Should we rebrand APUG in Analog Photography Undertaker Group after you lost your favorite lab
When Henning posted 90+ million analog cameras sold after 2000, (there was a url link here which no longer exists). Now it's suddenly old news? Jeez.
He didn't talk about personal facts but about market research he did and was paid for. Nobody has paid you for your doom&gloom "research" so far and there may be a good reason for that. Think about it.
In the last few days you have provided no facts and confronted those who did with cynicism, ridicule and attacks to their credibility. Interesting enough, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in this very thread, which you conveniently left unanswered: what's your point, CGW? Should we all give up film now because Canadians don't shoot enough analog to support their pro labs? Should we rebrand APUG in Analog Photography Undertaker Group after you lost your favorite lab in Toronto? What is it? Care to tell us? Or is (there was a url link here which no longer exists) indeed correct? Or is it (there was a url link here which no longer exists)?
With the amount of crap spewed in here, I have mostly this to say:
The lack of camera manufacturing is maybe important for the film market in the short (5-10 years) term because the market can't really grow by more than 2x-4x its current levels... and I think it won't grow much at all and there's more than enough reliable old equipment around to support the current market level for a decade. Easily.
Within that time frame (absolutely no longer than 10 years), I expect to see open-source camera plans being released that can be executed using 3D printing and laser cutting technology. The manufacturing tech is here now and while it's a little expensive at the moment ($1-10k for a 3D printer, $5-50k for laser cutting and/or high quality milling), it's good enough to make everything in an RB67 except the lens cells. Prototype manufacturing is a huge area of current research and within a decade, you can expect to be able to send a design file to a contract manufacturer and receive back a complete mechanical camera kit. Maybe assembled.
Unlike you, Henning has a job in this business which usually means he can't talk about this freely. Neither does PE write freely about Kodak's trade secrets, nor would Ryuji Suzuki post all his new recipes. All three have high authority here, though.Henning has an issue with documenting his assertions with data others could check.
Freestyle's press release is not in contradiction with financial data, but with numbers you conveniently extrapolate and want to sell us as "hard financial data". The financial data (there was a url link here which no longer exists) many times ends in Q3/2011, which means you have no data on 2011.If you, Henning, or anyone else here is sufficiently innumerate to read time series data or financial statements, then don't be surprised when you're called on it.
Unlike you, Henning has a job in this business which usually means he can't talk about this freely. Neither does PE write freely about Kodak's trade secrets, nor would Ryuji Suzuki post all his new recipes. All three have high authority here, though.
Freestyle's press release is not in contradiction with financial data, but with numbers you conveniently extrapolate and want to sell us as "hard financial data". The financial data (there was a url link here which no longer exists) many times ends in Q3/2011, which means you have no data on 2011.
And once more again: what's your point? Should we all ditch our beloved gear and use dSLRs instead? Or should we nuke Canada from high orbit for its lack of love for analog photography? Or does it suffice to mail you a "Condolences, we all weep with you because your lab closed, CGW" card? Here, have some.
So what was "hard financial data" suddenly turns out to be "isn't likely to be altered" drivel ? This is what you base your aggressive rants about? THAT'S IT ???????It's your choice to ignore whatever troubles you. The trend line Aristophanes traced isn't likely to be altered by Q4/11 or Q1/12 numbers.
It is axiomatic that some of us have an inside track to what is going on. I have more information than most, but still not enough to satisfy me and enable me to make conclusions as I have seen some do here. I do know that the truth lies half way between the worst and the best, as that has been the case throughout all of my life's experiences!
So, take it from me. NO ONE has the truth here. A couple of us are closer than others! Rudeofus has said it well!
PE
It is axiomatic that some of us have an inside track to what is going on. I have more information than most, but still not enough to satisfy me and enable me to make conclusions as I have seen some do here. I do know that the truth lies half way between the worst and the best, as that has been the case throughout all of my life's experiences!
So, take it from me. NO ONE has the truth here. A couple of us are closer than others! Rudeofus has said it well!
PE
So there you have it. There is NO hard financial data for 2011, yet you claim that Freestyle and others lie through their teeth because what they say contradicts number you make up by simple and linear extrapolation. Your extrapolation boils down toKodak'S FPEG posted about $1.35 billion in sales for 2011. See the Q3 financials. There are no Q4 nor 2011 AR because of the Ch.11.
(bold added by me)It is not clear if this revenues or some unit of measure (per meter?) but MP film probably dominates. [...] I am not sure that if that is from film or what the breakdown is there.
[...]
Let's make an assumption and [...] Let's triple that to 25 rolls per year.
[...]
[another factor, the cost/roll. Let's use Portra 400 @ $6.75/roll at today's prices, but we'll drop $1 off that to reflect a tiered pricing system with less costly B&W in the mix. We're at $5.75/roll, all in 35mm to keep it simpler.
[...]
far more shoot film than 15 million. I bet it's closer to 100 million or more as an educated guess.
[...]
The caveat is that we don't know the breakdown in coated production between still motion picture and still photography for FPEG.
[...]
So there you have it. There is NO hard financial data for 2011, yet you claim that Freestyle and others lie through their teeth because what they say contradicts number you make up by simple and linear extrapolation. Your extrapolation boils down to
(bold added by me)
This may not be less informed than some other postings here including mine, but please don't sell this as hard numbers. They may be right but they may be way off. So please refrain from accusing people of lying if they report different numbers.
Aristophanes, I think you have an issue with wanting to be right at all costs. It's the tireless rebutter effect. We all realize you have an opinion and some fair points about the situation - but I think if you don't let off with it after a certain while, you're going to (and already have) alienate the same people who could eventually help you.
We're all well aware of the situation with Kodak - and as long as you keep trumpeting the sky is falling line, you'll be a target here.
A discussion is a discussion but a good discussion is one armed with facts and references. If there is one thing that gets me it is internet memes based on unsubstantiated corporate PR.
Agreed. However, I think your argument can be distilled into 3 simple statements: 1. Investors care about growth, growth and more growth. 2. There simply aren't any long term growth prospects for film. 3. This makes film a very unattractive market for an investor.snip----->If it's not your cup of tea, don't read.,<-----snip
Concerning the whole film market consumers have always been the most important user group of film. 80 - 90% of the film was shot by consumers, not by pros in the glory days of film.
This was never the case in the huge N. American market. Pro labs collapsed when pros stopped shooting film(get it?) and consumer mini-labs vanished when consumers stopped shooting film. Denying this is like denying gravity.
Thanks for the good information and patience, Henning.
One thing that we should probably come to terms with is the benefit of narrowing the number of films in production. This will be an uncomfortable question for some of us, but: do we really need an ISO 25, 50, 100, 400, and 3200 b&w films, and several of those with different grain types? And from different manufacturers?
Perhaps it's time to start advocating more versatile films and spend less time complaining about the loss of niche products.
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?