Kodak Alaris CEO asking for input

[Bingley]

I'll start my comments by asking to bring back Plus-X.

Hear! Hear!

 

[rluka]

I would suggest a prepaid envelope. You put your film in. Drop it in the mailbox. And 7 days later you see your fully high-rez scanned film in your account on their website.

Would this invite anti-competitive accusation ?

 

[beegee675]

Here's an idea... A subscription-based membership model that would sustain his ROE. One would choose from a tiered set of packages that could include film stock, developing and scanning. Get sent film once a month. Send it back for processing or freeze it for the big trip. X number of rolls per year or month. Choice of films....
-Bob G.

 

[thambar]

I'd love to see subscription-type promotions within Kodak, along the lines of "We'll bring back a run of Plus-X 120 if we have X number of rolls pre-sold by Y date." Those who want it can pony up or shut up. Decades ago EMI did something similar with a series of "Society" sets of 78s: if enough people subscribed to the "Society" of a particular project (such as Hugo Wolf songs), then EMI would make the recordings and press up only those pre-sold copies.

 

[GaryLH]

.......and Kodachrome...!!

Yes. Kodachrome and plus x.

Gary

 

[mani]

This thread turned-out as something of a parody in the end.

Have to say I agree 100% with KM-25. I intend to write to the new CEO (or rather to the underling charged with sorting through these mails on his behalf), but the really constructive action will be buying and using as much Portra as I can over the next few years.

I genuinely suggest we all simply do the same: stop the childish and futile whining for favorites that are gone and never coming back. There's really no point.

 

[De_Corday]

How about something simple: Put double-X in 135 rolls from the factory?

 

[KM-25]

How about something simple: Put double-X in 135 rolls from the factory?

No because there is not and will not be enough demand to cover the costs of new film can painted graphics, boxes, new SKU number and all the other post-coating needs to get it to market. Not only would they not post a profit, they would lose money on a stunt like that big time....

The best you could hope for is 100' foot bulk rolls and even that is not going to happen...

 

[Ansel]

Every year sales of digital cameras decreases, and sales are drastically down in recent years. Yet Kodak still makes a nice profit on its film business and gets continually knocked for it... I think there is a lot of bull**** out there to be honest.

 

[BLKRCAT]

So far has anyone here actually sent any of their ideas to Kodak?

It appears no one has. I did however. I asked if it was feasible to bring back Ektachrome or some form of 100 speed E6 film. Just because I personally don't agree with what Fuji is doing with E6 at the moment – Dont get me wrong, Im glad they are still producing E6, but I hate how the prices keep going up as they pretty much have the entire market right now.

Their response was this:

Thank you for reaching out to me. It's nice to meet you via e-mail.

I am cc'ing our Film Capture Business Manager, Thomas Mooney who can provide some insight to your film question.

Sincerely,


Ralf

Thanks for your question. The decision to discontinue the manufacture and sale of our EKTACHROME films was a very difficult one. It was based on a steady decrease in demand and customer usage, coupled with a highly complex product formulation and manufacturing process. This conclusion was reached more than two (2) years ago. At this point in time, it would not be practical to try to bring these products back to market.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Mooney | Product Line Business Mgr - Film Capture |

 

[Aristophanes]

That doesn't sound like a great business strategy in 2014. Film is dead to the average consumer.

Price of film is not the issue.

There is already excess manufacturing capacity. The single plant in Rochester could supply the worldwide entire market many times over.

Keeping those plants running and their technical staff in place are the barriers, not the volume to price ratio.

Ironically, internet sales can make film more accessible through a lower cost of distribution, replacing very costly brick and mortar inventory.

Of course, that is how Kodak originally created the market.

It's the cost to develop and especially scan that is the barrier to stabilizing the market.

Self-development and self-scanning cannot keep volumes high enough.

High quality scans at low cost is the major problem. No scans = no demand in an age where the pre-print stage requires some version of online viewing and/or sharing.

You cannot make your own quality roll film in a barn or through Kickstarter.

Industrial levels of film production require industrial level of development and scanning.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Industrial levels of film production require industrial level of development and scanning.

I believe you are correct, there. As David pointed out, above, Ilford's strength is that they've gone through the pain of restructuring for smaller production. It seems to me that Alaris either has to go through that pain, come up with a business model that can ramp up sales or go under.

 

[kxl]

As much as I'd personally like to see the revival of Plus-X, I really don't think that makes much business sense for Kodak Alaris.

I think their future lies in digital asset management, specifically media asset management, especially if they can partner with a workforce management company with a platform that can front a Kodak Alaris DAM.

 

[Aristophanes]

As much as I'd personally like to see the revival of Plus-X, I really don't think that makes much business sense for Kodak Alaris.

My understanding is that the Kodak current production is also predicated on the cross-compatibility with motion picture film, which is still being used for capture and archive, if not distribution.

Portra (and its Ektar variant and BW400CN included) and Tri-X use the same stock processes as their huge volume film stock production (not sure about T-Max; might use the same substrate as Portra). Plus-X and Kodachrome MFP variants long ago ceased to be used, leading in part to substantial volume decreases, and eventually elimination of those products. The Rochester plant—the sole source of production for all these products—cannot be scaled down enough to do small runs only for the photography market.

The problem for film photography is that high-speed cost-effective scanning, such as what is done with digital internegatives ,never made it to the consumer level for still photography. The mini-labs never networked their output to even ethernet, so a scan from a Fuji Frontier can only be burned a CD, wasting material resources and lab tech time. And the scanner sub-market, like Nikon and Minolta, positioned the product as sort of a niche offshoot of the digital darkroom, using the slowness of craftsmanship methodology at a terrible cost per photo.

As a result, we are left with a roll film product that can be produced is stupendous amounts at a low cost per unit, but with a scanning backlog that cannot match that output to get the finished product into the consumer's hands efficiently and economically. The industry over-produces roll film but under-produces scanning. The digital age cannot keep up with the industrial age.

I am not even sure the home darkroom scene can do enough output to meet the b/w market from even just Ilford, not the way home darkrooms show up for free on Craigslist and never get picked up, going to the dump instead.

 

[Ranchu]

using the slowness of craftsmanship methodology at a terrible cost per photo.

What is this stupendous and terrible cost per photo you speak of? I paid $250 for a v500 and it works fine. The Coolscan cost me $500. Both together are an order of magnitude less than I've spent on digital, all of which is just...gone. As far as time, I've spent days, maybe years more dicking around with digital skin tones and highlights than I ever need to with film. I bought an om10 and the 50mm 1.8 for $30 shipped recently, just to bang around with.

So you were saying then?

What Kodak needs to do which many people have said is MAKE US A SCANNER. And one that doesn't save into some bull**** proprietary format like PhotoCD did.

 

[Aristophanes]

What is this stupendous and terrible cost per photo you speak of? I paid $250 for a v500 and it works fine. The Coolscan cost me $500. Both together are an order of magnitude less than I've spent on digital, all of which is just...gone. As far as time, I've spent days, maybe years more dicking around with digital skin tones and highlights than I ever need to with film. I bought an om10 and the 50mm 1.8 for $30 shipped recently, just to bang around with.

So you were saying then?

What Kodak needs to do which many people have said is MAKE US A SCANNER. And one that doesn't save into some bull**** proprietary format like PhotoCD did.

It's all about the cost per photo.

The can make millions of 4x6 per hour in Rochester. Minilabs and their vast distribution could process (locally) that same volume.

But home scanning could not keep up and because of the time/cost factor a high quality scan costs about US$12 for 36 exp. of 135.

So we get about $4/roll for the cost to consumer + developing at about $5/roll + scanning at $12/roll. I am am ballpark but that's a huge cost per photo as scanning is more than 3x the cost of 4x6 prints.

Since the entire model for roll film production from George Eastman's early days has always been volume, that cost barrier has almost completely shut the volume model of roll film out.

Coolscans and the like could not substitute for industrial scanning, as we see with digital internegatives. The Fujis and Noritsu development on mass scanning halted about 2003.

Adding such a large overhead to the consumer is fundamentally going to kill sales of dilm. A few people messing about with Coolscans or V500s cannot produce enough in their houses to purchase more film. A Coolscan is about 20x less efficient than a Noritsu, and the Noritsu development was stalled.

Any scanners that need to be made to keep film—an industrial product that can only be manufactured in kilometre long rolls—gong, will require scanners that can process much faster than any home workshop/darkroom scanner system. The roll film industry cannot survive on people doing it themselves at home using home scanners and PCs. You are simply too slow.

 

[Ranchu]

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced.

🙂

 

[KM-25]

It's all about the cost per photo.

It's all about speculation?

This thread, not surprisingly, is chock full of varying opinions based on highly varied experiences and priorities, often emotionally charged because this crowd takes photography personally. There is some Kodak hate, some Kodak love & metric tons of speculation about the industry past, present and future, you name it, we got it!

But what there probably ought to be less of is speculation about the future of the industry presented as “facts”….because none of us work for any of the film making companies, at least that I am aware of….and the facts have not yet materialized. All this talk about scanning being a huge barrier to entry, lots of projection out of one lens of view..?…you can’t possibly expect that to apply to everyone and you will likely get more of the same responses Ranchu gave you…because you are presenting your opinion (speculation) as a fact.

Consumers who take a selfie in Peru and post it to Faceplant being a potential customer of film if companies create an infrastructure of scanning and output? I'm going to "Speculate" here and say....hell no. There are "facts" regarding what the market looks like to the makers of film, for the most part that is information rightfully held in confidence by the likes of Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc...

At this point, no one who uses film should take personal the corrections to product lines that will continue to morph according to the market. It’s a waste of time and energy so choose your films and methods wisely meaning that if you want to use material you think is close to getting axed, stock up and create an “exit” path to the next product you would logically use. Or, just commit to what is largely viewed as a stable method and or product and go about making photos.

The good thing about RFF is it is largely devoid of over-speculation and there is a lot of evidence that people are doing exactly the right thing with film and that is buying it, shooting it and avoiding these dead-end rants.

 

[BlackXList]

I sent in a bunch of suggestions, observations etc.

Got the Response from Ralf which was well worded, and certainly made me think he'd read through it, and mentioned that he'd CC'd Thomas Mooney, and that they'd had a LOT of emails regarding film.

I got a response from Thomas a couple of days later (I think he's been working through a lot of emails).

One of the points I'd made was that certain other manufacturers have a habit of discontinuing film out of the blue, and it makes users feel that they're not committed to it.

Wheras companies like Ilford and even Ferrania (although they have no new product yet) show a dedication to film, and that earns a lot of loyalty and good will from their customers.

Thomas told me that as long as film is viable, they're definitely committed to it.

Whilst we might have wanted a "We're all about film" Braveheart style speech, I have to say that after reading through the email, I take it as genuine.

I will be replying to clear up another couple of issues, but I have to say that I'm impressed with their communication, already FAR better than it used to be.

 

[BlackXList]

I have to admit that I'm finding the "bring back X" comments a little frustrating.

They currently have some of the best films in the world.

They're working hard to establish Alaris and make it sustainable, they need to get their feet underneath them and get the company moving forwards.

Thankfully they have some incredible products, which they have said they're committed to, and they have the incredible Vision motion picture stocks which will hopefully eventually filter down into future products.

At this moment in time I'd much rather they concentrate on the great products they do have, and getting the infrastructure round them to make the company work as well as possible, than divide their efforts spending the time and money to bring back products and not to have done all that is possible to get the company running and solid.

Would I like to try a roll of Kodachrome? Yes of course.
Do I think it's worth diverting energy from getting things moving at the moment? absolutely not.
It'd be nice, but it can't be a priority at the moment.