Mafud wrote: > > Any professional, in any field, will be known for many attributes, one of > them is consistency. Another is repeatability. Can you (anyone) reproduce the > same level of excellence consistently? > KODAK is still in consumer film only because FUJI came along. They have > stayed because of ego. > **No one ~today~, especially people to young to have lived in a world > without FUJI, ever wonder how FUJI, a rank upstart in the business, > shouldered their way to if not the top, to parity. > > Surely not with shoddy products. How then, did FUJI become so well known so > quickly? The same way Japanese products, especially automobiles, took over so > many markets. Not with shoddy products but with government subsidies. > FUJI, like other Japanese firms, made its decision to enter the US market as > a Niche film. > FUJI has succeeded in almost every attempt. The operative word for nearly > all Japanese penetration of world markets being niche. >
Sure subsidies may have helped them. Every government uses subsidies to promote certain industries. Subsidies look good if they help a party financially. They look bad if they hurt a party financially. I don't agree in general with Japanese products making it because of subsidies. Specifically with automobiles, they have prospered because of having superior products, in spite of US pressures in the 80's to limit their numbers and drive up prices. Fuji has not made it because of subsidies. If consumers/professionals found a film and realized it was inferior, they would stop buying it, unless the price was correspondingly less, making it seem a good value. Fuji has made it because they offered an equal, if not superior product that had a market. A choice. > > Once a year, when the entire KODAK imaging catalog is released, I am > thunderstruck by the depth and breadth of KODAK's photographic film > offerings. From tiny consumer APS to giant ~sheets~ of special order film. > KODAK offers ~every~ imaginable film product while upstart FUJI has just > begun to penetrate medium and large format film. > > My point? KODAK, giant that it is, sometimes slips ~behind~ the curve. As I > remarked before, KODAK doesn't need to be in consumer film to make it, > bolstered by it vast array of films that address every known use for film and > film products. There's no doubt about that. > > > "Do you think that KODAK knows they are the largest, greatest brand > > recognition, most heavily advertised film mfr. in the world?" > > For consumer film, yes. > Not for professional film? > > > "Do you think that KODAK would release a "shoddy KODAK product" knowingly, > > or on accident?" > > Maybe both. > That's possible. > > "Do you think it's because they view customer loyalty more as an asset, or > > something to be taken advantage of?" > > The cynicism that permeates the US today adds mightily to our difficulties at > communications. Really, your question, worded as so many questions are today, > makes the correspondent judge and jury in that your question is meanly, > intentionally rhetorical: > either way I answer, I seem like I 1. Agree that KODAK has mindless followers > or 2. that KODAK is a mindless corporate machine that does and intends to, > dupe the world. Cynicism playing its dastardly part again. Ugly question. > Ask me what I think of KODAK, flat out, without the rhetorical mine field you > laid out. It's not meanly anything. It's a question designed to invoke a thought process and it was a continuation of the question prior in the process. You hit the nail on the head. KODAK does have mindless followers. *Not that everyone that buys KODAK is mindless.* In the mass consumer market, however, for P&S and sub-$50 cameras (probably right on up to the F5''s), the yellow box is familar and is bought out of habit. KODAK knows they have the brand recognition. There are still many places in this world that don't carry Fuji film, particularly small mom & pops, convenience stores, National Parks. Has history taught us to be cautious of large corporations or those in power? Certainly. Unneeded cynicism can be a bad thing. Cautious cynicism can protect a person... I know we're getting off of photography here. My point is a company can get to relying on name recognition to sell their products as opposed to producing a superior product. Garrard turntables come to mind. One other is Microsoft. I know what you think of KODAK already, so I needn't ask. Let's address one point. When KODAK decides to measure their grain structure by different standards than the rest of the world (BTW, I don't know when it started... I just know when I was getting interested, I couldn't make a comparison), was it because they have a better method? Or was it a defensive move, designed to muddy the waters and make comparisons between other possibly superior products difficult? I know what I think. I thought, so if KODAK doesn't want me to be able to make a comparison, what else should I be wary of? If it were not for that one fact, I might have gone out and tried their products wholeheartedly. I simply decided if they weren't going to give me the straight scoop, I'd look elsewhere. By way of comparison, Iast time I tried them, I did not like their consumer films. I did like Ektar 25. I do like E100VS. I could use Kodachrome on occasion. I do like Portra. > > Don't like the way KODAK does business? Don't use their products. And what > does KODAK say about their products you ~SHOULD NOT~ believe? > > > POP Photography just because they say it and because > > KODAK advertises in it." > > There's that cynicism again. I read Readers Digest faithfully. That Reader's > Digest represents "America the beautiful" conservative Christian style, does > not turn me off. Month after month, RD produces article and features > (increase your word power!!!!!) being one of my favorites. I don't believe or > hold to 98% of what RD publishes. I have a choice: read it or not. Same with > KODAK, use it or not. No problem there. > > I mentioned consistency and the ability to consistently reproduce your works. > KODAK, over the years, has provided my the means to be that kind of > professional, consistently turning out quality products. > I stay out of "consumer" film talk in that I don't use consumer film. > Occasionally, film talk here turns to "professional" emulsions. I strongly > comment on the products that, like the lady says at the dance: "I gotta dance > with the one that brung me" (to the party) and that is KODAK. > > FOR MY PURPOSES, shooting people of color requires emulsions which faithfully > reproduce the underlying skin tones of my clients, the vast majority of whom > are people of (all) color. > In two words: FUJI sucks at that job. Repeat: FUJI sucks at that. > there is no professional photographer who bemoans the passing of the > EKTAPRESS emulsions. As you will soon see in my EKTAPRESS GALLERY, EKTAPRESS > utterly nailed people of color. > > FUJI lead the charge into "saturated" emulsions and KODAK stupidly followed. > I know you know this already, but here goes anyway: I personally don't know > of any (ANY) FUJI emulsion which can faithfully reproduce the skin tones of > people of color. FUJI, and now KODAK emulsions, are all formulated to give > even bone white complexions a "glow," if not an outright "tan." > FUJI's film offerings have surrendered color fidelity in (consumer) film for > color "saturation." THAT SUCKS. > > KODAK, with their PORTRA and SUPRA offering, tried to fit those films in the > niche where EKTAPRESS once lead but failed in that all of them "saturate" > photos to one degree or another. **What gives white skin a glow, uglys up > skin with pigments. > > Consistency and constancy, watchwords and benchmarks of the professional: > KODAK provided those means for me, from 1956 when I first "dipped and dunked" > a B&W negative to today. > Besides, over the years, KODAK has offered a broad enough profrssional and > consumer film pallette that I don't have to go "shopping around " for > emulsions, like so many on so many lists feel they must do. > > (Right now, I shoot SUPRA emulsions for the few remaining repeat clients I > kept, PORTRA for me). And if KODAK is the right film to use for your purposes, then you've found it. Let's just not pretend that the corporation is a white knight in shining armor. They're not. There are alternatives. That is good. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
