FifthLeaf
amateur
bmattock
Veteran
I should have phrased my question more carefully, sorry. I meant, what company knowingly chooses a route that they KNOW is losing market share by double digits year-on-year?
Some have said that film is profitable for Kodak, and therefore, why would any company shut down something that is profitable? It does not make sense. And that is true, on the surface.
But if I have finite resources, and I seek maximum return on my investment (as publicly-traded for-profit corporations must), I must consider strongly giving up a known 5% profit on a shrinking market for a 10% profit on a growing one (just using those numbers as an example). Even if the 5% profit is a lock and the 10% profit is a 'maybe', if it looks likely, I have to go with the market direction. So yes, companies will even abandon a market segment that makes a profit if they think they can make more of a profit by spending those same resources elsewhere.
slm
Formerly nextreme
Makes you wonder why a company in Japan would want to make film based rangefinders.
Or a German company would contract production of their camera to that Japanese company.
Or a German company would contract production of their camera to that Japanese company.
bmattock
Veteran
I have heard the Fotoimpex "we're going to make film again" rumours, but you're the first person I've heard say they have spoken with someone personally who made the claim. If it turns out to be real, I think that's great.
However, this particular rumour has been going around for more than two years now, and no film seems to be coming forth.
Several have mistaken clever wording on marketing materials as 'proof' that film is being 'made' in Germany again, when it turns out that they are merely 'producing' film, meaning they are spooling and boxing old unused Agfa stock and selling it as if it were a new and different film entirely.
At this point, I would say the onus is on Fotoimpex. If they are going to actually 'manufacture' film, then I say let them do it, but they need to put up or shut up pretty soon now.
And as to the hardware they claim to have bought from Agfa - the news story printed in Germany after the Agfa buildings were dynamited said that the machinery had been sold to a South Korean company that hauled it away to make plastic film (not photographic). So I'd like to actually see this Agfa machinery they claim to have bought.
It's kind of sad, really. So many companies lie about where their film comes from, that a lot of enthusiasts are fooled into thinking new factories are being built, new films made, and they aren't.
To the best of my knowledge, and despite occasional disagreements, I believe that film is made only by these companies:
Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) - not Agfa Photo, but the old parent company of Agfa Photo. Apparently, they are still making some sort of B&W film, for surveillance and aerial photography and the like - some companies have bought it and are selling it under a variety of names (ADOX Canada sells it as Bluefire, I think), Rollei, Maco, Bergger, etc.
Ilford (UK) - B&W films.
Kodak (US, China) - Color and B&W films.
Fujifilm (Japan) - Color and B&W films.
Ferrania (Italy) - "Solaris" brand color films.
Lucky (China) - Color and B&W films.
Tasma (Russia) - B&W films, maybe. Might be out of business, hard to know.
Efke (Croatia) - B&W films (They make up to ISO 100 films, buy the rest from others and relabel it).
Foma (Czech Republic) - B&W films.
A lot of smaller players have fallen off recently. The bigger names were Konica-Minolta, Agfa, and Polaroid. Smaller players were Forte, Shantou Era, and a host of Chinese firms that were largely unknown in the West.
Each closing has been accompanied by people claiming to be 'in talks' to revive the brand, restart the factories. None have succeeded, despite the hopes and dreams of film lovers everywhere.
bmattock
Veteran
Not really. See, making a camera is different than making film.
You make a camera, you sell the camera, and your involvement is done. No follow-on. You make film, you are engaged in the film-making business. It's a going concern.
You notice Nikon still sells the F6. Is there still an assembly line somewhere, churning out F6's? No, they made the last F6 years ago. But they made a prediction about how many they could make and sell at a profit, decided they could do it, and did it. If they made 50,000 of them, then that's how many they have to sell, and that's as far as their market research has to take them.
Now, if Nikon sold film, they have to decide what the future market of film is, because it is a consumable. They have to decide how much to make, and try to figure out if they can amortize their costs over the length of time film will remain viable in the market - not to mention, they can store it a long time, but not indefinitely - not only will it get old, but it costs money to keep it cold, in addition to simply warehousing it as they do with cameras.
Film, being a consumable, implies an ongoing commitment to the market, one that has to be constantly reevaluated in light of sales trends and market forecasts; in the past, it was presumed that film would continue to be a market presence forever, and that is no longer a safe assumption.
Cameras only have to be sold until the run that a company made is gone. If they predict that market correctly, they're golden.
So sure, make a new rangefinder medium format folder. Pimp out the R&D and manufacturing, get some market buzz around it (which by the way helps your other product lines too) and estimate how many you need to make to break even and then turn a profit. If you think the market will absorb that many, then go for it. If the last roll of film were to be sold the day before you sold your last medium format rangefinder, so what? You're done, clear, made your profit and moved on.
They only lose if they overestimate the market and have product still sitting around and can't sell it at a price that makes them money. If, by some strange circumstance, they underestimate and sell out, they can reevaluate the market, crunch the numbers again, and make a second production run.
That is also why, by the way, the price will be 100% to 200% markup. Just in case they don't all sell like hotcakes right out of the chute, they can mark them down by half and still make a profit.
Yes, I'm cynical. It has served me well. Photography is our passion - it's their business. With an emphasis on 'business'.
sooner
Well-known
Bill, I'm not going to join the usual film-is-dying debate, because I've done that before and said my peace. But I do believe you are somewhat overstating the power of this "legal" fiduciary duty to shareholders. For one thing, courts default to the business judgment rule, giving management wide latitude to decide what's "best" for the company, and hate to intervene. That's one reason there are so few shareholder lawsuits against management, even when they and their boards vote management millions in bonuses while they run the company into the ground. Look around at the carnage in American business, and not just with financial companies. Where are the revolting shareholders? Citing fiduciary duty to me is like saying Mars exerts gravitational pull on me--probably true, but very weak. And I mean that in a nice way.
bmattock
Veteran
I'm talking about gross negligence, not management style, indifference, or actual idiocy.
What I am suggesting is that if Kodak's idiotic original management were still around, and they blithely stuck to film because they really thought it had a future, that's just stupidity, but probably not actionable on the part of shareholders. They're just doing what they think best - for the shareholders.
However, if Kodak said to heck with what appears to be the direction photography is going, we're going to get very very small and we know we will eventually go out of business and that's OK because we love film, the stockholders would sue whatever was left of the board of directors after they dragged them out of their offices and burned them alive.
Some in this thread have suggest that Kodak basically should be true to their fans and tell the stockholders to go pound sand. My reply is that they really, really, can't do that.
I understand the emotion that wants a for-profit corporation to act in the best interests of its customers instead of its stockholders, but that's just not how corporations work, nor how they are set up to work.
slm
Formerly nextreme
I dunno, I think the (film) camera companies should be given a bit more credit. I doubt their thought process is simply sell a camera and move on, surely they value their clients more than that and would value repeat business (another camera, lenses, accessories, etc.)
They are in business too with all the same pressures for growth and profit. I would venture from their point of view, and given their knowledge of the photography business which is much greater than ours for sure (or mine at least), film will be available for at least the normal lifespan of their product.
The fact that film is a consumable and a camera isn't (or at least, possibly not at such a rapid rate) doesn't mean market research or product viability evaluations are any different either.
What it boils down to, is Kodak have said they made money from film, and thats a good thing. I think the fact that Fuji deciding to produce a film camera is at least one indicator they see value the film photography market.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
It is my duty to post, in every "death of film" thread, my opinion that film will be available, new, somewhere on earth, continuously (if perhaps expensively) until all of us posting here are dead.
Thanks and good night!
Thanks and good night!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
What mable.sound said.
emraphoto
Veteran
"Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value."
what planet are you on? really? i have read some hot air in these threads and this has got to take the cake.
every single day there are men and women risking life and limb to bring us some of the most compelling images of our times. these people are driven by a love, curiosity and respect for humanity. these people work incredibly hard and risk everything to remind us of our humanity (and some times lack of it).
time heatherington
balazs gardi
john moore
james nachteway
brert stirton
etc
etc
etc
to claim that there is no work of historical value being produced on digital camera's is so completely out of touch with what's going on in the world of RELATIVE photography i don't understand it.
what planet are you on? really? i have read some hot air in these threads and this has got to take the cake.
every single day there are men and women risking life and limb to bring us some of the most compelling images of our times. these people are driven by a love, curiosity and respect for humanity. these people work incredibly hard and risk everything to remind us of our humanity (and some times lack of it).
time heatherington
balazs gardi
john moore
james nachteway
brert stirton
etc
etc
etc
to claim that there is no work of historical value being produced on digital camera's is so completely out of touch with what's going on in the world of RELATIVE photography i don't understand it.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Some things are so completely stupid that they deserve no comment. The above quoted statement was one such.
/T
) They do still exist in places...