Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

Henning Serger · Feb 15, 2012

tomalophicon said:
I've heard that Rollei film is an Agfa aerial film. I'd be keen to try it in the enlarger in case that's all we've got later on!

Well, the Rollei CR 200 is indeed Agfa Aviphot Chrome 200. It has been marketed at aerial photographers, but, in contrast to the Agfa BW aerial films the Aviphot Chrome 200 is not a special emulsion with extended red sensivity like the BW Aviphot Pan films.

The Aviphot Chrome 200 is the original Agfa RSX II 200 emulsion, but coated on a PET base, instead of triacetate with the RSX II 200.
The film is the most grainy slide film on the market. And has the lowest sharpness and worst resolution of all slide films (well, I have tested all).
It has very warm colours (a yellowish cast).

The look of this film is completely different to all other Kodak and Fuji films. Some like this look.....it's a matter of taste.

Best regards,
Henning

tomalophicon · Feb 15, 2012

Thanks Henning.

Henning Serger · Feb 15, 2012

CGW said:
Henning has an issue with documenting his assertions with data others could check. 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.

I've explained to you how market research is working and showed you a way to go for further data. It's your choice, but please don't blame me if you are not willing to go this way.

Regards,
Henning

Henning Serger · Feb 15, 2012

Aristophanes said:
False assumption

Funny.
May I remind you that this was your assumption?
You said in one of your posts that now there are only 1% film photographers.

I've picked that up in the sense of a brain storming: I've written "If only 1% of the whole photography market is using film, what would that mean....."

I've never said the film market is 1%.

It does not make sense to argue about whether it are, has been or will be 3,2, 1 or 0,5%.
That is not the critical point.
I only wanted to give an image about the whole worldwide photo market. It is huge and siginificantly expanding because of the economic growth in the newly industrialised countries.
I've been in some of these countries, and the development there is really impressive.
We all agree that film will be a niche product compared to digital, in relative terms. But that must not automatically lead to a too small market for film.
Because of the growing photo market, the potential for a niche market is generally growing as well.

Guess it will be 0,5 or 1%, and the overall market is growing, the 0,5 or 1% are growing in absolute terms, too.

But, and now we have the really important point, even such niches are not implementing themselves automatically. Markets don't fall from the sky. They have to be developed, all markets. It is valid for niche markets, too.
Marketing for film as a photographic medium is absolutely needed, it is essantial for a long term stable niche.
And that is the main problem: Neither the film manufacturers, nor the specialised film distributors like Freestyle + Co, have developed working marketing concepts.
The only ones who have, and are succesful because of this, are IP and LSI.
In modern economies efficient marketing strategies are essential for a sustainable existence of companies. Today it does not work without that anymore.
If you want to sell film, as manufacturer and film distributor, you have to do marketing for film and raise interest in that medium.

Best regards,
Henning

CGW · Feb 15, 2012

Henning Serger said:
Sorry, wrong again.
Due to official data from PMA in the peak sales period of film (1999 - 2001) more than 160 million SUCs were sold in the US (in 2010 still 36 millions).
Only SUCs, normal consumer film not included.
The SUC sales alone surpassed the whole market for professional film.

You said the sales numbers for professional have been higher than consumer film.
Have you ever realised that professional film has been 3x - 6x more expensive than consumer films of the same speed? Is that because professional film is 3x - 6x better than consumer film?
No, it is because consumer has been and still is sold at much higher volumes than professional film.
The reason why I can buy Fuji made ISO 400 CN film for only 85 Cents in the drugstores , and have to pay about 4,5x - 5x more for the professional Fuji Pro 400H is primarily that the consumer film is made and sold in significantly higher numbers. Economies of scale.

The whole professional market has always been relatively small compared to the consumer and enthusiast amateur market (relative terms, not absolute terms).
Hasselblad/Imacon made a statement concerning this fact at one introduction of their digital backs. Their CEO said that about 250,000 photographers worldwide are fulltime professional photographers. 250,000 compared to a whole market of more than 1,5 billion.
At my two factory visits at Franke&Heidecke (Rolleiflex; now DHW) I discussed this topic intensively with their marketing%sales rep D. Kanzer. He said that 80% of their medium format cameras has been sold to enthusiast amateurs, only 20% to professionals. He said the whole professional market has always been very dependant on amateur demand. Most professional cameras could not have been developed without the demand from the amateurs.

Of course the professionals generated a huge film demand in absolute terms which kept the professional labs running. No one is denying that.
But this has never been the majority of film consumption, it was not dominating the photofilm market.

Regards,
Henning

And the short answer is: it's irrelevant now, Henning. You'll just have to wait and see how much longer Fuji will dump consumer film in markets outside N. America.

BTW, ever check out smartphone sales in China? ZTE and Huawei aren't doing badly. Doesn't bode especially well for film there.

michaelbsc · Feb 15, 2012

OK, time out.

Everybody go shoot at least two frames, or better still a whole roll before we stress out any more. I don't care if it's nothing more than the tires on your car. Go take a couple of pictures with film.

MB

pbromaghin · Feb 15, 2012

Henning Serger said:
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.

Here is where Kodak has completely blown it. When was the last time you even saw a Kodak ad on TV or a billboard, or even a special display or sign in a store? They couldn't have been more wrong-headed in this abandonment of the effort to get people to use their product. What else would they expect to happen to their sales?

There is one reason and one reason only that sellers advertise - IT WORKS.

cabbiinc · Feb 15, 2012

I like Kodak film.

fotch · Feb 15, 2012

Kodak Can Reject Deal for Oscar Theater Rights, Judge Says

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/kodak-can-reject-deal-for-oscar-theater-rights-judge-says.html

clayne · Feb 15, 2012

"Kodak also today won approval to borrow the full amount of a $950 million financing commitment as it restructures. Gropper approved the financing after Kodak reached an agreement with noteholders that initially opposed the debt package. The judge earlier approved $650 million in borrowing when Kodak filed for bankruptcy."

Aristophanes · Feb 15, 2012

Henning Serger said:
Sorry, wrong again.
Due to official data from PMA in the peak sales period of film (1999 - 2001) more than 160 million SUCs were sold in the US (in 2010 still 36 millions).
Only SUCs, normal consumer film not included.
The SUC sales alone surpassed the whole market for professional film.

You said the sales numbers for professional have been higher than consumer film.
Have you ever realised that professional film has been 3x - 6x more expensive than consumer films of the same speed? Is that because professional film is 3x - 6x better than consumer film?
No, it is because consumer has been and still is sold at much higher volumes than professional film.
The reason why I can buy Fuji made ISO 400 CN film for only 85 Cents in the drugstores , and have to pay about 4,5x - 5x more for the professional Fuji Pro 400H is primarily that the consumer film is made and sold in significantly higher numbers. Economies of scale.

The whole professional market has always been relatively small compared to the consumer and enthusiast amateur market (relative terms, not absolute terms).
Hasselblad/Imacon made a statement concerning this fact at one introduction of their digital backs. Their CEO said that about 250,000 photographers worldwide are fulltime professional photographers. 250,000 compared to a whole market of more than 1,5 billion.
At my two factory visits at Franke&Heidecke (Rolleiflex; now DHW) I discussed this topic intensively with their marketing%sales rep D. Kanzer. He said that 80% of their medium format cameras has been sold to enthusiast amateurs, only 20% to professionals. He said the whole professional market has always been very dependant on amateur demand. Most professional cameras could not have been developed without the demand from the amateurs.

Of course the professionals generated a huge film demand in absolute terms which kept the professional labs running. No one is denying that.
But this has never been the majority of film consumption, it was not dominating the photofilm market.

Regards,
Henning

The genius of Kodak was the pro would shoot 300 rolls/year, all product from Kodak, while the average consumer would shoot 5 rolls/year...from Kodak.

The genius of Nikon is both would do the same with an F3!

The genius of both companies was that it was far easier to count on a consistent revenue stream from the pro. He required less marketing and much less distribution overhead. Same for digital, BTW.

Aristophanes · Feb 15, 2012

Henning Serger said:
Funny.
May I remind you that this was your assumption?
You said in one of your posts that now there are only 1% film photographers.

I've picked that up in the sense of a brain storming: I've written "If only 1% of the whole photography market is using film, what would that mean....."

I've never said the film market is 1%.

It does not make sense to argue about whether it are, has been or will be 3,2, 1 or 0,5%.
That is not the critical point.
I only wanted to give an image about the whole worldwide photo market. It is huge and siginificantly expanding because of the economic growth in the newly industrialised countries.
I've been in some of these countries, and the development there is really impressive.
We all agree that film will be a niche product compared to digital, in relative terms. But that must not automatically lead to a too small market for film.
Because of the growing photo market, the potential for a niche market is generally growing as well.

Guess it will be 0,5 or 1%, and the overall market is growing, the 0,5 or 1% are growing in absolute terms, too.

But, and now we have the really important point, even such niches are not implementing themselves automatically. Markets don't fall from the sky. They have to be developed, all markets. It is valid for niche markets, too.
Marketing for film as a photographic medium is absolutely needed, it is essantial for a long term stable niche.
And that is the main problem: Neither the film manufacturers, nor the specialised film distributors like Freestyle + Co, have developed working marketing concepts.
The only ones who have, and are succesful because of this, are IP and LSI.
In modern economies efficient marketing strategies are essential for a sustainable existence of companies. Today it does not work without that anymore.
If you want to sell film, as manufacturer and film distributor, you have to do marketing for film and raise interest in that medium.

Best regards,
Henning

Total nonsense. Do real research. If I had a dime for everyone who said that developing world consumption of their product would turn fortunes around...

From Lucky Films in China, the world's 3rd largest manufacturer of film:

"During the first six months of this year Lucky Film reported a 10.39 percent rise in operating income to 393 million yuan (45 million euros) over the same period of last year. Net profit during the same period was 4.674 million yuan, compared to a net loss of 600,000 yuan in 2010.

According to Wang, what makes the company's numbers stand out is that it has been achieved against a backdrop of rising raw material costs, falling product prices and intense competition.

"Most of the losses came from our traditional photo film business. To mitigate the effects we embarked on a transformation path that focused on market expansion, quality stabilization and cost reduction," she says.

"When people suddenly stopped using our films, we did not know what to do. But we realized that our future focus would have to be market and technology driven."

Reference:

http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-09/16/content_13716514.htm

Note, Henning, that this is from the European press office and only 5 months old. Lucky has sales of about US$850 million of which only 1% if from traditional films sales apparently.

The other Chinese supplier, Shanghai has retained a Western investment firm (looks like Goldman Sachs) to move their film production assets to other purposes as the film manufacture market in China has no customers (or some translation to that effect). I got this from a Bloomberg feed.

It helps to keep in mind that Kodak pulled out of its partnership with Lucky because of declining demand for film in China.

And from Fuji:

A rival company said that the photographic film market has declined in recent years.

"We don't want to make any comment on the Kodak move [ch. 11] but we've noticed that with the advanced development of digital cameras, the market for traditional film has suffered a downturn," said Liu Shengyin, PR manager for Fujifilm (China).

The market for film is in retreat globally. In no areas is there growth proportionate to the overall growth in photography.

I agree that marketing for film is necessary, but telling potential customers to source a no-warranty cast-off camera from eBay requiring Mercury batteries and a $120 round trip CLA first cannot do the trick.

If you want to rebuild film as a brand, you need to start with truthful facts, and not generalizations. It's not pretty nor happy, but it is what it is.

ciocc · Feb 15, 2012

cabbiinc said:
I like Kodak film.

Me too.

ciocc · Feb 15, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
snip--->Kodak was in court this AM and I have not heard the latest news.<-----snip

PE

The judge issued a final order approving the full 950 million dollar loan.

BTW, has Kodak actually stated what it thinks its "...most valuable business lines." are?

tomalophicon · Feb 15, 2012

I was born 50 years too late.

Photo Engineer · Feb 15, 2012

ciocc said:
The judge issued a final order approving the full 950 million dollar loan.

BTW, has Kodak actually stated what it thinks its "...most valuable business lines." are?

Yes they have in a longish document quoted here somewhere.

PE

Roger Cole · Feb 15, 2012

tomalophicon said:
I was born 50 years too late.

I often feel the same way, and not just about film. I'm also getting back into ham radio and looking mainly at all the tube gear that actually dates from before my first license (1977.)

keithwms · Feb 15, 2012

Don't lament being too young! You can pick up amazing stuff online and play archeologist and figure out how it works. I am hoping to get one of the original telefax machines to work. I mean the drum ones that were around at the turn of the last century.

michaelbsc · Feb 15, 2012

keithwms said:
Don't lament being too young! You can pick up amazing stuff online and play archeologist and figure out how it works. I am hoping to get one of the original telefax machines to work. I mean the drum ones that were around at the turn of the last century.

I don't remember any quite that old. But I do remember the ones with the handset cradle. And after you talked to the person on tier other end you would clip a page to the drum (just like the duplicating machine drums someone mentioned) then put the reader head down and place the phone handset in the cradle.

Several minutes later the page would be done, you pick up the handset and coordinate the next page with the other person.

10 pages long distance would take 30 minutes and everybody loved it. Way faster than FedEx.

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 16, 2012

michaelbsc said:
OK, time out.

Everybody go shoot at least two frames, or better still a whole roll before we stress out any more. I don't care if it's nothing more than the tires on your car. Go take a couple of pictures with film.

Didn't someone here say something earlier to the effect that no one would ever buy a used film camera, pay $150 round trip to Mark Hama for refurbishment, then actually use that camera to make film photographs?

Well I took your advice, Michael. I went and got my Canonet QL17 GIII, freshly back from its $157 tear-down and refurbishment by Mark Hama and loaded with a new roll of HP5+, went outside earlier, and made two pictures of my car's tires. As I spent about $85 to originally buy the camera a couple of years ago, that makes for a total $242 investment. But the camera now looks, feels and works like new. Best money I ever spent.

And I feel much less stressed now that I have two magnificent tire photos in the can...

Ken

OzJohn · Feb 16, 2012

Just to help keep this thread a bit lighter, I actually bought a Kodak camera last week - a 1950s vintage Kodak Stereo job. Why? Because I've always wanted one! I spotted it on ebay and the seller claimed that it was in top condition for around US$90. I dredged up a sales blurb from 1953 on the net and this camera sold for US$84.50. I don't know what average wages were in the US then but I imagine that would have been a goodly amount of money to spend on a camera.
Anyway it has arrived and is in better than described condition - remarkable actually for its age. Everything seems to work as it should so I'm about to run a film through it. Also came with a leather carrying case that apart from one crease is in as new condition. There is some good stuff out there. OzJohn

keithwms · Feb 16, 2012

That's an interesting point, John; I wonder if Kodak's troubles might make Kodak cameras more collectible. Even Brownies and such.

Henning Serger · Feb 16, 2012

Aristophanes said:
From Lucky Films in China, the world's 3rd largest manufacturer of film:

Sorry Aristophanes, that's wrong. Lucky is not the 3rd largest film manufacturer, Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) is in that position.
They are producing lots of different film products, e.g. aerial films, surveillance films, microfilms, moviefilms, sound films, PCB films.
In 2010 they made a press release concerning their PCB film production in which they said that they coat 1 million m² of different film products each day.

I will not further comment on your other statements, because they clearly show again that you have not understand what I have written. On such basis a discussion makes no sense.

Best regards,
Henning

CGW · Feb 16, 2012

Henning Serger said:
Sorry Aristophanes, that's wrong. Lucky is not the 3rd largest film manufacturer, Agfa-Gevaert (Belgium) is in that position.
They are producing lots of different film products, e.g. aerial films, surveillance films, microfilms, moviefilms, sound films, PCB films.
In 2010 they made a press release concerning their PCB film production in which they said that they coat 1 million m² of different film products each day.

I will not further comment on your other statements, because they clearly show again that you have not understand what I have written. On such basis a discussion makes no sense.

Best regards,
Henning

Indeed. That's not all photo film and the release pertains to what seems to be mostly non-photo materials.

http://www.agfa.com/global/en/main/news_events/2011/CO_20111116_Q3_results_UK.jsp

Know what PCB film is?

The Q3/11 is here:

http://www.agfa.com/global/en/main/news_events/2011/CO_20111116_Q3_results_UK.jsp

"Film" as a product isn't just something to shove into a Spotmatic.

fotch · Feb 16, 2012

Thanks Henning, for providing intelliget information.

Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency