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

[zack_zoll]

<p>Jeff really just hit the nail on the head and - in my mind - summed up the entire argument. Allow me to bring back the oil painting analogy, but put it in a little better context.</p>

<p>The vast majority of art materials are sold for scholastic, hobbyist, or childrens' use. You can buy a 8 oz or so tube of perfectly acceptable acrylic paint for well under ten bucks. You could probably get it for five, if it is black or white. Meanwhile, a high grade of oil paint might run you twenty dollars for a 4 oz tube - more than four times the price. What is the difference? Generally, the high-end oil paints are almost entirely pigment, with just enough binders or fillers to flow smoothly. Some have so much pigment that you need to add more oil to them to use them normally. A higher amount of pigment means that they can be thinned much more, which allows for much better blending and layering than you could ever acheive with acrylic paints.</p>

<p>By proportion, almost nobody that buys art supplies has the talent, or even the knowledge, to take advantage of this benefit to its fullest. As a result, there are very few brick-and-mortar art stores that even carry these paints. Even if you live in a town with an art college, there's a good chance that the local store doesn't carry them.</p>

<p>And yet, they are still in production. They are still sold to service a much smaller market (the market for oil paints shrank drastically with the advent of modern plastics in the 1900s), but it is a market that will pay for them, even if they need to go online or mail order them.</p>

<p>Film is such a medium. As Jeff said, very few consumers will see, appreciate, or care about the often subtle differences between film stock and a digital sensor. As a result, far fewer people buy film. This isn't a matter of choosing to let something die - it is a matter of the average consumer no longer needing the product.</p>

<p>Mark my words: film will be available for the forseable future. Consumer grade films will probably all be scrapped, since average consumers no longer shoot film. Black and white films in 120 and 4x5 have seen a bit of a resurgance, as old gear suddenly becomes affordable. Colour films (and processing) will eventually go the way of the high-end oil paints: it will be available, but only if you order it and send it away for processing. Kodak has canned their black and white paper manufacturing, and the end result was someone else buying the patents and making it themselves. The same will happen with Portra, et al. It's in the (very drawn-out) process of happening with Polaroid film.</p>

<p>I think that the reason that you are upset, Daniel, is that you don't seem to understand where you and the rest of us fit in all of this. We are not average consumers - we are not buying cheap acrylic paints. We are not fighting evolution, or trying to save a medium; we see ourselves as artists, and we simply want the best materials for the work we are trying to create. </p>

<p>We are encountering no more problems than painters looking for quality paints (or brushes! Do you know how hard it is to find really good brushes outside of a big city?!), or any other artists that has to look around to find materials. To say that this is some sort of terrible thing is, to be honest, a little demeaning and offensive to other artists that have been struggling with this same problem for longer than most of us have been alive.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Zach, now that you have taken it upon your self to "Educate" me in areas I already know about, what makes you think I am upset? I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?<br /> <br /> After 50 posts, it has become crystal clear this is not the place for this kind of input. I did get some great ideas today from people I know in the local art, education and pro gallery communities who are internationally connected and happen to agree with me, as does Kodak and Simon Galley from Ilford....</p>

<p>I think that is the answer to where the innovations and ideas truly lie, outside of the place that seems to harbor part of the problems, the internet.<br>

<br /> Oh well, at least I gave it a shot, back to doing the good work, inside the darkroom and out...</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm a photographer, and my job, and my passion, is to make images. I think about that much more than I fret about media. I'm not any longer sure that I would feel too bad about film disappearing.<br>

I was dragged into digital more than a little reluctantly, because the stock agencies that carry my work first stopped paying for my slides to be scanned and then decided that their editors wouldn't even look at film submissions any more and so I'd have to scan/have scanned everything I want my agencies to even look at. Of course when I get into it I find a few other things. First that my bill for film and processing has gone from at least £5 000 a year to zero. Second I can see what I'm going to get much better than I could with film, and if I don't like what I've got the first time well I get to go again. I think I'm making better photographs at a lower cost. <br>

So apart from a general nostalgia I can't feel either a lot of guilt or much enthusiasm for "saving film", and film photography is beginning to get the feel of the vintage car club - limited appeal though strong amongst that minority that feel it. Every purchasing decision I make - whether to buy a book via Amazon or in a bookstore; whether to get groceries at Waitrose or Sainsbury, or indeed to buy my next Canon body remotely or in a local camera store (if I can find one)- potentially and in the aggregate hands some people a job and puts others at risk. Some of the people I'm helping to put at risk every day are good people and nice people, taking a pride in what they do, but I just don't have the emotional capacity to view all or most or even a decent minority of my decisions that way. Whether its lack of time, the need to make sensible economic decisions for myself, or sheer emotional bankruptcy doesn't actually matter, its how things are, so sorry Daniel, I can't see the existence of film mattering enough for me to wrack by brains wondering what I can do to save it- because there's a workable alternative. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Daniel, if you're going to get snappy every time someone tells you something that you already know, I recommend beginning all of your new threads with a list of all the things you know about. This is clearly the only way to prevent this from happening.</p>

<p>Not the part about repeating information ... the part about other people trying to have a real discussion, while you shoot them down because we haven't guessed your answer yet.</p>

<p>This is a conversation, Daniel. You're trying to run it like a game of twenty questions, where every answer that isn't the one you had in mind is wrong. That is not a way that a conversation works.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>For example, you go on a site like this one or Flickr and you see an image that looks like it could have possibly been made with film, so you check the tags, info and find out it is and say, wow, that's a great shot made on film. What kind, Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji, etc. Bingo, instant word of mouth marketing for film, the proof is in the image.<br /> <br /> Same thing with seeing work in a gallery, people see my image of a storm brewing behind the Black Canyon of the Gunnison shot in 120 Infrared, love it and want to know how I arrived at that stark look. They read the gallery's bio on me and say, WOW, he shot that on film and made the print in a darkroom, cool! Word of Mouth, proof is in the image marketing strikes yet again...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel,<br>

Can you please post another example of your 120 Infrared photography. I too am attracted to the stark look that you offered in an earlier post.<br>

Of course, the best is to see the actual prints, so our other choice is to drive down to Aspen to visit friends, and we'll go tour the galleries. <br>

Thank you, Chris</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>This discussion is going nowhere, and has been from the onset. When all is said and done, just what is here that is different from any other of the huge number of previous discussions?</p>

<p>One thing the OP is certainly right about, is the need for "great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion", but alas those were not here, not even at the beginning, except, perhaps, for a brief spark or two of passion.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I am going to go about my business guys, I am getting some good ideas in play today, a few from LFF, not much elsewhere, what are you going to do, right? I was pretty clear and what I wanted, there is no question that there is a need to curb the public's perception that film does not exist, why would anyone argue with that...?...it baffles me really...<br /> Christopher, I could not find a jpeg of the photograph I am talking about, so I took a photo of a test print on my desk just now, it is of an edition of 45 10 x 10's I did on Ilford Warmtone Fiber, shot with a Hasselblad 501 C/M on Rollei IR400, enjoy!<br /> <br /> <a href="../photo/16116554">http://www.photo.net/photo/16116554</a><br /> <br /> I'm outta here for a bit guys....you might want to consider this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Dan, I hope I'm not taking this too far out of context, but regarding a couple of comments you made...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It takes a sustained effort to influence and motivate people toward action. And it takes a lot of patience and ability to persevere optimistically in the face of indifference, skepticism and opposition. It's not easy to inspire people. It's easy to give up and dismiss them when folks don't seem to agree or get the message right away.</p>

<p>You mentioned earlier that you no longer maintain a professional website. Perhaps this is a good time to reconsider. You can use your own blog or website to promote the things you love. And it isn't always necessary or even a good thing to offer a comments or feedback section. If you find it easier to maintain a sense of optimism when you're not bogged down by responding to skeptical comments, then don't bother with a comments section.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, my theory is that's why Ken Rockwell doesn't have a comments section on his site and hasn't wasted time or energy on sites like photo.net for many years. What he does works for him. Controversial or not, he's effective at what he does and he gets people talking not only about him, but also about his ideas and opinions, without even diluting his energy on discussion forum debates.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> Well I shoot 35mm film but other then buying a few rolls of film when I need to I do nothing to promote film or photography. I just enjoy taking photos. Film and camera's are easy to come across but lab services continue to dry up every year. I am down to the wire right now with almost no options. Most likely I will have to quit taking photos this year or next. Digital photography works well and everything but it's boring to me. I do not see digital photography as a future hobby. Maybe something I have to do to get family photos but then maybe the kids can take that part over. </p>

<p> I am not sure what vinyl records have with film but it always gets tossed in with these types of threads. However I know a few vinyl people and they all say that the vinyl market is growing. I also still own and play my records but I do not make a big deal about it. I own the stuff and enjoy music so I play them. Maybe about 300 albums. Once in a while I browse the vinyl store in Santa Cruz and buy something. I quit buying CD's probably 15 years ago. To expensive and the plastic cases always break. I do not like them. I tried the ipod but the kids take my headphones and so I finally gave up on the ipod. It's a pain to fiddle around with the menu's while driving anyway. It seems unsafe to me. </p>

<p> I hope film stays with us. If nothing else I hope large format B/W stays with us. As Daniel is doing the Silver Gelatin large format prints can be awesome to view. It's the only type of photography that i will buy a ticket to view. </p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>Ok from an old geezer who is SORT OF USED to bing put down<br>

yes I have a couple of digital ( 4mp) cameras but more and higher quality 35mm cameras</p>

<p>the annoucement from walmart floored me. stupid stupid stupid ( remeber the novel?)<br>

The masses ingnore negatives and many have NO IDEA what they are.<br>

The masses are willing to settle for poor results as long as the colors are bright.</p>

<p>I wanted to start a project at outr church. Kids go places but I would not let them take a $399.00 camera or even a $50,00 camera<br>

Vut how about a 18mp camera that takes twoo AA cell costs under $5 and<br>

uses FILm ? ( this was when the 1 hour lab was operating) I bought a box of mixed P&S 25mm cameras and was willing to pass them out.<br>

the pastor told mre "film is obsolete" and " why bother"<br>

WHY? does he have several hunbdreds of dollars to buy many digicams ?<br>

NO they just bought the rest oir the rug. I suggested a POractical solution but NO that was no good enough.<br>

he would rather miss all the photo opportunities and wait forever.<br>

It is like the person who delays buy ing a $600.00 ay a used Vivitar<br>

and at least have that foal length in his bag. <br>

people vary so much. one lady refuses toke a Nikon P&S ( free)<br>

preferring one use cameras. <br>

I think for most of the USA digital will be the thing.<br>

and these photo files will vanish at the next computer crash.<br>

Film if you care about quality will still be there for a long time.<br>

Unless like my Brother-in-law you store the film in a shed and let the mice eat it.<br>

or the shed burns down ( it happened)<br>

We still have civil war images.. how long will modern images last<br>

people do not thing about this/.</p>

[leicaglow]

<blockquote>

<p>C-11</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My mind scrolled backward, many decades to try and recall which process this was<g>.</p>

<p>So why is painted art still relevant? Surely, much art is created with PhotoShop, Illustrator, and any number of other digital software. Yet oil and acrylic painting thrive. It was not the end for that art form. If you want an illustrated magazine cover, you're not going to use a Norman Rockwell to create it (besides the fact he has moved on). And the art market is both crowded, and making a lot of money.</p>

<p>Why should photography be any different? In part, it might be us (as you suggest Daniel). Kodak can sound the trumpets for its film products, but isn't it really up to us, as photographers and artists of the medium, to educate the market about why our work is both different and more desirable? </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thanks all for some interesting comments (unlike some folk, I do read all comments before posting!). Here are some random thoughts which may or may not be of interest to Daniel or others:</p>

<p>- Kodak's movie stocks are way better than their stills emulsions. They should take 5219 (500T), skip the Remjet coating and sell it as the new Portra 800 (which has less latitude I think than Portra 400). Also, take 5203 (50D) and call it Portra 50.</p>

<p>- Has anyone here heard of this scanner which is coming soon: http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html</p>

<p>- Lomography seems to be doing okay. Hell, they can sell over-priced plastic toys which are more costly and less capable than old '50s folding cameras.</p>

<p>- For TV and cinema, film can actually be cheaper than digital (partly due to existing, specialised infrastructure). But for stills, I know from experience than film is more expensive. I don't care, but it's a fact.</p>

<p>- The key word is 'infrastructure'. Many labs around me will not do E-6 or 120. Can you believe this nonsense? What is a lab for?? Gah!! But the one that did 120 (very reasonable for processing, not so much for scanning) gave me poor scans, which I think was a mistake and not their usual practice. And they charge more for TIFFs. ::sigh::</p>

<p>- We can appeal to the magical past as long as we are committed to a magical future. I love Gene Smith's photos (he is greater in my heart than HCB), and as a bonus I love that they were made on film. But let's not get stuck in the past, let's be inspired by it and at the same time look forward to the next photograph, and the next, and the next, and the next.</p>

<p>- The best ads that David Ogilvy ever wrote were not wanky 'creative' ads but informative, how-to ads. It worked for soap powder and it worked for Shell petroleum products.</p>

<p>- For me, digital images are mere files, mere signals. Film images - camera originals at least - are a direct witness to the events that they captured. No other medium is like this, not even analogue audio tape (as far as my understanding of physics is limited).</p>

<p>- I have a trailer of one of the early Indiana Jones films. It's made from film coming into contact with film coming into contact with film (with fluid in between). It is wonderful to have that kind of thing in your hand.</p>

<p>- Simon Singh gets students interested in maths with his Enigma machine. It would be cool if Steven Spielberg took an Arriflex or Panavision camera, and a bunch of his old work-prints, around to primary schools to show students how he works. I would kill to see that stuff. Yes, I would. Okay, no, I wouldn't, but you know what I mean. Please don't call the FBI.</p>

<p>- One of the biggest - if not the biggest - movies this year is the last of Nolan's <em>Batman</em> projects. It's shot entirely on film, with an hour shot in IMAX. Apart from the visual effects, it's all 35mm and 65mm film. All of Nolan's movies AFAIK were originated on film. I love guys like that.</p>

<p>- I'm working on a concept for what will be the most compact Super-16mm movie camera every made, even more compact than the Aaton A-Minima. By the time I finish the design, will anyone care? I hope!</p>

<p>- Film origination and digital finishing complement each other (as far as colour goes). Film can co-opt digital and eventually be seen as the more important part of the hybrid process (which it is, but doesn't always look that way).</p>

<p>I am perhaps too idealistic. I also love digital, but not more than film. I might be right, I might be wrong, but all I can do is give my views. :-)</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not trying to tell people why they should use film, I am trying to tell them that they CAN</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that the request is narrowed down, the answer is that this is accomplished through communication. advertising, word of mouth, signs at galleries, websites, internet postings ect. using examples and getting the word out. There is no magical "innovative" techniques to demand of anyone here. We're not going to be able to come up with brainwave projection patterns to use on the masses. If you are looking for clever marketing content, just say so. Otherwise we have no idea of what you are talking about.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"I'm outta here for a bit guys....you might want to consider this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site."</p>

<p>All I can say is... you're a true leader. :)</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>I've got to be honest that I skipped most of this thread.</p>

<p>I am one of those younger photographers who began shooting digital (save from a few shots when my dad would let me use his yashica) and eventually turned to shooting film <strong><em>too</em></strong>.</p>

<p>I think the number one barrier to my getting into film in the first place was a misguided perception about the level of knowledge I would need and the relative difficulty of getting great results with film and wet processing. </p>

<p>I think that many, like me, fear letting go of the training wheels of digital exposure. I think that many, like me, love it once we do.</p>

<p>That being said, film shooters could do a few things to support their cause which may be a little irksome to the quality die hards. </p>

<p>For one, we need to be able to explain that processing film and scanning or printing really isn't that difficult (gasp) even if we all know that doing so well and doing so according to an artistic vision may be. </p>

<p>We need to not fly off the handle when recommending equipment, or things we think that a new photographer <em><strong>needs</strong></em>. A tank, somewhere completely dark (bathroom with towels stuffed around the door or a changing bag) a reel, developer and fixer are all you really need to get started in processing your negatives. The rest can be acquired as you go, or even used as modified equipment from other sources (i.e. using a glass measuring cup for measuring chemicals vs. a graduated cylinder). </p>

<p>I spent hours trying tog figure out just what I needed to get started because it's too easy to begin to think that you need these premium negative clips and stainless steel or plastic tanks. </p>

<p>Simplify what someone from the outside perceives as a complex process and you remove much of the fear or uncertainty from the equation. </p>

<p>Another point is that most of your new shooters will have a similar workflow to mine, meaning that you will more likely see a digital/film hybrid, rather than a purely film workflow. We need to be more understanding and willing to point out how the two can complement each other. For instance, while I still have an F100 and FM2N I have a hard time justifying shooting them, because they are either bulkier than my X100 or the results are equal or worse than what I get with my D700. Yes, this comes down to many variables on my end, but I'll be frank, once I finish the last of my 35mm film these cameras are going out for sale. For me 35mm just doesn't have a place in my workflow.</p>

<p>However, my Rollei, Pentax 67, Bronica ETRS and my Speed Graphic all see regular use and I put hundreds of rolls (not as many sheets) a year. And it's not all about quality. It's about style, and it's about the feel of the camera and the look of the scanned image as well as the wet darkroom print. </p>

<p>We need to encourage this type of exploration. </p>

<p>I particularly think that we need to encourage newer shooters to look at medium format and large format for a couple of reasons. First, because it is often such a different way of shooting (WLF anyone), and because it's much easier to get a sharp scan from even a crummy scanner than it is from 35mm. As much as a new shooter may love the distinctive look of film, many will be much more likely to stick with it if they see that they can get that look plus a sharp image. Secondly, I know that many new shooters would love to shoot a Rolleicord or Yashica 124 if they got the chance, just because they are so different and I think once they try it they are very likely to stick with it. </p>

<p>I'm sure there is far more that film shooters could be doing, but aside from keeping on shooting film, these are just a few thoughts that come to mind. </p>

<p>Also, for those of you who are interested, take a look around flickr if you need some encouragement. You'll find that the ranks of new film shooters are surprisingly thick.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanmlong/</p>

[donbright]

<p>The look of the image produced by film is a matter of good taste. Some have it, some don't. Film images look better to me, not because of notions pertaining to tradition, but the actual look of the image. The advantages are tremendous. I'm not a big fan of a wider, and wider tonal range, it doesn't look like the natural scene. Don't have to worry about moire, noise, there's a certain patina with film images that is attractive. I've been told I'm supposed to like the digital capture because its the latest. I've seen prints from digital capture, and their not better, their different. So don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Pentax 67, Kodak 125PX. The Noritsu web scan has left its digital signature; I also have an Imacon scan of the image. But forthcoming, I intend to have a professional lab create a medium size silver print. I have been asked, "Why bother with a wet enlargement?" Because, it's just what I want to do -- I want to frame and hang traditional silver prints.</p><div></div>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Zach, now that you have taken it upon your self to "Educate" me in areas I already know about, what makes you think I am upset? I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel I didn't read the entire thread... too busy processing film, but Zach's post that immediately preceded your post was a very reasonable logical balanced piece of work. I LOVE film. I wish it was more widely available and CHEAPER. But you must recognize the fact the benefits and resolution of film for much of its history have been overkill for consumers. The brownie was a MEDIUM FORMAT camera for Christ's sake. It was considered a cheap consumer item! WTF! We are NOT going back to the day consumers casually shot medium format black and white film. I wish we would but it ain't gonna happen.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Film and camera's are easy to come across but lab services continue to dry up every year.</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 was pretty clear and what I wanted, there is no question that there is a need to curb the public's perception that film does not exist, why would anyone argue with that...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, Daniel? The general public has very little need for film. Your motivation on a certain level is selfish, "I want other people who have no need for film to buy it so film and film services are cheaper and more available for me." What we need to do is to get the word out to the FEW people that actually have a need for film that it is available and well worth using. Blasting the general public is pointless. What I would be more interested in doing is informing the public about photographers that use good equipment. After digital had been out for several years I saw portrait studios that were using 8 megapixel SLRs and blowing portraits up to ridiculous sizes. Those things looked awful when compared to the FILM portraits my parents had made in the 80s. The resolution of digital cameras has improved a lot so I guess this isn't as much of a problem as it used to be. Still it would be nice if the public recognized the difference between a professional picture taken with medium format Efke 25... vs some BS taken with an iphone.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Daniel, To your question, I think what we are missing, is the universal belief that film yields a better print. I've noticed that film enthusiasts get weak in the knees every time a new digital camera comes out. Its like they feel as if they're missing out on something, until you hear the reality, and the regret that these DSLRs buyers are faced with. All that money, yet the pictures produced by medium format film camera's continue to set the standard. Photographers have always tried to buy themselves into better Photography, that hasn't changed. I'm just saying the evidence is right in front of us, the difference is obvious. I don't judge IQ from computer screens. Its the print, and the print is the future, and so are books.</p>

[aopstudio]

<p>I didn't read all the posts made here but I tried to glance through most of them. Here is my take on promoting film usage. Sponsor (pay) the big names in photography that are now working with digital that used to work in film. I remember when digital was making it's inroads, top name photographers were sponsored by Canon and Nikon to promote their digital cameras and why they were so much better than film. We were all too willing to jump on board thinking we would be the next Bambi Cantrell or Moose Peterson or.... you fill in the name( forgive me if I misspelled any names) If Kodak or any other film company could influence (pay them enough money) to say how much better their images are now that they have returned to (whatever rebranding the company would like to call the "new" film). Even if it is the same as the film always was we the public like "new and improved" things and it also gives us a reason to believe it is better. Heck look what the digital marketing has done. Cameras that came out 5 years ago that were the best of the best are now obsolete? Why, well because the marketing people said they are. Can I really see a difference in a print from a camera 5 years and one I bought today? Probably not but there must be because all those websites with the test charts show how much difference there is! So if film can get enough professional websites to show how much better it is than digital they will be right back in business. They just have to hire the right people to tell us that because if these photographers say it, then it must be, even if I can't see it. As George Castanza said on Seinfeld "it's only a lie if you don't believe it" So is the new film that's actually the same as the old film better.....absolutely!! Oh, and please try to pay attention only to the content...not punctuation and typos ;>)</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>What a difference a break and a good night's sleep make. There are some good posts here, and what I mean by that are posts that at least resonate with the overall goal I had in mind with this thread. For example, David Henderson has told us why he no longer uses film and does not see the reason to hang on to it, promote it…why did he post then? After searching through all of his posts, it would seem the only time that Panayotis has posted in the Film and Processing forum was to tell me I am wasting my time and money if I try to promote film, the rest of the time, he has posted in the Nikon and Digital sections…</p>

<p>Posts like the ones by Karim Ghantous and Ryan Long are what I had in mind, many of the others are not. I did not have a discussion in mind when I posted this, I had a think tank format, share ideas that are positive, that's it, a how to promote film ideas festival. So I would appreciate a modicum of restraint if you have nothing to add but why this is stupid, why you no longer use film, why you use digital, there are plenty of other lovely forums for that, this is not the one..</p>

<p>Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to Steve Jobs too in a manner of speaking, I know that possibly to a greater degree than most because I am good friends of the author of his biography. So there may not be a magic bullet, and the advances in marketing in other areas from grassroots level to corporate level have hit an all time high in terms of innovation and will stagnate from here on out…..yeah….right….</p>

<p>But…Just in case there *is* a new can of trend whoop ass to be opened, I would really like to be the innovator, not the follower who ignites it and I would like it to ride on the coat tails of the film movement. Lex, I agree with you on getting a site up, I am doing that, but not for my commercial work, I don't need that in the public eye, I need to protect it so it will be for personal and fine art work. And I love the idea of what you said about Ken Rockwell, that makes total sense. The Kodachrome blog is pretty much like that now, Kodak is posting the new entry on the Pro Film Facebook page tomorrow…in fact, I have a conference call with them in 15 minutes, so I have to go…</p>

<p>But keep thinking about this, keep positive, keep throwing in ideas, I will return to read them and have input. But if you just want to make your self feel good by sharing why film is dead and we are idiots for wanting to market it, please consider moving on….please....this is a think tank, an idea machine, we don't need you here and frankly, if you have nothing to add, you are wasting your time as much as ours. If you post something that you think is not in the spirit of this idea format and you think it is of value but I don't, I simply will ignore it as I should have with the others..<br>

<br /> Thanks, Dan</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Imagine.....8 pages of nothing but ideas in how to move film forward instead of it interspersed with various and often tiring to read exchanges....I know that is a lofty goal, but that is it really. Film's future is a chess match that we can all play, it's either your move or not your game, give that it's due..and consider how it affects those of us who are still playing.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to SteveJobs too</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being told you are a dreamer is probably the only area of overlap between you and Steve Jobs... if you are like most people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did not have a discussion in mind when I posted this, I had a think tank format, share ideas that are positive, that's it, a how to promote film ideas festival.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you want a circle jerk group think session. How did that work out for JFK and that Bay of Pigs thing?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So I would appreciate a modicum of restraint if you have nothing to add but why this is stupid, why you no longer use film, why you use digital, there are plenty of other lovely forums for that, this is not the one..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You obviously didn't read my contribution. I LOVE film. I use it quite a bit, but I am also realistic. Film is overkill for the vast majority of consumers. It was overkill in the day of the Brownie and it is overkill now. The difference is consumers have a choice now. So what do you want me to do? Lie to my friends and family and tell them they need to shoot medium format like me for their Facebook pictures? I am not saying this to discourage you. I am saying this because if you REALISTICALLY define your target market you will have a greater chance of success. I can tell you new semipro photogs are a great market. They shoot DSLRs because they don't know any better. I have seen a number of them convert to film once they are given a taste. These are the easy converts. I HATE to admit it but the marketing geniuses at Lomography have converted quite a few people by going after the hipster market. They have certainly helped things out in the medium format film arena. What I hate about them though is they are teaching a generation of people, "medium format cameras are plastic, have light leaks, and plastic lenses." Medium format is going to be synonymous with bad photography for that generation.</p>

<p>Anyway growing the market for film is a noble endeavor but you have to be realistic. It will never be the sort of mass market thing it was back in the good ol' days of the 90s. Those days are gone forever.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to Steve Jobs too</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't recall Steve Jobs trying to convince people to go buy pre-existing technology like typewriters and adding machines. I'm pretty confident, however, that there has been plenty of brainstorming on how to market film by those who would profit from it. Honestly, if we had the answers sought, we would likely have provided them already or are preparing to market them to Kodak as we speak.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

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. 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. Tough turnip guys, there have always been varying levels of tools out there. 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.

 

I ca not define who the market is, that is what I am trying to get at, there are going to be innovative new ways to broaden that horizon. Have you read Kodak's Professional Facebook page? It continually highlights talented people using the product in new ways.