Photography Economics

[Skiff]

To demonstrate what fundamental change is currently happening look at the following:
The sales for film in 1999 were 3 billion films.
The sales for film in 2007 were 1 billion films.
This reduction about 2/3 of the market took the time of 8 years.

The production of digital cameras in 2010 was 121,7 million units.
The production in 2014 was about 42 million units.
This reduction about 2/3 of the market took the time of only 4 years.

The change in demand for our digital camera manufacturers is even more dramatic (and much more unexpected) than the change in film demand in the last decade.

That is an extremely important fact indeed!

At Photokina I talked to market analysts.
They expect this trend to continue and would not be surprised if in 3-4 years the first of the bigger manufacturers have to quit the market.

Cheers, Jan

Interestingly, the photographers at dpreview are much more aware of that dramatic situation and discussing it for about a year now.
Even if the trend would be slowing down a bit, in two years the yearly sales will be less than 25 million units (much less compared to the film era).
Then we have reached a point when the market will be just too small for all the manufacturers.
Especially as Nikon and Canon together have more than 50% market share.
Some manufacturers will have to quit.
Probably the smaller and / or financial weak ones.

The Sony CEO made an interesting statement just some months ago. He was very honest: " We don't know and cannot garuantee that we can offer cameras also in five years".
It is not a secret that Sony has never made substantial profits with the Sony DSLR cameras.
Olympus' camera division is making losses for about five years now.
And for other small manufacturers like Pentax, Sigma, Casio the volume will probably be too small to keep the lines running at reasonable costs.

 

[Skiff]

You can buy it. I have never like Agfa, and have really given it a serious try, even going as far as printing it myself.

Which Agfa did you use?
The original CT Precisa from Leverkusen in Germany?
Or the version after that, made in USA, which was a re-labelled Elitechrome 100?
Or the current version, made by Fujifilm, which is the amateur version of Provia 100F?

I like the current version very much. Indeed the best film which was ever sold under the name AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,

there has always been a "come and go" for films and brands.
I was referring to the situation in western Europe at that time.
Forte and Foma for example were not available even at the specialised mail order shops at that time (that came a bit later).
Kodak, Ilford and Agfa, that was it in 1990.
Well, Agfa Leverkusen is gone. But now we have (even more) films from Agfa Belgium (via Rollei-Film and Adox).
Ilford is offering more today than 1990, and has a second new brand with Kentmere films.
Rollei-Film is offering interesting new stuff from several manufacturers. Adox is now here, they were not at 1990.

Dear Jan,

All I can say is that we have very differing recollections on when Forte, Foma and Efke film were available in the non-communist world. They were however widely available after 1990, and I'm pretty sure that Adox/ Schleussner/ Efke were available well before. Unfortunately I have no definitive lists of what was available in 1990 and quite frankly I don't think I have time to gather evidence to support something I'm not that excited about anyway.

With B+W (which was the subject of my reply) we've lost all Polaroid (55 P/N, 665), several Kodak (at least HIE, Panatomic-X, Technical Pan and TMZ unless I am mistaken), the whole of Leverkusen, the Efke factory in Croatia, and Forte. Are there many new B+W films, apart from Rollei's short ends/ rebrands? What (come to think if it) is new from Ilford since 1990, except Delta 3200? There've been a few upgrades -- "Super" and "Plus" -- but as they replaced older versions of the same thing there are not more films on the market as a result. Yes, there is the Kentmere "second string" brand, but how many films is that? Two?

As I say, it is conceivable that you are right, but I doubt it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[HHPhoto]

Dear Jan,

All I can say is that we have very differing recollections on when Forte, Foma and Efke film were available in the non-communist world. They were however widely available after 1990, and I'm pretty sure that Adox/ Schleussner/ Efke were available well before. Unfortunately I have no definitive lists of what was available in 1990 and quite frankly I don't think I have time to gather evidence to support something I'm not that excited about anyway.

Hi Roger,

I still have the lists from that time, and the East European manufacturers were not widely availble at 1990. At least not in Germany. But Germany was at that time, and is even more today, the by far biggest market for film in Europe.
The sitution changed about 1992/93, when first mail order film distributors discovered this market potential for cheap film.

With B+W (which was the subject of my reply) we've lost all Polaroid (55 P/N, 665), several Kodak (at least HIE, Panatomic-X, Technical Pan and TMZ unless I am mistaken), the whole of Leverkusen, the Efke factory in Croatia, and Forte. Are there many new B+W films, apart from Rollei's short ends/ rebrands? What (come to think if it) is new from Ilford since 1990, except Delta 3200? There've been a few upgrades -- "Super" and "Plus" -- but as they replaced older versions of the same thing there are not more films on the market as a result. Yes, there is the Kentmere "second string" brand, but how many films is that? Two?

Well, what BW films we have today which were not on the market 1990 (in alphabetical order):

Adox CMS 20 II
Adox CHS 100 II
Adox Silvermax

Agfa Copex Rapid
(Agfa Scala 200X is still available; introduced 1995 first version, 1998 second version)

Bergger BRF 400

Fomapan R

Ilford Delta 100 Prof. (was introduced 1992, in 1995 the slightly improved version Delta 100 Professional hit the market)
Ilford XP2 Super
Ilford Delta 3200 (introduced 1998)

Kentmere 100 (also available as AgfaPhoto APX 100 New)
Kentmere 400 (AgfaPhoto APX 400 New)

Kodak TMY-2 (introduced 2007)

Rollei RSD
Rollei ATP
Rollei ATO
Rollei Retro 80S
Rollei Superpan 200 / Retro 400S / IR
Rollei RPX 25
Rollei RPX 100
Rollei RPX 400

That is quite a lot, isn't it?
BW film photographers have really no reason to complain about the current film supply.

And my personel opinion about Fotokemika / Efke and Forte films:
Quality wise they were the worst on the market, with permanent QC issues.
If they had stopped production in the nineties, no one would have been surprised. All would have said:
"Well, they could not compete with the other manufacturers. The better products on the market have won."

In the end just that happens, only some years later.
They were not strong enough for the competition.
In the next years, we will see that with some digital camera manufacturers, too.

I don't miss the Forte and Efke films at all.
The current options are much better, offering much more value.
Adox CHS 100 II for example surpasses Efke 50 and 100 significantly in all respects.
And Ilford PanF + and RPX 25 are much better compared to Efke 25.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Pioneer]

It is actually kind of interesting. People have been arguing for years about how many megapixels or what ISO level is really necessary. As it turns out it isn't technology that has defined that cap but the market.

If you really read what is written in the forum posts lately you see a lot of threads about how disappointed people are in the newest, high MP cameras. We have now reached a point where the technology has improved so much that the photographer's technique is now the limiting factor. Even shake reduction or vibration reduction are not able to mask camera shake and other poor technique from the new sensors. Even enthusiastic amateurs are struggling with these issues, and they are a very, very small component of the market.

The great majority are realizing that their old Nikon D700, or Canon 5D Mk II, or whatever are easier to use than the newer, high MP monsters. And the camera in their smart phone is even easier. All of a sudden this huge, revolving gravy train comes screeching to a halt. In a way the camera manufacturer's themselves have inadvertently shot this golden goose by their rapid and continual race to upgrade.

If you think about it, its almost amusing. They have upgraded the technology so far that now only a very few of the best photographers can use their equipment properly. And now that the smartphone camera has come through the door they have introduced instant sharing technology that is even more important than image quality.

May your future always be interesting.

 

[jsrockit]

They have upgraded the technology so far that now only a very few of the best photographers can use their equipment properly.

Isn't this an exaggeration? All you need to do is use a higher shutter speed than you used to. Higher and higher ISO figures allow for higher shutter speeds, so I'm not so sure why it's that hard. I'm a Sony A7r user and I get sharp photos handheld... if I can do it, many others can.

 

[David Hughes]

... If you think about it, its almost amusing. They have upgraded the technology so far that now only a very few of the best photographers can use their equipment properly. And now that the smartphone camera has come through the door they have introduced instant sharing technology that is even more important than image quality.

May your future always be interesting.

Hi,

Interesting comment and how true. But it made me think that a lot of people have film cameras and lenses that exceed their ability too. I guess a lot of it is about status rather than function.

Regards, David

 

[Calzone]

No.
Digital photographers are saying that again and again for more than 12 years now.
But if you make a real, economic valid calculation including inflation, you will see that film and especially processing is often even significantly cheaper today compared to the "golden era of film" 20 years ago.
Film selection is bigger in some market areas as well (e.g. more choices today with IR and high resolution BW films).
And we will see more films again in the future. For example from Film Ferrania, Adox, Rollei-Film and InovisCoat.
We will have a film revival similar to the development we've seen in the market for mechanical watches and vinyl.

And by the way: That someone like you who has spend a fortune for a Leica Monochrom is saying that film is too expensive.......sorry, I have to shake my head.
With that fortune you could have bought enough film and processing for the rest of your life 😉.

Also impossible to understand these people who buy the latest expensive digital cam all 2 or 3 years and then saying that shooting film is expensive.

Cheers,
Jan

Jan,

Tri-X use to cost $2.89 a roll from Freestyle and now the cost is very close to $5.00 a roll. Use to be able to get Acros for $2.69 a roll from Freestyle and now it costs about $4.50 a roll. Costs are relative: at one point I was shooting about 150 rolls a month on average (135 and 120). The cost of just mixing one shot developers and pouring them down the drain gets signifigant at my rate of shooting. My costs are high just because of pure volume so that's where I'm coming from. I bulk up to try and offset costs.

In digital the additional real costs are almost $5K for a computer and external hard drive for backup; $1K for a printer; $2.3K for a 27 inch Eizo; and about $2.7K in ink and paper. Digital is not for free.

Understand that I explore both mediums equally, and I feel passionate about both. For me pretty recent price increases due to me establishing Acros and Tri-X as my main films means that I either have to bite the bullet and pay the increases, or do as you suggest is learn to use less expensive alternatives. Realize that I make negatives for wet printing and never intend to scan, so my digital expenses remain separate and are exclusive to my Monochrom.

Me paying only $2.89 a roll for repackaged Tri-X not long ago is not really a complaint, but a fact. I'll be greatfully shooting film to avoid remorse, otherwise one day, hopefully a long time from now, I don't have to say, "I wish I would of shot more film when it was both available and affordable."

Cal

 

[pete hogan]

Teardown analysis of the current iPhone models lists category "Camera" as $17.50. Nice pictures. There's some economics, as in Roaring Headwind.

 

[Ranchu]

I am researching buying a new film camera, looks like it is pretty easy to own a Nikon F4 for under $200, from a reputable source, where I can test and return, and try again.

Nikon N70's are being given away, I got one with shipping for $20 a couple months ago. Nice camera, sticky back comes off with alcohol. I like it better than my nikkormat.

😱

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I still have the lists from that time, and the East European manufacturers were not widely availble at 1990. At least not in Germany. But Germany was at that time, and is even more today, the by far biggest market for film in Europe.
The sitution changed about 1992/93, when first mail order film distributors discovered this market potential for cheap film.



Well, what BW films we have today which were not on the market 1990 (in alphabetical order):

Adox CMS 20 II
Adox CHS 100 II
Adox Silvermax

Agfa Copex Rapid
(Agfa Scala 200X is still available; introduced 1995 first version, 1998 second version)

Bergger BRF 400

Fomapan R

Ilford Delta 100 Prof. (was introduced 1992, in 1995 the slightly improved version Delta 100 Professional hit the market)
Ilford XP2 Super
Ilford Delta 3200 (introduced 1998)

Kentmere 100 (also available as AgfaPhoto APX 100 New)
Kentmere 400 (AgfaPhoto APX 400 New)

Kodak TMY-2 (introduced 2007)

Rollei RSD
Rollei ATP
Rollei ATO
Rollei Retro 80S
Rollei Superpan 200 / Retro 400S / IR
Rollei RPX 25
Rollei RPX 100
Rollei RPX 400

That is quite a lot, isn't it?
BW film photographers have really no reason to complain about the current film supply.

And my personel opinion about Fotokemika / Efke and Forte films:
Quality wise they were the worst on the market, with permanent QC issues.
If they had stopped production in the nineties, no one would have been surprised. All would have said:
"Well, they could not compete with the other manufacturers. The better products on the market have won."

In the end just that happens, only some years later.
They were not strong enough for the competition.
In the next years, we will see that with some digital camera manufacturers, too.

I don't miss the Forte and Efke films at all.
The current options are much better, offering much more value.
Adox CHS 100 II for example surpasses Efke 50 and 100 significantly in all respects.
And Ilford PanF + and RPX 25 are much better compared to Efke 25.

Cheers, Jan

Dear Jan,

Now remove replacements such as those in bold.

Then remove the ones that are rebranded versions of other films on the maket (a lovely quote from Ilford in the days when they openly coated materials for other makers: "We were delighted to be narrowly beaten by our own product").

Then remove various short-lived Rollei short ends/relabelled old Agfa master rolls.

Then remove the ones that have simply gone (Leverkusen, Forte, Efke, Polaroid at least).

At the end I really, sincerely doubt that there are more B+W films available today than in 1990.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I would hope so. I got sharp photos for many years with a Nikon F. 🙂

I think he is referring to the fact that large MP sensors, such as the 36mp sensor used by Sony and Nikon) tend to show any and all defects from camera shake, missed focus, etc at 100%. Of course all cameras will show this but it is exacerbated by the high MP count.

 

[HHPhoto]

It is actually kind of interesting. People have been arguing for years about how many megapixels or what ISO level is really necessary. As it turns out it isn't technology that has defined that cap but the market.

That's right.

And another aspect is very important:
If you ask digital photographers what they are doing with their pictures about 90-95% say they only look at them on a computer monitor.
Only a very small percentage is making prints, and those often make only quite small prints.

Computer monitors offer by far the worst picture quality of all viewing media.
Extremely low resolution (1-2 MP), because of the discrete structure of LCD screens no real halftones are possible, limitations in color rendition.
But for using that limitated media you just don't need a 12, 18, 24 or 36 MP cam.
These cams are complete overkill.
You pay huge amounts of money for a technology you cannot exploit at all.
You are indeed wasting lots of money.

And those who have spent so much money again and again for the latest digital toy, but using only a monitor as viewing medium, are very often those who say to film photographers that "film is more expensive than digital" 😉.
Crazy world.....

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan,

Tri-X use to cost $2.89 a roll from Freestyle and now the cost is very close to $5.00 a roll. Use to be able to get Acros for $2.69 a roll from Freestyle and now it costs about $4.50 a roll.

Dear Cal,

you have the wrong benchmark. You are referring to prices which were a special situation, and not real sustainable market prices.
No one in the industry has understood why
- Fujifilm has given away Acros for such a dumping price (which was not "kostendeckend" = cost-covering)
- Kodak made that deal with Freestyle and Tri-X as Arista film.
Kodak hurt their own market with that, reduced their own margin.
A friend of mine joined the "Ilford factory tour" last year, and had long talks with one of the Ilford directors, Simon Galley.
Mr Galley said they did not understand at all what Kodak has made there, price was ridiculously low and not cost-covering. Kodak shot in in their own foot with that deal.
Same for the Fuji - FS deal.

We had a similar situation here in Germany with Fuji made drugstore label films. In one chain a ISO 400 film was priced at 88 Cents (!!!).
No one can make a color film today selling it for 88 Cents and then keep being profitable. It's impossible.
Of course these films are gone now. And that is good!
Dumping prices are neither good for the manufacturer, nor for the customer, because they destroy the basis of the industry, which is hurting also the customer in the mid- and long term.
And therefore such dumping prices are not a valid benchmark for comparisons.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Dear Roger,

Dear Jan,

Now remove replacements such as those in bold.

No.
These improved films like TMY-2 give us
- much better performance compared to the former films
- much better value in comparison
- using them means having a better situation today than 25 years ago.

Then remove the ones that are rebranded versions of other films on the maket (a lovely quote from Ilford in the days when they openly coated materials for other makers: "We were delighted to be narrowly beaten by our own product").

That is only valid for the two Kentmere / AgfaPhoto New films.
I think Ilford is knowing what they are doing here. If it would not make sense for them, they would not do it.
They've learned from the past.
They are successful. In even such a way that they are working on a complete new, modernized factory in Mobberley.

Then remove various short-lived Rollei short ends/relabelled old Agfa master rolls.

Completely wrong.
There are no short ends or old Agfa master rolls in Rollei-Film's current BW assortment.
It is all fresh production either from Agfa in Belgium, or from Ilford (the RPX line).

At the end I really, sincerely doubt that there are more B+W films available today than in 1990.

As said before, I have the lists here: At least in Germany, the most important European market, the supply is bigger today compared to 1990.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Sparrow]

For a manufacturer with high fixed costs whose sales are seasonal it may well make perfect sense to sell at a loss.

As long as you are covering your raw material cost you will be making a contribution to your overheads

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I can see it makes sense to maintain a flow of cash through the system but I wonder if they are selling at a loss? Perhaps covering their costs with a pound or two for luck; rather like postage on ebay sales...

Regards, David

 

[HHPhoto]

As long as you are covering your raw material cost you will be making a contribution to your overheads

No, if you are only covering your raw material costs you are not
contributing to the overhead costs.
For a sustainable profitable operation you need DB II.
Such calculations have been part of my former jobs.

Cheers, Jan

P.S.:
There are good reasons why these FS - Kodak / Fuji deals are gone.
They are not sustainable, and not good for anyone in the mid- and long-term.

 

[Sparrow]

Hi,

I can see it makes sense to maintain a flow of cash through the system but I wonder if they are selling at a loss? Perhaps covering their costs with a pound or two for luck; rather like postage on ebay sales...

Regards, David

... if your sales for the period are below the company's break-even point any contribution to fixed costs improves the bottom line

 

[Sparrow]

No, if you are only covering your raw material costs you are not
contributing to the overhead costs.
For a sustainable profitable operation you need DB II.
Such calculations have been part of my former jobs.

Cheers, Jan

P.S.:
There are good reasons why these FS - Kodak / Fuji deals are gone.
They are not sustainable, and not good for anyone in the mid- and long-term.

... unit cost price is a direct function of plant utilisation ... as long as you are covering your raw materials and not incurring any additional variables you improve the bottom line