plasticman Posted January 19, 2015 Share #1 Posted January 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) An insignificant rant about Kodak marketing, but today bought my first couple of boxes of Tri-X, and was pretty amazed that the box downplays the classic name, and chooses to brand the film as 400TX. Had to do a double-take and was about to say I actually wanted Tri-X instead when I saw the smaller name printed at the top of the carton. This seems such a marketing fail to me - the Tri-X brand has an almost mythical power even (or especially) for film newbies like me, and buying the product I really expected the packaging to make the most of it. Mystified. </rant> Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240034-the-mighty-tri-x-brand/?do=findComment&comment=2749512'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Hi plasticman, Take a look here The Mighty Tri-X Brand. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 19, 2015 Share #2 Posted January 19, 2015 Silly rabbit, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted January 19, 2015 Share #3 Posted January 19, 2015 I think the 400TX is easy, that way I know it's 400 and it's TRI-X (TX) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted January 19, 2015 It's ok - I understand that experienced film users don't get confused about what they're buying (like I did), I'm talking purely about making the most of your brand, especially when you have a strong one like Tri-X. If I were redesigning the package, putting aside all the other things I'd change (quite a few) I'd strip away the unnecessary extra name and simply have 'Tri-X 400' as the large bold text. Unambiguous and powerful. Anyway, no big deal. It's a slow Monday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 19, 2015 Share #5 Posted January 19, 2015 Maybe a bit like this or this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 19, 2015 Share #6 Posted January 19, 2015 this? Now, that's hoarding! s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted January 19, 2015 Share #7 Posted January 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Marketers need to support themselves with creativity...change the package a little, tweak the name to make unwary consumers think it is a new or improved product...out with the old and in with the new. That seems to be what today's consumers want! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 19, 2015 Share #8 Posted January 19, 2015 Been wondering about the reasons for the various Xs in Kodak's film names but have so far only found this speculative thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madNbad Posted January 19, 2015 Share #9 Posted January 19, 2015 Since we're speculating, the rumor from years ago was the marketing department added the X for "Extra Speed" when a newer and faster emultion was released. Sounds as plausible as any other answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 19, 2015 Share #10 Posted January 19, 2015 A. I agree with plasticman, but B. it has been like that for nearly a decade! C. and was meant to make clear it was the "revised" Tri-X formulated when Kodak made some modification to the production equipment (along with "revised" Tmaxes and "revised" Plus-X (R.I.P.)). As to the "X-ing" of Kodak. Keep in mind that when the "X" first appeared, 4x5 film was still a major part of film use. And 4x5 film is identified in the darkroom by notches clipped into the edge of each sheet. There was a direct connection between the number of "X"s and the number of notches. For "press" (newspaper/magazine) family of films Super-Panchro Press - 1 V-shaped notch Super XX - 2 V-shaped notches (tightly spaced) Tri-X - 3 V-shaped notches If you wanted to avoid confusing Tri-X with Ansco Commercial, well, you just had to remember which brand you were using.... http://www.mattosbornephotography.com/film_chart.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan King Posted January 21, 2015 Share #11 Posted January 21, 2015 That's cool! I had no idea what the significance of the name really was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 21, 2015 Share #12 Posted January 21, 2015 I had to dive into my freezer and fetch a bit of bulk Tri-X to see how it is marked, expiration date 2003. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240034-the-mighty-tri-x-brand/?do=findComment&comment=2750903'>More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 21, 2015 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2015 I think they should go full on vintage and include in italic script "As clear as Black & White since 1954." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 22, 2015 Share #14 Posted January 22, 2015 I think Kodak changed Tri-X at least twice since I started using it in 1965. I'm open to any correction. I still develop it with D-76 1:1 and print with a Leitz condenser enlarger, but the familiar grain is no longer there on 8x10" enlargements - and, BTW, it does not show up in scans of prints, but that is a different issue. It is impossible to show this on any browser. This photo is grainy a ~5x7". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted January 22, 2015 Share #15 Posted January 22, 2015 Nice image pico! And thanks for the information! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted January 22, 2015 All interesting contributions. Hope no-one mistook my disappointment with Kodak's branding fail with nostalgia, but it's interesting to see the previous packaging incarnations were definitely better, and in terms of 'flat design' and typographic purity, the packages from the 60s(?) look more contemporary now than the drop-shadowed, clumsily latin-serifed, radial-gradient hell of the current packaging - not to even mention my initial point again: which was to call the film Tri-X and not muddy the waters by labeling the box 400TX. Bear in mind I say all this as a film noob. I'm sure experienced users think the matter is trivial, but brand-building and recognition is really important to grow market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 22, 2015 Share #17 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm sure experienced users think the matter is trivial, but brand-building and recognition is really important to grow market. It seems to me that, given the onslaught of digital, branding shouldn't be a trivial matter for film companies. It is a fine line, though. I personally don't think the new Ferrania film packs (if what has been published so far is what they will look like) have the appearance of "real" film, but it could also simply be as a result of being unused to seeing it. I'm no expert but a part of branding of film is how the film performs and here I think Ferrania may stumble into trouble. Some of the photos in their Flickr group are very lomoesque and may not appeal much to those (few) who use film professionally. That said, one of the things I really like about the process of shooting film (I am so disposed that I have no choice but to do it because it is photography for me and has been for 2+ decades) is handling all these colourful rolls and their packaging. It feels luxurious somehow, in a way an SD card doesn't. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share #18 Posted January 22, 2015 I personally don't think the new Ferrania film packs (if what has been published so far is what they will look like) have the appearance of "real" film, but it could also simply be as a result of being unused to seeing it. I really like the Ferrania packaging: it's flat, bold and very contemporary, while incorporating elements that evoke a sort of 1950s Italian cigarette brand - I see Marcello Mastroianni opening a pack of Ferrania 120 film and raffishly smoking a roll. But I guess that's just me. ( Here's the - very big - Kickstarter image that shows all the packages - zoom to see it at 100%: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/002/746/909/22c50604e6220cf286e3ffc779490548_large.jpg?1413405194 ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 22, 2015 Share #19 Posted January 22, 2015 I really like the Ferrania packaging: it's flat, bold and very contemporary, while incorporating elements that evoke a sort of 1950s Italian cigarette brand - I see Marcello Mastroianni opening a pack of Ferrania 120 film and raffishly smoking a roll.But I guess that's just me. ( Here's the - very big - Kickstarter image that shows all the packages - zoom to see it at 100%: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/002/746/909/22c50604e6220cf286e3ffc779490548_large.jpg?1413405194 ) Their movie film packages look like cigarette packs. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 22, 2015 Share #20 Posted January 22, 2015 I don't think looking like a cigarette pack is going to harm sales, it's not as if cigarette branding has been unsuccessful over the years is it? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.