PLUS-X Petition and Group at Current.com

Bill DiPietra · April 9, 2010

This is a second draft and I only really made some grammatical corrections.

Also, Todd alerted me that the first draft was posted in a sub-forum. My apologies for that, but it was the last thing I did before I went to bed...LOL.

Also, I posted in the Film Stocks category that I created a PLUS-X Group at current.com. I have a link to my website which has the latest draft of the petition online. The guys from Current came to LIU and I wound up submitting a VCAM for one of their ad campaigns. I am going to see if I can at least get some publicity for the group by e-mailing them.

Here is the link to the Current group:

http://current.com/entertainment/movies/92...plus-x-film.htm

And here is the 2nd draft of the petition:

plus_x_petition.pdf

Alessandro Machi · April 9, 2010

This is a second draft and I only really made some grammatical corrections.

Also, Todd alerted me that the first draft was posted in a sub-forum. My apologies for that, but it was the last thing I did before I went to bed...LOL.

Also, I posted in the Film Stocks category that I created a PLUS-X Group at current.com. I have a link to my website which has the latest draft of the petition online. The guys from Current came to LIU and I wound up submitting a VCAM for one of their ad campaigns. I am going to see if I can at least get some publicity for the group by e-mailing them.

Here is the link to the Current group:

http://current.com/entertainment/movies/92...plus-x-film.htm

And here is the 2nd draft of the petition:

Hi Bill, are you absolutely certain that Tri-X pulled one stop wouldn't approximate Plus-X?

Bill DiPietra · April 9, 2010

Hi Bill, are you absolutely certain that Tri-X pulled one stop wouldn't approximate Plus-X?

No, I'm not. But I believe the point that everyone is making is "why should we have to compensate?" I understand Kodak has to cut back due to pressure from the digital age. But I find it artistically irresponsible of them to eliminate ALL FORMATS of Plus-X. I could understand eliminating the daylight spools...maybe even 7265...but the entire stock?

Alessandro Machi · April 10, 2010

No, I'm not. But I believe the point that everyone is making is "why should we have to compensate?" I understand Kodak has to cut back due to pressure from the digital age. But I find it artistically irresponsible of them to eliminate ALL FORMATS of Plus-X. I could understand eliminating the daylight spools...maybe even 7265...but the entire stock?

Tri-X was reformulated a couple of years ago and the comment I heard was that it looked like older Plus-X, and that the newer plus-x looked really good. However, if pulling it can make a difference, I will be happy.

The simpler the film choices the more the digital nerds will consider giving film formats a try. "Go get me some black and white film" will literally mean, go get me some Tri-X, no questions or confusion about the differences.

If it is too complicated some may just whine that its stupid shooting film because it's so complicated. The more sophisticated filmmakers might be able to get Plus-X out of Tri-X, and the less educated's life just got simpler if they choose to shoot BW. That's my theory.

Todd Anderson · April 10, 2010

Bill,

The petition sounds really good. I think it is solid enough to submit when the time comes. I'm sure others will ask for a addition or two. Get your whole school on board.

Also, I think since this is finally out in the "general forum" with more exposure, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for Tim Carroll to repost the quick link form and instructions for sending off an email to the Kodak reps.

And as far fetched as it may sound, anyone able to attach some press to the issue, by all means try. Stranger things have happened...

And if there are any ASC members here that can pull a little weight, a respectful plea out to you gentleman.

Sure, it is not like Kodak has stopped producing every stock. But why not put a little heat on them as so before the time comes to make that very decision, they see there is some continued passion out there? It is not a bad idea to remind them of that. Will it ultimately come down to the stockholders? Probably. But as I mentioned in the other thread, people had pretty much written off SAAB earlier last year.

Lastly, it looked like the last time I checked there were about 500 views in the original thread relating to the petition and about 700 in the one corresponding to the removal of 7231 and 7265. I can't encourage the people that are visiting enough to take two minutes to either send Bill your contact information, and/or just as importantly, send off a letter to Kodak as Tim Carroll has suggested.

Thanks,

T

Bill DiPietra · April 10, 2010

Lastly, it looked like the last time I checked there were about 500 views in the original thread relating to the petition and about 700 in the one corresponding to the removal of 7231 and 7265. I can't encourage the people that are visiting enough to take two minutes to either send Bill your contact information, and/or just as importantly, send off a letter to Kodak as Tim Carroll has suggested.

Thanks,

T

I cannot stress that point enough, either. PLEASE reach out to whoever you can and let Kodak know how so many of us feel!

Alessandro Machi · April 10, 2010

I cannot stress that point enough, either. PLEASE reach out to whoever you can and let Kodak know how so many of us feel!

Kodak has made it next to impossible to contact a real person from their website. Other than fill out an address form that asks all kinds of filmmaking questions, there is no way that I can see to actually contact a Kodak employee.

Now I know why.

Bill DiPietra · April 10, 2010

Kodak has made it next to impossible to contact a real person from their website. Other than fill out an address form that asks all kinds of filmmaking questions, there is no way that I can see to actually contact a Kodak employee.

Now I know why.

Yes, I noticed the absence of e-mail addresses on that site. Best thing for you all to do is call up Kodak and ask for specific contact information (office address, business phone, etc.) for your area rep.

Bill DiPietra · April 10, 2010

UPDATE:

As of right now we have 25 names (we can do better in this forum alone.)

I've sent an e-mail to every filmmaker/student/teacher I know. Also, sent an e-mail to the ASC.

K Borowski · April 10, 2010

I hate to be cynical, but the only "petition" that Kodak would actually listen to would be an order for 100,000 or 1,000,000 feet of the film.

Otherwise, I am sorry, you are completely wasting your time. . .

Andy_Alderslade · April 11, 2010

Ah what a shame Plux-X reversal was a beautiful stock, far better than Tri-X reversal, and if you wanted the TriX look you might as well shoot 500T colour neg, and correct saturation and contrast in post, Tri-x was grain overkill for me.

Sometimes Kodak's business decisions to seem a little erratic to me.

Bill DiPietra · April 11, 2010

I hate to be cynical, but the only "petition" that Kodak would actually listen to would be an order for 100,000 or 1,000,000 feet of the film.

Otherwise, I am sorry, you are completely wasting your time. . .

I am well aware of the outlook. I don't believe it's a waste of time to fight for something you believe in.

But thanks for your perspective.

Regards,

Bill

Elliot Rudmann · April 12, 2010

Have to agree with Kyle too. It simply comes down to supply and demand. The demand is just too marginal. Regardless, I find the look of color negative converted to black and white in post to be very pleasing, and often cleaner than shooting native black and white stock. More and more people just seem to be moving away from the grainy aesthetic.