Kodak Alaris CEO asking for input

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.

Of course you are, in what you have said in this and the previous post I can see you are thinking logically. I feel bad for people who are continually asking for what is gone, it's like watching a relative walking in circles for hours on end in a graveyard when all you want is a hug....

"Hello...I am still here, I am good...I miss Grandma Plus-X too but can I have some love please?"

I wrote to Kodak and basically said that if they are truly committed to film then they have to take possibly a few years of being hit with verbal tomatoes, melons & rotten eggs and put up a web presence, a name to place squarely on the new face of Kodak-Alaris. It's not about copying Ilford's Simon Galley, it is about engaging with your potential and current customer base in a manner that is the age we live in....Kodak Alaris style...

With this new transition and even with this latest write in to the CEO offering, they no doubt have as captive an audience as they have had in years, so I really hope to see this public engagement continue to evolve into a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I also think they need to absolutely maximize the showcasing of their products in presenting through ingenious and innovative methods, the most talent filled use of their film products. We should have this new Kodak Alaris front-person posting links on RFF and the like to Kodak products used in brilliant ways, current of course...

That's really about all they can do, the market will be what it is and that is life...
 
I wrote in support of Tri-X which I have been using for close to 60 years. Soon, I received two nice replies. They are fortunate to have such high-performance products. I wish them well.

Plus-X was nice, wasn't it!
 
It would be lovely if they would keep making TMAX400 (TMY-2). What a spectacular film.

Best black and white film I have ever used. It is my standard 400 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. Both Tmax 100 & 400 in 4x5 lay so flat I rarely need to use a glass carrier when silver printing.
 
When the motion picture theaters all go to digital projection, then we'll see the end. Mostsingle feature length prints are made of more film than most people shoot in a lifetime. The technology of making the final print for projection is the same as that which creates our beloved still-photo emulsions. Once that need is gone for what constitutes the bulk of film production for Kodak (and Fuji) then there won't be a way the huge facilities of Rochester can stay operational. This is that downsizing that was mentioned but also remember the Kodak Alaris rep who said they were committed to film as long as its viable. Eliminate the projection houses and it won't be anymore.

Phil Forrest
 
When the motion picture theaters all go to digital projection, then we'll see the end. Mostsingle feature length prints are made of more film than most people shoot in a lifetime. The technology of making the final print for projection is the same as that which creates our beloved still-photo emulsions. Once that need is gone for what constitutes the bulk of film production for Kodak (and Fuji) then there won't be a way the huge facilities of Rochester can stay operational. This is that downsizing that was mentioned but also remember the Kodak Alaris rep who said they were committed to film as long as its viable. Eliminate the projection houses and it won't be anymore.

Phil Forrest

Fuji already have no motion picture film. They stopped all stock over 4 years ago. It's 100% Kodak product now.

I suspect that Fuji's last plant will close next, likely within 2 years.

Kodak's Vision series of films are still used for a lot of capture,perhaps enough to keep the Rochester line going along with their archival solutions. But in thens, you are correct about the loss of projectors and cameras contributing. Already no motion picture film cameras are in production. There is a very large stock of rental product out there which can last decades, but many of the tech support people and knowledge base is already thinning.
 
When the motion picture theaters all go to digital projection, then we'll see the end. Mostsingle feature length prints are made of more film than most people shoot in a lifetime. The technology of making the final print for projection is the same as that which creates our beloved still-photo emulsions. Once that need is gone for what constitutes the bulk of film production for Kodak (and Fuji) then there won't be a way the huge facilities of Rochester can stay operational. This is that downsizing that was mentioned but also remember the Kodak Alaris rep who said they were committed to film as long as its viable. Eliminate the projection houses and it won't be anymore.

Phil Forrest


This is exactly what I was talking about above as speculation being stated as fact. I have seen Building 38 and the coating line in person and do recall that there were questions being asked even then, in June of 2009, if the line could be re-purposed to expand to other industry needs that might not even have to do with making film.

It was not ruled out then and it should not be ruled out now, not one person on here knows how Kodak is doing at re-scaling output of high quality film products to meet the real demand.

What you are stating is based on what has been passed around in public forums hatched in part by former Kodak techs who worked there over 20 years ago, not from Kodak directly and certainly not from newly formed Kodak Alaris.

There is no certainty on this until word is given, so until then...can you possibly see how fruitless that speculation is?
 
No certainty..true .. but we'll thought out and logical. I agree that viable involves movies.. either shooting film or archiving. That doesn't mean that a scaled back production of a few films won't happen. Perhaps it won't be Kodak, but I would guess that Tri-x and Ektar will survive for some time.
 
This is exactly what I was talking about above as speculation being stated as fact. I have seen Building 38 and the coating line in person and do recall that there were questions being asked even then, in June of 2009, if the line could be re-purposed to expand to other industry needs that might not even have to do with making film.

It was not ruled out then and it should not be ruled out now, not one person on here knows how Kodak is doing at re-scaling output of high quality film products to meet the real demand.

What you are stating is based on what has been passed around in public forums hatched in part by former Kodak techs who worked there over 20 years ago, not from Kodak directly and certainly not from newly formed Kodak Alaris.

There is no certainty on this until word is given, so until then...can you possibly see how fruitless that speculation is?

Absolutely, I'm just mentioning the fact that the motion picture print side of film production hasn't been mentioned yet it makes up the bulk of what the acetate is used for. After film is no longer a viable and profitable medium, then it is done.

As for fruitless, is there any answer that an RFF member can give here which will meet with your approval?
This whole forum is based upon speculation and trust that other faceless, nameless folks actually shot those photos, saw that production facility, had coffee with that great photographer. We're not deciding the fate of Kodak Alaris right now and part of discussion is speculation.

Phil Forrest
 
Absolutely, I'm just mentioning the fact that the motion picture print side of film production hasn't been mentioned yet it makes up the bulk of what the acetate is used for. After film is no longer a viable and profitable medium, then it is done.

As for fruitless, is there any answer that an RFF member can give here which will meet with your approval?
This whole forum is based upon speculation and trust that other faceless, nameless folks actually shot those photos, saw that production facility, had coffee with that great photographer. We're not deciding the fate of Kodak Alaris right now and part of discussion is speculation.

Phil Forrest

I just wish that more people would seize the opportunity we have to be positive about film in general now that Kodak film is in different hands. It's been a rough 10-15 years of Kodak transition...it's also amazing we have the opportunity to shoot what they still make.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone...I am just trying to snap folks out of the old guard habits, we have no choice but to find a way to move it all forward...that does not mean you have to say something I approve of.

I'll just be really bummed if we lose Kodak films even partly because as a user base, we do more harm than good in trying to figure out what is going to happen to film next.

I'll lay off now....
 
This is exactly what I was talking about above as speculation being stated as fact. I have seen Building 38 and the coating line in person and do recall that there were questions being asked even then, in June of 2009, if the line could be re-purposed to expand to other industry needs that might not even have to do with making film.

It was not ruled out then and it should not be ruled out now, not one person on here knows how Kodak is doing at re-scaling output of high quality film products to meet the real demand.

What you are stating is based on what has been passed around in public forums hatched in part by former Kodak techs who worked there over 20 years ago, not from Kodak directly and certainly not from newly formed Kodak Alaris.

There is no certainty on this until word is given, so until then...can you possibly see how fruitless that speculation is?

The Kodak bankruptcy provided a substantial amount of documentation about asset viability.

The Rochester assets are purpose built for film coating only and there was no market interest in re-configuring for products that do not exist. They were heavily shopped around during the bankruptcy, but no one was interested. Most of the Rochester assets were valued at less than reclamation. That is one reason why Kodak Alaris does not own the Rochester production facilities. The land is collateral to other Eastman Kodak creditors post-bankruptcy, particularly to the bridge financiers. Kodak Alaris sources film supply from Eastman Kodak. Kodak Alaris owns all the paper manufacture facilities now, not the film.

If the Kodak UK pension liability had not taken over the personal documents division, the lack of new capital into the company would have meant a total liquidation and the end of all Kodak film production. It was a near thing. Since UK pension laws made their plan a preferred creditor, they got the choice of either having the operations quid pro quo and trying to continue pension payments to retirees from some form of business operating, or to take pennies on the dollar in a total liquidation. The Kodak Alaris trust running the company on behalf of the pension plan does not own the means to produce film. If Kodak Alaris cannot source film from Eastman Kodak on a profitable basis, or if Eastman Kodak cannot supply product on the same basis (neither company has credit nor shareholder bases to run substantial deficits or re-issues) then film production will stop.

So all film production is still in the hands of Eastman Kodak. All distribution and marketing for non-commercial or cinema purposes is through an agreement with Alaris. The Alaris CEO might have vey little control over product lines and costs.
 
It's the cost to develop and especially scan that is the barrier to stabilizing the market.
-- --
High quality scans at low cost is the major problem.
I would use film a lot more, if I had a solution to this problem. As it is now, I simply do not have time to scan. Over here, even cost is a secondary issue. There simply is no local high-quality scanning available to consumers as far as I know.
 
I would use film a lot more, if I had a solution to this problem. As it is now, I simply do not have time to scan. Over here, even cost is a secondary issue. There simply is no local high-quality scanning available to consumers as far as I know.

Lasse - I scan my negatives while making dinner/reading/sitting on the balcony sipping a glass of wine/watching TV.

Not sure whether time is a realistic excuse. But I understand the sentiment until you give the workflow a try.
 
Anyway, here's the first draft of my intended letter. I'm going to give it a while and look at it again later today - don't think it would be appropriate to send them multiple mails with "oh just one more thing I thought of..."

--------
Thank you for opening up a dialogue with your (very loyal) customers.

I'm a relatively recent convert to Kodak color film from a background working with digital imaging, and a hobby user of digital cameras. Discovering Portra about five years ago has transformed my photography, given me immense pleasure in both the process of capturing the original image (using a variety of medium-format and 35mm cameras) and in the incomparable superiority in tones and color of the final scanned digital file. I'm extremely grateful that your company continues to produce such an amazing film, and I try at all times to show my continued support by doing the only effective thing that a customer can actually do to help maintain manufacture of a much-loved product: buy and use it as much as I can.

Having said that, I'm hoping that steps are being taken to ensure the long-term life of Kodak color film which can make its survival independent of the relatively short-term moving picture contracts, and which can produce at a scale that's appropriate for a prosumer still film market, even if the inevitable downscaling is temporarily painful.

On the constructive side, I think that Kodak needs to be more proactive in promoting film: I first began working in digital imaging about 15 years ago, and for the next decade there was very little discussion about film online which didn't center around the 'certainty' that film production would imminently cease over the next few months or (at most) one or two years. I was only moderately interested in trying film at the time, but if I had any doubts then the constant reiteration that film was dead convinced me not to even give it a try.

I'm dreadfully sorry about those ten+ years of lost film use, but I'm even more concerned that the armchair experts and doomsayers are even more prevalent now, and the constant predictions of film's death continue to erode your market and discourage newcomers.

You therefore have to stop the hemorrhaging, and promote and support film use online and in magazines in ways that are appropriate for your new target market of prosumers and dedicated enthusiasts: showcases of aspirational fine-art photographers; Magnum photographers still using Kodak film; radical and especially young users of film. These all exist and promoting them will help to grow your market.

From my own point-of-view, one more item is essential to the continued health of film use in the 'digital age', and that's the availability of quality prosumer scanners. An incredible number of film users (myself included) couldn't consider the format without the ability to transfer a high-quality copy of a film negative into a digital file for post-processing and printing (and sharing). I have a Nikon Coolscan9000 to do this, but the lifetime of the product is naturally limited, and the alternatives today are limited to one single Plustek machine. If Kodak seriously wants to maintain their place in the mixed analog/digital workflow that may already form the majority of today's color-film use, then either partnering with a high-quality scanner manufacturer (such as Imacon) or producing your own prosumer scanners will be necessary (in my view) sometime in the not so distant future.

Thanks again for producing the very best imaging products the world has ever seen. I sincerely hope I can write to you again in twenty years and say the same!
--------
 
I'm dreadfully sorry about those ten+ years of lost film use, but I'm even more concerned that the armchair experts and doomsayers are even more prevalent now, and the constant predictions of film's death continue to erode your market and discourage newcomers.

You therefore have to stop the hemorrhaging, and promote and support film use online and in magazines in ways that are appropriate for your new target market of prosumers and dedicated enthusiasts: showcases of aspirational fine-art photographers; Magnum photographers still using Kodak film; radical and especially young users of film. These all exist and promoting them will help to grow your market.

I think there is a reason no marketing efforts are made for promoting film and I'm afraid that you (and me) may not like it.

Yes, I am a doomsayer. And yet similar to you, a convert to film (I use film exclusively and don't even own digital camera). If I was smart and listened to those crazy doomsayers I would've had a freezer full of magnificent films that are never coming back.

I don't think Kodak Alaris will or even can do anything for long term C-41 film availability.
 
I think there is a reason no marketing efforts are made for promoting film and I'm afraid that you (and me) may not like it.

Yes, I am a doomsayer. And yet similar to you, a convert to film (I use film exclusively and don't even own digital camera). If I was smart and listened to those crazy doomsayers I would've had a freezer full of magnificent films that are never coming back.

I don't think Kodak Alaris will or even can do anything for long term C-41 film availability.

I think this sort of defeatism has a psychological rather than a circumstantial basis. As far as your material point is concerned, the logical conclusion is that you think they should just give up and shut down everything today, as anything else is futile?

I don't mean this to be funny or a personal attack, but with that general attitude I don't think I'd bother living another day.
 
I have been doing this for some years. It is lack of time, not lack of trying.

Ok - I have a full-time job that requires me to sometimes work evenings and weekends, two kids aged 5 and 2 with whom I spend 90% of my 'free' time, and other hobbies and commitments. But somehow I get to enjoy the scanning process too.

I accept you find it a chore or a time-suck, but I don't think it's a universal problem.
 
I think that in what is considered a digital age, there'r so damn good products in the film market. And speculating or not, i think Kodak perfectly knows that. There's a lot of competition in what is called a "niche market" . And anyone who uses some kind of film is supposed to have some kind of knowledge of how to develop and scan it to make a good look of it. Sounds to complicated - there's digital for that 🙂
 
Back
Top Bottom