Results from the Kodak survey

[shadowfox]

Maybe I'm just naive on this, but Kodak asked us about film usage, a bunch of us and others replied and here's their published conclusion.

Why aren't more people excited about this?

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2709&pq-locale=en_US&gpcid=0900688a807b9764

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere else.

 

[shadowfox]

Ok, the way I read the survey result is that Kodak finds it "necessary" or advantageous to declare that Film and Digital will co-exist.

Why do they find it necessary in the first place?

If they have their heart set and bent to leave film industry, the survey, let alone the result means absolutely nothing. They could have said that out of 9000, only 500 said they will continue to support film. Or say nothing at all.

So there has to be something that makes Kodak think it's necessary to make this publication.

Jaded opinion #1: Yeah, so Kodak can sell their excess film inventory quicker
Jaded opinion #2: Yeah, so Kodak can soften the harsh criticism from film devoutees. Hoping that they like their ilks will eventually move to digital

Not-so-jaded opinion: Maybe Kodak still wants to make money making films. That's why they still want to ride both boats. If this survey doesn't make film users at least a bit more positive about their choices, then IMHO Kodak is not to blame if we can't get films anymore in the future.

So back to my original question, why aren't more of us (film users) more excited about this? are we all jaded?

 

[wgerrard]

I'd imagine Kodak has a great deal of money sunk in its film infrastructure. A decision to drop film means abandoning all that, or trying to sell it off to someone else who is willing to take a chance with film.

On the other hand, if they can scale back production to market levels, focus on film that's profitable, and tweak their distribution channels (sell it online?) then they might be able to continuing making money on the product.

If Kodak or Fuji does drop film, I wouldn't be surprised to see the other also do so, quickly.

 

[schaubild]

Rollei:
They have no manufacturing capabilities. They do not 'make' film.


Maybe you should inform yourself a little better. This might have been the case a few years ago. They invested a lot in new production facilities.

 

[Trius]

In addition, in September of 2006, CIPA announced that they were revising their estimate of film camera sales downwards. They had predicted film camera sales would drop by 38% in 2006. However, by September of 2006, sales had actually dropped 69% (that includes one-time use throwaway cameras).

CIPA announced their 2007 estimates on Sept 11. Film cameras are no longer listed. Only digital cameras, digital SLRs, lenses suitable for either 35mm SLR or digital SLR, and digital-only SLRs. No more tracking of film cameras.

If this does not tell you something, it should.

This is such a silly argument I would have thought you'd have caught yourself, Bill.

Think about it ... film camera sales does not equal film sales. We are the perfect example of that. Very few of us here on RFF, or APUG, or in the pro world, are buying that many new film cameras. Most of them are so reliable (and easier to use than digital for many of us), that they just keep going and going and going ....

Meanwhile, the digicam manufacturers can keep churning the market for cameras because they newest stuff is "NEW AND IMPROVED!!!"

I know what your argument is on the future of film, etc., and I don't necessarily disagree. But the camera sales argument has no significant bearing on the subject of the OP.

 

[schaubild]

"Production" is not "manufacturing." I repeat, Rollei does not 'make' film. They do not have a photographic film manufacturing plant. The sell film made for them by others. Rollei does not manufacture film.

If you go to the Rollei webpage and click on 'Rollfilm', it takes you to the Hans O. Mahn page, which advertises MACO film (it is well known that Rollei film, with certain exceptions, is Maco). And who makes MACO film? No one. It used to be made by Agfa.

So Agfa used to make film that was ultimately rebranded and sold as Rollei. Now they don't because they are bankrupt.

So who makes Rollei films? Now their latest film introductions are made for them by...Foma. So there you go. Rollei never made film.

Rollei does not now manufacture film. Rollei repackages film and calls it 'producing' film. That is very different.

Maybe you should inform yourself a litle better.

Interesting statement. How many times in the last few months did you talk with Mr. Schroeder about his films? Or where do you get your information from?

 

[wolves3012]

They used to sell billions of films per year, now they are down to several millions, which is - with a streamlined and lean production - still very profitable.

Agreed.

We will have two very distinguished markets in the future: the real professional with high quality requirements that'll use film and the mass market (including the wanna-be-professionals) that'll use digital.

Unlikely. Technology does not stand still. How long will it take before we laugh at a digital with "only 20M pixels"? The first ones of a decade or so ago were in the hundreds of K pixels, now we're two orders of magnitude higher and still going upwards.

It'll end up as decades ago: for your own personal demands you'll use digital, for the top notch photographs you'll consult a 'real' photographer.

And he'll use a 100M digital or some such. His clients will expect it, not some "old-fashioned" technology.

The quality market is a niche. The clients want high quality and high resolution. It's a small niche, but (still) a profitable one because you can't print a 120cm x 120cm or larger image (4x4 feet) @ 300 ppi with the output of a wanna-be-pro digital camera.

Not quite yet...but it'll come.

The next argument: costs. A digital back with for a 50 MP output costs around 30.000 Euros. We scan 6x9 slides with an output of 130 MP. Now do the math: a 120 Fuji Provia 100F costs me 4.50, the E-6 process another 3.90 (Euros). That's 8.40 Euros. Plus the transport to the lab and back, so let's round it up to 10 Euros for 8 images. Plus we don't have any hassle with an electronic archive. 30.000 divided by 10 equals 3.000 times 8 images per roll equals 24.000 images which I can shoot before I'll meet the price of a digital or scan back (not to mention the additional costs for electronic gadgets and the Sherpas who have to carry the stuff to some remote locations).

Perfectly valid maths. You'd still need the sherpas for 24000 images though! Capacity of the electronic storage isn't really an issue nowadays and is becoming less and less so. Reliability and so on are, I'd agree but film negatives can be lost or damaged too.

But after 6 years I will have been at least two times under pressure to invest into the 'new model release' with 'improved quality', meaning I'll lose money like hell. Keeping the film technology I just drop in a next generation film with a better emulsion or finer grain.

Are you saying then that we were never under pressure to get the latest model film cameras then? I seem to recall that we were encouraged to think that the latest model with the twice-as-fast autofocus or the new top speed of 1/8000th of a second or whatever had rendered our model obsolete.

Hollywood and Bollywood still use film. Many film makers returned to film after having an encounter with hi res video. Museums and governments in Europe return to film after they have experienced the trouble of the digital archives, so film will be produced for a very long time for high quality purposes, not just for fine arts or some spleeny hobbyists. It's just a matter of splicing, perforating and finishing the material differently according to the specs.

The last bastion of film. It'll take some years yet before the storage for film-quality images is solved. It'll probably still happen and maybe faster than we think.

I think film will continue for a long time yet. However, it'll certainly not be as we use it now. The choice will be more limited, competition probably lower and the cost will increase substantially. Those of us who don't process our own will find it can no longer be dropped in locally for 1-hour processing but needs to be mailed for a several-days service.

Sad but it's called progress (by some, and in some ways true). I'll continue to use it alongside digital, with film being first choice until it becomes too inconvenient.

 

[NickTrop]

I'm not so sure about whether we'll see a 20 megapixel consumer cameras costing reasonable amounts in the future. Remember, there's also that pesky "noise" thing. There may be a real physical limit on this amount of pixels you can fit on to a sensor, just like you don't see lenses faster than .95 that are common or cars that get 100 mpg or rechargeable batteries that last forever. Not good examples - perhaps, but you know what I mean... The innovative stage of digitals seems to have peaked and their prices stabilized, just like PCs did. They're now selling their cameras mostly on features.

 

[wolves3012]

I'm not so sure about whether we'll see a 20 megapixel consumer cameras costing reasonable amounts in the future. Remember, there's also that pesky "noise" thing. There may be a real physical limit on this amount of pixels you can fit on to a sensor, just like you don't see lenses faster than .95 that are common or cars that get 100 mpg or rechargeable batteries that last forever. Not good examples - perhaps, but you know what I mean... The innovative stage of digitals seems to have peaked and their prices stabilized, just like PCs did. They're now selling their cameras mostly on features.

Yes I know exactly what you mean and maybe you're right. On the other hand, who's to say what technology is just around the corner? Noise is a problem in all areas - and it applies just as much to film as anything else. If film can reach a certain level, electronic sensors can too. I suspect there may yet be developments that would allow 20M sensors, or maybe far higher. Time will tell if we're right or wrong.

 

[wolves3012]

My cameras never had AF. I've never upgraded my system because it **worked** flawlessly. Oh, wait, not true, the F4s has AF, but I never purchased new lenses (sports and events are not my world).


Exactly. And until we'll reach that particular point I'll shoot film to avoid the digital hassle: too many parts can break or stop working. The devices are far too complicated. 51 AF points with 3 cross sensors... hey, God gave me eyes, and he meant I should use them!

As well as my brain, but that's another story.

You missed my point - I was simply illustrating that the perpetual "upgrade since your current model is obsolete" philosophy has nothing to do with film versus digital.

I agree that there are still techinical advantages to film and it's likely to stay that way for a while yet. Just not forever. Hark back to when a computer filled several rooms in a building and compare to a modern laptop, for instance. Or maybe imagine a camera that would store a lifetime's photographs. Science fiction at the moment, certainly, but so was flying to the moon a hundred years ago.

I also agree that current digitals are mostly too complex but again, that's not directly to related to the sensor type. The main reasons most manufacturers add this complexity is to score over their competitors and to persuade the "amateur" they'll get "professional" results without the effort and experience the professional holds.

 

[40oz]

how many years have we had color films? But I can still go to any camera shop and buy traditional black & white. I can even find C41 B&W in every grocery store and pharmacy I've ever been in lately.

How many years ago was 50 the fastest box speed on the market? And today we have what, 1600? 3200? But surprise surprise, I can still find 50 ISO film in any camera shop.

How many years has 35mm been the most common film camera size? Yet again, I can find 120 film in every camera store ready for the buying.

Some of you are too old to be so foolish and not old enough to be so forgetful. Digital tech is still in the birthing stage. And nothing so far really indicates that film is ever going to disappear. There is always flux in a market, and always those who cry the sky is falling" at the drop of a hat.

For crying out loud, if the people who stand to benefit the most from a flexible, cheap alternative to film are saying that film is still not replaceable, who is? It certainly isn't the people buying disposable film cameras, rolls of Kodak and Fuji at the gas station, and keeping the machines rolling at my local drug stores.

And for what it's worth, it doesn't matter if a sensor has 2,000 megapixels if it is still smaller than a 35mm frame - the lenses cannot project with enough quality to make that meaningful. History has show repeatedly that the market demands more than a lens can deliver in a smaller than 35mm frame. Nikon just released a full-frame DSLR as proof that the demand for larger sensors is there. The cost of such a sensor is always going to remain prohibitive compared to the price of a roll of film, so it's a dead-end as far as a mainstream technology goes.

There is a similar parallel in the automotive world. Despite the vast numbers of small four cylinder engines, and despite the fact that 7 years ago Honda released a 2 liter four making ~120 hp per liter which is the highest hp per liter production car engine, larger displacement engines have not disappeared. If anything, the opposite is taking place. A few years ago, Honda increased the displacement of that four to 2.2 liters, based on customer demand. Just as they have been increasing the displacement of all their fours over the years. The consumer is not interested in technology for technology's sake - they want real benefit, and there is no real benefit from small engines with high hp per liter when it is cheaper to make a larger displacement engine with higher power output.

Digital cameras are handy. They deliver acceptable quality. They do not trump film in all areas for most people. There will probably never be a day when they will. But people who like to pretend they are on the "cutting edge" will always argue in favor of any new thing, despite the very real drawbacks. Digital is no exception - some people go so far as to argue the absolute superiority of digital and the certain death of film with anyone who will listen. I'm not sure what the deal is there.

 

[shadowfox]

I wonder why Bill's posts are deleted in this thread...

 

[schaubild]

Some people might have a problem when their false assertions are challenged with facts.