If 99% of all photographers are using digital, and only 1% film, will be that the end of film?
Currently about 1,5 billion people worldwide are taking photographs. This number is significantly increasing from year to year bacause of the economic growth in the newly industrialised countries.
1% of 1,5 billion are 15 millions. A tiny niche compared to the whole market, in relative terms.
But in absolute terms still a mass market.
But even this 1% is not guaranteed, markets are not falling from the sky, they have to be developed.
Marketing for film is the major factor for the survival of film.
Marketing by the manufacturers, by the distributors, the labs, and the film photographers.
That is what is absolutely needed.
We are sitting all in one boat.
Best regards,
Henning
False assumption
You're assuming an either/or scenario. You have to factor in that people with film cameras are also likely to have digital. In fact, digital camera sales have by far been strongest to those prosumers who have since left their higher-end film cameras on the shelf. Those that still shoot film also shoot digital on average. They are, for the most part, photography enthusiasts. This has happened right inside companies like Nikon.
15 million consumers would have to therefore pretty much totally abandon all digital or shoot twice as often to make up the difference in absolutes as you are concluding.
You'e also not factoring in the price. As you dwindle to 15 million, you have less economy of scale for raw material purchases and, especially distribution. Film is still a perishable product and mail order adds per unit costs. Right now prices are set for consumption of 10's if not 100's of millions of users. Now factor in the near total loss of motion picture film consumption and the problem is magnified 10x. MP film underwrote the economy of scale along which every other product line and some suppliers benefitted. Kodak drive down everyone else's raw material prices. If you lose Kodak's buying power (and Fuji's) on your way to 15 million shooters only, then prices have to rise. Maybe not proportionately, but quite a lot. That will lose even more customers as the thrift cycle kicks in.
In other words, fewer film shooters will have to shoot more film at higher prices to make up the difference in productive capacity. Running your numbers compared to what PE has said about Kodak's Rochester output alone, that plant could not run for more than a couple of weeks/year to supply this market, to the exclusion of all other suppliers! And we are talking maybe 3 kinds/ISO's of colour neg 2 B&W and no E6. The over-capacity in the industry would require carnage in consolidation.
Kodak has no marketing for film. They've pulled all of it because it was like pushing on a string. As much as they advertised, they still lost customers. Lomo does a better job, but over-priced plastic cameras with lo-fi, no focus plastic lenses never made a dent in sales in the 50 years they've been around, what makes them suddenly market shakers now? I have Lomo product and it's fine, but it does not encourage mass shooting of film like an AF compact does. that is no substitute product cycle.
Your numbers on the film cameras is right and wrong. I'll take your word there are that many. But so what? The vast majority of those keen analog buyers dumped them for digital. It is false to assume they will be recycled into the consumer mainstream. Just because eBay and Craigslist exist doesn't mean that all these items go back into circulation. I see ad after ad locally for people advertising their analog gear because they have"moved to digital", and the vast majority of the product is lower end junk, never destined to sell. And even with those ads, the bulk of product probably still sits in storage or have gone to the garbage.
Not to mention that almost total loss of local repair shops. The cost to do a minor repair + shipping will exceed the costs of a "free" camera now. And there are precious few repair shops available. As film product falls off the 7 year Uniform Commercial Code supply chain, replacement parts are the only options. It's a salvage market.
A more critical point is: camera manufacturers simply stopped manufacture of analog product in any significant numbers. CIPA even stopped measuring 5 years ago. In absolute terms, the market is not so "mass" as to be measured by the primary statistical generator in the industry.
Customers weren't buying them because film was not available (it was) and not entirely because of price (it's a sunk cost, but rising now), but because they preferred digital convenience and quality. People did not get digital cameras because they wanted to shoot more often; they got digital cameras to replace their film ones. There is zero evidence that this then created a surplus of cameras on the market drawing in replacement customers. Its still a net loss of BOTH film sales lost to digital and film sales lost to the now part-time film shooter who is double dipping in film and digital. That cannot sustain a film supply, even at 15 million. We are likely down to a film market of 15 million who shoot far less per user than an equivalent 15 million shot in the 1970's. It's a simple opportunity cost equation.
This reduction of film sales volumes per customer is a distribution nightmare for a company like Kodak. Web-based mail order (B&H) has saved their bacon here, but that's only accessible to those who seek film out deliberately and order in volume. It's a total discouragement to casual shooting.
Processing is down so much that used Fuji Frontiers and Noritsus are everywhere as local labs cave in. I spoke to a Fuji rep who used to serve the drugstore chain I worked for who said they no longer distribute new mini-labs; the market is almost entirely dry print, not wet processing, no wet print. Totally gone in North America and almost no new orders anywhere else. internal development of min-lab system is non-existent. All resources for mass processing have been diverted elsewhere. There will come a time when wet mini-labs are custom order from warranty and lease parts only. As with film cameras, it's a salvage market. They still have robust servicing and leasing department to serve those labs still remaining who have picked up the consolidated business, but it is still a market in severe, steep decline. he places a lot of the blame on poor scanning, BTW. It's layout intensive, slow and and energy hog, so is priced too high for many consumers who see it as another push to digital.
For Kodak investors this is the killer issue. There's almost no new third party cameras or processors to drive film, and between Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford, their capacity is far too high for only 15 million part-time shooters, with almost no pro market to speak of to drive residual margins.