An interview with ADOX's Mirko

[lxdude]

www.japancamerahunter.com/2014/06/film-news-adox-interview/#more-15655

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Very nice interview! Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I love what he said: print it wet!

From what I've seen from my Omega D3, he's absolutely right. Scanning reduces the information in the negative, and badly. It's just the nature of it. Also, it's how to keep the companies in business. They need to sell that paper!

 

[AgX]

Learn more about the guy that made that interview and his attitude here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[AgX]

There is nothing new from Mirko in that interview, but important how much he stresses taking a longterm view on the economic situation.
Something seemingly not done by many talking about new ventures and projects.

Another of his points is (at least I read it that way) that not lacking knowledge of film itself is the issue but lacking interest by the (prospective?) consumer to pay a reasonable price for film.
I still think that online initiaves can have a marketing effect. Unless they in effect rather confuse or mislead people.



A approach of starting selfsustained production for consumers only means much more than "just" reducing production scale.
So far no manufacturer does so.

Adox is the only enterprise that is aiming at this. I have highest respect for Mirko's decision to do so.

 

[madgardener]

Mirko made a very good point about making sure the world knows that film is still used. His idea about a small logo "Captured with film" is a terrific idea. Are there any graphics artists out there who are willing to tackle this? Not that I am the worlds greatest photographer, but I would be more than willing to add it as a watermark to my pictures posted on my Picasa account.

As for wet printing, I am looking for a community darkroom in the Allentown/Bethlehem PA area. Ilfords website has nothing listed (yet),but I remain ever hopeful.

 

[RattyMouse]

Seems like an overtly pessimistic future view of film. All I could think while reading this is that Ilford is "robustly profitable".

 

[AgX]

Both Simon and Mirko are involved into selling and making film for many years. Even Mirko is longer in the business than some of us are old. You and me may not draw the same conclusions as him. But the experiences he made in his business should be taken very serious.

If you have followed the Adox business over the years then you have seen that it is only going slowly with its several projects. But steadily. Seemingly following a concept of a long breath.

 

[StoneNYC]

Seems like an overtly pessimistic future view of film. All I could think while reading this is that Ilford is "robustly profitable".

My thought was that ilford should buy Adox so that if they ever have to scale down further they will have a functioning mini-coating machine capable of much smaller scale.

Also so that Rodinal continues uninterrupted (yea yea, I said it). Lol

 

[ntenny]

Seems like an overtly pessimistic future view of film. All I could think while reading this is that Ilford is "robustly profitable".

I didn't find it pessimistic, just realistic about what is and isn't feasible in a smaller market.

Adox and Ilford don't really seem to be occupying the same niche in most respects. From past threads on the subject, it kind of seems like Adox trades market scale for flexibility.

-NT

 

[AgX]

From my point of view they indeed aim at the same market. The only difference being production ability and market share.

 

[PKM-25]

I have been telling people for years that in order for films to continue to be made, the per unit cost will have to rise. We pay more for a lot of things in life because we have to, food, water, housing. But when it comes to film, as Mirko stated even when they raise the price by 5 cents, buying drops to zip.

At some point.....the current old fart, old guard mentality about being entitled to pre-digital era film prices is going to have to come to an end.

Funny how not ONE person on here mentioned just how many times he cited the current bargain prices of film being too low....and for a company to remain healthy enough to continue making the product, they generally are.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Funny how not ONE person on here mentioned just how many times he cited the current bargain prices of film being too low....and for a company to remain healthy enough to continue making the product, they generally are.

A (there was a url link here which no longer exists) from October 2012...

Ken

 

[AgX]

Funny how not ONE person on here mentioned just how many times he cited the current bargain prices of film being too low....and for a company to remain healthy enough to continue making the product, they generally are.

Well. I did...

 

[eddie]

I have been telling people for years that in order for films to continue to be made, the per unit cost will have to rise.

True, and I don't mind. I still believe the cost of film is nominal, when you consider what it offers. For 5 bucks, I can take a nice walk in some fresh air, and spend a few hours with a roll of 120. Another hour processing the film, and even more making prints. Even adding the cost of paper/chemicals, it's cheaper than the cost of a good meal, and I have something tangible in the end. I only notice the cost when I place an order. Once it's delivered, I never think about the price.

Maybe there will come a time when I have to choose between food/mortgage/etc. and film. I think it's a long way off, though, so I'll continue on the way I always have.

 

[tal bedrack]

I have been telling people for years that in order for films to continue to be made, the per unit cost will have to rise. We pay more for a lot of things in life because we have to, food, water, housing. But when it comes to film, as Mirko stated even when they raise the price by 5 cents, buying drops to zip.

At some point.....the current old fart, old guard mentality about being entitled to pre-digital era film prices is going to have to come to an end.

Funny how not ONE person on here mentioned just how many times he cited the current bargain prices of film being too low....and for a company to remain healthy enough to continue making the product, they generally are.

i'm willing to pay the extra fee so the manufacturers can stay afloat. how much do we really shoot anyway?
i can't remember the last time i shot more than a roll a week - i guess this is the situation for 95% of
hobbyists like me. surely we can handle the cost. and paper - how much do we really print? i'm willing to pay
premium for my art supply.
in the stage where i'm at with photography, i need less experimentation - i know what i like and how to get there.
we have such a great array of products today, that it really is a wonder they still cost so little.
have fun, be respectful to your craft.

 

[giannisg2004]

I have been telling people for years that in order for films to continue to be made, the per unit cost will have to rise. We pay more for a lot of things in life because we have to, food, water, housing. But when it comes to film, as Mirko stated even when they raise the price by 5 cents, buying drops to zip.

At some point.....the current old fart, old guard mentality about being entitled to pre-digital era film prices is going to have to come to an end.

Funny how not ONE person on here mentioned just how many times he cited the current bargain prices of film being too low....and for a company to remain healthy enough to continue making the product, they generally are.

Thing is, a 5% increase doesn't drop demand to zero.
It drops demand for the reseller that increased the price.

For instance, in European counties most people buy their film online. There are 2 major sites, macodirect.de and fotoimpex.de, wit virtually the same (great) selection of films, chemicals, papers, etc. .
Let's say the price of TriX at fotoimpex is 5 cents more expensive than macodirect. And the price of some developer 7 cents more expensive, while everything else the same. Not a huge deal, but then macodirect will my order for all the supplies (even films and chemicals with the same price), because I want to combine shipping.

Film and chemicals are mostly a commodity market. There are the few manufacturers making the materials, and then a whole lot of resellers selling the very same products. There's no differentiation or "after sales support" or anything to make you favour one reseller over the other. You'll go with the cheapest available.

Gone are the days that moms and pops would walk into a drugstore or a Walmart, asking generically for "film" for their P&S cameras, paying whatever they were asked and not even knowing what film they bought.
Now film users are informed, they know the products and their revisions, their rebrandings, etc. .
They go online, being very specific in their needs, and comparing all available retailers' prices with a couple clicks.

If there's no other alternative, a 5 cents increase will not affect sales perceptibly, if at all.
But if there's a 5 cents increase in just one reseller, sharp decline is to be expected.

 

[AgX]

Gone are the days that moms and pops would walk into a drugstore or a Walmart, asking generically for "film" for their P&S cameras, paying whatever they were asked and not even knowing what film they bought.

Not quite. Especially in the times when there were manufacturer-fixed prices in West-Germany the prices for films and cameras became an issue when "intruders" sold grey-market products for less. This and and the fall of fixed film prices made it a topic even for news-magazines and news-papers.

But of course when doing internet based mail-order shopping prices become more important in chosing a seller.
However this became an issue for all retail.

 

[David Brown]

I still believe the cost of film is nominal, when you consider what it offers. ... Even adding the cost of paper/chemicals, it's cheaper than the cost of a good meal, and I have something tangible in the end. I only notice the cost when I place an order. Once it's delivered, I never think about the price.

Well said!

Photography has never been an inexpensive hobby. ("Photography is not for the feint of wallet.") However, it is not as expensive as many hobbies.

I wish I had a price list from 40 years ago. Since I do not, I have no way of proving this, but it is my opinion that film may not be much more costly in real dollars than it has ever been. Considering the economies of scale for the manufacturers, that is remarkable. And of course, gear has never been cheaper, so the total cost of doing film and darkroom is substantially less than years ago.

My wife is a painter. I know what she pays for paper, canvas, brushes, and paint. My goodness, what a 2 ounce tube of paint costs!

I used to play golf. Now there's a money pit.

Buy a boat, and get back to me about the price of film ...

 

[PKM-25]

Well. I did...

Thanks for the correction, indeed you did!

 

[giannisg2004]

Well said!

Buy a boat, and get back to me about the price of film ...

Indeed, boats give 2 big joys, one the day you get it and one the day you sell it!

 

[RattyMouse]

Film prices have been steadily marching upwards since I re-joined analogue photography.

 

[AgX]

But they are still less than 30 years ago based on currency value. Of course, that is of no interest of anyone considering using film today. The more as alternative means are around.

But what counts too, as already been said, are the costs of the whole workflow. Here the typically low prices for analogue equipment have their effect.

 

[MattKing]

I think Mirko is saying about pricing in that interview what the management at Kodak Alaris is probably saying in house.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think Mirko is saying about pricing in that interview what the management at Kodak Alaris is probably saying in house.

Good point...

Ken