Up
Model Photography
Tips for Models
Model Metadirectory
Equipment
Why I'm Sick of Kodak

Why I'm Sick of Kodak

I'm sick of Kodak because I feel that Kodak takes photographers for fools. They seem to feel that photographers need to be told what they want and need to have their hands held every step of the way. Kodak has attempted to dumb down the art of photography on nearly every front.

The Latest Teeny-Tiny Kodak Format

Kodak's worst habit is their need to foist new "consumer" film formats on us every five to ten years. All but the absolute rock-bottom cheapest 35mm cameras can automatically load a roll of 35mm film and produce very nice pictures, yet Kodak continues to feel that the 35mm format is either too good or too complicated for consumers.

In the past couple of decades Kodak has given us the 126, 110, and Disc formats. In the case of the 126 and 110 formats, both the supply and take-up reels were completely enclosed in a plastic case, so that in essence one purchased an entire film back with each roll of film and inserted the whole thing into the camera. The Disc format featured little bits of film glued to plastic arms that were rotated past the lens. All three formats produced miserable photographs due to their small frame sizes (only the 126 format gave the photographer a negative that wasn't laughably small), their inability to keep the film flat at the film plane, and the fact that the cameras produced for these formats tended to be cheap, fixed-focus ("focus-free") affairs.

Now Kodak has given us the Advanced Photo System, APS. The APS format has various advantages over 35mm:

It's easier to load; you just drop the canister in and let the camera pull the film out.
APS negatives are stored in the canister to protect them from scratches and dust.
A roll of film can be ejected from the camera in mid-roll and later reloaded.
A little magnetic strip to the side of the film records information that the lab can later use to make better prints.
Three formats are offered, "HDTV" format, "Classic" format, and "Panorama" format.
You get a preview sheet (it looks like a contact sheet) back from the lab with your prints.

Some of these are genuine new features (such as the mid-roll change capability), while others are either of dubious utility (sure APS film is easy to load, but nobody I know has trouble loading a 35mm camera these days) or are cumbersome (storing the negs in the canister makes them hard to view on a light table).

Kodak's own list of APS advantages is as follows:

practically foolproof loading and operation
reduced chance for error
increased uses and options for your images (beyond prints!)
improved storage and retrieval of your pictures
easier shooting, handling, and storing capabilities
more picture choices and the ability to customize

The simple fact that years after its launch, the best that Kodak's marketing people can come up with is "increased uses and options for your pictures" should tell you that APS is really nothing special.

However, whatever its advantages, my problem with APS can be summed up in two sentences:

The largest APS format (HDTV) still only gives the photographer half the film area of the 35mm format.
Kodak could have added the new APS features to the 35mm format, but didn't.

Smaller negatives mean crappier prints, no matter how you cut it. It doesn't matter that film technology has advanced considerably since the days of the Disc. You will still get better pictures with the new films in 35mm than with the new films in APS.

It's strange that Kodak didn't simply add new features to the existing 35mm format, the most popular film format in the world. There's room for a magnetic strip on 35mm film, and it would be a cinch to modify the canister to allow the camera to pull the film out itself. Most 35mm cameras already have a panorama format, and the HDTV format could be included as well. (The 35mm frame already has the aspect ratio of the Classic format.) The rest of the APS features are just lab improvements. There is no reason why the lab couldn't return negatives in the 35mm canister, or provide preview sheets with the prints. If the new 35mm format was backward-compatible with the old 35mm format, then great, but even if it wasn't, at least everyone could continue to use the post-exposure equipment with the new format, e.g., slide scanners and projectors, negative carriers, processors, and so forth.

So why did Kodak create an entirely new film format rather than develop the 35mm format further? The only possible answer is they did it just to sell lots of cameras and new lab equipment. Or does someone really think that Kodak developed the new format to facilitate the development of cutesy cameras like the Canon IXUS? (That's the Canon ELPH for you folks in the States.)

Of course, I could ignore APS, which is what I've been doing, but I won't be able ignore it forever, because the snapshooter market is enormous, and the needs of snapshooters tend to affect the photographic industry as a whole. Does anyone think that we'd have 1-hour labs on every street corner if it wasn't for the fact that millions of people don't want to wait a day or two to get their vacation pictures back? And who determines what film you can buy at your local drug store, professional photographers, or snapshooters? Will there come a time when the local 1-hour lab sends 35mm work off site? Or when all the picture frames for sale at Wal-Mart are for the APS formats? Or when amateur photographers flood the newsgroups with questions like, "I'm thinking about upgrading from APS to 35mm, what camera should I buy?" Or when the only lenses available for 35mm SLRs are the manufacturer's own? I can't help but notice that half the point and shoots on display at every consumer electronics store are APS cameras. How long before 35mm becomes what the 120 format is today?

I don't have any particular love for the 35mm format. In fact, I use the 120 format as often as I can. I only use 35mm when picture quality is secondary to convenience or speed. What bothers me is Kodak's attitude that even the 35mm format is too good for consumers and that they should be satisfied with less.

You Don't Really Need T-Max P3200 in 120

Another of Kodak's attitude problems has to do with refusing to manufacture certain types of film in certain formats. Their thinking is, I suppose, that film A is targeted toward type B photographers, who tend to use C format equipment, so it isn't necessary for Kodak to make the film in the D format. But what about the photographers who do want that film in that format? I'm not talking about rare formats like 70mm long roll or 5x7, but common formats like 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

The biggest offenders in my book are T-Max P3200, all of the Royal Gold films, and all of the Kodachrome films, which are all only available in 35mm. Apparently Kodak has decided to make T-Max P3200 in 120 as well, now that Ilford Delta 3200 is here in 120 format. What did that take so long? And why not Kodachrome in 120? Imagine what a 6x6 Kodachrome 25 transparency would be like!

Kodak's infrared film is available in 35mm and 4x5, but not in 120. Want to take infrared pictures with your Hasselblad? Tough.

And of course, if you buy Tri-X in sheets, you don't get normal Tri-X but rather something different. What's the story with that?

Film? What's That?

You know when Kodak is trying to push a particular technology because they start making cameras. For the last couple of decades, Kodak cameras have never been standalone products, but rather part of Kodak's various attempts to get us to stop using whatever it is that we're using (usually 35mm film) and start using something else.

Given the extent to which Kodak has been pushing digital photography over the last few years, with not just one or two but nine different digital camera models, I wonder if Kodak is its own worst competition. What does Kodak have to gain by pushing us all into digital? Kodak is a film company, not an electronics company. Do they really think that they're going to take on Sony and Canon on their home turfs and win?

At least Kodak sold its photocopier business.

Send me your own Kodak gripes and I'll gladly add them.