If Kodak and Fuji stop making film, we´ll make our own

Let's go back a century. !t's 1908. Just how many rolls of film were manufactured and sold that year? I'd hazard a guess that world-wide a lot more film is being manufactured and sold today then in 1908. Yet back in the early part of the twentieth century there was a lot of competition for the film market. Off hand I can think of Eastman Kodak, Ansco, DuPont, Adox, Agfa, Perutz, Gavaert, Ilford...even in the 1960's all of these brands were competing for market share of the B&W market. Many never even tried to get into color. I'm confident that I'll be able to find film for another 30 or 40 years.

Kodak just revamped their lines of pro and amateur color negative films with "New Improved" versions, and did the same with Tri-X. If it was a dead market then why bother?
 
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.

Of course it is all governed by bucks. It may depend to on how long existing manufacturing equipment hangs on. As long as there is old equipment hanging around and usable - and a demand there may be someone willing to make the film. What happens when this equipment dies and has to be replaced with something much more expensive? Then price of the product has to rise to cover the machinery's replacement cost and this can then cause the market for film to contract further because no one wants to pay the higher price. Many business men will work out that its just not worth it and close up. Something the economists called opportunity cost may also be a factor. Say a film manufacturer has an entire factory dedicated to making film but now its barely profitable. But he knows he can sell the land and factory or use it for a much more profitable purpose. Then the incentive is to close down the film making activities immediately and move on to using the land and buildings plus other newly bought assets to make something else. I do not know much about the making of film. If technology can step in an allow it to be made cheaply at the required quality on a smaller scale then I suppose it will go on being made as long as there is enough demand. But if film making needs big plants (scale as the economists say) then there will not be much hope in the medium term.

Opportunity cost is also part of the reason big manufacturers have gotten out of making film cameras quickly even though there might be some market for a few years. (Someone asked this question.) Every manufacturer only has so many design staff, so much marketing and managerial time, so much capital etc. If they can see a market contracting to the point where they know it will eventually die, it makes sense to dump that market quickly and get into learning the skills and building a name for itself in the new market as quickly as possible. This is not to say some film cameras would not sell if produced. Its just that they would rather be spending their limited time and capital on the new growing market where if they dedicate resources and get in early enough they can get a market portion.
 
Last edited:
wgerrard 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.
Click to expand...

Go to Canon's website, and tell me again they aren't making and selling film cameras, please.

See Fuji's site as well. Visit Nikon's site for a view of the F6 and FM10 film SLR bodies they still sell. And despite your disdain for "gimmick cameras," people buy them and use film.

This is the kind of thing that irritates. People making claims that are easily disproved with two minutes of research. If you don't bother to look for yourself, why even comment?
 
40oz: Selling, yes. Making, no. (The FM10 came from Cosina factories.)

But, even if you are correct, do you really expect Nikon to release an F7? Or that Canon or any of the other 'players' will release new film cameras?

What evidence is there that the number of film cameras in existence has not declined, continues to decline at an increasing rate and will eventually decline to the point of commercial irrelevance?

Read peterme1's post. If someone can profitably make and distribute film from their garage, someone will give it a go, even if they have to charge $45 a roll. But, if you need a facility comparable to something Kodak owns in Rochester, it ain't gonna happen. And none of us have considered the cost and infrastructure needed to comply with the safety and environmental regulations that must surround the use of plastics and chemistry in film production. It's entirely possible that those alone would scale up a project beyond the realm of the garage.
 
Al, the only thing I can say is that in 1908 we were at the beginning of the film camera era, and now we are unquestionably at its end.

For all we know, Kodak's revised film formulations may have been on the shelf for years. Since it still sells film, Kodak obviously wants to maximize its profits, and releasing a "new and improved" product is one traditional way to spike sales. The more important point is that the size of the film market continues to shrink, and Kodak has decided to do nothing to stop that from happening. It's telling that the company most responsible for the commercial success of film photography decided that it has better things to do with its money.
 
It's gonna be hard to see into the future on this issue. I cannot see any future in the manufacture of film cameras to the extent that the likes of Nikon or Canon could be interested in.

Leica may still produce a few pieces, and someone may try to market a new series based on film. But the likelyhood of this is only a guess.

Today, as I post his, good quality film is still being sold over the counter in enough stores. It is easily available to me. I'll use it while I can. If good quality film is still available for 10 to 20 years I'll be happy. If not, I'll be royally pissed, and will switch to the alternative.
 
Socke said:
Ok, so coating is possible, where do I get the emulsion?
Click to expand...

Not to run anybody off to another network here, but over on APUG, Ron Schwartz (nick: Photo Engineer) has been doing write-ups and workshops on just that, making your own emulsion.

I'm probably never going to try anything like that, but I find his insight fascinating. The guy holds several patents, working for Kodak for many years, including such things as the CD6 color developer for the current K14 process!

His latest on-line effort is a series of write-ups on the theory of the B&W photographic films, with the second part going on line this morning. It's a very interesting read!
 
Last edited:
wgerrard said:
40oz: Selling, yes. Making, no. (The FM10 came from Cosina factories.)

But, even if you are correct, do you really expect Nikon to release an F7? Or that Canon or any of the other 'players' will release new film cameras?

What evidence is there that the number of film cameras in existence has not declined, continues to decline at an increasing rate and will eventually decline to the point of commercial irrelevance?

Read peterme1's post. If someone can profitably make and distribute film from their garage, someone will give it a go, even if they have to charge $45 a roll. But, if you need a facility comparable to something Kodak owns in Rochester, it ain't gonna happen. And none of us have considered the cost and infrastructure needed to comply with the safety and environmental regulations that must surround the use of plastics and chemistry in film production. It's entirely possible that those alone would scale up a project beyond the realm of the garage.
Click to expand...

I am glad you mentioned environmental considerations because around here that means an environmental impact statement and public meetings etc., before an new plant can be even considered. That requirement may even extend to a backyard operation especially if your neighbors get wind of it in a residential area.

Bob
 
There are a number of (personal) observations that points to film surviving:

1. Emergence of Lomography - the serious fine arts photographer might snort but the growing group of "lomographers" is creating a new generation of film lovers. This group of people are very familiar with the digital age but yet they still decidedly luddite in their use of film. Lomo has made old school cool.

2. Digital users moving back to film - just because the emerging middle class might start with digital cameras does not mean that they would completely dismiss the notion of film. In fact, the more people who pick up photography as a serious hobby, the more new demand there will be film. Using film is another approach that anyone interest in this art would probably experiment with at some stage.

3. Ilford as an independent niche company - if they survive and continue to do well, this shows that it is viable for a niche player in film to survive considering the cost of this industry.

And long live Eastman move 35mm film (especially the iso 50). They rock!
 
The "art" market doesn't look at digital imagery the same as it does silver based photography, especially in black and white. You can still buy paints and brushes. Why do people bother? They could just shoot with their digital point 'n shoot, play around with P-shop, and print out their "art" work. Why bother learning to mix colors and draw?

There will always be people eager to jump aboard the latest band wagon. The ones that discover that it ain't easy to get the auto exposure camera to give you the effects you want if it's not an "average" subject. How to get an autofocus camera to focun just on a particular point. How to get the damned thing to fire EXACTLY when you push the button, not after it finds focus and exposure.
 
sitemistic said:
As of 2001, the last year we have complete statistics, the World Bank found approximately 4 billion people lived in what it terms severe or moderate poverty (living on less than $2 a day). An additional 2 billion lived in "functional" poverty. None of these folks are a target market for a camera. Even those just above the poverty level are not likely to spend their meager resources on cameras and film.

Most don't even have access to clean water, much less a one-hour photo lab.
Click to expand...

In 1988 I bought a cheapo slr (Chinon)because I needed a camera to make some slides for presentations. BTW, I still have that camera. I graduated from school in 1990, and even with two incomes (70-80K/yr) I couldn't even think of buying another camera; hey we had to pay for rent, day care, food, etc....

In 1999 (wow 11yrs) I bought a Nikon N70 on a trip to the Caribbean (duty free).

My point is, if these statistics on world poverty are correct, I see no way people would even care about photography when just getting by is a major concern. With the money my wife and I made in the early 90's we AlWAYS felt strapped for cash somehow.

Imagine film costs going up and up past the point of what basically is a little bit of pabulum for a whole family.
 
wgerrard 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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Canon still sell 4 or 5 new film cameras and Nikon sell the F-6? Of course selling does not mean they are manufacturing any new film cameras.
 
sitemistic said:
Canon has a few film cameras in their lineup and Nikon does, indeed, have the F6 in it's catalog. But few of these cameras are actually being sold. Walk into most any store that sells cameras (other than a photo speciality store) and tell me how many film cameras you see for sale. There are zero on display in our local Walmart.

How is Canon going to sell 'em if they aren't on display?
Click to expand...

Maybe there's some regional variance... I'm only thinking this because the Target I usually go to, when I go to such a place, here in the Los Angeles area, was still carrying at least the Rebel K2, or whatever that last 35mm model was/is called. Also, although I haven't been to it in a about ten months or so, the Wal-Mart near my folks, in southern New Mexico, also still had K2s for sale. Both places also still seemed to have several blister-packed compacts of fairly low-specification, as well. It's not much, but I guess it's something, anyway...

A.
 
sitemistic said:
laky, why would they even consider the notion of film? If they walk into their local discount store and see nothing but digital cameras, why would film even enter their minds? Film holds no advantage to the average person. They just want to send some jpegs to grandma by email.
Click to expand...

Get out of your parent's basement and look around. You might learn something.
 
Back to the film machine. I am impressed. I want one.

I know that something similar happened in the "arty" audio world a few years ago. Entrepreneurial individuals bought surplus record manufacturing gear and starting making vinyl records again. Entrenched media, if it's good, does not die an easy death.
 
back to topic

I think it is no problem to make or acquire machinery. It will be even cheaper if they shut down factories and sell all equipment for almost free. When I think about Adox who bought some facilities of Agfa, I hope there are some players who are willing to replace those big companies. Probably BW films enthusiasts with economical sense 🙂

But I wonder how easy to get all needed chemicals, material to make films when one has whole machinery ready? One can make own oil paints and I expect we could do same thing with film but it sounds more compicated process though. Anyone cares to list all needed materials? I know two things, plastics and silver 😀
 
Thardy said:
Imagine film costs going up and up past the point of what basically is a little bit of pabulum for a whole family.
Click to expand...

A large chunk of the world's population has a daily income that's less than the price of a roll of film.
 
Here's an AP report this morning about Kodak's digital transition: http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/262366.html

Salient points:

-- 27,000 job cuts since 2004
-- total employees down to 30,000 from a peak of 145,000
-- stock price at 30-year low
-- U.S. sales of 'consumer' film down 30 percent, but still brings in cash, along with movie unit
-- More than 60 percent of revenue comes from digital products, but digital profits are weaker
-- Buzz about potential Xerox merger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom