Contact the Kodak Alaris CEO

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The same goes for other technological innovations: Kodak has had a very poor feel for what the market needs or wants, it seems to me. I'd be worried that if they started the scanning service Pete was talking about, it'd end up as some awful 3Mb super-saturated 'glad snap' on a CD that gets snail-mailed back to your home address.

 

Kodak doesn't have to team up with anyone to produce a scanner. Kodak was a pioneer of consumer and commercial film to digital technology including the sensors. They had the Photo CD system long ago and it flopped. They also made and sold consumer and commercial film scanners. This simply is something that has declining demand that can't sustain it. Document imaging is a more viable market. Kodak also makes X ray scanners. Copying film via a digital camera and a slide duplicator is a viable method for consumers who don't have a scanner.

 

A particular film gets discontinued once demand falls below a given threshold that is required for production. Kodak has no way to scale back production.

[Berth]

Color Kodak gone, their CEO is not looking for an on-ramp, he's looking for a convenient exit. Nothing about his educational or business backgrounds suggests an affinity for film products. Electronics & Computer Science? Siemens? Motorola? Nah.

 

I wonder who would be interested in buying the business (without that dinosaur of a manufacturing plant)? Rights to the brand name would be essential.

[plasticman]

I guess I don't really understand the difficulty in scaling-back production. Manufacturers relocate and resize their factories all the time, in all sorts of businesses. Car manufacturing is one example - and surely it's harder to do this with a car-plant than with film? Apple are constantly scaling-up and scaling-down production of different lines in different countries (even different continents).

 

I realize that producing film needs certain static lines, but why does it have to be such an enormous problem to scale down or relocate? And considering how enormous even the still film business remains for Kodak Alaris, why wouldn't it make sense for another film company to buy the rights to producing the color film? Why couldn't Ilford make a go of color film production?

 

Mysterious. I certainly wouldn't pin any hopes on Hollywood making the 'right' decision.

[AlanG]

I guess I don't really understand the difficulty in scaling-back production. Manufacturers relocate and resize their factories all the time, in all sorts of businesses. Car manufacturing is one example - and surely it's harder to do this with a car-plant than with film? Apple are constantly scaling-up and scaling-down production of different lines in different countries (even different continents).

 

I realize that producing film needs certain static lines, but why does it have to be such an enormous problem to scale down or relocate? And considering how enormous even the still film business remains for Kodak Alaris, why wouldn't it make sense for another film company to buy the rights to producing the color film? Why couldn't Ilford make a go of color film production?

 

Mysterious. I certainly wouldn't pin any hopes on Hollywood making the 'right' decision.

 

What makes you think that Kodak's film production is anything like the examples you gave?

 

A friend of mine worked at Kodak for about 30 years. He told me the size of the coating machines and related facilities make it impossible to produce small batches. And it is a perishable item so large quantities can't be stored until they are eventually sold. (Why do you think they discontinue films instead of just reducing production quantity?) There is no way they are going to build smaller scale equipment now. They do have facilities to make small test batches. With the economy of scale removed, the cost of a roll of film will be higher... perhaps to the point that this will reduce demand so that even the smaller batches will not be worth making. Meanwhile the cost of digital technology keeps going down while the capability goes up.

 

What other company is going to build new state of the art facilities to make color film? And where does that expertise come from anyway? You also have all of the complexity of producing the chemicals for the emulsion... necessitating lab facilities, chemists, and skilled technicians. Some of the work needs to be done in total darkness. That requires pretty specialized facilities.

 

I know you don't want to hear this but film production is not coming back. This technology will not be advanced any further. RIT's Imaging Science program (formerly Photo Science) - BS, MS and PhD. does not even incorporate photo chemistry these days. There will be a slow steady decline and it is hard to say what, if any, will be left standing in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Kodak Alaris is not pinning its future to film. Nor is Eastman Kodak.

[NJH]

Its been said many times over the past year that film is resurgent but I would like to know what the breakdown of that is because if the internet is anything to go by colour film is on a one way ticket.

[plasticman]

because if the internet is anything to go by colour film is on a one way ticket.

 

Oh well - didn't take long for this thread to get into the usual defeatist mode.

 

Fwiw I see an enormous amount of new color film photography on 'the internet' (not really sure how to quantify that amorphous entity). Color-film photography on Flickr is vastly in the majority compared to b&w for instance, and in fine art film photography represented online (take a look here for just one example) and also in modern gallery photography, color also appears to be predominant these days.

 

When you say 'the internet' I presume you therefore mean the armchair experts, inveterate doomsayers, and nostalgists on discussion forums like this one?

 

Anyway, I understand this may not scale to the amounts apparently needed to keep the Kodak film division alive. In the meantime I'll keep buying Portra and leave others to foretell doom.

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first attempt at putting together something to send to Alaris earned the usual jaded and derisive response over on RFF, so I thought I'd post it here as well, so the LUF crowd can jeer at the hopeless naïveté and childlike optimism it apparently exhibits:

 

--------

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!

--------

[adan]

I guess I don't really understand the difficulty in scaling-back production.

 

The steps in making film are all set up on the basis of "continuous production." Some involve converting a liquid into a solid on a very time-sensitive basis. Stop the machine, and, as the man said when Kodak quit making their own acetate film base in 2013, "You end up with a big gooey mess."

 

Kodak Axes Acetate Film Base Production

 

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/incamera_jan2011_eastmanBusinessPark.pdf

 

You have to run at least three weights of acetate - thick/stiff for sheet film, moderate weight for 35mm, light and flexible for 120. Cameras have been engineered around specific film thicknesses for 80 years, so you can't just change or combine the thicknesses (think of moving the pressure plate in a Rollei to accomodate 120 or 35mm Rolleikin use) to reduce the number of types of film base. 4x5 cut from 120 stock would sag in the enlarger, unless everyone switched to glass negative carriers (with ensuing dust problems).

 

Same for the coating process - you are laying down a thin layer (or many layers, for color film) of liquid gelatin onto the base. QUICK, before the gelatin solidifies. Gelatin stays liquid through being hot and wet - but as anyone who ever left a roll of film in a hot car knows, you can't keep photosensitive material hot for very long. So you can't store the emulsion for use as the market demands - use it now, or lose it.

 

Photograph - Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd, Film Slitting Machine, Roll & Motion Picture Film Department, circa 1963 - Museum Victoria

 

As to being "negative": well, as Harry Truman said when a heckler yelled "Give 'em he(ck), Harry!",

 

"I don't give 'em he(ck). I just tell the truth, and they think it's he(ck)!"

 

(Edited to keep the automated profanity editors happy).

 

BTW I just got a Hassy, so I'm all for encouraging Kodak to do what it can....

[AlanG]

Your opinions in that letter reflect your own interests. I don't see how Kodak can be more supportive and pro-active towards film than they have been. Many see that as the a reason for their downfall.

 

Consider that Kodak stopped making film scanners some yars ago because they weren't making a profit from them.

[leicaphilia]

Thank you for the link.

 

This is my own, minor contribution i sent via email:

 

First, a hearty thanks for your company's commitment to film

photography. There truly are many of us committed to continued use of

film and convinced of its continued viability if companies such as

Alaris continue to produce and market film.

 

My thoughts are this: the future of film will be in the continued

production of B&W emulsions - Tri-X, TMax, Plus-X, Panatomic X. These

classic films still give a look and feel that simply cannot be

duplicated by digital capture, even dedicated monochrome sensors. The

look is simply different - not "better", not "worse", simply

different. It's this classic B&W film look that keeps many of us

shooting your films, as there is no substitute for it. I think this is

ultimately where Alaris will find its market, and I think its a viable

one if addressed efficiently.

 

As for the continued viability of color film, I'm not one to have an

inform opinion as I've never really shot it and frankly think this is

an area where digital capture makes sense.

 

A second note: as a documentary photographer of 40 years, I still find

the permanence of film to be a real drawing card even in the digital

age. There is something about the fact that film gives me something

tangible to archive and store - something I can put my hands on and

physically retrieve in years to come. This is another reason for my

continued use of film. For all the photographs that have real meaning

for me - that I want preserved (hopefully even after I'm gone)- I use

film.

 

Finally, I think the use of film has morphed into a part analogue,

part digital process. Analogue capture and then digitization of the

negative for print presentation via injet printing or online viewing.

To this end, availability of excellent scanning, whether via

individual consumer grade scanners or scanning services, is going to

be critical.

Best wishes for your success.

[plasticman]

As for the continued viability of color film, I'm not one to have an inform opinion as I've never really shot it and frankly think this is an area where digital capture makes sense.

 

Forgive me for saying so, but somehow the way you throw color-film under the bus gave me a genuine laugh. With friends like this...

 

Your opinions in that letter reflect your own interests. I don't see how Kodak can be more supportive and pro-active towards film than they have been. Many see that as the a reason for their downfall.

 

Consider that Kodak stopped making film scanners some yars ago because they weren't making a profit from them.

 

Alan - I do appreciate your broad knowledge of everything Kodak - I'm the first to admit that I'm pretty clueless and have almost no sense of their history. However, I think knowing too much about their past can blinker you to the options available to them in the future: I had no idea they'd made cheap home scanners in the past for instance, but the sector they would be targeting in the future would be a totally different enthusiast and income demographic. The sort of scanner I had in mind would be nothing like the ones my google search turned-up after reading your post. It's good that you told me though, as I can be clearer about this when I re-write that section before sending it.

 

As for Kodak not being able to do more to promote film - tell that to the 95% of my photography friends who were totally bewildered that film was still available when I decided to start shooting it five years ago. I'm guessing the only times they've heard about Kodak since then are (1) when Kodachrome was discontinued (2) when Kodak went bankrupt.

 

btw my mail 'reflects my own interests' because that's what the CEO asked for in his video: I'm not trying to tell them how to run their business, I'm trying to express what would make it better from MY point-of-view.

 

PS: the 95% figure would in reality be more like 99.8% who had absolutely no idea film was still being produced when I made the switch. Interestingly, since then a few of my artist friends have taken up film photography - totally unconnected to my decision.

[AlanG]

 

I had no idea they'd made cheap home scanners in the past for instance, but the sector they would be targeting in the future would be a totally different enthusiast and income demographic. The sort of scanner I had in mind would be nothing like the ones my google search turned-up after reading your post.

 

Kodak made numerous advanced scanners. They pretty much pioneered everything about digital photography and scanning. They even made the sensors used in many scanners.

 

I've included photos of some of their scanners that were discontinued more than 4 years ago. They also made larger continuous scanners for labs and high volume use.

 

Sorry, but If you think you are informing them about a subject they have not thoroughly considered, you are mistaken.

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!

[NJH]

That is all about scale again though isn't it? as in being able to make and market something relatively niche in today's world in a way which makes it worthwhile. I have worked for some big engineering companies and I know how they think, often unless it can employ 100+ engineers/scientists/managers full time and pull in commensurately more than £10M a year for the department they struggle to have any interest in it. Honestly how many guys salaries does anyone think could be paid out of the profit made on a prosumer scanner after all the development costs have been repaid? I earn my living from technological R&D and systems engineering/development but as much as I love film I wouldn't touch such a project with a barge pole.

[plasticman]

That is all about scale again though isn't it? as in being able to make and market something relatively niche in today's world in a way which makes it worthwhile. I have worked for some big engineering companies and I know how they think, often unless it can employ 100+ engineers/scientists/managers full time and pull in commensurately more than £10M a year for the department they struggle to have any interest in it. Honestly how many guys salaries does anyone think could be paid out of the profit made on a prosumer scanner after all the development costs have been repaid? I earn my living from technological R&D and systems engineering/development but as much as I love film I wouldn't touch such a project with a barge pole.

 

Hehe everyone's an expert. It's funny - the CEO just wanted the ordinary guy's opinions and input. I tend to forget that on the internet, everyone's an expert about everything.

 

Anyway I'll rewrite a bit - it was a five-minute effort - and send after the holidays.

And then go back to what I normally do to support the company: buy their film.

 

PS: Alan I've never seen any of these scanners, nor hear them mentioned when people discuss discontinued scanners like the Nikon models (which currently sell for as much as $8000).

[AlanG]

 

PS: Alan I've never seen any of these scanners, nor hear them mentioned when people discuss discontinued scanners like the Nikon models (which currently sell for as much as $8000).

 

That's why I am informing you. Mictotek used to.make a lot of scanners under their own name and for others. I have a Polaroid 120/35 film scanner made by them. Canon and Minolta also had scanners but I don't know if they made them in house. Umax and Creo made scanners and I'm sure there were several others. What do you think these companies determined about the market for scanners?

 

Instead of pitching your idea to Kodak why not convince Nikon that they could make a lot of money by selling scanners again. BTW, the Buy It Now price for a Nikon 9000 is $2500 on Ebay with no takers yet. I see one sold for $2080 this month. 35mm models go for much much less.

[plasticman]

Instead of pitching your idea to Kodak why not convince Nikon that they could make a lot of money by selling scanners again.

 

Alan, I'm not 'pitching' my ideas to Kodak - they are asking for input. Interestingly, where people have actually made constructive comments on other forums, scanning in some form seems to be the common thread.

 

As for Nikon - I just can't see that purely economic reasons caused them to stop production of the 9000. When rumors were going around that the scanner was soon to be discontinued I quite literally worked through an A-Z of Nikon retailers in the States to get hold of a new model. The most common response amongst those who had at least one, and didn't also have a queue of people wanting to buy, was that they were selling their machines on their eBay stores for upward of $3,5-$4k. That was before the official announcement had been made, and when the scanner price should've been around $2k.

Your opinion may be there's no demand for scanners, but the insane price being paid for used models says otherwise imo.

 

Anyway, there really is no point in these discussions. As I said above, they've been going round for at least a decade+.

 

Just as an aside, I do admire the passion, energy, time and effort you put into crushing any hope that film might survive. You've been doing it for a while, but you don't give up. There's something to be said for your dedication.

 

I see you added some prices. Here's the European price for nib 9000s: http://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/nikon/nikon-super-coolscan-9000-ed2.html €5,999 ($8200)

[AlanG]

Just as an aside, I do admire the passion, energy, time and effort you put into crushing any hope that film might survive. You've been doing it for a while, but you don't give up. There's something to be said for your dedication.

 

Any way I can help.

[AlanG]

Your opinion may be there's no demand for scanners, but the insane price being paid for used models says otherwise imo.

 

 

Here's your chance....

 

Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED Film Scanner | eBay

 

BTW, I don't see anything in my posts that should bother you. I simply answered your questions about why film production at Kodak can't be easily scaled down, why other companies are unlikely to contract with Kodak to make smaller batches of color film, and that Kodak knows all about how to make scanners and could make them again if they saw the profitability in that.

 

As I've posted elsewhere, using a good digital camera and copy setup has some advantages over using a scanner and probably would be a suitable choice for many applications today. Thus the need for a scanner is less than before even if film sales do not decline any further.

[NJH]

Plasticman I will give you a one time pass as English is probably not your first language but you seem to repeatedly post on this forum in an argumentative, obnoxious and frankly down right rude fashion. I gave you my opinion if you don't like it tough but I ain't wasting my time conversing with you in the future.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[plasticman]

Plasticman I will give you a one time pass as English is probably not your first language but you seem to repeatedly post on this forum in an argumentative, obnoxious and frankly down right rude fashion. I gave you my opinion if you don't like it tough but I ain't wasting my time conversing with you in the future.

 

That's great. This is what the ignore function is for and I therefore suggest you use it. Sorry about my abysmal English, by the way.

 

Anyway, to get back to the actual point I was making about the scanners - I'm not suggesting it as a revenue stream for Kodak, it's simply a matter of synergy: if no-one is producing a scanner capable of (for instance) scanning 120 film to a level that satisfies the niche film enthusiast in five years' time, then the market for the film itself will dry up (in my opinion - which is the entire point!)

 

As a sidenote, I'm always amazed at how much heat these seemingly innocent film threads generate. Maybe I have little patience for all the doom and naysayers, but in this case I thought the premise of the thread, and the original intention of the Kodak management (or marketing team) was pretty clear: anyone could get in touch and share their personal view of Kodak's current business and their hopes for the company's future direction, and I was hoping to encourage some constructive contributions from this forum's film community.

 

In the end, I'm frankly disappointed to see it degenerate into the almost inevitable bickering - maybe something to which I contribute, with my terrible grasp of the English language...