Wonderful news from Ilford for us film shooters!

[larryk34]

This reminds me a bit of everyone complaining about the value of their stock portfolio after the "crash" of 2009. Values declined back to 2005 levels. But hey, no one complained about the level in 2005; everyone was feeling richer than ever. It's just shrinkage. Who wouldn't want to expand their capacity and take over Kodak's $440 million a year business? How about making and selling paint brushes for oil painting, any takers? Why not, does everyone have to match google's multi billion dollar growth record to go into a business? Shrinkage is just a painful process. As said in the classic Sicilian epic novel, "For things to stay the same, things have to change." My problem with film is getting it developed. All those guys seem to have disappeared. If you don't process yourself, where do you send it these days?

 

[bmattock]

Like the rest of us you have no idea on the lifespan of film. So how can you "wish" something like that.

The data are available from which to extrapolate a reasonable hypothesis. One merely has to plot the curve. It's not rocket science.

Honestly, I think film will be available after you I and nearly everyone else are gone from this world.

We will see.

Besides, the original post wasn't about the soon death of film, or film vs digital.

It was about marketing hyperbole as 'good news'.

I'm just amazed how you and Pickett W. always show up speaking the doom & gloom of film when someone post good news.

My first post in this thread was to respond to the O/P's anecdotal statement to the effect that he had witnessed a recent upsurge in business at a local camera store. Since my area had seen 4 of the last 5 remaining camera stores close in the last two years, my own anecdotal evidence belies that. But anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, no matter which way we wish it to point.

It is not 'gloom and doom' when the weatherman says it is going to rain tomorrow. If you prefer not to hear it, there is an off switch on your PC.

And look how much I hate film and want it to die...

Fugica V2 35mm Everything Tested Works excellent

 

[wlewisiii]

Bill,

Why do you think I mention Titanium White in these threads? A 200 ml tube will set you back about $20 and not paint very much area of canvass. But that niche survives in spite of all those who said painting was dead for the past 150 years or so.

Shrug. The quote from you in my .sig seems quite appropo tonight.

Tomorrow I'll shoot a little Kodak BW400CN & Ektar, then maybe some Reala & if the day is kind to me, even a roll of FP4+ in the folder.

William

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Why do you think I mention Titanium White in these threads? A 200 ml tube will set you back about $20 and not paint very much area of canvass. But that niche survives in spite of all those who said painting was dead for the past 150 years or so.

A person can make paint with reasonable ease. Not so with photographic film.

Shrug. The quote from you in my .sig seems quite appropo tonight.

Tomorrow I'll shoot a little Kodak BW400CN & Ektar, then maybe some Reala & if the day is kind to me, even a roll of FP4+ in the folder.

I'm thinking of shooting some film tomorrow as well, if the weather permits. I was also planning to take my K200D. Don't really see why it has to be one or the other. This isn't a war.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Declines

Declines

In a recession, with people losing their jobs and their houses, one might expect a drop in what is mostly "discretionary spending", such as B&W film, chemicals and paper. It's already been relegated to the stature of a hobby unless you have a gallery representing you. Only if consumption doesn't go back up when people are feeling financially secure once more should we replay the Chicken Little fairy tale about "the sky is falling!"

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Al, the precipitous decline in film sales started long before the current recession. I'm not certain a pent up demand for film has been developing during the recession that will reverse that direction when folks are flush with cash again...whenever that might occur.

 

[gb hill]

Bill, I'm not against you or anyone shooting digital. You speak of camera stores in your area going by the wayside. Thats nothing to do with film, thats more to do with the times we are living. Unemployment is at almost 10%. Ritz/Wolf Camera's bankruptcy came during digitals supposedly heyday. Digital isn't a consumable so manufactures have to keep pumping out new models annually. I wont be suprised in a short time we'll see some camera companies fail like Pontiac, Saturn, & Oldsmobile.

 

[jslabovitz]

Why not, does everyone have to match google's multi billion dollar growth record to go into a business? Shrinkage is just a painful process.

The problem for large corporations like Kodak is that their shareholders do expect growth, and they'd really like that every quarter. Once growth slows, or even stops, the shareholders & executives get nervous. That's when you get decisions that might not make sense as a customer (say, of a particular film), but may seem to make sense if your goal is profit. It's a sad fact of this particular world we reside in.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I'm not against you or anyone shooting digital. You speak of camera stores in your area going by the wayside. Thats nothing to do with film, thats more to do with the times we are living. Unemployment is at almost 10%. Ritz/Wolf Camera's bankruptcy came during digitals supposedly heyday. Digital isn't a consumable so manufactures have to keep pumping out new models annually. I wont be suprised in a short time we'll see some camera companies fail like Pontiac, Saturn, & Oldsmobile.

I would not be surprised to see any camera company fail in this economy. I agree that digital camera manufacturers have to continue to 'innovate' to convince consumers to buy new models. This was true when they were making film cameras as well - it was only stopped by the sudden emergence of digital.

However, the typical consumer digital camera does appear to be a 'consumable' in the sense that they aren't terribly well made and tend to break in a relatively short period of time.

Purely anecdotal, but my 2004 Pentax *ist DS is still going strong with more than 100K images shot (knock on wood). And I am still quite fond of the images it makes. If it breaks tomorrow, I will have gotten my money's worth out of it several times over. I have a shelf of small inexpensive digicams that either no longer function, or which have been so eclipsed in capability that I no longer use them. That much is certainly true - my ancient film cameras are just as capable now as they were when they were made.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Sorry, I tend to agree with Pickett and Bill. To take the good news at face value is like grasping at straws and ignoring the general trend that started long before this recession/depression. I use both but at least try to be realistic about things never going back to be what they were with film. In my small town of 100,000 you would be hard pressed to find B&W film and the amount film that is available in retail stores has shrunk significantly. My freezer is stocked so I won't worry for quite a while though.

Bob

 

[Keith]

I'm reminded of the comments of a notorious ex premiere of our Australian state of Queensland while in the grip of a recession.

When questioned about the state's then floundering economy his reply was ... " Go into the city (Brisbane) and look up at all the cranes on the skyline ... that'll tell how well we're actually doing!"

Not too many cranes on Kodak's (or film's) skyline IMO! 😛

 

[Al Kaplan]

There are still places on the planet that value keeping people employed, not just the profit for the shareholders. We might not be buying Tri-X from small companies in Eastern Europe or China but I'm reasonably certain that film manufacturing will survive awhile longer.

 

[Keith]

There are still places on the planet that value keeping people employed, not just the profit for the shareholders. We might not be buying Tri-X from small companies in Eastern Europe or China but I'm reasonably certain that film manufacturing will survive awhile longer.

Al ... the day we can't buy Tri-X anywhere on the planet .. we'll know it's over! 🙁

 

[bmattock]

There are still places on the planet that value keeping people employed, not just the profit for the shareholders.

One operates under the constraints one finds oneself. For-profit public corporations in countries such as the USA have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Complaining about a particular company is actually a complaint about the system; it is hardly Kodak's fault that they have such an obligation. There are systems that do not operate in this manner. They are generally communist countries.

 

[slm]

Context, sir. Context. Overall trend = down. Fuji and Kodak film sales = down. 45% uptick in processing as compared to what trend prior to that, and more importantly, compared to what film sales that feeds that?

You're quoting a statistic. Statistics like that have led people to claim that contrary to the earth getting warmer, it is getting cooler - because of a recent downward spike. The trend is what matters.

It's just a simple measure. But why dismiss it as meaningless?
And I'm not a film zealot btw, I happen to own and use the best dslr made, the Konica Minolta 7D.

 

[gb hill]

I'm reminded of the comments of a notorious ex premiere of our Australian state of Queensland while in the grip of a recession.

When questioned about the state's then floundering economy his reply was ... " Go into the city (Brisbane) and look up at all the cranes on the skyline ... that'll tell how well we're actually doing!"

Not too many cranes on Kodak's (or film's) skyline IMO! 😛

I guess you didn't read Tom A's post on page 1 about Kodak's state of the art film coating facility they built.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Right now the U.S. and elsewhere is experiencing what happens when unfettered capitalism rules banks, insurance companies, energy companies, a good part of our healthcare...and as long as the overall economy is doing well nobody complains all that much. For the most part health care in the rest of the planet is "socialized medicine"! They have better healthcare than the U.S.

"Communist" is a loaded word. Right now I don't think that any "communist" countries of note still exist. "Red China" is now our biggest trading partner. If China makes a decent film why not use it? And they now have a stock market, share holders, all that good stuff. Pretty hard to hang the Communist tag on them.

 

[bmattock]

It's just a simple measure. But why dismiss it as meaningless?

Because it is meaningless, taken by itself. The temperature today was nearly 70 degrees, up 50% from yesterday. Clearly, it is springtime. Nevermind that tomorrow the temperature will be dropping again.

Metrics are useless unless fitted to a curve that indicates a trend. And the longer the delta, the more accurate the trend line tends to be.

And I'm not a film zealot btw, I happen to own and use the best dslr made, the Konica Minolta 7D.

Cool. I seriously considered the 7D when I bought my *ist DS. The 7D is a fine camera.

 

[gb hill]

Right now the U.S. and elsewhere is experiencing what happens when unfettered capitalism rules banks, insurance companies, energy companies, a good part of our healthcare...and as long as the overall economy is doing well nobody complains all that much. For the most part health care in the rest of the planet is "socialized medicine"! They have better healthcare than the U.S.

"Communist" is a loaded word. Right now I don't think that any "communist" countries of note still exist. "Red China" is now our biggest trading partner. If China makes a decent film why not use it? And they now have a stock market, share holders, all that good stuff. Pretty hard to hang the Communist tag on them.

Al I'm pretty sure Canada is still #1 but doesn't matter China is going to own us pretty soon anyhow if we keep borrowing from them.

 

[Keith]

I guess you didn't read Tom A's post on page 1 about Kodak's state of the art film coating facility they built.

I can think of several manufacturers over the years who have released a newly engineered model of something or other ... then gone toes up shortly after.

How good their production facilities may be means nothing if they can't sell enough of it (film) to return or justify their investment.

I'm not taking sides with Bill or anyone here ... I just retain a degree of skepticism that makes me wary of 'off the cuff' statistics. 🙂