KM-25
Well-known
This is the right and wrong way to look at it...
Right, it is a niche, not mass market, so engage in bright thinking that leads to legacy crushing, innovative ways of reaching all your potential markets within that niche.
Wrong in that resting on the tired laurel that film users know where to find film is exactly why less and less people know that you can still get it.
Innovation is needed here, it's no different than marketing any product.
thegman
Veteran
I would suggest Lomography do a decent amount of marketing, but maybe not in the places we're looking. I think when you're in a niche, where the customers are relatively well versed in the options available, marketing is not required like it is in other places.
If you're shooting film right now, you probably don't need reminding that Kodak make products aimed at the likes of you.
If you're shooting film right now, you probably don't need reminding that Kodak make products aimed at the likes of you.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well, I did say mass marketing as in popular magazines and TV ads. I am sure they advertise in media that caters to the niche film market. Not much point in spending your limited advertising budget where it will be wasted. Big advertising budgets go hand in hand with a growing and competitive market which certainly is not where film is at this stage. Even if consumers knew where to get it I don't see that it would make much difference to them either at this point. At best film is fighting a rear guard action to try and stem the shrinkage. I really don't know how innovative you can get at this point.
Bob
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I truly pity people who never took the time to experience film.
No matter how advanced the digital technology gets, it'll get boring at some point.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Who are they going to advertise to, Frank?
The masses?
The "digital is so convenient, I can't get enough" -masses?
The "Hipstagram is so cool, who cares where the look was imitated from" -masses?
We (people who still appreciate film) are the advertisement now.
Better get busy
Nothing wrong with the masses feeling this way... they only want convenience. Not everyone wants to learn everything about photography before taking a picture for facebook.
KM-25
Well-known
I'm going to re-post something that a young member, Dylan Hope posted in a thread that was deleted, with permission of course, I got it from him last night:
I had said: "I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconception the most, not the digital zealots..."
He, an 18 year old college student in New Zealand replied:
"This.
Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.
When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.
The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.
This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.
Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me."
This just resonates with me as a no BS thought process from a person who's opinion should matter, old ways of thinking about an old medium are not going to carry it into the future, it might be time for old blood to consider a transfusion....
I had said: "I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconception the most, not the digital zealots..."
He, an 18 year old college student in New Zealand replied:
"This.
Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.
When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.
The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.
This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.
Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me."
This just resonates with me as a no BS thought process from a person who's opinion should matter, old ways of thinking about an old medium are not going to carry it into the future, it might be time for old blood to consider a transfusion....
mwoenv
Well-known
Do the digital camera simulations of film types really provide good likeness? Do they also simulate the different developers for each film type that can change the results?
I ask because I know that digital guitar amps that "model" different types of tube amps seem to come close but, if you are experienced, you can tell the solid state amp is not a tube amp. Close maybe but not the same, if achieving the same is important to you.
I ask because I know that digital guitar amps that "model" different types of tube amps seem to come close but, if you are experienced, you can tell the solid state amp is not a tube amp. Close maybe but not the same, if achieving the same is important to you.
Nermi9
Member
Maybe film doesn't really belong in mass advertizing. Maybe it's right where it should be.
Mass marketing generally is a way for companies to make lots and lots of money using people's weaknesses. Maybe that's why a lot of things have gone from good quality into being almost disposable. Competition doesn't help either when corners are being cut. Seems to be the only way to compete in the mainstream.
Maybe film never really belonged in advertising. Maybe disposable P&S Film cameras were never meant to be in an ideal world. We are talking silver halide and emulsion being wasted on shots that have fingers censoring half the frame shot through plastic lens that gets thrown away after one roll. What were they thinking when they "invented" one. That thing needs to be uninvented and disposed of immediately. Maybe even involve the government so it gets banned forever.
Mass marketing generally is a way for companies to make lots and lots of money using people's weaknesses. Maybe that's why a lot of things have gone from good quality into being almost disposable. Competition doesn't help either when corners are being cut. Seems to be the only way to compete in the mainstream.
Maybe film never really belonged in advertising. Maybe disposable P&S Film cameras were never meant to be in an ideal world. We are talking silver halide and emulsion being wasted on shots that have fingers censoring half the frame shot through plastic lens that gets thrown away after one roll. What were they thinking when they "invented" one. That thing needs to be uninvented and disposed of immediately. Maybe even involve the government so it gets banned forever.
clayne
shoot film or die
They totally don't nor do they simulate non linear characteristics the same way a tube amp or a tape delay would respond. It's just a straw man simplification people bust out because they only think of grain as being the "thing" about film when there's more to it than that.
loquax ludens
Well-known
The films that the digital cameras are simulating in software, at least as far as I've seen, are color slide and print films. The developing processes are E6 and C-41, which are standardized processes. There shouldn't be any variations in those processes, regardless of the brand of chemicals used. The likeness to film they are trying to achieve is the color palette.
What you said would apply to B&W film and developer combinations. Are digital cameras simulating specific B&W films?
Gumby
Veteran
I don't disagree with anything else said, but this part of the quoted comment indicates a need for better understanding of marketing and business profitability. The equation is VERY complex, much of which is now fixed as a constant... and not in favor of film, unfortunately for us film users. There are many compnaies and divisions of companies that have been bought and shut down in a seemingly arbitrary way for purposes of profitability that only an MBA might understand.
KM-25
Well-known
Totally agree, thanks for bringing something utterly sensible to the discussion.
Aristophanes
Well-known
And the processing costs are built into a $7 chip.
Film cannot compete economically with that. One $90 digital camera can crank out 20,000 photos all amortized into that $90. And with cameras processing straight online, there's little need for a PC anymore. In fact, most of the world's small cameras are never hooked up to a home computer because most of the world doesn't have one.
Film is a niche. One cannot mass market to a niche, not against economic costs where digital is overwhelmingly superior. Digital won the market simply by eliminating ongoing processing costs. Forget IQ or anything else; that's been the main economic driver.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Getting consumers who are instinctive digital users to try film is a little like trying to convince them it's better to have no supermarkets and shop at corner stores again ... or maybe buy a pushbike and park the car ... stop watching reality TV and go and see some live theatre!
It's too late ... society (in general) has been assimilated into the McDonalds mind set and nothing will snap them out of it!
It's too late ... society (in general) has been assimilated into the McDonalds mind set and nothing will snap them out of it!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Keith, I think your analogies are not quite on, but I get your sentiment. I will state, however, that I enjoy shopping at the farmer's market or a good local specialty grocer more than the supermarket and, in many cases, get better and more interesting product.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
And one thing I would like to ask Audrey: Why has the cost of cut film increased so dramatically? A 50-sheet box of Tri-X was under $50 a couple of years ago. Now it's pushing $90. Ninety Yankee dollars.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I don't think you and I really represent the great unwashed masses Earl!
And speaking of markets ... the one I shopped at occasionally in preference to the supermarket has closed down. Apparently the owner sent the staff a text message telling them not to bother coming in on Monday morning and jumped on a plane to Indonesia!
zuiko85
Veteran
I think they have calculated that for every $1 they spend on film advertizing they would at most get only 50 cents increase in film sales.....if that.
Vics
Veteran
I don't see commercials for art supplies either. No ads for oil or watercolor paints, or canvas or paper. But our local art supply houses seem to be doing a good business selling this stuff and a lot more. My daughter only paints for the joy of it, but sells the paintings on eBay to pay for supplies, which are quite expensive, at least her oil paints.