35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Al said it all.
40oz
...
I don't know about Fuji, but I have to wonder how a person can say such a thing about Kodak. I bet many people at Kodak wish they never got involved in digital at this point.
"Consumer Digital Imaging Group third-quarter sales were $535 million, a 35% decline from the prior-year quarter"
"Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group third-quarter sales were $572 million, a 25% decline from the year-ago quarter."
Seems like film is a better bet for them than digital. I don't think they have ever had a profitable year from their investment in digital, despite countless "expert" opinions that they need to be in that market.
As an aside, I just printed a bunch of Kodak film on Ilford paper earlier this week. Woot! for film-related operations at both Ilford and Kodak
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
But, if their costs were, say, $400 million, then they made a $40 million profit on film.
That was my earlier point. So long as they don't need to make any new investment in their film infrastructure, then they have an incentive to produce film as long as revenue from sales exceeds their costs. How long that incentive will be large enough for Fuji to make film can't be predicted.
bmattock
Veteran
My local camera store is the only one left. There were five major stores in Detroit, now there is one small one. And it is generally nearly empty.
Not angry or sarcastic right now. I can just do math, is all. OK, that was sarcastic. Sorry.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Sounds like Wall Street reasoning. Digital declined 10 percent more than film, so film is the clear winner.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
This squares with what I've been hearing from the film people at the local stores. They're noticing an uptick in film and paper sales, a lot of it to students who have known nothing but digital and are curious about film and want to give it a try. They won't all stick with it, but those that do will keep demand up.
f6andBthere
Well-known
The fact that Kodak have made a hash of the transition to digital is their problem ... not digital's!
photogdave
Shops local
Ilford is still about $1 cheaper across the board compared to Kodak and Fuji films.
I don't really care though. I shoot Fuji because I like it the best!
Tim Gray
Well-known
Yeah Kodak clearly doesn't care about film users anymore. We've only gotten a whole revamping of the Portra line about 2-3 years ago, a new Portra 400NC on top of that, a revamped TMY 400-2, and a brand new film, Ektar.
Kodak (and Fuji and Ilford) are trying to make the best of it I'm sure. Film sales have been taking a beating, and for these companies to survive, they need to navigate pretty rocky waters, ones that aren't most likely not going to get smoother in the next couple of years.
I'm still buying Kodak, and Fuji and Ilford. It's all good stuff.
Kodak (and Fuji and Ilford) are trying to make the best of it I'm sure. Film sales have been taking a beating, and for these companies to survive, they need to navigate pretty rocky waters, ones that aren't most likely not going to get smoother in the next couple of years.
I'm still buying Kodak, and Fuji and Ilford. It's all good stuff.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Kodak. Ilford and Fuji's film divisions have one great advantage over digital. Product "life" is longer. Digital has a very short "life-span" before a better sensor, soft-ware or "whatever" has to be paid for and developed!
Film is actually quite cheap to manufacture - and many of the emulsions are almost "stock" formulations (TriX,Tmax,Neopan,HP5 etc) and need very little additional costs for a decade or so. Particularly bl/w shooters are fiercely conservative (remember the hoopla when Kodak tweaked the Tri-X 10 years ago!). Kodak runs "parent" rolls (4000 ft long and 52 inches wide and store them) and cut the film to the sizes they need when demand requires it. I have no idea what they keep in inventory - but it must be several years demand.
Digital is, to some extent, shooting themselves in the proverbial foot! By changing models, sensors, software every 6-8 month the do "scare" of the consumer camera customer ( their "profit center). The steep depreciation is a major turn off - you spend multi $000 for the latest whizzbang camera and 6-12 month later it is worth 30-40% of what you paid for it!!! The printing industry expected people to shoot digital, bring in their "cards" and have prints made. Evidently only 1-2% of the customers do and for the shops this is a disaster as profit on color printing (machine prints) was a major income.
It will sort itself out and my fervent hope is that at least one manufacturer will stick to it and supply Tri X (or a suitable clone thereof) for a long time to come.
Film is actually quite cheap to manufacture - and many of the emulsions are almost "stock" formulations (TriX,Tmax,Neopan,HP5 etc) and need very little additional costs for a decade or so. Particularly bl/w shooters are fiercely conservative (remember the hoopla when Kodak tweaked the Tri-X 10 years ago!). Kodak runs "parent" rolls (4000 ft long and 52 inches wide and store them) and cut the film to the sizes they need when demand requires it. I have no idea what they keep in inventory - but it must be several years demand.
Digital is, to some extent, shooting themselves in the proverbial foot! By changing models, sensors, software every 6-8 month the do "scare" of the consumer camera customer ( their "profit center). The steep depreciation is a major turn off - you spend multi $000 for the latest whizzbang camera and 6-12 month later it is worth 30-40% of what you paid for it!!! The printing industry expected people to shoot digital, bring in their "cards" and have prints made. Evidently only 1-2% of the customers do and for the shops this is a disaster as profit on color printing (machine prints) was a major income.
It will sort itself out and my fervent hope is that at least one manufacturer will stick to it and supply Tri X (or a suitable clone thereof) for a long time to come.
gb hill
Veteran
Funny it's always the same two that post negative comments about film. I agree with Al, Tom A. said it all. There is a growing interest in film because many serious photographers grow so dissatisified with digital thats mostly due to the tedious time consuming issues with post processing.
bmattock
Veteran
Hence the growing demand for mood rings and Chia pets.
bmattock
Veteran
Anyone who speaks the truth is considered to be 'negative' (by the way, props for the unintentional pun).
Funny that the 'growing interest' is not reflected in increasing film sales worldwide. I guess facts are just pesky things that are 'negative' and should be ignored.
slm
Formerly nextreme
"Printing and processing of black & white film has shot up 45% in a year"
bmattock
Veteran
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.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There is a lot of anecdotal talk about the resurgence of film. And again, an anecdote from Ilford. But the public numbers of Fuji and Kodak have shown a major downward trend quarter after quarter for several years, long before the current economic troubles. There seems to be a lot of faith based prognosticating going on.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the rabid film enthusiasts will always be just that ... and they're unlikely to ever embrace digital fully! Sometimes I supect it's more to do with maintaining tradition than it is about image or process preferences.
The less zealous seem more easily swayed as digital becomes more versatile ... witness the birth of the digital rangefinder and micro four thirds system along with the high IQ point and shoots .. GRD, DP-1 etc!
The less zealous seem more easily swayed as digital becomes more versatile ... witness the birth of the digital rangefinder and micro four thirds system along with the high IQ point and shoots .. GRD, DP-1 etc!
bmattock
Veteran
Here's the interesting bit to me. First of all, I'm a film lover too. I use film, I find that film is still superior to digital in many important ways (particularly B&W film), and I love to shoot film and process my own B&W. However, I shoot a lot of digital because it is simply more convenient for me. I like digital as well and will no doubt continue to do so.
Second, I do not see any need to defend the honor of film or to take sides as if it were a war, nor do I see myself as a traitor for pointing out the facts about the direction film is heading. Loving film for me does not equate to imagining a lovely future for it.
Perhaps that simply means I'm not a zealot - but to the zealots, one either loves film AND defends it against all comers (to include making up 'facts' about how easy and cheap it is to use versus digital as well as embracing marketing hyperbole that describes a rosy future for film), OR one is a traitor to the cause and to be excoriated.
I love film and I love digital. Each in their place. I wish film had a longer lifespan, because I want to use it more. Heck, my 'new' Fujica V2 rangefinder just arrived in the mail. Now why would I do that if I absolutely hate film and want it to die?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The thing is Bill ... we no longer have to carry around great big honking DSLR's to get high quality output in digital ... but I think a few people are overlooking that point. The manufacturers see digital success as a moving target and thus keep re-inventing the method of capture with amazing new systems which is all to our benefit. Film cameras along with their method of capture have nowhere to go in terms of development IMO.
I love my black and white film just like you but I'm also happy to use digital when I feel like it.
I love my black and white film just like you but I'm also happy to use digital when I feel like it.
gb hill
Veteran
Like the rest of us you have no idea on the lifespan of film. So how can you "wish" something like that. Honestly, I think film will be available after you I and nearly everyone else are gone from this world. Besides, the original post wasn't about the soon death of film, or film vs digital. I'm just amazed how you and Pickett W. always show up speaking the doom & gloom of film when someone post good news.