Kodak Clarification

[Earl Dunbar]

Contrast that with Ilford with Simon Galley actively participating on APUG and if you look on Ilford's website, there is a page for news, you don't see that on the Kodak sites. Bill

Bill, this is just plain WRONG. Kodak has a link to its press centre, which is where news articles, releases, etc., are posted. This is a common practice for corporate websites. Whether you think it is properly highlighted, whether it is the "right" way to do it or not is another question.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...requestid=5196

Kodak is in a lot of markets, and is much, much larger than Ilford. While I admire Ilford as a company, am amazed at their participation in this forum, love many of their products and have used them longer than you have been an adult, making a judgment such as you have based on an incorrect statement about them not having a page for news stories ... well, I am confused.

How many of you here have taken the time to pick up the phone and talk to Kodak? There are real people, in Rochester, who answer the phone in the professional film products division. When people here were bashing Kodak because they hadn't gotten their free Portra yet, or got the wrong items (from a free offer), I simply picked up the phone and talked to a young man who was more than happy to communicate that people could call them and get any issues sorted out. I talked to a real person who supports film and communicated a very simple message: "We want people to try the film."

I am no Kodak cheerleader. While my favourite film of all time was K25, and my current choice for "best" is K64, the best b&w paper I used was Brilliant, and I use Fuji, Ilford and other products now. I mourn the passing of Agfa.

And no, their PR/marketing is not perfect. But when everyone who bitches about Kodak becomes a perfect photographer, then I'll take it more seriously.

But damn it, if people just hang on the net and bitch about things without picking up the phone to a TOLL FREE NUMBER to the very people who can deliver your message to decision makers, well then, I have no sympathy.

Maybe PE and I should get together for a coupla drinks soon.

[Earl Dunbar]

All this just reminds me to go and order a box of Ilford Galerie before the bashing Picker gave it in the early 80's takes effect. One of the finest papers left which we don't hear much about.
Mark

Mark: Agreed. While I preferred Brilliant because I tried it and liked it, I never understood how he thought Galerie was so bad, save for marketing. I continued to use Galerie as well.

[Photo Engineer]

Bill, this is just plain WRONG. Kodak has a link to its press centre, which is where news articles, releases, etc., are posted. This is a common practice for corporate websites. Whether you think it is properly highlighted, whether it is the "right" way to do it or not is another question.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...requestid=5196

Kodak is in a lot of markets, and is much, much larger than Ilford. While I admire Ilford as a company, am amazed at their participation in this forum, love many of their products and have used them longer than you have been an adult, making a judgment such as you have based on an incorrect statement about them not having a page for news stories ... well, I am confused.

How many of you here have taken the time to pick up the phone and talk to Kodak? There are real people, in Rochester, who answer the phone in the professional film products division. When people here were bashing Kodak because they hadn't gotten their free Portra yet, or got the wrong items (from a free offer), I simply picked up the phone and talked to a young man who was more than happy to communicate that people could call them and get any issues sorted out. I talked to a real person who supports film and communicated a very simple message: "We want people to try the film."

I am no Kodak cheerleader. While my favourite film of all time was K25, and my current choice for "best" is K64, the best b&w paper I used was Brilliant, and I use Fuji, Ilford and other products now. I mourn the passing of Agfa.

And no, their PR/marketing is not perfect. But when everyone who bitches about Kodak becomes a perfect photographer, then I'll take it more seriously.

But damn it, if people just hang on the net and bitch about things without picking up the phone to a TOLL FREE NUMBER to the very people who can deliver your message to decision makers, well then, I have no sympathy.

Maybe PE and I should get together for a coupla drinks soon.

Right on Earl.

Contact me any time. Drinks are on me!

PE

[Earl Dunbar]

As stated above, I bear Kodak no ill-feeling and hope they are a supplier of traditional photography materials for many years to come.

However...

I'll be doing my buying from companies that have expressed support for my chosen art-form rather than the opposite. (I fully appreciate that this will make no difference in the great scheme of things whatsoever!)

Frank: Kodak got out of the b&w paper business. AFAIK that's their only public move that could be construed as moving away from analog photography. And that, as has been referenced here, was a simple business move ... financial losses, pure and simple.

Where have they not expressed support for film/analog? Where have they expressed any intention to not continue to support it?

[copake_ham]

Hey Trius - where have you been lately?

If you scroll around I think you'll see we're on the same page here.

Weirdest thing lately here was folks bitching at Kodak because they didn't get their "freebie" Porta film as soon as they expected!

And look at this thread. Some guy saying don't buy their products so you can teach them a lesson. And exactly what lesson would that be, duh?

Isn't that kind of like the 3 year old child telling his/her parent "I hate you"?

I'd hope we'd all be a bit more mature than that!

If anything, we should be damned grateful that Kodak has been staying in the business this far. We traditional photogs have NOTHING TO GAIN by losing any supplier - much less the most diversified film manufacturerer in the world!

Now, however, it would be nice if they were a bit more communicative "on line"....

[Photo Engineer]

George;

I talk 'on line' and no hit man has showed up at my door.

Oh, wait, doorbell, brb............................................... ..........

[Helen B]

***

Now, however, it would be nice if they were a bit more communicative "on line"....

George,

They are just old-fashioned analog guys, aren't they? They still answer the phone and talk to their customers. Of course if you want online information about film and the use of film they have more of it than all the other film manufacturers put together, and then some.

Best,
Helen

[PKM-25]

Well now I feel bad for trying to use this site as a resource for information. While I am doing a project on Kodachrome, I am not waiting like a vulture for it's demise. Kodachrome has got to be one of the most costly products Kodak makes, not a high profit margin at all at this point in time.

So instead of going about life, waiting around and getting caught off gaurd, I am doing something about it. in addition to my own shots, two Nikon FE2 cameras and 35mm lenses will visit 100 schools throught the U.S. and be used by children. Imagine a body of work produced on Kodachrome by our children....I thnk this is important.

I post a ton on here because it is important that I get as much information as I can so that as far as I am concerned, when Kodachrome does eventually exit, it does so with a bang, not a fizzle.

The very publicity of this could cause an upturn in the use of Kodachrome, so it might stick around later.

And enough of the Kodak bashing, that is just retarded.

For example, not a week goes by without a new rumour about the discontinuation of Kodachrome. Why on earth are we subjected to this?! It is entirely unnecessary. If the film is to remain for another while then Kodak should tell us that officially. If a decision to pull it has been made, then we should be told that clearly and unambiguously at the earliest date. Instead we get leaked emails and "insiders" and friends of "insiders" and probably genuine insiders too, all muttering dark rumours one way or the other, with the result that PKL and KL were discontinued and resurrected at least two dozen times, with varying degrees of official consent, until they finally lost the will to spring to life, genie-like, yet again.

[copake_ham]

George,

They are just old-fashioned analog guys, aren't they? They still answer the phone and talk to their customers. Of course if you want online information about film and the use of film they have more of it than all the other film manufacturers put together, and then some.

Best,
Helen

Hi Helen,

Yes, you're right about the analog guys - and perhaps that's part of the "issue" folks have here?

Kodak is apparently a "house divided" these days.

The new "digi kids on the block" who are running the "other side" of Kodak are hip to the web and it's marketing prowess (I figure these are the folks that were behind that YouTube video that we all became aware of here).

Unfortunately, on "our side" are those guys in the chem labs who are still wearing white coats and thinking that everyone knows they're smart and make good products - so why bother with things like the internet.

Can you imagine how quickly Kodak could rejuvenate film photography if it did a "street guerilla" marketing campaign including a couple of YouTube posts?

[FrankB]

George - I'd have absolutely no problem with #1 happening at all. As you say, it's worked for Ilford.

Earl - I'm thinking of Perez's widely-publicised statements and the recent YouTube guerilla marketing exercise amongst other things. The noises coming from Kodak are less than reassuring to me as an analogue user. Again, it's my personal opinion.