The Mighty Tri-X Brand

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Grey old guard? Being grey and old is, thankfully, the way I remain visually separated from naive persons stereo typing me as a Hipster, unless there is an age requirement: is there one?

 

A self- deprecating sense of humor helps, unless that is unacceptable. Is it?

 

Hipster or Hippie?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

...the only kind of people I can think of who might buy a given film on display in a shop as a purchase based on seeing film packaging.

 

This is a complete misunderstanding of what branding involves.

 

I muddied the waters of this discussion myself by discussing the specific characteristics of the packaging, but my intention (as can be seen from the thread title) was to discuss the failure in branding which is something completely separate. The failure in calling the film Tri-X on the packaging is nothing to do with impulse buying, or advertising, marketing, packaging or any other of these categories that are subsumed in the overall branding philosophy of a company and its products.

 

Branding isn't about making a flashy package that's going to appeal to a person passing through a camera store, it's about building loyalty, values, customer-identification: it's what converts you from a one-time user of a product or service into someone who maybe loves using that product and perceive it as an essential part of the sort of person the user sees themselves being.

 

Obviously this needs to happen sub-consciously - the user of the product experiences all of the immediate physical properties - which need to be good obviously - but for the brand experience to reach them they need to be receptive to, and absorb a myriad other elements.

 

In the specific case of Tri-X, there are people like me who've become interested in film photography, and who - however pretentiously or laughably - aspire to a feeling that their own inadequate snapshots are somehow linked (at least by some tenuous unconscious thread) to the great images made on the same film in the past. The Tri-X name evokes a feeling, a history, an unconscious loyalty.

 

The mistake that Kodak made is confusing the tweaking of the chemistry with the brand itself. Because they haven't understood what their own company stands for, what its values and intrinsic identity is, where it wants to be in the future, or what sort of customers it wants to have or even what sort of products it wants to sell - because of all these things they do things like tweak the chemistry of a product that has a mighty brand and release it with a new name, that has no resonances or history.

That's why I called it a failure of branding.

[NJH]

I am not so sure, as someone old enough to have used film for many years prior to the digital world I just had yellow = kodak and green = fuji burned into my subconsciousness.

[AlanG]

...The mistake that Kodak made is confusing the tweaking of the chemistry with the brand itself. Because they haven't understood what their own company stands for, what its values and intrinsic identity is, where it wants to be in the future, or what sort of customers it wants to have or even what sort of products it wants to sell - because of all these things they do things like tweak the chemistry of a product that has a mighty brand and release it with a new name, that has no resonances or history.

That's why I called it a failure of branding.

 

I can only speculate what the reason is but Kodak is the brand and Tri-X is one product. I think in the past, Kodak was pretty effective at promoting their name to the point that it was ubiquitous (There are still many souvenir trucks here in DC that have "Kodak" all over them but don't sell any Kodak products.) And they always did all kinds of things with their products and have added and dropped numerous products and changed packaging, labeling, and logos many times.

 

I did a Google image search on "Kodak film advertisements" and did not see any ads for Tri-X.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=kodak+film+advertisements&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=jSDHVPGQF5DlgwTb14PwBw&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=2144&bih=1100&dpr=0.9#imgdii=_

 

My guess is that the marketing people at Kodak have done their research and don't feel there is any advantage in promoting the name Tri-X very heavily. Maybe they feel loyal Tri-X users will continue to buy it but want a more forward looking identity to appeal to a new market that perhaps is not wrapped up in nostalgia. Maybe they want people to pay more attention to the 400 speed and not to the name.

 

I bet it was confusing especially for noobs in the past when film was mostly marked by name... Panatomic F, Plus X, Tri-X, Kodachrome II, Extachrome B, etc. and you had to look closely or be knowledgeable to know what the film characteristic and the speed was. I thought Verichrome Pan was an especially confusing name.

 

Looking at the packaging on 400 TMAX and its similarity to 400TX packaging makes me think that Kodak wants to blur the product distinction and then eventually drop one or the other.

[AlanG]

I just looked at the Kodak site and saw this bit of interesting hyperbole...

 

"Black-and-white is honest. At times beautiful, at times brutal. Always revealing the truth—of a situation, of an emotion, of the fleeting permanence of nature.

 

KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black-and-White Films deliver superior performance across the board. There simply is no better family of black-and-white films available today.

 

From the always timeless TRI-X, to the incomparably sharp T-MAX 400, there’s a black-and-white film in our family that lets you expose the truth in stunning detail."

 

Is shooting in color and then converting to b/w dishonest?

[wattsy]

Is shooting in color and then converting to b/w dishonest?

 

It is to me (a bit) but then I'm not like Rain Man and don't get too bothered about life's little inconsistencies, fallacies and illogicalities. As total nonsense as the Kodak marketing statement you quote probably is, I find it chimes with my thinking.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jeez - working for the newspaper we'd convert color pictures to B&W all the time, because everything was shot on color post-1988 or so (just in case they ran on a color page), and not all pages had color ink available.

 

Not dishonest, but there was a certain quality hit (for the same reason the MM can do ISO 10,000 and the M9 only ISO 2500 - the color-separation filtering eats up a lot of light in either film or digital).

 

Just for historical perspective, in the late 90's Kodak lumped B&W films in with color slide films, in terms of corporate organization. As the "niche" products. I met Kodak's product manager for "E-6 and B&W products" at a workshop in 1999. (Tried to talk him into creating an E-6-compatible monochrome film to go up against Agfa Scala - but that's another story.....). He told me HIS portfolio of B&W and E-6 was, at that time, about 8% of Kodak's sales.

 

Color negative was the "main line" product - from consumer "drug-store" films to motion picture stock to the wide ranges for commercial (Portra - 6 different emulsions counting tungsten 100T, plus two UC films) and photojournalism (Ektapress PJ100, PJ400, PJ800).

 

So B&W overall has taken a back seat at Kodak for quite a while - for all that we may love it.

[Herr Barnack]

Do hipsters really exist in real life or is this just another internet thing? I am confused I may have seen one once but was not sure. Same for the aura around Tri-X, I certainly got the impression when I started last year that the net was obsessed with it but the more and more widely I have read the less I get this impression.

 

These have always struck me as the official camera bags of the Hipster folk -

ONA | Stylish Camera Bags | Leather Camera Bags | DSLR and Laptop Bags

 

A Rollei TLR worn as a necklace but not used is also a hipster warning flag.

 

Then there's this hipster spotter's guide: https://www.google.com/search?q=hipster&biw=1440&bih=772&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=xLPJVJXbLMKbyATu34HQCw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

[steve_hoffman]

These have always struck me as the official camera bags of the Hipster folk -

ONA | Stylish Camera Bags | Leather Camera Bags | DSLR and Laptop Bags

 

A Rollei TLR worn as a necklace but not used is also a hipster warning flag.

 

Then there's this hipster spotter's guide: https://www.google.com/search?q=hipster&biw=1440&bih=772&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=xLPJVJXbLMKbyATu34HQCw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

 

Hey, thanks for the link. That ONA Bowery Field bag is really nice. And I'm way too old to be a hipster..

ONA | The Bowery - Field Tan - Camera bag and insert

[chrism]

A couple of times I have shot colour film, scanned it and then converted to B&W in LR. You can, of course, play with the colour mixing when converting just as you do with a native digital image. It has its attractions - relative lack of grain, ability to add the effect of a red/orange/yellow/green filter afterwards, but also its drawbacks - expense and having to do C-41 processing, which is itself an expense and rather boring compared with B&W processing. Once by design and once by accident I developed colour film in B&W chemicals. The results were acceptable, but there really isn't a reason to do it on purpose.

 

At no time did I feel dishonest during the above.

 

Chris

[mikej]

Personally, I don't care what the box says or looks like as long as they keep making it! 120, please.

Cheers,

Mike

[philipus]

These have always struck me as the official camera bags of the Hipster folk -

ONA | Stylish Camera Bags | Leather Camera Bags | DSLR and Laptop Bags

 

I have the field tan Bowery and find it a very useful little bag. I've even managed to have two film Ms with lenses and an extra lens in there but that is a bit tight. For one camera and lens and two lenses and some film it is very good.

 

But I am most definitely not a hipster. So while I can't identify with those who dress that way (and am in any event unable to grow the required beard), I don't mind if people do. I can't even really complain about the wearing of large plastic-framed or other oversized glasses (though for normal glasses I do think it looks absolutely ridiculous in an adult film star secretary kind of way) because I use the same pair of Wayfarers I have had since the mid-80s. I guess this means I am "hip" in that respect approx. every 5-10 years judging by how sunglass fashion develops.

 

About Tri-X though, and perhaps more generally black and white films, I can't remember from when I worked in a camera shop in the 80s and 90s that we sold very much black and white at all. Even advanced amateur photographers bought colour film, C41 or E6.

 

These days however black and white is all the rage and the only real way to photograph reality, it seems. I have a feeling this is, at least to an extent, because of the growing popularity of film among those who, never having shot film before, have either switched from digital or added film to their creative toolbox. The Internet being the source of all we know these days means that stories like this and the constant online blabbery about how HCB shot his black and white decisive moments and Winogrand only used Tri-X (which isn't true, btw) act as a form of peer pressure. To be a real film photographer, one must see in and shoot black and white. And with a Leica M only Tri-X will do of course.

 

Naturally, it is an individual choice and opinion. If it makes people happy to shoot black and white, then by all means shoot that. Photographically I grew up on Velvia and love colour. It took a while before I shot my first Tri-X actually. But I liked it, and believe colour and black and white complement each other. I can't relate to those who say they are unable to shoot in colour as little as I can relate to those who never shoot black and white. That said, I am more inspired (and impressed) by photographers - such as Leiter, Meyerowitz, Burri, especially Leiter - who manage to use colour in an artistically compelling way.

 

Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but, on point, the fact that Kodak has not managed properly and consistently to brand its products doesn't affect how I feel about its films, but I accept that it can have an effect on sales. On the other hands, these days, I wonder if Kodak's and especially Tri-X's position as the must-use film doesn't cancel out any effects of poor branding.

[wattsy]

I use the same pair of Wayfarers I have had since the mid-80s. I guess this means I am "hip" in that respect approx. every 5-10 years judging by how sunglass fashion develops.

 

I only shave about once per month nowadays so I repeatedly cycle through various stages of growth from clean shaven (for a day) to 1980s "designer stubble" to Barry Gibb style short beard through to full on hipster beard (which my wife suggests makes me look like a "tramp":)). I also wear fairly thick rimmed glasses for reading so I probably ought to be browsing the film boxes whilst sipping an artisan coffee.

 

I think Tri-X seems to market itself. Most people interested in film photography will make a mental note of the film being used by those that inspire them and Tri-X is clearly one of the standout emulsions (even if the reality is that it was simply a more ubiquitous film "back in the day").

 

Incidentally, talking of marketing and growing interest in film: I suspect that if Kodak had held their nerve a little longer and kept a Kodachrome lab open, sales of that film would be on an upward trajectory compared with what it was prior to it's discontinuation. It's a classic film with a unique history that I believe would have enabled it to buck the trend that has seen E6 film sales decline (though it looks like you are trying to reverse that, Philip:D).

[AlanG]

I think Tri-X and b/w in general is popular today because it is easy to develop and print in a home darkroom. So people can use it and say they are not working digitally.

[Herr Barnack]

I only shave about once per month nowadays so I repeatedly cycle through various stages of growth from clean shaven (for a day) to 1980s "designer stubble" to Barry Gibb style short beard through to full on hipster beard (which my wife suggests makes me look like a "tramp":)). I also wear fairly thick rimmed glasses for reading so I probably ought to be browsing the film boxes whilst sipping an artisan coffee.

 

I think Tri-X seems to market itself. Most people interested in film photography will make a mental note of the film being used by those that inspire them and Tri-X is clearly one of the standout emulsions (even if the reality is that it was simply a more ubiquitous film "back in the day").

 

Incidentally, talking of marketing and growing interest in film: I suspect that if Kodak had held their nerve a little longer and kept a Kodachrome lab open, sales of that film would be on an upward trajectory compared with what it was prior to it's discontinuation. It's a classic film with a unique history that I believe would have enabled it to buck the trend that has seen E6 film sales decline (though it looks like you are trying to reverse that, Philip:D).

 

I would agree with that.

 

However, my reasons for shooting Tri-X in my film cameras are fourfold -

1: I really like the fingerprint of Tri-X

2: It is very easy to develop

3: It has arguably the widest exposure latitude of any film currently being made

4: A well known Magnum photographer who led a week long workshop that I attended answered "Tri-X" when I asked him what was the best B&W emulsion in his experience. "Tri-X is the best B&W film of all time," he added.

 

The above reasons make it very hard to find a bone to pick with Tri-X, for me anyway. There are several other interesting B&W emulsions being made, but Tri-X is the backbone of my B&W film endeavors.

[Stealth3kpl]

A 4 page reminder of that lovely Kodachrome:

Colour WWII photos look like they were taken yesterday - WAR HISTORY ONLINE

[wattsy]

So people can use it and say they are not working digitally.

 

Yes, that must be it.

[AlanG]

Well you have to differentiate yourself somehow as an analogue photographer by saying you want to do it instead of or in addition to digital. Why keep it secret? Maybe you have an aesthetic reason or just like the process, but you need to have a reason, and probably can communicate it in some manner.

 

My point is that shooting b/w film and printing b/w in a home darkroom is much easier than trying to do color film and color printing at home. So if you don't want to do digital photography, or even have a hybrid workflow, and many don't seem to want to, then this is the easiest approach... especially starting out. It seems many get pleasure out of the processing and printing of film, but even if they want to eventually do color, they almost certainly will start out with b/w and continue with that too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stealth3kpl]

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!

 

.....and we're off.....

Pete

[wattsy]

My point is that shooting b/w film and printing b/w in a home darkroom is much easier than trying to do color film and color printing at home. So if you don't want to do digital photography, or even have a hybrid workflow, and many don't seem to want to, then this is the easiest approach... especially starting out. It seems many get pleasure out of the processing and printing of film, but even if they want to eventually do color, they almost certainly will start out with b/w and continue with that too.

 

Okay, that's a slightly different point (though not entirely) to the one I thought you were making. However, I still can't agree with it. I don't think there are many users of black and white film who are using it because their motivation is simply to use film per se (to be different, etc.) and they find black and white easier to home brew. Seems a bit barmy to me.

 

 

Well you have to differentiate yourself somehow as an analogue photographer by saying you want to do it instead of or in addition to digital. Why keep it secret? Maybe you have an aesthetic reason or just like the process, but you need to have a reason, and probably can communicate it in some manner.

 

Why does a film photographer need to "differentiate" themselves so apparently self-consciously? I accept that there is a certain amount of tribalism that goes on with regard to film and digital but my guess is that is almost entirely an internet thing – a bit like the older, even more boring, Apple v. PC. Out in the real world nobody gives a stuff whether someone is using film or digital and I don't think many are making a song and dance about it.