HIE Email Campaign Update

[Jimmy Williams]

The email campaign to save Kodak HIE-135 infrared film
began here, and I am happy to say it is continuing.

Thanks to Simon Marsden who shared a contact at
Amateur Photographer Magazine in UK, an article
appeared on their online version Wednesday, 12
December and they will publish an article covering the
campaign in their printed magazine as well.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/

Likewise, thanks to Jennifer Calais Smith in NYC, who
shared a contact at PDN magazine, who interviewed me
yesterday for an article that will appear soon in
their online magazine, and I will post the date for
that ASAP.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/index.jsp

Now for the bad news, Kodak have issued a statement:
"While we very much appreciate the correspondence
we've received from some photographers who use our
infrared film and would like to be able to purchase it
in 2008 and beyond, the fact is the decline in use of
infrared film has been so substantial over the years
that it is no longer practical for Kodak to continue
to manufacture the film given the extremely low demand
and volume, the age of the product formulations and
the complexity of the processes involved. Infrared
film will be available through the end of 2007."

This statement does not in any way dissuade me from
continuing the campaign. I am sure that their
intentions are to try to get me to stop this campaign,
but I feel more determined than ever to cause a
positive outcome for the future of HIE infrared film.
Whether it is that Kodak reconsider and continue
making it, or if they choose to hand the emulsion
formula to one of the other manufacturers, either
would be good - my preference being that Kodak think
in terms of finding a way to manufacture the film and
market it in a profitable way.

So, my message to you photographers impacted by this
issue, is to keep positive. I expect further exposure,
bringing more impact to the campaign. Any and all of
you who have lists of fellow photographers to send the
message to, do so now and generate more emails.

Also, let us consider this a banner for all film
photographers for the fight to keep the films we have
and want in the future. Film photography never need be
in jeopardy if we who use film make it an important
part of the art form of photography. If Picasso had
been told by the manufacturer of his favorite blue
paint (the BLUE PERIOD paint!) that they were not
going to make it anymore, what would he have done?
Find your inner Picasso and stand up for the film you
use. Contact the manufacturers now and express your
gratitude for it. People make decisions regarding
these choices and people can be influenced, which is
the heart of my campaign.


Sincerely,
James C. Williams



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[Robert Lynch]

At 08:22 AM 12/14/2007 -0800, Jimmy Williams <nighthawkjw@...>  wrote:
>The email campaign to save Kodak HIE-135 infrared film began here,
>and I am happy to say it is continuing.

I think that it is a great idea.  We shouldn't just sit idly and not
let the providers of our tools know how we feel about the changes
that they make in their product lines.  With any luck, it might
impact the timing of HIE's inevitable demise.  That being said...

<snip>

>This statement does not in any way dissuade me from continuing the campaign.

Good.

>I am sure that their intentions are to try to get me to stop this campaign,

I doubt it.  Do you think it embarrasses them?  HIE is either
economically viable (from Kodak or someone else) or it isn't.  Either
Kodak has misjudged demand, or it hasn't.  I really doubt that they
are annoyed by anyone telling them that they still want the product,
either individually or as a public group effort.

>If Picasso had been told by the manufacturer of his favorite blue
>paint (the BLUE PERIOD paint!) that they were not going to make it
>anymore, what would he have done?

He would have done the exact same thing as if they had never made it
in the first place.  He would have done something different.  It
might even have been better, but without omniscient knowledge of
alternate timelines, there is no way to know.

I am not saying we should go down without a fight.  Quite the
contrary, actually.  But we need to keep things in perspective.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 11:29 AM


*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[Jimmy Williams]

 
> I think that it is a great idea.  We shouldn't just
> sit idly and not
> let the providers of our tools know how we feel
> about the changes
> that they make in their product lines.  With any
> luck, it might
> impact the timing of HIE's inevitable demise.  That
> being said...

The reason I decided to try the campaign is that I
would regret not doing something and moving on. Too
many people simply accept decisions thrust upon them
with complacency and apathy. I am standing up and
saying "KEEP MAKING THIS FILM", not just for my
benefit, but for Simon Marsden, Arthur Drooker and the
hundreds of other talented artists using HIE.

> >I am sure that their intentions are to try to get
> me to stop this campaign,
>
> I doubt it.  Do you think it embarrasses them?  HIE
> is either
> economically viable (from Kodak or someone else) or
> it isn't.  Either
> Kodak has misjudged demand, or it hasn't.  I really
> doubt that they
> are annoyed by anyone telling them that they still
> want the product,
> either individually or as a public group effort.

I can only offer conjecture, since Kodak's responses
to my questions - when answered - are specifically
vague. I believe that there are financial problems at
the root here. They site the manufacturing costs as a
burden, it has to be handled in absolute darkness, so
must also be manufactured and packaged in the dark. I
also imagine they have a programmed production method
that would be costly to alter, so rather than retool
the production line for HIE, they chose to abandon it.
This means workers have lost jobs, as well as
distributors having fewer products to offer. It
affects more than just us photographers.

Furthermore, there was a changing of the guard in the
Film Products Group this past October. I suspect that
the new Execs had to do something to clean house and
improve revenues for their product lines, dropping
those products that were not showing enough profit.
It's all about money, statistics and impressions.

>
> >If Picasso had been told by the manufacturer of his
> favorite blue
> >paint (the BLUE PERIOD paint!) that they were not
> going to make it
> >anymore, what would he have done?
>
> He would have done the exact same thing as if they
> had never made it
> in the first place.  He would have done something
> different.  It
> might even have been better, but without omniscient
> knowledge of
> alternate timelines, there is no way to know.

I'm not gonna touch this one!

>
> I am not saying we should go down without a fight.
> Quite the
> contrary, actually.  But we need to keep things in
> perspective.

Thanks for checking my perspective. I do welcome all
input, negative and postive. While I am trying to
maintain a positive attitude to persevere in the face
of the enormous task of influencing Kodak, I am not
without a realistic perspective and the idea that it
might fail. If people think it won't work and don't
email Kodak because of that, then they can't say they
tried. I am trying, and I believe something good WILL
COME OF IT!


~JCW


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[George L Smyth-2]

--- Jimmy Williams <nighthawkjw@...> wrote:

[clip]

> I can only offer conjecture, since Kodak's responses
> to my questions - when answered - are specifically
> vague. I believe that there are financial problems at
> the root here. They site the manufacturing costs as a
> burden, it has to be handled in absolute darkness, so
> must also be manufactured and packaged in the dark. I
> also imagine they have a programmed production method
> that would be costly to alter, so rather than retool
> the production line for HIE, they chose to abandon it.
> This means workers have lost jobs, as well as
> distributors having fewer products to offer. It
> affects more than just us photographers.

Kodak never really made a profit from their infrared film (this comes from both
people I know who used to be Kodak photographers - one did most of his work in
the infrared section).  Their primary monies came from the government,
specifically the Treasury Department (this is why it was so incredibly
difficult to get their 8X10" infrared film - the 4X5" version was cut down from
the 8X10" stock).  The consumer end of things was mostly an afterthought that
in itself lost money, but was intended to get customers to use their other
products.

Best of luck with the campaign, but I would be absolutely shocked if it
succeeded - on the one hand I'm rather amazed that the film has been available
this long, but on the other hand look how long they supported disc film).

The bottom line is that when you look at this - http://tinyurl.com/ywrzo7 - you
see that they have little choice in the matter.  Because it is a public
business, the owners (shareholders) need to see a return on their investment,
and management has been very slow to respond.  That is not how a successful
company is supposed to work.

So I hope that I'm wrong and they change their mind, and if there is any chance
for that then you are working on the right path to make it so.

Cheers -

george

-------------------------------------

   Eclectic Mix: http://EclecticMix.com
   One Minute How-To: http://OneMinuteHowTo.com
   DRiP Investing: http://DRiPInvesting.org

   Handmade Photographic Images: http://www.GLSmyth.com - Blog: GLSmyth.Wordpress.com










*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[Jimmy Williams]

> Kodak never really made a profit from their infrared
> film (this comes from both
> people I know who used to be Kodak photographers -
> one did most of his work in
> the infrared section).  Their primary monies came
> from the government,
> specifically the Treasury Department (this is why it
> was so incredibly
> difficult to get their 8X10" infrared film - the
> 4X5" version was cut down from
> the 8X10" stock).  The consumer end of things was
> mostly an afterthought that
> in itself lost money, but was intended to get
> customers to use their other
> products.

It sounds as if you know first hand about Kodak's
profits from IR film. I am familiar with marketing
strategies such as Ford selling the Escort for near
cost simply to keep a large presence of the Ford brand
on the road. It seems very unlikely that such a unique
item as HIE would serve such a purpose - otherwise it
would be in all Ritz/Wolf Camera shops, instead of
being a special order item.

I don't doubt the govt contracts. Lots of marijuana
patches were discovered using this film!


> Best of luck with the campaign, but I would be
> absolutely shocked if it
> succeeded - on the one hand I'm rather amazed that
> the film has been available
> this long, but on the other hand look how long they
> supported disc film).

Yeah, thanks... I think?!?

>
> The bottom line is that when you look at this -
> http://tinyurl.com/ywrzo7 - you
> see that they have little choice in the matter.
> Because it is a public
> business, the owners (shareholders) need to see a
> return on their investment,
> and management has been very slow to respond.  That
> is not how a successful
> company is supposed to work.

Yes, I agree... the almighty dollar is all that really
matters. What I am hoping to impress upon Kodak is
that they were responsible for making photography a
popular art form for the masses. Now, that film has
become less popular, Kodak needs to shoulder some
responsibility for preserving the art form of fine-art
film photography. The cultural impact of losing an art
form is what is at stake, whether it be infrared film
or any film. The important point is what happens when
an art medium ceases to be available and the impact it
has on the art community.

>
> So I hope that I'm wrong and they change their mind,
> and if there is any chance
> for that then you are working on the right path to
> make it so.

Thanks, George. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to
butt heads with you. I only want people to keep a
positive outlook on this issue. I am continuing to get
media exposure for this cause and feel it is an
important issue, far beyond wanting the film for my
own work. I sincerely believe if Kodak wanted to
continue to make the film, they would find a way to do
it and at least break even with it. Maybe that isn't
enough, so the alternative will be to find a new maker
for HIE and hope Kodak will sell the formula.

I have butted heads with some folks over at APUG that
were nothing more than devil's advocates. My feelings
about this list are that you members are the ones that
are passionate about IR photography and many of you
still use film or used it prior to going digital. You
can understand why I want to try to do something about
this, so I consider this a home base. I welcome all
discussion on this issue and hope that I can count on
you all for some support in the weeks or months to
come until the future of this film has been assured.

Any of you who have any press contacts that you can
share with me, this is a vital source of exposure
which I sincerely believe will cause Kodak to
reconsider. Any of you who know others using film, be
it IR or not, this should be important to them as
well, so please pass the word along.

I truly appreciate every bit of support. This effort
is for us as well as for a future generation of
photographers who may choose to create beautiful
images using this film.


Sincerely,
James C. Williams



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[Elton N. Kaufmann]

At 11:12 AM Tuesday12/18/2007, Jimmy Williams wrote:

> > Kodak never really made a profit from their infrared
> > film (this comes from both
> > people I know who used to be Kodak photographers -
> > one did most of his work in
> > the infrared section).  Their primary monies came
> > from the government,
> > specifically the Treasury Department (this is why it
> > was so incredibly
> > difficult to get their 8X10" infrared film - the
> > 4X5" version was cut down from
> > the 8X10" stock).  The consumer end of things was
> > mostly an afterthought that
> > in itself lost money, but was intended to get
> > customers to use their other
> > products.
>
>It sounds as if you know first hand about Kodak's
>profits from IR film. I am familiar with marketing
>strategies such as Ford selling the Escort for near
>cost simply to keep a large presence of the Ford brand
>on the road. It seems very unlikely that such a unique
>item as HIE would serve such a purpose - otherwise it
>would be in all Ritz/Wolf Camera shops, instead of
>being a special order item.
>
>I don't doubt the govt contracts. Lots of marijuana
>patches were discovered using this film!
>
>
> > Best of luck with the campaign, but I would be
> > absolutely shocked if it
> > succeeded - on the one hand I'm rather amazed that
> > the film has been available
> > this long, but on the other hand look how long they
> > supported disc film).
>
>Yeah, thanks... I think?!?
>
> >
> > The bottom line is that when you look at this -
> > http://tinyurl.com/ywrzo7 - you
> > see that they have little choice in the matter.
> > Because it is a public
> > business, the owners (shareholders) need to see a
> > return on their investment,
> > and management has been very slow to respond.  That
> > is not how a successful
> > company is supposed to work.
>
>Yes, I agree... the almighty dollar is all that really
>matters. What I am hoping to impress upon Kodak is
>that they were responsible for making photography a
>popular art form for the masses. Now, that film has
>become less popular, Kodak needs to shoulder some
>responsibility for preserving the art form of fine-art
>film photography. The cultural impact of losing an art
>form is what is at stake, whether it be infrared film
>or any film. The important point is what happens when
>an art medium ceases to be available and the impact it
>has on the art community.
>
> >
> > So I hope that I'm wrong and they change their mind,
> > and if there is any chance
> > for that then you are working on the right path to
> > make it so.
>
>Thanks, George. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to
>butt heads with you. I only want people to keep a
>positive outlook on this issue. I am continuing to get
>media exposure for this cause and feel it is an
>important issue, far beyond wanting the film for my
>own work. I sincerely believe if Kodak wanted to
>continue to make the film, they would find a way to do
>it and at least break even with it. Maybe that isn't
>enough, so the alternative will be to find a new maker
>for HIE and hope Kodak will sell the formula.
>
>I have butted heads with some folks over at APUG that
>were nothing more than devil's advocates. My feelings
>about this list are that you members are the ones that
>are passionate about IR photography and many of you
>still use film or used it prior to going digital. You
>can understand why I want to try to do something about
>this, so I consider this a home base. I welcome all
>discussion on this issue and hope that I can count on
>you all for some support in the weeks or months to
>come until the future of this film has been assured.
>
>Any of you who have any press contacts that you can
>share with me, this is a vital source of exposure
>which I sincerely believe will cause Kodak to
>reconsider. Any of you who know others using film, be
>it IR or not, this should be important to them as
>well, so please pass the word along.
>
>I truly appreciate every bit of support. This effort
>is for us as well as for a future generation of
>photographers who may choose to create beautiful
>images using this film.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>James C. Williams
>

I for one love HIE and support the campaign to retain it in some fashion.
[For me, reaching 900 nanometers without an anti-halation layer is
way better than digital and post-processing.]
(If George's e-Bay auction for the Konica 120 IR film is any
indication, some folks are willing to pay a lot per frame for really
nice IR film.)

In addition to appealing to Kodak's "art community conscience," or to
an alternative
lower-overhead manufacturer (i.e., maybe where labor costs are less
but high tech is available, like India or China),
why not also consider appealing to patrons of the arts.  Under the
current US Administration that seems to be against federal support of
the arts and against "corporate welfare," it's unlikely, but maybe if
we can hold out to January 2009, The National Endowment for the Arts
or other programs (maybe even a private foundation) would actually
consider funding a rescue effort for such a unique artistic tool.


Just a thought.
                 Elton K.







*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

[George L Smyth-2]

--- Jimmy Williams <nighthawkjw@...> wrote:

>
> > Kodak never really made a profit from their infrared
> > film (this comes from both
> > people I know who used to be Kodak photographers -
> > one did most of his work in
> > the infrared section).  Their primary monies came
> > from the government,
> > specifically the Treasury Department (this is why it
> > was so incredibly
> > difficult to get their 8X10" infrared film - the
> > 4X5" version was cut down from
> > the 8X10" stock).  The consumer end of things was
> > mostly an afterthought that
> > in itself lost money, but was intended to get
> > customers to use their other
> > products.
>
> It sounds as if you know first hand about Kodak's
> profits from IR film. I am familiar with marketing
> strategies such as Ford selling the Escort for near
> cost simply to keep a large presence of the Ford brand
> on the road. It seems very unlikely that such a unique
> item as HIE would serve such a purpose - otherwise it
> would be in all Ritz/Wolf Camera shops, instead of
> being a special order item.

James -

Actually, I used to be able to get rolls at Ritz, although that was 10-15 years
ago.  The one in Annapolis had a refrigerator where they kept, mostly, slide
film, and on several occasions when I had run out, I could get a quick roll or
two there (at a dear cost).

Your best shot at this is, as you say, to remind Kodak of their unique position
in this particular category - nobody else makes film like HIE/HSI.  It seems to
me that there could be an outside shot at getting them to do a single run each
year, similar to Konica, to ensure that the unique results can be maintained.

Cheers -

george

-------------------------------------

   Eclectic Mix: http://EclecticMix.com
   One Minute How-To: http://OneMinuteHowTo.com
   DRiP Investing: http://DRiPInvesting.org

   Handmade Photographic Images: http://www.GLSmyth.com - Blog: GLSmyth.Wordpress.com










*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@...                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************