Is the digital photo craze dead? DPReview.com shutting down.

[faberryman]

The last I checked, my film and film cameras are not dead.

The last time I checked, my film cameras aren't dead, my digital cameras aren't dead, and my phone isn't dead. Do photography however you want to do photography. Your photography should be judged by the images you make not the process you use to make them. You don't get extra credit for using one process or another.

 

[faberryman]

Edit. Did a bit of searching. The numbers seems completely intractable to extract.
I’d need a screen-dump with an arrow to the number(s).

Steven Lee said he got the film numbers from Kodak's latest earnings call, not the financial statements.

 

[Helge]

Steven Lee said he got the film numbers from Kodak's latest earnings call, not the financial statements.

Ok, so it’s something Steven heard on a call that is nowhere to be found?
Wouldn’t put too much trust in that.
Sorry, but I know from myself and others how reliable something you heard is.

 

[VinceInMT]

The last time I checked, my film cameras aren't dead, my digital cameras aren't dead, and my phone isn't dead. Do photography however you want to do photography. Your photography should be judged by the images you make not the process you use to make them. You don't get extra credit for using one process or another.

I have to agree with that. Photography is unlike other areas the visual arts with its side focus (no pun intended) on the gear involved in the process. I’ve looked around to see if there is an equivalent forum for drawing and painting with the same amount of traffic discussing, say, pencils, the lead they hold, the type of wood its encased in, the “right way” to sharpen one, and the “best” erasers to use and, so far, I haven’t found one. When a photo of drawing is posted, if someone does ask “what pencil did you use,” the artist might answer “A Derwent Graphic 2B,” that’s the end of it, without a stream of naysayers telling them they are doing it wrong either directly or indirectly. I currently have a solo exhibition of my latest drawing series running for the summer at a university gallery where the label for each simply states “ink on paper.” I’ve received lots of feedback and it’s always about the images and the theme without a single query about what type of pen I used.

 

[Helge]

I have to agree with that. Photography is unlike other areas the visual arts with its side focus (no pun intended) on the gear involved in the process. I’ve looked around to see if there is an equivalent forum for drawing and painting with the same amount of traffic discussing, say, pencils, the lead they hold, the type of wood its encased in, the “right way” to sharpen one, and the “best” erasers to use and, so far, I haven’t found one. When a photo of drawing is posted, if someone does ask “what pencil did you use,” the artist might answer “A Derwent Graphic 2B,” that’s the end of it, without a stream of naysayers telling them they are doing it wrong either directly or indirectly. I currently have a solo exhibition of my latest drawing series running for the summer at a university gallery where the label for each simply states “ink on paper.” I’ve received lots of feedback and it’s always about the images and the theme without a single query about what type of pen I used.

This is all you need:

HOW TO SHARPEN PENCILS

Official Selection: 2013 Austin Film Festival 2013 SF Docfest 2013 Sidewalk Film Festival (Winner: Best Documentary Short) 2013 Indie Memphis Film Festival (Winner:…

vimeo.com

“A certain hardscrabble authenticity” is just a beautiful line.

 

[logan2z]

I have to agree with that. Photography is unlike other areas the visual arts with its side focus (no pun intended) on the gear involved in the process. I’ve looked around to see if there is an equivalent forum for drawing and painting with the same amount of traffic discussing, say, pencils, the lead they hold, the type of wood its encased in, the “right way” to sharpen one, and the “best” erasers to use and, so far, I haven’t found one. When a photo of drawing is posted, if someone does ask “what pencil did you use,” the artist might answer “A Derwent Graphic 2B,” that’s the end of it, without a stream of naysayers telling them they are doing it wrong either directly or indirectly. I currently have a solo exhibition of my latest drawing series running for the summer at a university gallery where the label for each simply states “ink on paper.” I’ve received lots of feedback and it’s always about the images and the theme without a single query about what type of pen I used.

Photographers seem unique in this regard.

I dropped by the Center for Photographic Arts in Carmel, CA the other day to see the Kathya Maria Landeros/Mimi Plumb Exhibition Verdant Land. The photographs by Mimi Plumb were all taken in the 1970s so I was a bit disappointed to find that all of the prints on exhibit were inkjet prints. The prints looked ok and I'm sure nobody else on the planet cared how they were made, but it bothered me. At the very least, for the price of $1800 I'd expect something made by the artist's hand - or someone's hand.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, I respectfully disagree. ......

Hello Steven,

o.k., no problem at all , if I have understood you right, you think the total global number of film shooters is not more than about a million.
Just let's check that number with proven, publicly available data:

Some time ago Kodak made the public statement that they had hired 300 additional employees for the film production. And that they are looking for even significantly more (in total 500), but have problems to find enough qualified people.
And 300 additional people in film production is really quite a lot. For comparison: At Harman technolgy / Ilford Photo currently about 200 people are working (due to their latest published data).
Film production is a highly sophisticated, but also highly automated process with machines for mass production. There are several videos published online, mainly on youtube, where e.g. the 135 film format confectioning made by Kodak and Ilford is shown. I have seen the Ilford film confectioning live by myself when Ilford offered their famous factory tour last time (Simon Galley was our tour guide, and did an excellent job).
The 135 film converting lines at Ilford and Kodak have an output of ca. 1 fully finished / packaged 135 film per second.
That makes 28.800 films per day in an 8h-shift. If you than calculate that the line is out-of-order for about a month each year for maintenance and repair (often done during factory holydays), then you have a max. annual output of almost 7 millions films, for that one-shift operation.
Let's be more conservative and on the safe side, and calculate much more time for maintenance, and calculate 6 million films max. p.a.

Almost six years ago, before Kodak hired all the new staff for film production, there was one video of a Kodak factory visit published in which the max. yearly capacity for 135 film in a one-shift operation was given with 12 million units. Means Eastman Kodak had running two 135 film confectioning lines at that time.
Then demand further increased, and at an accelerated speed. Due to Kodak they increased shifts, and additional hired staff were used for additional shifts.
With two lines in 3-shift operation - with our conservative calculation above - we reach a yearly capacity of 36 million 135 films. But do you need 300 additional workers for a second and third shift? No, it is significantly less, as these lines are fully automated. You need staff to "feed" the line with 35mm film pancakes (one person is sufficient for that), for surveillance of the operation, a mechanic / mechantronic for problems / instant minor repairs, and at the end of the line someone transporting the finished films to the warehouse (I have simplified it a bit, so that you get the general picture).
That means that you still have the huge majority of your 300 additional employees left.......certainly some of them were needed for movie film production, for 120 and sheet film confectioning, for R&D etc. But the number is so high (and as explained above, Kodak was looking for even more staff) that it also could be that Kodak was planning / or has implemented an additional 135 film confectioning line.
In summer of 2019 Kodak alone had backorders of 30 million films, mostly 135, and mostly amateur color negative film.
And we know that up to this day from the film distributors that if CN amateur negative film is coming in, it is sold out again immediately often only in hours. So demand is still and currently higher than supply.

From all this data we can conclude that demand for Kodak films has definitely surpassed 40 million units p.a. (135 and 120).
Then you have to add the numbers for Fujilm, which is also a double digit number.
And we know that this demand could not have been fully satiesfied, production was lower than demand (so we definitely have a significant number of photographers who want to shoot more, but don't do it because of lack of amateur CN films).
And you have to add the numbers of Ilford, Foma (don't underestimate them, they are selling quite a lot of film), ADOX, Film Ferrania, Maco / Rollei-Film etc.. That's also combined more than 9 million units.

So in total you get for the period of 2019-2021 a global demand for standard photo film (not instant film) of at least 60 million units.
With your assessment of about one million film users, that would mean that the average film demand / consumption is 60 rolls p.a. per user.
And that is definitely not the case. Film shooters who are using more than 30 films a year are the minority. And with the huge price increases recently the average number is definitely decreasing, and most probably below 20 films p.a.

The price situation on the market has meanwhile a significant negative influence on demand. But that is a different topic for a different time and different place.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Good to see you Henning around here

Thank you very much for your appreciation!
Quite a lot of photrio members have asked me to come back to photrio. That is the reason why I am back here .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[BradS]

Photographers seem unique in this regard.

I dropped by the Center for Photographic Arts in Carmel, CA the other day to see the Kathya Maria Landeros/Mimi Plumb Exhibition Verdant Land. The photographs by Mimi Plumb were all taken in the 1970s so I was a bit disappointed to find that all of the prints on exhibit were inkjet prints. The prints looked ok and I'm sure nobody else on the planet cared how they were made, but it bothered me. At the very least, for the price of $1800 I'd expect something made by the artist's hand - or someone's hand.

I too have had this very disappointing experience at a few different galleries. They all act as if the fact that the prints are inkjet were inconsequential even while using some artsy sounding made up name so they wouldn't have to say, "inkjet". Sure the prints look good (under glass who can tell anyway) and most people don't even have the where-with-all to ask let alone care but I care and I could not, would not lay out more than about $25 for an inkjet print.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Oh, Alan, you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Ah, what ever happend to Club 54?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe I misunderstood your question, but KA numbers are included in EK's reporting. Alaris is just a distributor, no different from Lomography or Cinestill. They all sell film manufactured by Eastman Kodak.

Alaris sales are not included in Eastman Kodak corporation's numbers. The guy in the video said Eastman Kodak film sales were $25 miilion but did not include Kodak Alaris sales. Alaris is an independent private corporation, so their statistics are kept rather quiet unlike Eastman which is a public corporation. So whatever Alaris sales and profits are, would have to be added to Kodak film sales because Alaris adds their markup for profit as well.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There is a guy out here who was the photo editor of on of the local State magazines. He specialized in doing very digital sunset and sunrise photos of the various famous locales around the State. He gets some impressive shots if you're into that kind of thing. It's not my cup of tea but some people really want a photo of a lighthouse with a wild looking sky, no shots, I get it. He moved on from the role and I am happy to say some new blood is in doing work that is a lot more human with less dramatic flare.

I have to think though, when the day comes that you could just input "Fort Williams Lighthouse with Amazing Sunset" into one of the AI models, and it can output a photo realistic image that could even be printed to modest sizes...where does that leave this kind of photography? First, viewers will begin to question if you used AI or not, and second, the barrier to creating said image will be non-existent. Why get up at 4am? Why learn compositional techniques when you can just tell a computer to generate what you remembered from your trip in the best possible way?

Obviously digital as a tool is going to be the dominate image capturing technology for good reasons, but I continue to think that those of us left who you might call 'shutterbugs', will turn more and more to film and print making to stand out. I continue to believe that quality plus scarcity equals value, and digital is the antithesis of scarcity.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have to agree with that. Photography is unlike other areas the visual arts with its side focus (no pun intended) on the gear involved in the process. I’ve looked around to see if there is an equivalent forum for drawing and painting with the same amount of traffic discussing, say, pencils, the lead they hold, the type of wood its encased in, the “right way” to sharpen one, and the “best” erasers to use and, so far, I haven’t found one. When a photo of drawing is posted, if someone does ask “what pencil did you use,” the artist might answer “A Derwent Graphic 2B,” that’s the end of it, without a stream of naysayers telling them they are doing it wrong either directly or indirectly. I currently have a solo exhibition of my latest drawing series running for the summer at a university gallery where the label for each simply states “ink on paper.” I’ve received lots of feedback and it’s always about the images and the theme without a single query about what type of pen I used.

Vincent, maybe that's because with drawing and painting, it all comes from the artists' heads. They start with a blank canvas. With photography, cameras "catch" a real life image. The equipment that does that becomes more important in the process. So we photographers give greater value to the tools.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photographers seem unique in this regard.

I dropped by the Center for Photographic Arts in Carmel, CA the other day to see the Kathya Maria Landeros/Mimi Plumb Exhibition Verdant Land. The photographs by Mimi Plumb were all taken in the 1970s so I was a bit disappointed to find that all of the prints on exhibit were inkjet prints. The prints looked ok and I'm sure nobody else on the planet cared how they were made, but it bothered me. At the very least, for the price of $1800 I'd expect something made by the artist's hand - or someone's hand.

Those were already sold a longtime ago for $3500.

 

[Pieter12]

Vincent, maybe that's because with drawing and painting, it all comes from the artists' heads. They start with a blank canvas. With photography, cameras "catch" a real life image. The equipment that does that becomes more important in the process. So we photographers give greater value to the tools.

Artists discuss paints, surfaces and tools all the time. Including things like stretcher bars.

 

[VinceInMT]

This is all you need:

HOW TO SHARPEN PENCILS

Official Selection: 2013 Austin Film Festival 2013 SF Docfest 2013 Sidewalk Film Festival (Winner: Best Documentary Short) 2013 Indie Memphis Film Festival (Winner:…

vimeo.com

“A certain hardscrabble authenticity” is just a beautiful line.

OMG, thank you for that. Hilarious and genius wrapped so well together.

 

[VinceInMT]

Artists discuss paints, surfaces and tools all the time. Including things like stretcher bars.

I am sure they do but, in my experience, when they get together to look at work they talk about the work, not how it was produced. With photographers, like Alan mentioned, discussion of equipment and methods is just part of it.

 

[JParker]

Hello Steven,

o.k., no problem at all , if I have understood you right, you think the total global number of film shooters is not more than about a million.
Just let's check that number with proven, publicly available data:

Some time ago Kodak made the public statement that they had hired 300 additional employees for the film production. And that they are looking for even significantly more (in total 500), but have problems to find enough qualified people.
And 300 additional people in film production is really quite a lot. For comparison: At Harman technolgy / Ilford Photo currently about 200 people are working (due to their latest published data).
Film production is a highly sophisticated, but also highly automated process with machines for mass production. There are several videos published online, mainly on youtube, where e.g. the 135 film format confectioning made by Kodak and Ilford is shown. I have seen the Ilford film confectioning live by myself when Ilford offered their famous factory tour last time (Simon Galley was our tour guide, and did an excellent job).
The 135 film converting lines at Ilford and Kodak have an output of ca. 1 fully finished / packaged 135 film per second.
That makes 28.800 films per day in an 8h-shift. If you than calculate that the line is out-of-order for about a month each year for maintenance and repair (often done during factory holydays), then you have a max. annual output of almost 7 millions films, for that one-shift operation.
Let's be more conservative and on the safe side, and calculate much more time for maintenance, and calculate 6 million films max. p.a.

Almost six years ago, before Kodak hired all the new staff for film production, there was one video of a Kodak factory visit published in which the max. yearly capacity for 135 film in a one-shift operation was given with 12 million units. Means Eastman Kodak had running two 135 film confectioning lines at that time.
Then demand further increased, and at an accelerated speed. Due to Kodak they increased shifts, and additional hired staff were used for additional shifts.
With two lines in 3-shift operation - with our conservative calculation above - we reach a yearly capacity of 36 million 135 films. But do you need 300 additional workers for a second and third shift? No, it is significantly less, as these lines are fully automated. You need staff to "feed" the line with 35mm film pancakes (one person is sufficient for that), for surveillance of the operation, a mechanic / mechantronic for problems / instant minor repairs, and at the end of the line someone transporting the finished films to the warehouse (I have simplified it a bit, so that you get the general picture).
That means that you still have the huge majority of your 300 additional employees left.......certainly some of them were needed for movie film production, for 120 and sheet film confectioning, for R&D etc. But the number is so high (and as explained above, Kodak was looking for even more staff) that it also could be that Kodak was planning / or has implemented an additional 135 film confectioning line.
In summer of 2019 Kodak alone had backorders of 30 million films, mostly 135, and mostly amateur color negative film.
And we know that up to this day from the film distributors that if CN amateur negative film is coming in, it is sold out again immediately often only in hours. So demand is still and currently higher than supply.

From all this data we can conclude that demand for Kodak films has definitely surpassed 40 million units p.a. (135 and 120).
Then you have to add the numbers for Fujilm, which is also a double digit number.
And we know that this demand could not have been fully satiesfied, production was lower than demand (so we definitely have a significant number of photographers who want to shoot more, but don't do it because of lack of amateur CN films).
And you have to add the numbers of Ilford, Foma (don't underestimate them, they are selling quite a lot of film), ADOX, Film Ferrania, Maco / Rollei-Film etc.. That's also combined more than 9 million units.

So in total you get for the period of 2019-2021 a global demand for standard photo film (not instant film) of at least 60 million units.
With your assessment of about one million film users, that would mean that the average film demand / consumption is 60 rolls p.a. per user.
And that is definitely not the case. Film shooters who are using more than 30 films a year are the minority. And with the huge price increases recently the average number is definitely decreasing, and most probably below 20 films p.a.

The price situation on the market has meanwhile a significant negative influence on demand. But that is a different topic for a different time and different place.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you so much for that very detailed insight!
Very interesting indeed.

 

[JParker]

Obviously digital as a tool is going to be the dominate image capturing technology for good reasons, but I continue to think that those of us left who you might call 'shutterbugs', will turn more and more to film and print making to stand out. I continue to believe that quality plus scarcity equals value, and digital is the antithesis of scarcity.

I am thinking in exactly that direction for some time now. Also one of the reasons why I personally have increased my film use in the last years significantly.
I hope future will prove us right .

 

[Prest_400]

Thank you very much for your appreciation!
Quite a lot of photrio members have asked me to come back to photrio. That is the reason why I am back here .

Best regards,
Henning

You're welcome (back) Henning. It's always interesting with some industry insight. Side topic, but have you gotten any industry info about Fuji film production lately? Talking imaging, they as well ironically had too much demand for the X100 model.

Back to digital, I notice that I am quite happy with my Google Pixel nowadays. Quite heavy image processing but also offers RAW capture which I barely use but gives much more natural images in the case for reinterpreting the processing differently. Aside of that the RX100IV is about anything I use generally. Neither is the latest of the latest. Heck, my EM5 from 2012 is very sufficient.
With the film prices being as they are, a used GFX doesn't seem a ludicrous purchase anymore.

 

[Pieter12]

I am sure they do but, in my experience, when they get together to look at work they talk about the work, not how it was produced. With photographers, like Alan mentioned, discussion of equipment and methods is just part of it.

My experience is that when artists get together, they gossip, talk about sales and dealers, and food. When asked, they will talk about tools and materials, but some can be pretty secretive about their process or even what they are working on at the moment. Depends on how successful they are.

 

[Arthurwg]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

Not dead yet.

 

[Film-Niko]

Thank you very much for your appreciation!
Quite a lot of photrio members have asked me to come back to photrio. That is the reason why I am back here .

Best regards,
Henning

Excellent that you returned to photrio !
Over the years I have learned so much from your explanations and numerous tests about films, chemistry, lenses, cameras and film production.

 

[MattKing]

Alaris sales are not included in Eastman Kodak corporation's numbers. The guy in the video said Eastman Kodak film sales were $25 miilion but did not include Kodak Alaris sales. Alaris is an independent private corporation, so their statistics are kept rather quiet unlike Eastman which is a public corporation. So whatever Alaris sales and profits are, would have to be added to Kodak film sales because Alaris adds their markup for profit as well.

Like most (all?) private corporations in the UK, Kodak Alaris are required to publicly report their financial statements, and they do.

The numbers in that video are interesting, because the financial statements of both KA and EK don't break out the numbers for film.

Of course, other than for motion picture film, all film sales by either entity are wholesale sales to distributors.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Henning Serger Thank you for the detailed write-up. Can you speculate how much money EK makes per roll of 135mm CN consumer film?

@Helge Fair point. I do not have a PDF I can link to with these numbers. One time last year I got bored during COVID-19 and spent some time digging for this information. I also looked at Ilford, Foma Bohemia, etc.