Aristophanes
Well-known
Because there hasn't been an analog resurgence.
Film prices don't reflect analogue resurgence
- Thread starter giganova
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 137
- Views 8K
Spanik
Well-known
Oh yes, there has. It went from 0.01% to 0.03%. An increase of 200%.
x-ray
Veteran
I wouldn't say doom and gloom at all. We're seeing some really great new products come into the market and Ektachrome reintroduced. This shows manufacturers can make a worthwhile profit. I think film is here to stay but it's never going back to predigital prices or even close.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Mute-on
Well-known
Where the sun don't shine, I reckon. Posts long on generalisations, very lacking on facts.
znapper
Well-known
I think the simple explanation is that many of the master-rolls have been used up and the fact that even with a resurgence, the marked is still only a few percent of what is once was.
There used to millions of consumer-rolls shot every year, in addition to the professional marked and the cinema-industry, today's marked is a tiny fragment in comparison....that's no secret, that's just how it is.
Prices in general tend to go up and not down as well, I am sure people remember that they could get stuff for 1 cent and things like that, way back when.....and today even a whole dollar will not get you the same.
There used to millions of consumer-rolls shot every year, in addition to the professional marked and the cinema-industry, today's marked is a tiny fragment in comparison....that's no secret, that's just how it is.
Prices in general tend to go up and not down as well, I am sure people remember that they could get stuff for 1 cent and things like that, way back when.....and today even a whole dollar will not get you the same.
css9450
Veteran
Next month if it settles back to 0.02% we'll be moaning that film is dying again. 😉
I realize we're being silly but the point is, the market is so tiny now compared to what it was 20 years ago, that even the tiniest fluctuations can be misinterpreted as sea changes in one direction or the other.
x-ray
Veteran
Hers a little article that might give insight into why pricing went up and what happened to Kodak. It's a look from inside Kodak.
https://www.google.com/amp/sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-real-lessons-from-kodaks-decline/amp/
Another article I found that was written in 2012 said Kodak shrank from 145,000 employs to 18,000. That should tell us something about what happened to film consumption.
https://www.google.com/amp/sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-real-lessons-from-kodaks-decline/amp/
Another article I found that was written in 2012 said Kodak shrank from 145,000 employs to 18,000. That should tell us something about what happened to film consumption.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
B&H says Ektachrome will be available 4th quarter; although they don't show it for sale just yet.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm looking forward to Ektachrome coming back. Hopefully they won't change it. The E100 films were excellent.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
When I was shooting Missouri's springs and streams some years ago, I tried Kodachrome, Ektachrome, and Fuji. Ektachrome EPP100 proved to give the best rendition of the blue of the springs, and the green plant life growing there.
x-ray
Veteran
I shot a lot of EPP in sheet sizes, even 11x14 on product shoots. It was a good film and fairly honest in rendition. I wound up migrating to EPR (64) and like the tonality a little better. The colors were very natural but there was betterctonal separation and a little more punch.
When E6 an T grain emulsions appeared Kodak introduced a new one of chromes. It was in the late 80's and early 90's. I don't remember the designation for it but was supposed to be 100 ISO but fell short by 1/3-2/3 stop. Colors were muddy and contrast was ho hum. It was pretty quickly replaced with Ektachrome 100S, SW & VS which were all superior products. S was the neutral color, sw the warmer rendition and VS the saturated emulsion.
I did a lot of fashion for publication at that point and loved the SW. It was just slightly warmer than the S but really complemented shin tones. The VS was great for product. It was really rich but not as bold as Velvia but approaching Provia. The beauty of vs was the longer tonal scale compared to the very contrast Velvia. When I needed a neutral rendition like with fabrics and carpet Scwas the trick.
In the 90's it was a great time for E6 materials. We had the above Kodak products and Fujis Velvia and Provia. In addition we had Agfa 50 and 100 which had beautiful soft pastels and a beautiful warmth.
I used all of these depending on the job and wish we had the choices today.
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks for posting. Unfortunately I can't read the article without subscribing so I'll have to miss reading through this set of excuses, er, reasons.
I'm sure that Kodak management can trot out any number of reasons why they missed the boat. The biggest reason is that they were a bloated organization without a vision. They needed another George Eastman but didn't have one.
Fuji was already starting to eat Kodak for lunch well before the digital monster consumed Kodak. Digital was just the last straw, it certainly was not the first evidence of management incompetence.
It is rather interesting that Fuji seems to have succeeded where Kodak stumbled. A comparison of the actions taken by both companies during this period would certainly be interesting.
x-ray
Veteran
Fuji made inroads into the US market and I'm sure Kodak felt it particularly in tha amateur market but Kodak still dominated the pro market.
My Kodak TSR from the 70's, Jeff McLeod, remains a friend. I actually called him this morning. He's retired but advanced from a technical field rep to head of the commercial division. I need to ask him his take on what happened though I found he's not into talking old Kodak business.
I read an interesting article from an interview with the guy at Kodak who invented the digital camera. He stated his boss rejected most new technology to the point he refused to use an electric typewriter. He insisted on using an old mechanical typewriter. His boss stated there would be no digital or computer technology there as long as he was in charge. The fellow who invented the digital camera had to do it in secret. He stated if he'd been caught he'd been fired. Amazing, yes?
Kodak made a lot of stupid moves as we know. They had one if not the first full frame Dslr. They introduced the 14N way before it was ready. It was plagued with color shifts across the frame especially with wides. Kodak repeatedly said they had the fix but nothing happened. Then Kodak introduced a new version stating everything was fixed. Those that bought into the new model had exactly the same problems. Kodak finally abandon their digital pro market customers leaving them stuck with junk that was basically unusable. Tha was the nail in the coffin for the pro digital market.
traveler_101
American abroad
Hasn't Harmann Industries been sold odd to a firm eyeing the property the plant is built on for a real estate development scheme?
phrons
Established
Too many people missing the boat here.
Retailers can increase the cost because supply is low and demand is going higher.
Unfortunately, demand isn't high enough that film companies are willing to put the upfront costs of doing extra production runs.
My long winded point is that there might be a resurgence of film, but that resurgence is so insignificant to big manufacturers that they don't even want to run 1 extra run of their most popular film.
So if the big companies aren't buying in, then is there a real resurgence of film? Or has it just hit it's resting place in the market?
Retailers can increase the cost because supply is low and demand is going higher.
Unfortunately, demand isn't high enough that film companies are willing to put the upfront costs of doing extra production runs.
My long winded point is that there might be a resurgence of film, but that resurgence is so insignificant to big manufacturers that they don't even want to run 1 extra run of their most popular film.
So if the big companies aren't buying in, then is there a real resurgence of film? Or has it just hit it's resting place in the market?
traveler_101
American abroad
Nonetheless it appears that Kodak has survived, other firms in Europe are getting back in with smaller scale production facilities, film use is increasing again, photographers are realising that colour film is every bit as rewarding as black and white, enthusiasm for digital is fading, especially in the amateur (so-called "enthusiast") market segment, and even Hollywood has gotten into the act.
There are always modernisers who seem to get a thrill in closing down old ways and old technics/technologies. The people in that camp, and were many a few years ago on the digital camera fora, almost had it their way. The extinction of film was almost there. It was a close call-- even a significant pause in production would have meant the loss of the necessary knowledge base. The momentum for shutting it all down was there. Somehow that just didn't happen. It would make an interesting story line for a book.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Someone noted that article is behind a paywall.
Do a Google search "Willy Shih real lesson kodak" and click the first item, and you can read the article. Interesting business strategy article.
x-ray
Veteran
Funny thing, it came up as a free article when I found it this morning.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
