Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,890   Posts: 1,629,952   Online: 1117
      
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 124
  1. #51
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,983
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?
    Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

    But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

    ...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

    "When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

    "PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."

    That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

    If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

    I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

    Ken
    "There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."

    — Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014

  2. #52
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,983
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    I think the 10-sheet boxes were indicative of a lack of faith on Kodak's part that there would continue to be a market for the film in 8x10.

    I think they had the product volume under a microscope. If a box with 20% of the product volume isn't turning over 5 times as quickly - demand is on the decline.
    This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

    Ken
    "There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."

    — Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Well I'm 56 years old and have known about it for 40+ years. And I'm currently in the process of enlarging some of my late father's Plus-X negatives (with BH MP sprocket holes) from the mid-1950s.

    But if I was 27 years old - or 17 years old - and had grown up getting just about all of my information online, and had read a blog somewhere extolling the virtues of the current minor resurgence of film, and had seen the APUG site mentioned a few times, and came here out of curiosity, and saw Kodak films being prominently discussed and debated, and saw several members speaking highly of a certain film called Plus-X, then yes, my first inclination would probably be to click over to the Kodak website and...

    ...read these two sad, lonely product info sentences:

    "When you want the crisp whites, even grays, and the density of true black to blossom, KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film delivers.

    "PLUS-X 125 Film offers a combination of sharpness and fine grain that makes it the ideal film for beautifully printable negatives in moderate-to-bright light."

    That's it? After over half a century? Well, the baby's little feet are cute enough, but...

    If Kodak really wants to increase long-term revenue from their film sales - and that's a whole different can of worms - they probably need to do a bit better than this.

    I'm from the school of thought that says if you want the consumer to consume your products, you have to tell the consumer what those products are and why they deserve to be consumed.

    Ken
    Kodak simply doesn't have the cash to broadcast that message in the face of a very well-monied digital onslaught. Nobody is aggressively marketing film in mass traditional or online media now.

    Kodak downsized their film production infrastructure tremendously 7 or 8 years ago - but their estimate of what would be the eventual, equilibirum size of the film market has proven to be too optimistic.

    Demand has continued to decline and now there is the double-whammy of an upward spiral in material costs.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    This absolutely resonates with my personal sense of what may be going on at Kodak. I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

    Ken
    Ken,

    Kodak isn't looking for excuses to discontinue products. They are simply a cash-poor company that cannot afford to be behind market demand trends and suffer any sort of losses from continuing operations.

    Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again. But this simply isn't going to happen and they lack the resources to market film in the face of extremely-well-monied digital imaging comapnies. Not even FujiPhoto (of which FujiFilm is but one division of a much better capitalized company than EK) has the resources, and they are certainly showing no inclination to use what they have.

    I'm optimistic that a couple very small companies may keep analog B&W photo materials available for another few years or even another decade or two - but there is no "second coming of film" in the offing.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  5. #55
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,983
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Kodak would, I am sure, would like nothing better than to wave a magic wand and make it 1986 all over again.
    PM sent, as this has already drifted too far off center line...

    Ken
    "There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."

    — Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014

  6. #56
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,527
    Quote Originally Posted by JLP View Post
    I do care but don't care much for your arrogance.
    You don't really believe that the quality from the new Adox pan 400 will be comparable to Kodak's first rate Q&A do you?
    Not bashing Adox and Mirko, i will most likely try to keep my now precious stock of TMY going as long as i can shooting Adox Pan 400 in the future.

    That Adox film is going to be made by most competent high rank people who did so before at Agfa.
    So much about arrogance.

  7. #57
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,209
    Images
    6
    Well, at least I'll be able to develop by inspection again.
    Jim

  8. #58
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,833
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    The PXP and P3200 are still featured in the left-hand navigation frame with the same prominence as the other films.
    Yeah, but why not on the right side with a graphic like the others? They even have room for two more boxes there.

    If you don't know what Plus-X and TMAX 3200 films are by now - what are the odds you are going to Kodak's web site to find out?
    Well, they feature Tri-X, a widely known, legendary even, film- so your question makes no sense. People who know about Kodak films don't need to go to their website to find out about them- it's those who don't know about the films.

    Grouping them under "Other Films" just makes them seem archaic or in some other way unsuitable to average users, and it also makes it look like Kodak doesn't really care about them. What's the point of not promoting them the same as the others? What's gained? It might make sense if the list of other films was of highly specialized films, or if it contained 10 or 20 emulsions, instead of 2.
    Last edited by lxdude; 12-09-2010 at 10:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,419
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    17
    the film is still available as a special order, it is just
    removed from the line up of regularly produced films.

    it isn't all bad ...

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Images
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Sorry, but I see no surprise whatsoever in this announcement. No foot-shooting here at all. Just Kodak continuing to move toward its brave new world.

    Go Kodak Packaging! (See here for an explanation in the section titled "A new company.")

    Ken
    Keep in mind that an interview like that isn't for us, it's for investors, for Wall Street, the fund managers that hold Kodak stock. Those guys think film is a dead end, and if they see Kodak as making too much investment in film and not in stuff that will lead to future growth Kodak's stock price will go down. That is what is uppermost in Perez's mind.
    "People get bumped off." -- Weegee



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin