilford <em>are</em> feeling the effects of lower film sales; If you don't remember, a few months ago, Fuji was considering killing off Pro 800Z, and has killed off T64 and CDU-II duplicating film. Ilford is more stable because black-and-white has stabilized; most people realize that the disadvantages of B&W digital are greater than the advantages, and B&W has been a niche market for 30+ years. </p>

<p>The major difference between Kodak and Fuji is their focus. Fuji<strong>film</strong> was founded as a photographic film company, the cameras were made to sell more film. Kodak was founded as a camera company; their first "Kodak" product was a simple box camera for the masses. The reason that Kodak is moving to digital is because it is where the masses are.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Well I imagine if the trend continues in 10 years Ilford will be making film, and so will Fuji and likely FOMA. But Kodak will just be a memory....<br>

People still paint and stretch canvas. Someone will be around to make film. or else those of us who prefer analog will be coating our own glass plates. This is not as far fetched at it sounds and plenty of workshops are springing up to teach exactly this. So whatever happens to Kodak is irrelevant to photography....</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Yes, Kodak could be doing better in terms of marketing film. Yes, Josh is right about the people at Kodak who care about making great quality film. No, the Eastern Block companies are not outdoing Kodak in terms of products because the quality control pales in comparison, at least what I have experienced first hand. <br>

The bottom line is this: If you want to keep a specific film around, you have to do more than use it, you have to make sure at least one of your neighbors use it as well. </p>

<p>And I would rather Kodak streamline the product line, keep the quality up and stay profitable, otherwise, what is the point?</p>

[James G. Dainis]

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.

[randrew1]

<p>The basic problem that Kodak has been wrestling with is how to manage through a technology substitution. The switch from film to digital seemed to many of us to occur very fast, but the transition was in the middle of the pack compared to others. One accepted metric is to record the length of time between a 10% penetration of the new technology and a 90% penetration. I forget the exact numbers, but the switch to digital photography was much faster than the switch to CD audio, but much slower than the switch from analog to digital cell phones. </p>

<p>I've lived through several substitutions in my career. When I started at Kodak, the biggest money maker was 16mm Ektachrome motion picture film used by television stations to cover news events. Electronic news gathering (ENG) was on the horizon with shoulder mounted "minicams". Pundits were loudly proclaiming the death of film. It 5 was years before the market stopped growing and 30 years before the product line bit the dust. </p>

<p>I used to work on super 8 movie systems. In 1979, there were home video cameras with "portable" (briefcase sized) recorders. Promotion with withdrawn for super 8 amateur products and sales dropped like a rock. There was a long tail on these products. E-160 movie film was available until the early 90's and K-40 was available until a few years ago. </p>

<p>I worked for a short time on instant film. The product line was introduced in 1976 and forecasters were predicting that by 1980, 1/3 of all amateur pictures would be on instant film. This was killed off by minilabs providing 1 hour service for color neg and the low quality of instant images. Kodak instant film production ceased in 1986 when they lost the patent fight with Polaroid. The market isn't completely dead. I think Fuji still sells a peal-apart product. </p>

<p>I worked on more than one generation of 800 speed negative film. In 1980 when we finally came up with a product that beat Fuji (at lest when it was fresh), photojournalists looked at it and told us, "Nice product. We would use it it we were going to stay with film."</p>

<p>This brings us up to the current transition from color neg and reversal still film to digital. The bulk of this conversion is over. Nearly all casual amateurs and most pros have switched to digital for most shots. The question we are wrestling with is how long the tail will be for the still films we like. Obviously some products have already gone, but history suggests that still film will be around in some form for decades</p>

<p>So how should a company manage a technology substitution? The accepted strategy is to embrace the new technology even if you are wedded to the old technology. Otherwise you end up making buggy whips when there are no buggies left. George Fisher decided that the future of Kodak was in imaging. He sold off all of the non-imaging assets and started milking the film business to pay for digital R&D. I'm very biased, but I'm convinced Fisher was wrong. When the old technology has plenty of profit potential and the new technology doesn't, it doesn't make sense to plow film profits into digital. It does make sense to use film profits for businesses with future profit potential (organic chemicals, medical lab equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc.) If they had done this, Kodak would be stronger, but the film business would not necessarily be any better off. It still doesn't make sense to invest heavily in a declining market. Many film people at Kodak would have liked to see more promotion of film in recent years. This could have prolonged the conversion, but we would still be sitting here in 2009 bemoaning the loss of some favorite film products. </p>

<p>My bottom line: Kodak could have done a much better job managing the transition from film to digital, but nothing could have stopped the transition. </p>

<p>Now I need to go make a phone call on my 1880 Western Electric phone to inquire about a new cartridge for my turntable. I need to copy some vinyl albums onto 8-track. </p>

[hjoseph7]

Nice story Roy, but Kodak really did a lousy job during this transition compared to companies like Fuji and Ilford.

[sonja_greene]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a place for writing emotional letters? Yes, but you should be writing them TO other photographers asking them to consider the world of film photography. THAT is how a difference can be made. Kodak wants to sell you film, believe me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OMG!!!!! That's why film is what it is today, everyone buying only digital!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eureka!!!!!!!!!</p>

[sonja_greene]

<p>But really, film has turned out to be a hobby, digital is mainstream and they can't turn back even if they wanted to (or fail doing so). I have several rolls of film to develop but can't bring myself to doing it because I can't spend the extra money right now at $8.00 CD only/cost of film in the hole per roll. I have hundreds of digital pictures that I enjoy and <strong>only</strong> at the cost of the price in electricity for charging up the batteries. It's a no brainer for me. Am I helping to contribute to the death of film? Perhaps so, but I, as a consumer am pleased and have what I want as with millions of other consumers in this market. 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.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Sonja, the point you make is nothing new, but I am going to disagree with one thing you said. Film is not a hobby, it is a niche. Some of us who actually still make a living at shooting what we want have gone back to film because we simply get more out of the process and in turn, make better images that way. And film is not going to die either, so don't worry about your hand in it. It has become and will remain niche. Niche is good, like my income stream, not weddings, not events, but niche. So digital is not new either, I have been using it for 16 years, if anything, it is the same OLD thing.</p>