Kodak on 10 Brands that will Disappear in 2010 List

[bmattock]

Something I had forgotten, but might be relevant, is that I mentor high school students whose senior project is photography. Each and every one were not just interested in the darkroom I still have, but wanted me to teach them about shooting film, processing it, and printing. I had to admit to them that the reason everything was covered was because I had stopped shooting film.

It was their interest that made me rethink my position and start cleaning the equipment for use once again. I guess, that as I break out my Hi-Matic, my S2, and my RB67's, I should thank them.....or maybe curse them. Time will tell.

Many anecdotes taken together do not equal fact. There are loads of anecdotal stories out there about how everyone, just everyone, is dumping digital and rushing, I say rushing, back to film. But the sales figures do not show that. I believe your story, but it's not indicative of much of anything. The trend is clear and demonstrable, and not all the high school / college demanding film, real film by Gawd stories is going to change that.

 

[Fawley]

I agree with you furcafe. I love film , but I would never consider trying to actually make the stuff. If we really want to keep film out there as an option, I think the most important thing is to encourage and help out other people to take an interest. I do it every chance I get. And I frequently run across younger people that have moved from digital to film.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

If Kodak can be believed, it's large format film, not 35mm or 120, that is the primary market now (industrial, process, xray...that kind of thing). Apparently 35mm and 120 is a tiny percentage of their market. Fujifilm abandoned the process film market two years ago because most who used process film had moved to digital. So I guess it's only Kodak left in the US.

Because of this, I don't think "we" are the film users that are ultimately determining the future of film.

 

[jwc57]

One thing I believe is that while anecdotes don't make fact, they can indicate a trend or the beginnings of a trend.

One thing I've always wondered, were professional films ever profitable or make enough of a profit to justify their manufacture even in the heyday of film? Did consumer films sustain that particular niche market?

 

[-doomed-]

I also drive a 1974 VW Beetle and I'm restoring a 1978 VW camper...so I'm just a tiny bit old fashion.

No way you're old fashioned , both of those have 3 point belts and 12 volt electrical systems 😀

Ive got a 74 I'm putting back together , I drove a rusty 69 squareback about 2 years ago as a daily. I love old VW's including the "newer" watercooled stuff too. These are all cars you can fix roadside with duct tape and baling wire in a pinch.

Sorry to go off topic

 

[furcafe]

Keeping the market demand alive is certainly 1 way to preserve film, but my point about making the stuff is that it will probably take some innovative thinking to reimagine the process of manufacturing film to fit the new, smaller market, i.e., since it's apparently not possible to simply scale down the traditional way of making the stuff, you must find a new way to make an old (fashioned) product.

I agree with you furcafe. I love film , but I would never consider trying to actually make the stuff. If we really want to keep film out there as an option, I think the most important thing is to encourage and help out other people to take an interest. I do it every chance I get. And I frequently run across younger people that have moved from digital to film.

 

[skibeerr]

Sing along, "There 'll always be......"

Sing along, "There 'll always be......"

Agfa Gevaert here in Belgium stopped selling under the Agfa brand several years ago.
The factory still runs film for Rollei and others. The future is for the small factories Like Adox/Efke.
I myself have moved out of 35mm and am growing into LF. But then I have always been slow. 🙄

 

[sevo]

Now, I suppose part of the answer is that 120 is cut from the same master rolls as 135. (Is that so?)

It is not - 120 film uses a considerably thinner base, only shared with the long obsolete pack film. Some types of large format aerial roll film use a polyester base of similar strength, but different material. Someone might be repackaging thin polyester stock as 120 - I've recently heard complaints about 120 that could not be cut.

Sevo

 

[x-ray]

I don't think anyone would argue that the market for film is declining rapidly. What I can't understand in the abstract is why a savvy businessman would introduce new products into a rapidly declining market? As in, why would anyone want to resurrect Agfa film in any guise?

It's not like companies are still churning out new film cameras. You are pretty much betting your products future on folks using old cameras that are tossed into the trash when they stop working (those of us who play with film cameras at the high end are too limited to be much of a market for film overall). It just sounds more like wishful thinking than good business.

There's still plenty of money to be made in film. Let's see, Fuji, Hasselblad, Leica, Cosina, Zeiss (cosina), Ebony, K B Canham, Linhof and a few others are still churning film cameras out. Leica, Zeiss, Cosina, Schneider, Fuji, Rodenstock are all making lenses for film cameras and digital too.

B&W film seems to be making a comeback. High schools around the area have introduced photo programs that are film based and Universities as well. A year ago I consulted with a private university's design / art department on setting up a film / digital program. Even my local dealer is seeing an increase in B&W film sales. They tell me it's mainly adults under 30 years old.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Perhaps "churning" is an exaggeration. 😉
Trickling might be a better term. Whatever they are doing hasn't slowed the decline in film sales. I'm interested to see Kodak's fourth quarter numbers January 28.

 

[jwc57]

This doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand but, I had to run down to the hardware store for a hex key to tighten part of an enlarger. Someone overheard my answer when the owner asked what I needed.

I just got hired to print 200+ photos from B&W negatives the guy took in Vietnam. I hope they haven't stopped making B&W photo paper yet.

 

[wgerrard]

There's still plenty of money to be made in film. Let's see, Fuji, Hasselblad, Leica, Cosina, Zeiss (cosina), Ebony, K B Canham, Linhof and a few others are still churning film cameras out. Leica, Zeiss, Cosina, Schneider, Fuji, Rodenstock are all making lenses for film cameras and digital too.

B&W film seems to be making a comeback. High schools around the area have introduced photo programs that are film based and Universities as well. A year ago I consulted with a private university's design / art department on setting up a film / digital program. Even my local dealer is seeing an increase in B&W film sales. They tell me it's mainly adults under 30 years old.

I think that's the high-end market Pickett mentioned. None of those names will spring to mind when Your Average Shopper decides to buy a camera. In fact, those names wouldn't be linked to cameras by the great majority of people, even Leica's.

It's nice that your high schools and universities are running film-based training. In my neighborhood, that's not the case. Such facilities are closing. One local community college ran a beginning darkroom course for years. No longer. Why? No one signed up. They have no problem filling digital and Photoshop classes.

Anecdotes are interesting, and perhaps they mean something. But, it's numbers that count, not enthusiams.

 

[jwc57]

My daughter took a class advertised by the college as digital photography. All they taught her was Adobe Photoshop CS4. While they took some digital images with a camera, the instructor's main image making process was putting objects on a flatbed scanner and "making photos".

How photography is taught is probably directly related to the experience of the instructor.

 

[batterytypehah!]

It is not - 120 film uses a considerably thinner base, only shared with the long obsolete pack film.

A-hah! So that would support my musings that 120 today is a sign of 135 things to come. If it's worth Ilford's etc. while to run entirely separate lines for 120, and that market is not shrinking any further, then why shouldn't 135 survive once it has bottomed out?

 

[sevo]

A-hah! So that would support my musings that 120 today is a sign of 135 things to come. If it's worth Ilford's etc. while to run entirely separate lines for 120, and that market is not shrinking any further, then why shouldn't 135 survive once it has bottomed out?

Sort of - the appearance of ESTAR bases in 120 film suggests that some merging of product lines is going on there as well. But still, 120 is holding up better than 135.

 

[sevo]

Doesn't 120 share a base with film made for many LF uses,

Only with medium format sheet film. 6x9 to quarter plate are often cut from the same stock as 120. For larger sizes, 120 base would be too limp to stay in the holder. LF sheet film is usually on a acetate or polyester base of a strength roughly similar to 35mm - once upon a time, really big ones used to be available on even stronger bases.

 

[chris91387]

All I have to say is who cares? Kodak sucks so let them die! I don't think they will, however, because in fact they are making money on film. Their losses are only coming from their foolish ventures into digital imaging. Seriously, all of Hollywood is still shooting on Kodak film so it must, and therefore will, survive! It's a basic supply and demand issue after all.

sorry, but i work in "hollywood" and this is not the case. pretty much all of television is shot on tape or tapeless and there are many many motion pictures embracing tape (f35, viper, genesis, etc) and tapeless (red) systems that never touch film until after the DI process and making release prints.

 

[bmattock]

I'm blatantly theorizing here. Caveat emptor... I wonder if 120 is more profitable per unit at a given price point (ie, a given demand). Doesn't 120 share a base with film made for many LF uses, whereas 135 does not? There also may be (may, I don't know) be a better ratio of overhead (packaging costs, etc) per surface area. Hrm.

It was my understanding that everything comes off master rolls. Sheet film, roll film, etc. It is what is done after that which makes it different. Slitting, perforation, and packaging. This can be done in-house or sent out. Whether or not any of that will continue for any given manufacturer is just guesswork without insight into their respective board rooms. I'm sure some companies can withstand lower sales volumes without having to shut down lines, and some are more sensitive to having a certain level of sales in order to manufacture at all. One thing is certain, and that is that the bottom of demand has not been reached yet. Film sales continue to decline, and at a pretty scary clip. When and if the bottom is reached, then there will be some idea of who might choose to continue making film for a flat-but-stable user base, and who might say the heck with it.

 

[batterytypehah!]

A sign that this thread has been going on for too long -- humorous posts are no longer recognized as such.

photogdave was kidding.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It was my understanding that everything comes off master rolls. Sheet film, roll film, etc. It is what is done after that which makes it different. Slitting, perforation, and packaging. This can be done in-house or sent out. it.

Dear Bill,

It all comes off master rolls -- but DIFFERENT master rolls. Not only is 120 thinner and on polyester, but it doesn't have the 0.30 base density normally incorporated in 35mm (which is normally on triacetate). Light piping is the big problem with polyester (PEN/PET), especially clear polyester, which is why it's seldom used for 35mm. Ilford's Delta 3200 is unusual in that 120 is indeed on 35mm base. It was that or no 120-format 3200.

The term inside the business for turning master rolls into consumer film is 'conversion'.

Cheers,

R.