haagen_dazs
Well-known
haagen_dazs
Well-known
"and Komori had a tough decision. He realized he had to prioritize digital imaging and phase out film"
"And to drive home the point that the company's film-centric model was dead, Komori & Co. dropped the word "photo" from the masthead in late 2006."
"And to drive home the point that the company's film-centric model was dead, Komori & Co. dropped the word "photo" from the masthead in late 2006."
jayjee
smile
oh my oh my oh my
sjw617
Panoramist
"film, once the company's mainline business, has gone from being 19% of overall sales in 2000 to just 3% now"
That's almost an 85% drop. If your core business is dieing you have to look elsewhere to stay in business.
That's almost an 85% drop. If your core business is dieing you have to look elsewhere to stay in business.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The 'film is dead' posts are generally a way of starting a thread that the mods will ultimately close but I have to admit ... this is pretty significant news and can't be taken too lightly!
As someone pointed out though it sort of goes against the development of that new folder!
As someone pointed out though it sort of goes against the development of that new folder!
R
rich815
Guest
Mark, are you selling anything these days?
;-)
;-)
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I applaud Fuji's support of film photography over the years,
but honestly they sell nothing I can't do without.
I wouldn't write them off so quickly, but it might benefit the smaller,
more innovative film companies if another 800 lb. gorilla falls...
Chris
but honestly they sell nothing I can't do without.
I wouldn't write them off so quickly, but it might benefit the smaller,
more innovative film companies if another 800 lb. gorilla falls...
Chris
NickTrop
Veteran
Film isn't going away. Actually - if I was Kodak or Fuji, I might spin off their film division. 35mm film has been replaced by digital and the medium of choice for the masses. And it has been that way since - oh, 2005? Have you noticed? Camera stores don't sell 35mm SLRs anymore?
When was the last time you saw someone else with a film camera that wasn't a "disposable" camera? It's a rarity. Go to the store - a few rolls, mostly disposables.
Who CARES?
You don't realize by now you're in a minority?
Yet, you can still get film. Film is still a large market. I think it has really already bottomed out. You'll get it in the future where you get it now - online. Do you really think the market for bulk loaded black and white film in 100' spools is being "killed" by digital?
They still make 120 film for chrissakes. Black and white 120. When was this format popular for "the masses"? 1948???
You can get 8mm movie film too - talk about obsolete!
As long as I can order film from somewhere online, black and white in particular, and chemicals to develop it...
I could care less why Fuji does, what Kodak does... who makes it. Doesn't mattah.
|
When was the last time you saw someone else with a film camera that wasn't a "disposable" camera? It's a rarity. Go to the store - a few rolls, mostly disposables.
Who CARES?
You don't realize by now you're in a minority?
Yet, you can still get film. Film is still a large market. I think it has really already bottomed out. You'll get it in the future where you get it now - online. Do you really think the market for bulk loaded black and white film in 100' spools is being "killed" by digital?
They still make 120 film for chrissakes. Black and white 120. When was this format popular for "the masses"? 1948???
You can get 8mm movie film too - talk about obsolete!
As long as I can order film from somewhere online, black and white in particular, and chemicals to develop it...
I could care less why Fuji does, what Kodak does... who makes it. Doesn't mattah.
|
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
If it was true. The 3 pros I know abandoned their darkrooms for B&W 2 years ago, one has no analogue equipment anymore, two others may do some MF and 4x5 slides once or twice a year, the rest is done with Digtal gear from APS to technical cameras with MF backs or scanbacks. Anecdotical but the labs gone in this town tell me that there is some logic in it. I don't think that any recession will mean they go back to film
Ernst
kshapero
South Florida Man
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Statistics. A Kodak survey. Love to see the questions asked and which professionals were included
This part is the most confusing one:
>>The majority (90 percent) of photographers produce black-and-white images, with 47 percent saying black-and-white photography allows them to create a certain look and feel and differentiate themselves. More than half of them (57 percent) prefer using film to achieve this desired effect. <<
Anyone familiar with the dominant role color has in today's pro photography knows that a company citing numbers like that without mentioning the relative importance of B&W is fooling us and probably itself. That 68% of pro photographers still using film includes the 50% that still uses B&W film isn't written. No number in the survey says how many still use color film in pro jobs which would be a much better indication of how far digital photography replaced analogue photography today.
Calumet and Fimex send me their mailings several times a year, 3 pages at most reserved for analogue in its total: Ilford B&W paper, Fuji film, Kodak film. Some MF film backs to be seen. That's it. No Kodak digital equipment but some sensors in MF backs and an MF scanner these days.
It's a Kodak problem in disguise you see in that survey. Wonder how large their booth will be at the next Photokina, has been shrinking the last two PKs.
Ernst
NickTrop
Veteran
We're biased toward 35mm. Digital - maybe, depends how you look at it, if you ignore the blown highlights, and consider ugly digital noise the equivalent of film grain, might be almost a good a 35mm in small prints.
But it don't touch medium format...
And it don't touch large format...
The big consumer market is shrinking. "Moms" who once put film in the point and shooters now shoot with digitals. "Dad" who once shot with his beloved Canon SLR, now shoots a DSLR.
What remains of the film market is: pros, hobbyists, art photographers, luddites. Luddites who use disposable cameras, along with pros, are the largest part of the market. If you think of it as a "bell shaped curve", film occupies "both ends". The "high end" (pros), the "low end" (luddites).
I think the fall out has already taken place, personally. The "big rush" to buy digital cameras is over, for the most part.
But it don't touch medium format...
And it don't touch large format...
The big consumer market is shrinking. "Moms" who once put film in the point and shooters now shoot with digitals. "Dad" who once shot with his beloved Canon SLR, now shoots a DSLR.
What remains of the film market is: pros, hobbyists, art photographers, luddites. Luddites who use disposable cameras, along with pros, are the largest part of the market. If you think of it as a "bell shaped curve", film occupies "both ends". The "high end" (pros), the "low end" (luddites).
I think the fall out has already taken place, personally. The "big rush" to buy digital cameras is over, for the most part.
haagen_dazs
Well-known
The 'film is dead' posts are generally a way of starting a thread that the mods will ultimately close but I have to admit ... this is pretty significant news and can't be taken too lightly!
As someone pointed out though it sort of goes against the development of that new folder!
Yes. This isnt a film is dead post
This is a report from the businessweek Special Report March 17, 2008, 7:13AM EST
haagen_dazs
Well-known
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
If you read more carefully, this isn't bad news for film.
The quote, "and Komori had a tough decision. He realized he had to prioritize digital imaging and phase out film" refers to when he took over in 2000 - eight years ago. Film is still here.
The quote, "And to drive home the point that the company's film-centric model was dead, Komori & Co. dropped the word "photo" from the masthead in late 2006." also does not say film is dead - but the film-centric business model. What does that mean? It means they changed the name of the company so that they could expand into non-photo territories, similar to the way that Apple Computer dropped the "computer" part in order to morph into an electronics company. It also means, not that they can no longer produce film, but that they cannot rely on it as their main income earning product. they must diversify in order to stay in business, and in order to continue making film. The hope is that profits fromt he medical sector will take the place of film in terms of generating money, which will enable them to stay in business, which will enable them to continue making film and cameras. Plenty of businesses move into other areas in order to continue their orignal business, and my guess is that's what's happening here. Enzo Ferrari only decided to build road cars so he could continue racing. Porsche built the Cayenne sport ute in order to generate money to keep building sports cars, and now they're doing so well that they have a controlling interest in Volkswagen, Europe's largest automaker.
So, as I read it, this is good news, rather than bad.
The quote, "and Komori had a tough decision. He realized he had to prioritize digital imaging and phase out film" refers to when he took over in 2000 - eight years ago. Film is still here.
The quote, "And to drive home the point that the company's film-centric model was dead, Komori & Co. dropped the word "photo" from the masthead in late 2006." also does not say film is dead - but the film-centric business model. What does that mean? It means they changed the name of the company so that they could expand into non-photo territories, similar to the way that Apple Computer dropped the "computer" part in order to morph into an electronics company. It also means, not that they can no longer produce film, but that they cannot rely on it as their main income earning product. they must diversify in order to stay in business, and in order to continue making film. The hope is that profits fromt he medical sector will take the place of film in terms of generating money, which will enable them to stay in business, which will enable them to continue making film and cameras. Plenty of businesses move into other areas in order to continue their orignal business, and my guess is that's what's happening here. Enzo Ferrari only decided to build road cars so he could continue racing. Porsche built the Cayenne sport ute in order to generate money to keep building sports cars, and now they're doing so well that they have a controlling interest in Volkswagen, Europe's largest automaker.
So, as I read it, this is good news, rather than bad.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yes. This is how I read it. It's not that they're "giving up producing film, etc. to become a medical company..." Film is no longer the company's cash cow, it is one of their imaging product lines, and they're diversifying into other markets, in this case health care.
35mm film will continue to be made for those who enjoy using it. My God, black and white 120 is being made... I know, I just bought 10 rolls of the stuff. This time Acros. When was the last time "black and white 120 film" was the consumer film of choice for the masses? Yet - 120 is alive and well, 50-60 years after it was the main consumer imaging medium/format (heh). Large format is film is still made for big ole view cameras that most have only seen as relics in old movies on AMC. 35mm already is a niche market. The "rush to digital" has already taken place. When was the last time you saw someone shooting an SLR or a rangefinder (other than yourself) at the kid's school Christmas recital?
Yet, enough of us still use it at "both ends of the curve" (luddites/weirdo hobbyists) for several big imaging companies to still churn it out and presumably make a buck on it, though it isn't their "cash cow" anymore.
Film has survived, will survive... far into the future. Sleep easy.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
More like, they're diversifying so they can stay in business. While film has been their bread and butter, best to hedge their bets by getting into a business where their micro-coating expertise can be brought to bear effectively.
I was interested in the reference in the last paragraph of the article to building a new facility to focus on core technologies. One would infer that means more film R&D.
I was interested in the reference in the last paragraph of the article to building a new facility to focus on core technologies. One would infer that means more film R&D.
sooner
Well-known
This is an interesting article, but I read it as a diversification move rather than a move away or out of film. "Some say" fuji may get out of film altogether sounds like the author just made that up to shore up his wow factor, and there is another quote later on that says the opposite, they are not likely to do away with their film business. No worries, mates. In fact, a stronger Fuji from diverse holdings to my mind lessens the pressure to do away with film completely, especially if much of the research is related (nanotechnologies). But you had me scared there, for a minute.
ampguy
Veteran
health-care is a big opp., photo is niche.
Maybe they shouldn't have released the F10/20/30 series which shows how good digital can be ...
Maybe they shouldn't have released the F10/20/30 series which shows how good digital can be ...
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I wonder if this was in Fuji's 500 year plan?
Chris
Chris