New films shown at ICIS by Fuji and Kodak

[Donald Qualls]

Originally Posted by r-s

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

Pending adjustments to get the correct dwell time at the right temperature (and one is strongly tempted to wonder if changing one or the other, just a little, would allow control over image characteristics roughly similar to contrast control in silver-image wet processing), the fuser section of a (cheap) laser printer might also work. Printing a blank page with a single "form feed" character on it would serve to feed the sheet, so no alteration of the printer's firmware is likely to be necessary, and a printer carfully cleaned and the toner level detector subverted might be expected not to leave black stuff on the film. Most printers even have a "single sheet" feed option on the paper cassette, so you wouldn't have to load the film into the cassette in conditions darker than the average darkroom. Disabling all panel lights and capping the laser are left as an exercise...

[Helen B]

"...Or, maybe the other option is to expect people to manually transcribe the form INTO an email, and then "fill it out" in their email client before sending it?
...

So I'm therefore wondering why they raise so many obstacles to people complying via email?
...

Make it EASY for people to express their interest. Don't make them navigate an obstacle course!"

Aren't you over-dramatising just a little? I thought that writing an email with the required information was easy. The way that this was presented at a technical conference by the chemists/engineers responsible for it, rather than at a marketing junket by marketing people, and the way that we have been able to express our interest gives me the feeling that it is something of a personal initiative. A personal connection. Forget the corporate EK and respond to the individuals sharing their work with us.

Best,
Helen

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Helen B

Aren't you over-dramatising just a little?

Well, no, I don't think so. I'm thinking in "big picture" terms, and in that regard, I think we most likely just witnessed the sum total of the "market reseach" campaign that will be used to determine the future of this film. As such, it didin't really research the market. "The market", such as it might be, has no idea whatsoever of this stuff, and I doubt they'll ever find out about it. As to the deconstruction of the obstacle course, that stuff might seem like nitpicking, but it isn't -- that's really the kind of stuff that prevents people from responding to a proposal. Each "roadblock" will sweep numerous potential reponders off the table. Some won't bother because they can't figure if they're "supposed to" figure out whether to email, snail mail, and/or how. Most folks in the real world are subject to the "what I'm 'supposed to' do" internal guidance system. That's why we persistently elect crooks and morons to run the country.

Other folks will look at it and think, "I'd be interested, but I'm not gonna place an order for a year's supply of film when I don't know anything about it, not even the price!"

OK, sure, it's not a real order form. But that's how a lot of folks will see it. And we can forget about any of 'em replying!

IMO they have categorically done everything imaginable -- short of using invisible ink and sanscript text -- to ensure as few responses as possible. My working theory is that "Kodak Marketing" wants nothing to do with this, said, "Oh, great -- not another kind of FILM?", and left "the scientists" on their own. The kind of effort we see on that sheet is the kind of thing we'd see created by technical people who do NOT "think like marketers". They may be great at inventing something, but they simply don't have the ability to sell it.

This is no insult or slam. I'd much rather live in a world of nerds than a world of marketeeeeeers. But the reality is, that in the current environment, if something like this is going to be subject to an MR test before a decision is made to manufacture it, then the MR effort is gonna have to be orders of magnitude less "nerdy" than that scanned sheet.

So, I don't expect this product to see light of day (no pun intended. I think.)

BTW, are you the person we sent some fresh catnip to a few years ago during a combined Ektar 25 buy?

[Photo Engineer]

r-s;

I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read.

I also want to inform you that the copy address on the sheet was intended to reach the individual who presented the paper, and they did reach him as well.

This was an effort to determine interest in such a product, as interest among the members of the press and the consumer public, in general, was close to NIL as far as I know (my own opinion based on general interest in analog products).

So, although the film has not been produced, and has not been, except in reachearch quantities, Kodak management now has a rough estimate of intetrest in producing an entirely new product.

Doing so is up to them and the magnitude of the response vs the price to produce will determine that. The test, if undertaken, will determine the quality needs through the response that Kodak gets from the recipients.

So, my take is this. Kodak does something to show that research and new things in analog photography are still going on, and they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested, and all you can do is find fault.

Well, the problem is that you represent the type of people I see griping about Kodak all the time. Heavens knows that they need someone to keep the fire lit under them, but this case is kind of unique and I just cannot understand how this can get you so upset. This was a major change in direction for them, to gain market information. Just the kind of thing you are complaining about. Take it as a gift from heaven that they are doing this and quit your complaining.

I have a funny feeling that if Kodak were to announce an iron clad guarantee that Kodachrome was to be produced for a minimum of 10 more years and that they were reviving Ektar 25 and Super XX, you would find something to complain about.

If Kodak got enough comments like yours, they might cancel the whole thing and say "You see what it is like out there? No use doing this, we can't make anyone happy so lets just do digital as the majority want that."

PE

[Greg_E]

Please forward to them that I might also be interested in a slower speed with finer grain, several other people mentioned this too. It's much easier to make a heater in some remote part of the world than it is to mix chemicals. The dry developing of a photographic film (to differentiate between medical, etc.) is what really sparks my interest. And really I do enjoy some night time "art" photography that is difficult with slower films when the wind is howling and the snow flying (and other things that happen in central New York). But all that matters very little because of my consumption of the product. Would I use 100 rolls a month.. no way. Would I use 100 rolls a year... if the results are good, since the processing is pretty simple. Heck heat activated developing might not be so bad in the middle of winter.

[Photo Engineer]

Greg;

Your comments and those of others are getting through to Kodak. I am sure that there are silent observers here.

PE

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

r-s;

I assure you that every form filled out did reach Kodak and was read.

I also want to inform you that the copy address on the sheet was intended to reach the individual who presented the paper, and they did reach him as well.

This was an effort to determine interest in such a product, as interest among the members of the press and the consumer public, in general, was close to NIL as far as I know (my own opinion based on general interest in analog products).

The interest was nil? In a product they didn't know existed?

Go figure!

:)

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

So, although the film has not been produced, and has not been, except in reachearch quantities, Kodak management now has a rough estimate of intetrest in producing an entirely new product.

Not really, since MOST of the market, via representative sampling, was NOT apprised of the product's existence!

Look, they've got my name and address. They've sent me samples of film. (Sometimes they even managed to have the sample arrive shortly before it was discontinued, or rather, "renamed"!)

I received nothing from them regarding this product -- either via mail (as I said, they know where I live), via email (they do send me notices every month or so to go look at the updated "magazines" on their website), or via carrier pigeon (I just checked my barnyard, "just in case" :)

And lest you think I'm "focusing on me", I'm merely using myself as a typical example of the countless "pieces of the market" who were not allowed to find out about this product. I mean, not allowed! Blocking access to anything beyond the abstract is tantamount to treating this product like a state secret, which is anathema to any rational concept of promotion, or even determining interest in it!

At the very least, they should have put up a website with some descriptive info (more than that abstact!), some example photos, and a "click here for more info/if you'd be interested in buying this product" link, to take people to a web form.

I've noticed that they have no problem whatsoever in making me fill out voluminous forms in order to receive product samples. So it's not exactly like the technology is out of their reach.

I found out about this by happenstance -- I glanced at a message in a mailing list I receive, because the header struck my fancy ("Kodak ISO 24,000??")

That in turn directed me to a blog, which didn't say all that much, but did have links to this thread (ergo, my appearance here), and, the abstract to the white paper covering the product.

I searched in vain down that path -- I could not find any more info! They didn't even let "mere mortals" see the actual paper describing the product! The abstract was a dead end. Incredible.

And the only ones who even saw "the form", from what I gather, are those who were at the event, and those who happened upon this thread.

That ain't exactly reaching out and grabbing the market by the... "heart."

They want to judge interest in a product, but they won't even allow "the market" to read anything beyond the abstract???

Sheesh!

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

So, my take is this. Kodak does something to show that research and new things in analog photography are still going on, and they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested, and all you can do is find fault.

Oh, please. That's just silly.

You say "they try a unique method to contact those who might most be interested"? LOL! What will they try next, smoke signals? Tapping the water pipe with a spoon to send out the news in Morse Code?

This was a classic case of "hiding your light under a basket."

Plus, I offered constructive criticism. Go re-read my post if you didn't catch it on the first pass.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Well, the problem is that you represent the type of people I see griping about Kodak all the time.

Yeah, "my kind", eh?

Every wonder where "we" come from? Who "created" us?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Agfa. Or Fuji. Or Ilford.

When lots of people complain about something, then maybe, juuuuuust maybe, that "something" ought to consider asking if maybe it is the reason for the complaints, instead of lashing out at all the "complainers."

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Heavens knows that they need someone to keep the fire lit under them, but this case is kind of unique and I just cannot understand how this can get you so upset.

Well, perhaps that's because I'm not "so upset"!

Please do not impute emotions to me based upon your conjecture and/or projection, OK? I will do my best to reciprocate.

One major reason I'm not "so upset" is because I already have a lifetime supply of "NLA" emulsions, held in stasis via the miracle of Freon. Sure, I'm not real pleased at having to go to the time and expense of building my own lifetime inventory, but, I've been through worse, and my health is such that there'll be enough film remaining to tide my son over at least until he reaches early adulthood. Then, it can be his problem. (How Keynesian of me :)

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

This was a major change in direction for them, to gain market information. Just the kind of thing you are complaining about. Take it as a gift from heaven that they are doing this and quit your complaining.

A "gift from heaven"? NOW who's all emotional? LOL!

As to it being a major change in direction to gain market info, sorry, I am just not buying that, not for one instant.

I cannot bring myself to believe that Kodak does not have working relationships with at least one major Market Research organization.

And by the same token, I cannot bring myself to believe that any MR outfit worth its salt would allow "the above" to be conducted as (or represented as) an MR study.

The presentation, as related (from what I've read thirdhand), including "the form", reeks of "nerdwork", i.e., the kind of thing that engineers come up with when tasked (either from heaven... um, I mean, "from above", or, "self-tasked") with MR duties.

Engineers are great at creating "things", which is why they're engineers, and not MR wonks. MR wonks are good at doing MR, which is why they do MR work.

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

I have a funny feeling that if Kodak were to announce an iron clad guarantee that Kodachrome was to be produced for a minimum of 10 more years and that they were reviving Ektar 25 and Super XX, you would find something to complain about.

Well, you just confirmed your complete inability to do a "cold read" on me (unless you were going to include something like, "at fifty bucks a roll.")

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

If Kodak got enough comments like yours, they might cancel the whole thing and say "You see what it is like out there? No use doing this, we can't make anyone happy so lets just do digital as the majority want that."

PE

Well, there we have it in a nutshell. Kodak can get all snippy, offended at their customers, and make a major marketing decision on an emotional basis -- and that's fine.

But heaven forbid their customers "get emotional" over the loss of a favorite product -- that's just wrong!

So much for that whole, "The customer is always right" thing.

RIP TCIAR!

[wirehead]

Originally Posted by r-s

Next topic:

I suspect one could probably process this stuff using something like the "developing" section of an old 3M "Dual Spectrum" copier. Might need to lay a piece of release paper over the emulsion, if it's unprotected, before passing it into the slot.

Another possiblity would be the developing section from something like my old Minolta printing Microfiche reader, which is set up to use (3M?) "Dry Silver" media.

I thought of the possibility of using the developer section -- or, the long ceramic/quartz heat rods -- from a xerograpphic copier -- but realized that they tend to glow red, which would likely fog the film.

But, I wonder if an air-impingement RC paper dryer would do the trick. It should be able to transport the film, and apply a lot of directed heat at the emulsion.

Each of these "expedient" systems would of course need some tricking out to regulate temperature, but it ain't rocket science for anyone with a modicum of manual dexterity.

I think it all depends on the tolerances required.

It may be OK to have a big unheated metal shoe, such that you heat it up to temperature before you start and it stays close enough throughout.

You may be able to have a metronome and a hand spool and calculate the timings such that it beeps every 180 degrees of rotation and use a Mk. 1 Human Hand to turn a crank on a spool to control the rate of film transport.

I'm betting that 4x5 is the easiest. Heat a skillet on the stove to the correct temperature (accomidating heat loss for cooling), take it into the darkroom, drop film onto skillet, wait, remove film with tongs after time has been reached.

*sigh*

I'm betting that, were this to have come out 5 years ago, Kodak would be marketing it with a little Polaroid-35mm-like tabletop processor.

[r-s]

Originally Posted by Greg_E

Please forward to them that I might also be interested in a slower speed with finer grain, several other people mentioned this too. It's much easier to make a heater in some remote part of the world than it is to mix chemicals. The dry developing of a photographic film (to differentiate between medical, etc.) is what really sparks my interest. And really I do enjoy some night time "art" photography that is difficult with slower films when the wind is howling and the snow flying (and other things that happen in central New York). But all that matters very little because of my consumption of the product. Would I use 100 rolls a month.. no way. Would I use 100 rolls a year... if the results are good, since the processing is pretty simple. Heck heat activated developing might not be so bad in the middle of winter.

I can forsee all sorts of innovative applications for something like this as a general purpose (i.e., "slower") film.

How's this sound: A camera that "develops" the film, frame by frame, as it's wound. You snap the shutter, then the film advances to the next frame. As it advances, it's passed over a "hot rod" that processes it -- and, right after it's processed, it's scanned, using a "fax-row" type linear sensor array.

You could have an instant display of the image on an LCD (sure you could have an instant display simply by backlighting the processed transparency -- but, the LCD would be much larger and more usable, and, it could display various bits of info too). You could upload the images (after you review and select the ones you want to send) to your agency, newspaper, website, whatever -- and, you'd still have real film "originals", which would have higher resolution, and so forth. Other advantages? Who knows? The marketplace will come up with them, and we'll all be surprised! How about forensics? It'll be nice to have a hard backup (um, "original") to affirm that the digital image hasn't been subjected to tampering. I'm sure there are countless other applications that no one will even consider until they have the technology at hand.

However, the more I think about this (the "instant process/scan camera"), the more it reminds me of the ASF "dry processor" that a certain company purchased all the rights too, and then deepsixed.

So I'm not gonna get my hopes up!

But if I was the kinda guy prone to getting his hopes up, I'd be watering at the mouth over a color implementation of this technology. It's got to be possible -- if the will do do it was there.

This would breath an incredible amount of life into analog photography!

And that's why I'm convinced it'll never happen.

[Photo Engineer]

r-s;

Are you out in left field or what? It isn't a product. I never said so, nor did Kodak. It is an experimental film that is ready for testing. It may or may not be tested based on response here and in other venues. To start with, you don't run a test with a hostile audience. That audience or person is not and cannot be objective.

They are trying to find out if this material should become a product. And, where to best go? Not just to a bunch of engineers at a conference, but to a site like APUG or Photo Net.

Ever try to sell the idea of something new in analog photography to the press lately? Ever try to sell a new analog product lately? I think it is you who is unaware of the reality of things. It is an uphill struggle to get analog photographic information out to the trade and out to the customer via the press. There is no great press interest and no great trade or magazine interest. And, the reason is that there is no great customer (consumer) interest.

It resides here on APUG with its 12,000+ memebers and other associated sites to carry analog forward without anger or vituperation, but rather in cooperation with each other.

You are fully justified in criticizing Kodak when they err, and they have committed some real errors, but I think this diatrabe of yours was not justified. You are just as wrong to say that Kodak is always wrong. There is right and wrong on both sides. In this case, IMHO, Kodak tried to do the right thing. Since this was their first time doing something like this, give them credit for trying and understand that they may do it better - or not do it at all in the future.

Their future approach is likely to be based on what they read here. I assure you that this thread is being followed by people at EK. They don't need abuse for what they might view as a valiant effort at a new approach.

I want to add that I agree that sometimes customers get justifiably emotional over their favorite product, take Ektar 25 for example. It was cancelled and a great outcry was heard throughout the land.... Well, so to speak anyhow. But did anyone consider that the waste factor for Ektar 25 was about 90% and Kodak had to eat that cost while the product was out there. In the end, they no longer could produce it. It was a loss leader that could no longer be sustained, regardless of the outcry. But, like most companies, Kodak didn't come to you and expain it all. Sorry. Other products were cancelled because of Cadmium, Lead or Mercury. Again, sorry. So, you see, you can look at many things from different viewpoints and come up with a different POV.

PE