40oz
...
sitemistic said:
Such figures as "living on less than $2 a day" are meaningless. We don't know the exchange rates of various communities, and are ignoring the very real fact that food that costs $10 in the US doesn't cost the same everywhere. You certainly haven't mentioned any facts to back up your statement that "most of those 7 billion can't afford food." You'd need figures stating 3.5 billion starve to death each year, or accept most of those who can't afford food have it provided by a parent or child, as they are either too young or too old to work for it. Acknowledging that even if they can't afford food, they are hardly devoid of interests outside of mere survival.
My parents grew on farms, where very little money was spent on store goods. In a largely agrarian economy, the money that folks need to get by is very minimal. But that hardly means they have nothing, or are starving to death. My grandparents all had cameras, and took pictures of family events. You might think everyone with less money than you has more important things to spend it on then pictures, I think you'd find that the reality is far different. Agrarian economies skew towards poverty, but that ignores the fact that most get by just fine, using their meager $2 a day per family member to buy luxuries and necessary staples not easily produced on a farm, such as flour and sugar and something to document family events like wedings and births. Contrary to modern US farms, traditional farm families grow crops to feed livestock, which feed the family and are the income generator. This belies the reality of the world - if most are agrarian, they will compare as poor to their industrialized cousins, yet be getting along rather nicely, thank you very much, because much of what they need comes from their own farm or from trading with neighbors.
I can't afford one-hour labs much myself, but I still have the resources to take pictures on film and process it myself. The idea that only the "rich" use cameras is so grossly out of reality it's actually sad. Sure, folks with lots of money might be more cavalier about film usage, but it's hardly the entire market.
kevin m
Veteran
So we go from "film" to "world poverty" just because it suits your negative disposition.
Sing a new tune, sitemistic. You've played this one to death already.
Sing a new tune, sitemistic. You've played this one to death already.
sooner
Well-known
I find Sitemistic's negativity both depressing and misplaced. No one here is arguing that the world's desperately poor, of whom there are some untold billions of people, are suddenly going to start buying film cameras. My point was that the middle class is expanding in a number of countries, notably China and India, which is creating large new markets for all sorts of products. Again, even if most of those people go digital, some will certainly mimick us on this forum and choose for a variety of personal and/or artistic reasons to use film. Out of a billion Chinese and a billion Indians, how many do we need to keep film alive? A million? 10 million? My point is simply that there will be plenty of film users in those countries to drive a niche market. And it will probably be an Indian or Chinese company that does it, too. So please, can we stop beating this dead horse? If you want to rail about world poverty, start another thread.
myoptic3
Well-known
Hopefully it won't come to "rolling your own" any time soon. I have given up trying to anticipate these sort of things, as about half of the time I am right , and the other half of the time I am ..... non right. May as well flip a coin. But it is something I am sorta worried about. There was a scam not that long ago whereby someone claimed to have a digital insert that was almost exactly like a 35mm film canister, yet digital. It wasn't for real, but I think the idea is sound. Maybe somewhere down the line when digital actually looks as good as film (not now, at least not for B&W) and other technological things fall into place, something like this will be marketed. There is obviously a big market for something like that, should film become scarce. Look at how many film cameras are bought and sold every day on ebay alone. Hey, for 25 years people have been forecasting the demise of gasoline engines because electric vehicles would make them obselete. Didn't happen, and those same cars are still going around and around. The REAL problem is that digital imaging is so much more toxic to the environment than film production. You can even recycle B&W to get some of the silver back, but digital requires lots of toxic, non bio degradeable materials to manufacture. So think of shooting film as saving the earth (there's another marketing angle). I think nearly anything is possible if it is marketed right.
literiter
Well-known
Film cameras will cease to be manufactured before film ceases to be manufactured, but I suspect that many existing film cameras will still be functional for quite a while. I bet they outlast their digital counterparts.
I cannot see why so many good cameras would be abandoned if film were available and the market will be looking for film. The market will become a niche market perhaps, but a market never the less, regardless of what China and India do.
I cannot see why so many good cameras would be abandoned if film were available and the market will be looking for film. The market will become a niche market perhaps, but a market never the less, regardless of what China and India do.
40oz
...
sitemistic said:
So what you are saying is that my comments went right over your head.
You make pronouncements with absolutely no basis, grasp at straws to support your fantasy, and deny the obvious in your grasp at relevance. The current world situation is nothing new. It doesn't matter what the World Bank says or doesn't say, the facts are that people buy film. How long has B&W been a niche market, and yet how many companies produce B&W films? Why can Leica still command top dollar for their film cameras? Why did Zeiss spend the money to develop and produce a new rangefinder film body?
You are going to predict film is going to disappear until the day you die, and it will be alive as ever that day. Good luck with that :/
emraphoto
Veteran
correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't kodak hitching their horse to company's like "lucky" out of china? when i originally read the article it implied that the chinese/indian market is where a LOT of film is expected to be sold over the next decade (crippling poverty aside).
40oz
...
sitemistic said:
What's a Zeiss Ikon lately, if not a new film camera? What is a Voigtlander R4A or R4M if not a new film camera? What is a Leica M7, if not a new film camera? And we are only talking about rangefinder bodies, arguably the niche market of a niche market. If our tiny niche can support the investment of Zeiss and Leica and Cosina, how can one reasonably expect to be taken seriously predicting the imminent shutdown of all film makers?
Fuji has 8 P&S models in production, Canon has five diferent SLR's. And one-time use film cameras are ubiquitous. It's not like you can't buy a new film camera from anyone. Get back to me when nobody actually makes film cameras. For now, just based on a small handful of companies, film cameras are still on the market and making someone money.
Sounds to me like you are expecting some new surge as proof of something, instead of realizing an existing market CAN exist without huge quarterly growth as measured by your staff of economic advisers. A market worth billions in sales is far from "dead." Many industries go through periods of limited growth, and shakeouts are not exactly unheard of. But crying the sky is falling at every hiccup or stumble is really not productive nor insightful. Sure, the folks at Kodak might prefer more growth to convince shareholders to buy in, but at the end of the day, they will reap every last $100 million they can from the market. Kodak ended B&W paper production because of the intense competition, because obviously they were not the last producers. If they had ended that line due to a lack of a market, why do we have a ton of options when it comes to paper choice today?
Are all these companies making money off film and printing running on air? Are the folks at Kodak, Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Lucky, and everyone else manufacturing film and cameras just stupid? Should they have called you up prior to spending any money on those money-losing propositions? Or is it remotely possible they have a perspective you do not?
tomasis
Well-known
If the poor people buy digital ps, so they'd need computers, printers, papers, inks, batteries, electricity. It is too expensive for them to mantain such things, I'd imagine. I think that they rather buy disposable cameras (one time shoot) and get pictures. Pictures of family is all that which counts for them. Remember project of OLPC (laptops with electricity generator) for 3rd world children so electricity is not easily to get everywhere.
tomasis
Well-known
sitemistic, how about disposable cameras, you know a cheap camera with built-in film. Once you use through film, you have to leave camera to photolab and you get pictures. Manufacturers could earn a bit money on color films, pappers, chemicals. I don't think it is impossible for a lower middle class people. I recall about a well known african photographer who still runs own studio and takes studio shots of people so still people can afford to pay for a bw print so in the case photographers can continue their works.
I know exactly what you do mean by your recent comments. One cannot expect that people can afford for a mere print while they have trouble with food and water. but you know that that discussion belongs somewhere maybe a political forum
I know exactly what you do mean by your recent comments. One cannot expect that people can afford for a mere print while they have trouble with food and water. but you know that that discussion belongs somewhere maybe a political forum
40oz
...
sitemistic knows more than anyone ele in the world. He understands people and markets in ways nobody else could possibly. When he tells you that 80% of the world's population is dying of starvation right this minute, you can be sure he has all the facts. You'll never convince him the sky isn't falling.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
sitemistic said:
It would pay just to be realistic about film and how long it will be available at reasonable cost. Just let the future take care of itself even if it is not going to be film and move on when the time comes. I think in emerging economies that create new middle classes they just skip past technologies and go directly to modern ones. Film is past technology in the evolutionary chain of obtaining an image for personal or professional use. Hard to take for a film camera user.
Bob
raid
Dad Photographer
About three years ago, I traveled in the Middle East. I mistakenly expected to easily find B&W labs in third world countires, but in fact what I found was color film labs and digital labs only. People from poorer countries buy/get the latest technologies/fads when they spend their money after an economic improvement.. Digital cameras, cell phones, ... etc.
Without referring to any particular previous post, my guts feeling is that film will slowly become two sort: excellent film for those who can afford it and OK film from China and other countries for the rest of us. B&W film developed at home may be going up in popularity among those whoalreday use film. New camera users will more and more leave film cameras behind.
In Iraq, most phone systems were bombed and eliminated without ever being replaced or repaired. Instead, the country was divided into three cell phone regions, and three groups of individuals were given those regions to exploit and takeover the cell phone business there. Such marketing greed and monopoly may also drive the death of film.
Without referring to any particular previous post, my guts feeling is that film will slowly become two sort: excellent film for those who can afford it and OK film from China and other countries for the rest of us. B&W film developed at home may be going up in popularity among those whoalreday use film. New camera users will more and more leave film cameras behind.
In Iraq, most phone systems were bombed and eliminated without ever being replaced or repaired. Instead, the country was divided into three cell phone regions, and three groups of individuals were given those regions to exploit and takeover the cell phone business there. Such marketing greed and monopoly may also drive the death of film.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Kodak's accounting people must have known something when they bought a controlling interest in Lucky, and I've heard, a complete buy-out of some of China's small film makers. The local Walgreens is still selling film and the woman at the photo lab counter says that if anything, she's processing more film these days. Film camera sales overall are down because there's a glut of used ones on the market right now, with high end SLR's going for cheap. If we can get past that glut there might be a resurgance in manufacturing, probably in China. A lot of younger people I run into are rediscovering Dad's SLR and liking it.
wgerrard
Veteran
Film will survive as long as a market for it exists that someone wants to sell into. That's not the same as saying film will survive as long as there is a market. That market needs to be seen as large enough to be profitable. It is self-evident that the number of film cameras in use today will decrease. Used cameras eventually break and get trashed. For every 30-year-old film camera on ebay there must be 10 in the dumpster. No economic reason exists for someone to begin to manufacture new film cameras to replace broken film cameras when a return on investing in digital camera factories is on the table.
The tiny output of companies like Leica and Cosina, and even gimmick companies like Holga, isn't going to sustain commercial film production. The influence of Leica and Cosina on the lifespan of film will be negligible.
Film is on an irreversible downslope. It will bottom out at different times in different places, but film is a disappearing industry. [EDIT: If Kodak and Fuji think film is a viable long-term product in the developed world, why aren't they making and selling film cameras? They obviously could, if they chose.]
It is not pessimistic to acknowledge that cameras of any kind are a luxury, even here in the wealthy developed world. Yes, cheap cameras and film are likely to survive longer in markets like China and India, but that does not necessarily mean that the same film will be available in the U.S. or Europe.
Nor is it pessimistic to acknowledge that great swaths of humanity lack sufficient food and income. It amounts to self-deception to imagine that, if and when these people finally begin to acquire some income they will rush out and buy film cameras (even assuming there would be cameras for them to buy). Again, cameras are always luxuries.
When those people do begin to emerge into a middle class (as today in some urban areas in China and India, but, not, to be clear, much of anyplace outside the cities), they will certainly buy luxuries. Like the rest of us, one of the first things they will buy are computers and net access. At that point, they will be a ready market for digital cameras, not film cameras. They will be part of the developed world, just like you and me. The simple reality is that when people enter the developed world, they will jump on the digital bandwagon, just like everyone else.
Remember, cameras of all types, and film, survive because of the interests of ordinary people who just want to take pictures, not thanks to photographers. Film is increasingly irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people everywhere. More than that, people who do have computers and net access and who just want to exchange snapshots on the net correctly see film as an expensive and clumsy way to get that done.
(They won't need paper, and scanners and all the other knick-knacks associated with printing. Who wants to get a hardcopy of a digital image when all you want to do is email to someone?)
Finally, to add to Raid's comment, one big reason for the explosion of cellphone use in many countries is that the cost of using one is much, much less than the cost of obtaining a landline phone. Add on huge waiting times for a landline phone and the likely need to bribe someone to ensure the installation happens and the attractiveness of a phone that bypasses all that is obvious.
The tiny output of companies like Leica and Cosina, and even gimmick companies like Holga, isn't going to sustain commercial film production. The influence of Leica and Cosina on the lifespan of film will be negligible.
Film is on an irreversible downslope. It will bottom out at different times in different places, but film is a disappearing industry. [EDIT: If Kodak and Fuji think film is a viable long-term product in the developed world, why aren't they making and selling film cameras? They obviously could, if they chose.]
It is not pessimistic to acknowledge that cameras of any kind are a luxury, even here in the wealthy developed world. Yes, cheap cameras and film are likely to survive longer in markets like China and India, but that does not necessarily mean that the same film will be available in the U.S. or Europe.
Nor is it pessimistic to acknowledge that great swaths of humanity lack sufficient food and income. It amounts to self-deception to imagine that, if and when these people finally begin to acquire some income they will rush out and buy film cameras (even assuming there would be cameras for them to buy). Again, cameras are always luxuries.
When those people do begin to emerge into a middle class (as today in some urban areas in China and India, but, not, to be clear, much of anyplace outside the cities), they will certainly buy luxuries. Like the rest of us, one of the first things they will buy are computers and net access. At that point, they will be a ready market for digital cameras, not film cameras. They will be part of the developed world, just like you and me. The simple reality is that when people enter the developed world, they will jump on the digital bandwagon, just like everyone else.
Remember, cameras of all types, and film, survive because of the interests of ordinary people who just want to take pictures, not thanks to photographers. Film is increasingly irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people everywhere. More than that, people who do have computers and net access and who just want to exchange snapshots on the net correctly see film as an expensive and clumsy way to get that done.
(They won't need paper, and scanners and all the other knick-knacks associated with printing. Who wants to get a hardcopy of a digital image when all you want to do is email to someone?)
Finally, to add to Raid's comment, one big reason for the explosion of cellphone use in many countries is that the cost of using one is much, much less than the cost of obtaining a landline phone. Add on huge waiting times for a landline phone and the likely need to bribe someone to ensure the installation happens and the attractiveness of a phone that bypasses all that is obvious.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Bill,
The cost of using a cell phone is eating up large proportions of families' incomes in third world countries. Landline phones were government run and priced very cheaply. Cell phones are run by private corporations without any room for competition. Imagine AT&T or similar being the only company for a third of the USA. Continue ... imagine the cost of using a cell phone.
Greetings,
Raid
"Finally, to add to Raid's comment, one big reason for the explosion of cellphone use in many countries is that the cost of using one is much, much less than the cost of obtaining a landline phone. Add on huge waiting times for a landline phone and the likely need to bribe someone to ensure the installation happens and the attractiveness of a phone that bypasses all that is obvious." Bill
The cost of using a cell phone is eating up large proportions of families' incomes in third world countries. Landline phones were government run and priced very cheaply. Cell phones are run by private corporations without any room for competition. Imagine AT&T or similar being the only company for a third of the USA. Continue ... imagine the cost of using a cell phone.
Greetings,
Raid
"Finally, to add to Raid's comment, one big reason for the explosion of cellphone use in many countries is that the cost of using one is much, much less than the cost of obtaining a landline phone. Add on huge waiting times for a landline phone and the likely need to bribe someone to ensure the installation happens and the attractiveness of a phone that bypasses all that is obvious." Bill
Last edited:
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
At the risk of re-railing this thread, what sorts of speeds has this guy been getting with this machine? I thought that film speed was related to the heating and cooling cycles associated with making the emulsion liquid. Anyone have any information on this?
Larky
Well-known
I'd be interested in learning more about this too. As for the other issue of the World Bank, people earning not a lot of money etc, lets be honest - most of us do bugger all about it so why spend so long discussing it?
I think it's great to see a home made emulsion machine. I'd be up for donating money to build one. Although, I bet if you hunted you could buy one cheap enough. Imagine producing that much film, you need to start making dev chemicals next...
I think it's great to see a home made emulsion machine. I'd be up for donating money to build one. Although, I bet if you hunted you could buy one cheap enough. Imagine producing that much film, you need to start making dev chemicals next...
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
raid said:
I don't doubt it. I was extrapolating from what I heard a number of times some years back in Jordan, i.e., that people bought cellphones because they were cheap, because the queue to get a landline phone installed was at least a year, and because cutting that time down meant putting a bribe in the right palms.
40oz
...
sitemistic said:
Nooo, I suggest that when a tiny niche like rangefinders has companies spending money developing new film models, it's because they see a market. And since other players addressing larger markets obviously see a profit to be made selling film SLR bodies and P&S models, one can only conclude the world's camera makers see a market for film cameras. The fact that you do not see such a market is only an indictment of your vision.
Again, do you claim that everyone else is stupid and only you know what is going on in the world? Because that's what it sounds like from here.
I like how you claim anyone who disagrees with you isn't living in "the real world." That's rich.
wgerrard
Veteran
40oz said:
What players, 40oz?
Nikon isn't making film cameras, Neither is Canon. Holga and Loma sell gimmick cameras.
I'll reiterate: If there is money to be had selling new film cameras, why did Kodak get out of the business? Ditto Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.