Kodak Alaris and Lomography Partner Up

[Faintandfuzzy]

They can make all the promises they want, but if we are forced to pay those extravagant LOMO prices they will never stand.

Their film prices are cheap. Not sure what you are talking about

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

They have a pretty decent film photography podcast that has been going since 2009.

I've bought lots of film from them.

 

[JoeV]

Okay, I'm a bit puzzled. Lots of people here, who claim to fondle high-dollar rangefinders, seem to look down their noses at (gasp) Lomo!, when in fact they're one of the few helping to keep film alive. I know Lomo film might not be up to the quality of Fuji, but if the Alaris film proves to be of similar quality to the older Kodak products, would you still not buy it because it's Lomo?

I'll extend the question a bit further. What happens if, in the future, Lomo-branded film is the only film on the market? Do you give up your film cameras entirely because of a misguided sense of snobbery? It smacks to me of some weird generational/class snobbery, like some can't stand to be in the same room with the poor proles who are just now discovering film.

Okay, help me understand what I'm reading in this thread. If it's not outright snobbery, then what is it? It can't be about cheap plastic toy cameras versus the best of German engineering, since we're talking about Lomo's marketing of film, or did we all not read the title of the thread?

And what's so bad about cheap plastic cameras if they help sell more film to put in your precious rangefinders?

Discuss.

~Joe

 

[thegman]

I speak as someone who used to use a Lomo LC-A+.

The value provided by that camera is pretty poor, it's *very* poorly built, and the same money spent elsewhere could get you a cracking used RF or or SLR.

However, I knew what I was getting into, and the fact that Lomography has walk-in shops in major cities I think can only be a good thing for film photography.

Lomography is not the 'perfect company' that we all want to evangelize film for us, but that is not what they are there for. They are there to make money, period.

However, for those who 'feel sick' at the idea of Lomography partnering with Kodak Alaris or whoever, I think that is attaching an unnecessary emotional response to what is exclusively a business transaction.

Those who do feel very strongly about it could perhaps consider marketing film themselves, maybe as a starting point they could aim for 0.1% of the impact that Lomography has had.

 

[Mablo]

You can say many things about Lomography but the cold fact is it's the largest individual film selling unit in the world. It makes a lot of sense that Alaris shakes hands with Lomography. In my view this is some great news!

 

[Photo_Smith]

I think this is very positive news Lomo have a track record of supporting formats like 110 putting out films in both colour and B&W in that format.

The films are competitive in price, I understand that some greybeards might dislike their business practices and the selling of plastic lens cameras.
Just looking around the campus here i note that a Lomo is pretty much a starter camera for the young adults doing A level photography, they quickly move on to the twenty quid Nikon/Pentax/Canon offerings.

Anyone selling film is a positive thing, and worthy of praise in my opinion.

 

[Keith]

I have similar feelings about this to what I'd probably have if BMW decided to do something similar with Hyundai or Daewoo.

Or maybe Leica with Panasonic ... oh hang on!

 

[Drtenma]

Prejudices about companies and their customers may work in a forum like RFF, but real-world business need much more than that.

Long live Lomo and all the companies that still make money selling film (and cameras)!

 

[HHPhoto]

Hi Mark,

Anyone selling film is a positive thing, and worthy of praise in my opinion.

Yes.
But also a bit "no" in the case of Lomography.
I criticise their marketing strategy that:

"film photography = unpredictable results; unsharp, vignetted or cross-processed images; funky colors; plastic lenses, toy cams....etc. = lomography.
So beginners get a wrong expression about what film can be.
Lots of them think film = low fidelity results = lomography.
That is the main problem I see.
Lots of beginners are disappointed with the results of the lomo cams and stop using film.
Because they don't know that Lomography is only a very small part of film photography. They don't know about the excellent results film delivers in normal "precision" photography.

So it is a mixed bag:
Yes, lots of young photographers get into film by lomography.
But yes, also a lot don't continue to use film because of lomography.

As to the original statement from Alaris und Lomo:
Just marketing blabla, because nothing is new here:
Kodak is shipping film for re-branded Lomo films for some years now (colour negative, and one of the BW films).

The real info is in the interviews Kodak Alaris has given during the last weeks to neutral sources:
- the main focus of the Personalized Imaging business (film is part of that) is digital business (e.g. picture kiosks)
- the management team is the same as the last years, no changes; located in Kodak Park in Rochester (so the same guys who crashed the business in the last years)
- film production is fully dependant on Eastman Kodak and their coating facility in Building 38
- no new investments at all in film
- their film business is declining
- as soon as some film products are below a certain sales level, they will be discontinued.

So, let's stay realistic. No reasons here unfortunately for a champagne party 😉.

Cheers, Jan

 

[tunalegs]

Kodak already supplied Lomography with a lot of film, so this is not surprising, indeed I think it is a most welcome step forward. Say what you want, but Lomography film is sometimes the cheapest way to buy film - per exposure a three pack of Lomography 100 ASA c-41 film is cheaper than a four pack of Fuji Superia at W-mart, and this film is made by Kodak. I can get behind that even if I dislike Lomography's cameras and marketing tactics.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If this is considered to be news, then film industry is dead.
Body still functioning but brain is gone.

 

[alienmeatsack]

LOL. I got an email this morning that says, no joke... "Film Is Saved!". Because Ilford is not at all committed to film and therefore Lomography and the new Kodak are saving us from never having anything to shoot. 😀

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

I can see lomo guys smell business... They are marketing geniuses. The way I see the scene is: Lomo buys what Kodak has in the stocks. I haven`t heard there is NEW stock of TRI-X available, and that´s what everyone is waiting. Arista 400 is gone, there is no fresh TRI-X available in Europe... So, "great news" oh yeah??

 

[tunalegs]

LOL. I got an email this morning that says, no joke... "Film Is Saved!". Because Ilford is not at all committed to film and therefore Lomography and the new Kodak are saving us from never having anything to shoot. 😀

Does Ilford make or plan to make color film? :angel:

 

[Photo_Smith]

Hi Mark,
Yes.
But also a bit "no" in the case of Lomography.
I criticise their marketing strategy that:

"film photography = unpredictable results; unsharp, vignetted or cross-processed images; funky colors; plastic lenses, toy cams....etc. = lomography.
So beginners get a wrong expression about what film can be.
Lots of them think film = low fidelity results = lomography.
That is the main problem I see.
Lots of beginners are disappointed with the results of the lomo cams and stop using film.
Because they don't know that Lomography is only a very small part of film photography. They don't know about the excellent results film delivers in normal "precision" photography.

So it is a mixed bag:
Yes, lots of young photographers get into film by lomography.
But yes, also a lot don't continue to use film because of lomography.


Cheers, Jan

I don't see this, i think nearly all of the students I have taught have graduated to other forms of photography after the initial Lomo 'hook'.

The young are a quite smart bunch, they are often aware of more than you credit them, in fact I totally disagree based upon my experiences that they are unaware 'film can produce good results'

In fact the Lomo 'look' is what drives them to pick up cameras, they are into that and then move on from there.

Few will buy a camera and think 'that's crap' and 'what a load of rubbish film is-- they are clever and understand more than you credit them.

Anything that sells film and keeps building 38 running is good.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I can see lomo guys smell business... They are marketing geniuses.

Marketing is what film has needed for years, in fact this announcement may not have 'saved film' as the poster says above, what it does mean is that Kodak might be able to keep the wolves from the door-for that we can all be thankful.

 

[Sparrow]

LOL. I got an email this morning that says, no joke... "Film Is Saved!". Because Ilford is not at all committed to film and therefore Lomography and the new Kodak are saving us from never having anything to shoot. 😀

... love the egalitarian iconography ... at least they have a sense of irony

BTW whatever happened to that chap who was running Kodak, Pretz or Pretzal was it?

 

[alienmeatsack]

Does Ilford make or plan to make color film? :angel:

Hey, let's keep the logic out of this discussion, that is both uncalled for and illogical 😀

I was mostly just poking fun at their "We are saving film!" comment when Ilford has been "making film" this whole time without any "We are your heroes!" comments 😀

 

[HHPhoto]

Say what you want, but Lomography film is sometimes the cheapest way to buy film - per exposure a three pack of Lomography 100 ASA c-41 film is cheaper than a four pack of Fuji Superia at W-mart, and this film is made by Kodak. I can get behind that even if I dislike Lomography's cameras and marketing tactics.

It depends on the country. In the US they may be the cheapest, here in Germany with the excellent film infrastructure (much better than in the USA) all the drugstore chains and the specialised online distributors offer more attractive alternatives (most from Fuji; e.g. C200 and 200 and 400 housebrand film for almost free, 88 cent (!!) a roll).

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

LOL. I got an email this morning that says, no joke... "Film Is Saved!". Because Ilford is not at all committed to film and therefore Lomography and the new Kodak are saving us from never having anything to shoot. 😀

Well, if they at least would do what they are announcing.
For years I am observing the film section in their online shop.
And for years most films there are "out of stock".
It is a bad joke!
Lots of films "out of stock" for years.
Even some of their own new introduced film types are not available anymore. Lots of their customers (I've bought there, too, you can include me) are very angry because of this stupid behaviour.
Not to mention that they are hurting their core idea by going digital now (they have just introduced digital only products).

Cheers, Jan