jandc said:They have been dumping film all across Europe and the USA at insanely low prices since they became Agfa Photo to get cash flow. They produce their products in Germany, one of the most expensive places on earth to make anything yet sell their products at almost Chinese prices. The collapse was inevitable. Their business model makes no sense for film and their sales of processing equipment can't make up the difference.
jandc said:They have been dumping film all across Europe and the USA at insanely low prices since they became Agfa Photo to get cash flow. They produce their products in Germany, one of the most expensive places on earth to make anything
yet sell their products at almost Chinese prices. The collapse was inevitable. Their business model makes no sense for film and their sales of processing equipment can't make up the difference.
Then you must really be "in the know" about the Germany.jandc said:"Wrong. Germany is a cheap place to make some high tech things. There is a large supply of well trained and highly qualified workers yet wages are modest--- significantly lower, for example, than the US.-- and efficiency is among the highest in the world."
Sorry bub, I lived there for years. One of my favorite places in the world to be. I visit there a couple of times a year.
But the famed German efficiency has gone to pot as many workers get sick slips from their doctors constantly so they can get free days off at their employers expense and then do nothing at work knowing that they can't be fired.
"Is the Efke stuff that you hype cheaper to make in Croatia on its old surplus machines using surplus stocks of decade old East German materials, hardly state of the art coatings etc.? And the workers (the few remaining) are also less efficient. The volume is low and so the returns to scale are also tiny."
I got news for you. I sell the Agfa stuff too. I'm on record on this forum over and over again saying the more options out there the better. Pointing out the obvious about Agfa has nothing to do with any other manufacturer. I guess you would prefer the world rely on the incompetent management of Agfa to be the sole source of B&W materials in the 21st century.
"It was inevitable as soon as Agfa spun it off into AgfaPhoto... nothing at all to do with the pricing. Higher prices would have killed them off faster than you can say "Cheese". There is quite a bit of competition and even CHEAPER than Agfa materials (partially due to the weak dollar and a highly efficient coating plant) is Kodak in Germany. Fuji materials too are quite competitive.. And for chemicals there are quite a few aggressive players all fighting to survive and prices are LOW."
Got news for you again. The amount of film sold in Germany is nothing to what is sold in the US and the rest of the world.
You know perfectly well what it takes to lay someone off over there. The costs are huge.
So maybe Agfa Photo is as highly efficient and organized as you say they are and set this up so all those highly skilled and motivated workers could be fired!
I have a vested interest in all companies and the welfare of all workers.I don't suppose you have some vested interest in Agfa?
Of course there are arguments against digital EXACTLY in that application.gnashings said:I don't expect many of us will try to sell the average point - n - shoot user on the virtues of film, its a mute point - in that application there really is no argument against digital.
edz said:The issue is that one does not need 1000s of employees to feed the market. The new mini-labs, improvements in coating etc. have meant that one could be much more efficient and operate with a fraction of the workforce. As part of Agfa there were insufficient reasons to have massive layoffs (beyond all the early pensions that have been going on for the past years as Agfa has tried to trim their workforce) without call for reparations. By now seeking protection its much easier to layoff (its cheap, one even gets some money) and restructure a new workforce (there are some government transfers available for this). With the current high unemployment rate in Germany and without a high-tech boom to perhaps lure away the "wrong" employees, its a very good time to use that "wild card". Hartmut Emans (the guy behind NannO) knows how that works (and how, its been alleged in several cases against him by the European Union, to highjack public funds). Emans used to be a part of the Lintra-Gruppe.
gareth harper Well I was paying some attention to what jandc had to say said:Had you been paying a little better attention you would have realized that my original post covered the problems at Agfa and said nothing about "lazy workers". Then Mr. edz comes along with an ax to grind against Efke in the form of a rebuttal to my post. Mr. Edz is well know for his childish posts on the German forums also. So his chain needed to be pulled so he would reveal his true interest in this topic. Which he does when he brings Mirko from Fotoimpex into the picture.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread.
jandc said:Had you been paying a little better attention you would have realized that my original post covered the problems at Agfa and said nothing about "lazy workers". Then Mr. edz comes along with an ax to grind against Efke in the form of a rebuttal to my post. Mr. Edz is well know for his childish posts on the German forums also. So his chain needed to be pulled so he would reveal his true interest in this topic. Which he does when he brings Mirko from Fotoimpex into the picture.
John now trying his hand--- letting go of his chain for a moment--- at cheap slander. Do you even know my name (its what I use on all forums, save this one since when I registered it took my account, which is also my email name for the past 18 years, as my name but hey there is a signature... Hmmmmmm) and can you even read German?jandc said:Mr. Edz is well know for his childish posts on the German forums also. So his chain needed to be pulled.
That is always the case. You can't file for someone else. In Germany the law makes things even more difficult since if you don't file early enough and run up any debt after some might claim that you were no longer able to repay debt, then you can be convicted of "konkursverschleppung" (dragging out brankruptcy) which is a considered a form of fraud. Its a very fine line and the jails are seemingly filled with property developers and other failed entrepreneurs and speculators (.literally loose everything, pay a fine and go directly to jail as in "Monopoly"). This is why often legal staff are pulled-in (or a fall guy) to head the company to make sure that the "wrong" heads don't go the chopping block. I would expect that the move was long planned, perhaps looking at what is emerging about the financing of AgfaPhoto apriori to the founding of the company. Given that this rates among the largest bankruptcies in German post-war history more and more information--- and disinformation--- should start to emerge.David H. Bebbington said:gives a few more details, for example that it was the company itself that filed for bankruptcy.
edz said:Of course there are arguments against digital EXACTLY in that application.
- Digital gear is expensive (short product cycles)--- or do you expect people to use (or be able to use) the same digital camera for years on end?
- Because the inputs (RA-4 Paper and chemicals) are the same between analog and digital but the digital side needs constant technology tracking with shorter product cycles its more expensive to do and thus even with "mineral water" economies its still more expensive to provide prints.
- Digital "negatives" (e.g. storage") is far from archival. The best storage available today is Magneto-Optical (rated at 50 years) but few use them (and hardly any in this application). CDROM has less storage life than the reds in 1960s colour film--- very similar organic dyes. Few images shall outlive their short lived cameras. Since its about, to snatch an old ad slogan, "sharing memories" (snapshots) this is a not insignificant issue that most consumers don't understand.
- Digital has the gimic factor and its instant to view like a Polaroid but the "kick" seems to fade fast among consumers.
- Most people effectively don't take many pictures. Looking at the output statistics the cost of using digital is thus several times over the cost of using film.
And already now, following the boom/fad, we are seeing a decline in demand for these low cost digital cameras. Companies like HP are trying to hold-on and prices are in free fall (already now 4 MP cameras are available at the 70 EURO price point) and demand is slowing. These consumer digital cameras won't go the way of the Furbee or Cabbage Patch fads but its increasingly clear that its an unfortunate market for vendors. 3G cellular phones too have not really been catching on and this might too indicate that the digital imaging consumer market is much softer than the hype has suggested.
In the context of Agfa? They are on the bleeding edge of the digital mini-labs and so its not really "missed the boat" but that the boat is .....
I think the "average person" can be made to care. Its called information. Its called issue perception. Its called marketing. Instead the consumers have been sold digital as a replacement for film pared with the lie that its cheaper lacking film. Following an initial optimism for demand of digital prints the market has noticed a weaking of growth and a decline in revenues.gnashings said:I can see that either your reading comperhension or your economic theory leave much to be desired:
product cycles, blah blah blah - do you think the average person cares? no.
Probably since their 3 year old camera probably does not work.do you think that the average person can tell the difference between their 3 year old camera and the brand new one,
If so what a camera (like the HPs I mentioned) at the supermarket for 70 EUROs?image quality-wise? no. Do they go and buy a new one anyways? YES!
Do I think the average person will need to "discover" what it means? YES.Do you think the average person can define "archival"? no.
It does. Its part of the silicon economy.digital technology does not "need" shorter product cycles
Most of the cellphones sold today in Europe include digital cameras. They have caught on big time and its really only the mega-pixel lead-up of the low-end consumer cameras (like 5 Megapixel for under 100 EURO verses the 1 or 2 Megapixel in the phones) that continues to allow for product differentiation. Current market analysis seems to suggest that as processor and memory technology develops to allow for mass 3 mp camera cell phones--- maybe a year away--- that this might change. What has not caught on is 3G services but there is a long case history that should have made this clear--- back to the failed AT&T picture phone of the 1960s. Its really quite consistent that even WAP did not catch on yet SMS did.And the digital cam phones are not catching up because - brace yourself - it has nothing to do with photography...
After the initial rush, people realized that they have no use for them.
And that's the model application of the camera in the cell-phone. No need to even hook anything up. If that's the main application of digital cameras then we'd see a lot of images being send by these phones yet we don't. The main use seems to be the same as with the mass cunsumer digital cameras: a little gadget to take a picture, store it and look at it later (maybe with friends) and then throw away.Most of them get e-mailed to friends and family who don't really want to see them,
Don't confuse apples with oranges. A 1990 computer and a 2000 computer and a 2005 computer are completely different objects. Its like talking about the hot dog you ate in 1965. Its long ago passed through the food chain into many generations of hot dogs."Prices are in free fall!!!"
No $h!t, Sherlock - the computer I am typing this on would cost more than my house ten years ago, I got it for $200 this year - please tell me you just had a bad day
Hmmmmm... that's the same rumour making the rounds about IlfordJim Chinn said:It does not surprise me that Agfa is going under. I understand from a reliable source that Forte has shuttered there plant and what ever is being shipped or sold is product from final production runs. When it is gone Forte is gone.
That "meeting" keeps being shifted and all kinds of information, dis-information and rumours seem to abound.Ilford seems to be making a commitment to B&W, although I still do know if that includes supporting LF sheet film. I also have been told that a major meeting and anouncements about Ilford's products (including new offerings for B&W) will be coming after the middle of June.
Efke? They are ill-positioned in the food chain. They lack a developed distribution channel and have been shrinking and shrinking and skrinking.. Soon they'll have less employees than any of the larger US camera retailers (Efke has long passed under the 100 employee mark). Where also do you think they will be able to get their raw inputs?each. Think Efke and Ilford.
Foma make Foma materials. Efke make most of their materials (well colour is OEMed). FOMA is a much larger company (400 or so employees) and are well established in the East European X-Ray market. In the east there is still a lot of money to be made in X-Ray.Does Foma make efke or their own films?
Kodak has the most state-of-the-art coating facillity on the planet. You think with the efficiency and quality of that plant (which can meet world demand) they are going to subcontract to Ekfe to make stuff on their old machines (which were surplus back in the early 1970s when Dupont sold them after taking down the Adox factory)? This is not even Jetsons versus the Flintstones but more like the difference in cine technology between Disney's "Steamboat Willie" and "Lord of the Rings". Add in the amazing amount of intellectual property stockpiled at Eastman and... well Efke with some old machines and some materials they got which where made at Orwo back when Wolfen was a major industrial centre of the German Democratic Republic ..Kodak may stay in the game if they can contract production for other products at their remaining coating plant(s?). My personal belief with Kodak is that they will continue in some capacity but eliminate many products or license production to another mfg like Ilford has done with its chemistry.
If its about printing then digital too will get more expensive since the current state-of-the-art in services is the same papers and chemistries.Film and paper will become more expensive. Your choices will be to pay the prices or dump film and go digital.
Jim Chinn said:As I have stated on this and other forums there are two realities that film enthusiasts, especially sheet film users need to start to come to grips with.
1. The range of products will be greatly reduced for the immeadiate future. We are going to need to learn to work with one or two film mfgs and a couple of emulsions each.
2. Film and paper will become more expensive. Your choices will be to pay the prices or dump film and go digital. Complaining and saying you will go to a different mfg will not be an option. Everyone will raise prices.
The market for B&W film and paper will remain a strong niche market. When a leveling off of declining demand is achieved and companies can begin to assess the long term demand for specific formats and products we will begin to see niche mfgs come onto the scene. Think Mexico, China, Vietnam, Russia.
Waht is required right now is a weeding out process that will allow at least one or two players to capture enough market share to keep analoge production profitable.
gnashings said:I can see that either your reading comperhension or your economic theory leave much to be desired:...
"Prices are in free fall!!!"
No $h!t, Sherlock - the computer I am typing this on would cost more than my house ten years ago, I got it for $200 this year - please tell me you just had a bad day, because if you can't see something that obvious...Oh well, best of luck to you anyways...
gnashings said:I can see that either your reading comperhension or your economic theory leave much to be desired:
product cycles, blah blah blah - do you think the average person cares? no. do you think that the average person can tell the difference between their 3 year old camera and the brand new one, image quality-wise? no. Do they go and buy a new one anyways? YES!
Do you think the average person can define "archival"? no.
I love film as much as any of you, and I personally, have no use for digital photography for those and many other reasons. The fact is, I am not the soccer mom next door, and I am sure she is not worrying herself sick about the "archival" quality of the 4x6 she is stuffing into a shoe box, wishing she could e-mail it to all her friends. Oh, and one more thing: digital technology does not "need" shorter product cycles - just that it CAN GET AWAY with them, fleecing the people, because, oh yes, the market is there. And the digital cam phones are not catching up because - brace yourself - it has nothing to do with photography...After the initial rush, people realized that they have no use for them. And what you fail to understand is that what people actually do matters very little - its what they like to think they might do that drives this market. And yes, they take more digital pictures, simply because they can. How many get printed? That is a different story - and one of the selling features of digital photo to the masses. Most of them get e-mailed to friends and family who don't really want to see them, but at least can delete them from a mail box rather than sit over a session of photo album agony, looking at underexposed shots of junior with no head in front of the family dog's left front paw for the 100th time...
And one more thing:
"Prices are in free fall!!!"
No $h!t, Sherlock - the computer I am typing this on would cost more than my house ten years ago, I got it for $200 this year - please tell me you just had a bad day, because if you can't see something that obvious...Oh well, best of luck to you anyways...
I really am the staunchest film supporter you will likely ever meet... but I am not delusional.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?