Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

CGW said:

Hilarious, this is exactly what hearsay is - what you've heard them say to you. You cannot possibly know every pro photographer in all encompassing styles.

Think the joke's on you. Can only speak for those I know and none shoot film as part of their business--hardly unusual in 2012.

Click to expand...

If I were taking a survey or a poll, interviewing photographers with a questionnaire would be considered DATA!!!! I think that Mr Gallup would really take issue with your comment in the strongest terms. A 1:1 discussion / interview with a professional in his field about what HE does or uses is not hearsay! It is the real thing. When you have collected many of these, it constitutes a survey.

Many pros at this very time give customers the option of Analog, Digital or Mixed - Analog original with Digital prints (often manipulated). Our youngest daughter's wedding photographer, who makes his living this way, was one of these. He offered all 3. Our daughter chose all Analog with a digital on-line option. There are at least 2 professional photographers in Rochester that offer similar options for family portraits.

Just as an aside, (and since you specified no time frame) Nieman Markus in Dallas TX had a HUGE professional photography department that took high end portraits and offered families a range of prints from Type C all the way to Dye Transfer. An 8x10 Dye Transfer PRINT alone was $10,000 in 1965. Now those guys did nothing but pro work, and they used to send us a few samples of their work. Not HEARSAY, actual prints that were sold for $10,000 each.

And, from data published in Professional Photography magazines, I hope you realize that the last I looked, Kodak was still advertizing there. In addition, many of the photographers have published their stories and info about their businesses. Ever read any of those.

I've probably been in this field longer than you have been alive and was doing some prime work while you were having your diapers changed!

PE

clayne said:

The problem is that you're speaking as if that group of people represent the utmost truth and landscape. Are you aware that there are entire fields of photography that are still relegated to large and medium format as the way? This is not even taking into account cinema whatsoever.

Click to expand...

There's little data for pros in film or even digital. There's lots of data for roll and cartridge film consumption and capital assets used in manufaturing.

Most pros fell into 3 camps:

1) Photojournalist—by far the vast majority in digital now. Lots of evidence of this as newswires and even local will only accept digital wire photos as submissions.
2) Wedding and Event—chewed up a large amount of MF cameras a huge number of which are on eBay.
3) Everything else—no data and never a large market anyway unless you're Andy Warhol or the guys doing the Sears catalogue.

There are pros who do shoot film who are quite famous for doing so, like John Canlas. Regardless, the number cannot move film sales, though they are eloquent spokesmen for the continuance of film as a creative medium.

Cinema is another matter because that is a producer's or director's call. By far cinema reels are the greatest volume of film stock produced. Since this is almost all professional market stuff, there is clear data. Film is still quite popular for creative pros but falling in demand as digital has caught up in many respects, and is more accessible to editing. All motion picture camera manufacturers ceased production in 2011 save for custom orders. Spielberg, Tarantino, and many cinematographers have spoken forcefully in support of film. I'd like to see them put their money on it.

Motion picture film "carries" the rest of the market. C41 carries B&W. Labs carry C41. There are co-dependencies that justify keeping the coating systems operational.

The # of adherents of medium or large format photography worldwide could not consume a coating machine's output for an hour.

The supply of critical raw materials for film that only photographic film utilizes in the substrate and emulsions is a critical factor. To be affordable, they need to be produced and distributed in quantity. If demand falls too far, the price rises and a vicious circle of thrift kicks in as higher prices chases more consumers away. This is the problem for a small supplier like Ilford; if demand cannot be secured because Kodak/Fuji are not placing their own factory or industrial orders, then the custom order price could go through the roof. This is why fabrication systems shut down even if there is residual demand. It's a very real danger for the film manufacturing industry and its consumers.

Where that point is no one knows. We are making educated guesses. Kodak's Ch. 11 is something of a watershed. Kodak's own information is that they expected film demand to be at least 2x higher than it is today. There are paths to redeem film economically, but the frustrating thing is that Kodak appears to be washing its hands of that effort. There's no leadership, largely because as a public company in bankruptcy protection, they cannot allocate the assets necessary to take on a leadership role. That is why I hope private equity will purchase the film assets and consolidate the mandate. Ch.11 is an opportunity to do so because the coating plants will never have as high a value as they do now.

It seems that the nay sayers here who pontificate on "Professionals" have never heard of the PPA nor the magazine for the Pros "Rangefinder". In Rangefinder, you will find full page ads by EK for their Portra Films.

I'm getting sick and tired of the "hearsay" evidence that there is no such thing as a pro or that there is little data on them. There is, if you know where to look and you guys apparently do not. But then it is useless to argue with you. Your knowledge has little depth in this field. It is superficial and economic. As I said before, you are armchair "generals" and that is about it. I've been in the trenches.

Oh, and regarding "hearsay" there are 2 major definitions outside of law!

Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: (When I talk to someone earning his living through Professional Photography it is NOT hearsay.)

An item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay. (When I collect data or look at reports of data it is not gossip nor is it rumor.)

PE

Aristophanes said:

Motion picture film "carries" the rest of the market. C41 carries B&W. Labs carry C41. There are co-dependencies that justify keeping the coating systems operational.

Click to expand...

If that were the case then Ilford, Efke/Fotokemika, Slavich is then a paradox. Some photogs are only B/W and are insulated from the C41 codependency you cite. How do you explain the above companies success (ie the Ilford custom annual runs, new papers - Art 300, etc)? They don't make color film

Water seeks its own level, nobody knows where, like you said, can they (Kodak) make it a go with color runs a week/month/year and b/w similarly? We don't know the Kodak breakpoint between p/l . Everyone knows that if demand of anything falls too low a company will fail, why the need to continually educate us on a basic truism that we all learned when we were doing baseball card trades/lemonade stands?

I agree w you that I hope Kodak Film is divested. Hope it goes to say Formulary and PE runs the film div!

Yeah and if PE runs the film division maybe he can come up with an e-6 version of kodachrome

Well it's pie in the sky but I can dream can't I?

ME Super said:

Yeah and if PE runs the film division maybe he can come up with an e-6 version of kodachrome

Click to expand...

Damn... Back to that drafty barn.



Ken

zsas said:

If that were the case then Ilford, Efke/Fotokemika, Slavich is then a paradox. Some photogs are only B/W and are insulated from the C41 codependency you cite. How do you explain the above companies success (ie the Ilford custom annual runs, new papers - Art 300, etc)? They don't make color film

Water seeks its own level, nobody knows where, like you said, can they (Kodak) make it a go with color runs a week/month/year and b/w similarly? We don't know the Kodak breakpoint between p/l . Everyone knows that if demand of anything falls too low a company will fail, why the need to continually educate us on a basic truism that we all learned when we were doing baseball card trades/lemonade stands?

I agree w you that I hope Kodak Film is divested. Hope it goes to say Formulary and PE runs the film div!

Click to expand...

Paradox? More like parasite?

In economic terms being parasitical is not a bad thing. In fact, it can make a market function by allowing competition at the fringes. This is how Fuji took on Kodak, and the other film manufacturers as well. All the inputs (raw materials) and outputs (lab processing) fabricated by third parties could be captured by competitors. So Fuji, noting that independent labs were willing to be brand agnostic, went with Fuji products for cost and other support advantages. Kodak had originally supplied over 90% of the investment capital, but Kodak's own size (and anti-trust laws) prevented it from acting as "locally" as many lab owners would want. The same for raw materials. One out of patent, many were more freely available and could not recaptured by Kodak. So Kodak's margins slipped and other competitors could get into the game, or at least fill niches Kodak could not.

Small suppliers like Ilford are so tiny they can carve out a niche by playing a role for a select group. The problem is, the market is not so discrete. Not for raw materials and not for consumers. Many consumers, if they lost out on colour film would also stop shooting B/W. And overall industry costs would rise, especially distribution. There may be some key materials from film emulsion that Kodak and Fuji buy 90% of, and if that 90% is not there, then that material is not there as no one can make it for Ilford at a lesser volume. The danger for these smaller suppliers is price. Another is they are all European, so distribution becomes an issue, also reflected in price. And they all produce using quite aged equipment with Ilford having come out of bankruptcy, so credit will be very hard to come by. I worry, (and I have seen this a number of times before in other industries) that the credit and investment will run dry based on future market concern well before the customers run out. Small suppliers on the fringes get hammered when the big guns in the middle take a major hit. They get it from the consumption end and the raw material end.

I don't dispute that there are pros who still use film, PE. I just don't think there are enough of them to move the consumption needle. In cinema, yes. Still photography, no. The barometer is pro labs catering to pro shooters, and all I see is pro labs dropping out of the game or offering no film services at all.

Yeah, well it can be done bat the cost would be high and the expectations would be high as well.

PE

Aristophanes - I am no manufacturing person so forgive my ignorant question but what are these "materials" that Kodak/Fuji buy so much of the if the big two stopped producing film, the "parasites" would dry up too because the volumes wd be so low and thus marked up? I mean silver is a raw material, whose price (I bet) is not largely dependent on the big two. And if they did vanish overnight would there be more silver in the commodities trades and thus drive the cost lower, ie more supply, less demand? What else do they use that the "parasites" take benefit upon? I can get Ilford film here in the states for less than a good pint.

CGW said:

I know no pros now who make a living any longer--if ever--from film-based photography.

Click to expand...

And yet here you are on APUG. With that mistaken viewpoint, shouldn't you be on some digi forum?

...don't know any pros who live off film... give me a break!

I recently taught a popular b&w film course in a university; I have loaned film cameras to students taking photography in high school and constantly loan out gear for people to play with; I have met several professionals who shoot digitally and have expressed interest in learning more about film and traditional output. I get emails from people asking me how to do stuff like giant cyanos or such. I have had to turn down two workshop requests... and I'm not even into that kind of thing. I don't have time for it and certainly don't advertise any interest in teaching photography. So from my perspective, you're so far off base it's just laughable. Artists remain very interested in film and alt process work. And we experimentalists continue to develop new ideas and techniques every single day.

I won't waste another second on you or anyone else so ill informed.

zsas said:

Aristophanes - I am no manufacturing person so forgive my ignorant question but what are these "materials" that Kodak/Fuji buy so much of the if the big two stopped producing film, the "parasites" would dry up too because the volumes wd be so low and thus marked up? I mean silver is a raw material, whose price (I bet) is not largely dependent on the big two. And if they did vanish overnight would there be more silver in the commodities trades and thus drive the cost lower, ie more supply, less demand? What else do they use that the "parasites" take benefit upon? I can get Ilford film here in the states for less than a good pint.

Click to expand...

The price of film right now is low precisely because of over-capacity. That's it. Kodak and Fuji can still order in bulk, but Kodak's now got its credit lines tied. Ilford cannot raise prices against Kodak with Kodak sitting on a mothballed super-coater machine. It's a race to the bottom as Kodak revenues demonstrate. With less customers and declining revenues they should all be charging more to make up the difference, but there are other dynamics eating away at the bottom line, not the least of which is there can be no new customers net because there are no new cameras.

Ask PE what critical products would be necessary for film. Some of these materials have no "world" price, like silver. Their only supply/price is in the manufacture of film. The whole industry is based on prescriptive formularies put together in sequence. Many film formulas have gone away already, and I suspect it is in part caused by the inability to secure affordable materials supply. It's not like they have the same cauldron and just change the order and amount of ingredients. Film production always had a certain degree of vertical integration because not all the components were interchangeable with other industries.

There are other resources at risk as well, not the least of which is engineering and chemical talent. If the overcapacity gets clipped, and prices rise to mach the lower demand, are you willing to pay 2xpints/roll what you are paying now for a lesser quality product? I hear one of the European manufacturers has repeated quality issues.

A major issue would be the loss of quality and choice amongst some materials. Ironically I just participated in a review of the paper industry, and it is high-quality products that are doing well, and bulk newsprint faring very poorly. But the high-end paper is now being priced astronomically to make up for the drop in fibre demand from the low-end. They'd rather kill some customers on price than take a loss. Even the high-end stuff is in decline as magazines are a fading force, so publishers are faced with less revenues and higher costs from their paper suppliers even though there is theoretically more capacity than demand. Like Kodak, they mothball production, but in the case of paper, they have consolidated suppliers (albeit with bankruptcies aplenty). Not so with film.

There's too much capacity and too many suppliers. Prices are relatively low but demand is still falling. Markets are supposed to work the other way around. One factor against mass consumption—in fact THE factor—is the cost of processing has gone up (or been eliminated in some geographies). This has been kept in check in part by a huge number of surplus mini-lab systems, but only temporarily. Once that supply constrains, watch out. Kodak's Ch. 11 is going to have every credit hawk on the lookout for anything to do with film.

Photo Engineer said:

If I were taking a survey or a poll, interviewing photographers with a questionnaire would be considered DATA!!!! I think that Mr Gallup would really take issue with your comment in the strongest terms. A 1:1 discussion / interview with a professional in his field about what HE does or uses is not hearsay! It is the real thing. When you have collected many of these, it constitutes a survey.

Many pros at this very time give customers the option of Analog, Digital or Mixed - Analog original with Digital prints (often manipulated). Our youngest daughter's wedding photographer, who makes his living this way, was one of these. He offered all 3. Our daughter chose all Analog with a digital on-line option. There are at least 2 professional photographers in Rochester that offer similar options for family portraits.

Just as an aside, (and since you specified no time frame) Nieman Markus in Dallas TX had a HUGE professional photography department that took high end portraits and offered families a range of prints from Type C all the way to Dye Transfer. An 8x10 Dye Transfer PRINT alone was $10,000 in 1965. Now those guys did nothing but pro work, and they used to send us a few samples of their work. Not HEARSAY, actual prints that were sold for $10,000 each.

And, from data published in Professional Photography magazines, I hope you realize that the last I looked, Kodak was still advertizing there. In addition, many of the photographers have published their stories and info about their businesses. Ever read any of those.

I've probably been in this field longer than you have been alive and was doing some prime work while you were having your diapers changed!

PE

Click to expand...

It's 2012. Never represented anything as the result of a proper scientific survey or as data, just collected conversations with friends in the business from the past 5 years or so--not sure you're doing anything differently. BTW, that's Neiman Marcus.

keithwms said:

And yet here you are on APUG. With that mistaken viewpoint, shouldn't you be on some digi forum?

...don't know any pros who live off film... give me a break!

I recently taught a popular b&w film course in a university; I have loaned film cameras to students taking photography in high school and constantly loan out gear for people to play with; I have met several professionals who shoot digitally and have expressed interest in learning more about film and traditional output. I get emails from people asking me how to do stuff like giant cyanos or such. I have had to turn down two workshop requests... and I'm not even into that kind of thing. I don't have time for it and certainly don't advertise any interest in teaching photography. So from my perspective, you're so far off base it's just laughable. Artists remain very interested in film and alt process work. And we experimentalists continue to develop new ideas and techniques every single day.

I won't waste another second on you or anyone else so ill informed.

Click to expand...

Get down with the fact that pro labs, and often pro labs offering film services, have been closing or restricting services. Reason? Insufficient pro film shooters. What's not to get?

Aristophanes said:

The price of film right now is low precisely because of over-capacity. That's it. Kodak and Fuji can still order in bulk, but Kodak's now got its credit lines tied. Ilford cannot raise prices against Kodak with Kodak sitting on a mothballed super-coater machine. It's a race to the bottom as Kodak revenues demonstrate. With less customers and declining revenues they should all be charging more to make up the difference

Click to expand...

But they are not, so what is your point? The “laws of economics” you espouse are being violated!!! Please send an urgent memo to all the film manufactures and let them know that they are doing a disservice. The emperors have no clothes, yikes…shhhhh, they might hear you!!

Aristophanes said:

If the overcapacity gets clipped, and prices rise to mach the lower demand, are you willing to pay 2xpints/roll what you are paying now for a lesser quality product?

Click to expand...

Yawn, I can get film for peanuts now, why should I bother worrying about that sky is falling scenario (say $4 to $8, really not worth my time?), we are not talking root canals or indoor plumbing here…only a mere expendable, why bother the scare tactics to us all? I will evaluate my use/costs of film as I see fit based on my own p/l. You seem to be attempting to enlighten us about what everyone already knows, basics of supply/demand, that you even contend is not operating as your models/teaching/experience predict.

Aristophanes said:

I hear one of the European manufacturers has repeated quality issues.

Click to expand...

Oh noooooo, that’s it, I quit!!! Nothing good here to look forward to, all my film cameras and film have been listed on the bay, just went to the local electronics store and got me a digi P&S so I wont have to ever worry about quality issues and mere cost increases of film because it seems you are saying only film is subject to such horrid concerns and the cost of shooting film seems to be a grave risk! Yikes!

Aristophanes said:

[Film]Prices are relatively low but demand is still falling. Markets are supposed to work the other way around.

Click to expand...

But they are not maybe there is something else going on? Is it me or is Freestyle growing, how many staff did they have 10 years ago, what about now, that I don’t know, but it appears to me that they are growing? Is Ilford growing out of restructuring? Is Formulary growing seems to me that they are? Is Lomo growing (yikes I said it, toy camera! Oh no, horrid)? Does Leica still sell M7s? Doesn’t B&H have 17 new model cameras in stock at present, some high end, some starter cameras? Go to ebay, search the Catagory 'Cameras & Photo', then narrow to 'Film Cameras', then click on Show Only 'Completed listings', then sort by highest price first. There are a fair amt of non-collector camera that fetch $2K, does someone who pays $2K for a camera really care about film going from $4 to $8 in your hypothetical? What does ADOX say on their homepage, “Our goal is to keep a full range of photochemical products in a small scale manufacturing process allive. In 2009 we opened up the "worlds smallest photochemical factory" in Bad Saarow. ADOX Fotowerke GmbH is working under low automatisation with a large degreee of manual work.
This enables us to be very flexible and manufacture many different types of films and papers without much overhead and fixed costs. Our workflow today is not far away form the original ADOX Dr. C. Schleussner Fotowerke which also used similar machines in their times, but we are now much smaller. Even after the "digital revolution" ADOX still stands strong for a comprehensive range of classic photographic products.”
I think everyone in film manufacturing understand the lean and just in time nature, I don’t see oversupply of film in the markets that artificially keep costs low, heck film isn’t sold anywhere but online (in most markets) and I just bought some Ilford and Kodak from Amazon and their expiry dates were (Kodak 12/2013, Ilford 2/2016). If there was oversupply they would be say sometime in 2012? There might be oversupply in some mom/pop shops, but most analog photogs pretty much buy online, the delivery model changed but the demand is still there (maybe not the same as back then, but there is a demand that will seek its own level).

I have a question for you, you seem to be promoting all take a serious reflection about how much analog photography is worth to himself/herself, what does it mean to you? If it goes to say $200 a box of paper instead of $100, are you out? You seem to be considering getting out based on your tone, what are you going to do?

CGW said:

The decade-long collapse of demand for all film materials isn't debatable or speculative. Value of the final product? I know no pros now who make a living any longer--if ever--from film-based photography. Shrinking demand for film materials isn't obviously restricted to Kodak--Fuji is apparently axing Reala and possibly E6 products in the future. Shifting consumer preferences mortally wounded Kodak film products.

Click to expand...

This quote clearly states an opinion on the state of film based photography as a means of earning a living now - OR EVER! Since I have known people earning a living from the 50s onward, and doing it through professional photography, I believe that my experience counters this. Now the later comment "this is 2012" seems to argue that this original post was not meant seriously and that it only referred to recent efforts to earn a living through professional film photography. Again untrue.

Kodak, as I said before, was still taking up full page ads in Rangefinder and other pro magazines in 2007 and later, but since I have let my membership in these organizations expire I cannot extend that up to today. I did give the example of one local pro who shot our daughter's wedding and gave here all possible options. That was just a few years back.

So, I have to totally dismiss your comments.

Oh, and you ignored the definitions of "hearsay" which should put a cap on that argument as well.

PE

I would thank you all to stop quoting certain rambling individuals! The ignore feature works quite well except for when you quote them...

Meanwhile, for those on facebook, you might consider "liking" this (thanks for the link, David):

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kodak-Comeback/216644905094660?ref=ts

This kind of thread is starting to remind me of hedge fund mgrs who bet against success to such a degree that they can actually influence the outcome in their favor. On a different specialty forum (I won't say which)
they're all in a panic now that TMY sheet film has disappeared forever!
Who told them that? It's just wild rumor-mongering. There's no firm evidence whatsoever right now that Kodak itself will disappear, let alone
discontinue one of their most popular products. Obviously some of our
doomsayers do not understand how successful businesses operate, or how already Kodak was simpifying their film selection and associated
supplies for the long haul. Yes, we'll have less film selection, but it will be
better and more versatile than ever. Create a vacuum and someone will
fill it. Just looking at the batch codes on my TMY and TMX shows that multiple runs of each were made in a single year, and that's just for the
estar base. That's a lot of film demand!

DREW WILEY said:

This kind of thread is starting to remind me of hedge fund mgrs who bet against success to such a degree that they can actually influence the outcome in their favor.

Click to expand...

Definitely true. Particularly in the case of chapter 11, some people are working overtime to reduce the perceived value of assets. Meanwhile others are doing the opposite. So you see the extremes at work. If you are a Fuji or Ilford investor, you might even employ one of the naysayers to reduce Kodak's apparent worth as much as possible. And it's important to understand that this is not about long-term market or worth, it's about knocking down debt in the near term.

The legal team assembled to help push Kodak through chapter 11 will try to do their level best to sell off assets at the highest possible value, in order to bring down their debt to sustainable levels. Their allies are the optimists. But the buyers of those assets obviously want bargains; their allies are the pessimists. And apart from those two clearly defined agents, companies that seek to cannibalize what's left of Kodak's market share will seek to grab that share as quickly as possible and will benefit by any uncertainty in Kodak's supply stream. Ask yourself what they might do in that case, if they have a medium such as the internet to foment uncertainty...

Anybody who claims they are doing an independent, impartial, good-faith valuation is full of crap; either they're getting paid and they are on one of the sides, or they're not getting paid and they don't have access to the core information. There is one and only one fairly impartial person in this, and that is the judge.

So... ask yourself what actual information you are getting here and from whom. And why.

My advice is to protect your supply of materials to the extent that you can, understand what alternatives exist, and never, ever rely on forum information to guide big decisions. Rely on your own analysis and that of those you trust, whose motives are transparent (i.e. demonstrated fellow film shooters) and which you really understand. Even if a forum theory is right, the mere fact that it reaches a lot of people means that it will force prices one way or another, speculatively. This happens all the time in stock valuation. If everybody is right about something then there's no money to be made. You need for a lot of people to be wrong to take profit; you need losers to be a winner. Remember that.

Photo Engineer said:

This quote clearly states an opinion on the state of film based photography as a means of earning a living now - OR EVER! Since I have known people earning a living from the 50s onward, and doing it through professional photography, I believe that my experience counters this. Now the later comment "this is 2012" seems to argue that this original post was not meant seriously and that it only referred to recent efforts to earn a living through professional film photography. Again untrue.

Kodak, as I said before, was still taking up full page ads in Rangefinder and other pro magazines in 2007 and later, but since I have let my membership in these organizations expire I cannot extend that up to today. I did give the example of one local pro who shot our daughter's wedding and gave here all possible options. That was just a few years back.

So, I have to totally dismiss your comments.

Oh, and you ignored the definitions of "hearsay" which should put a cap on that argument as well.

PE

Click to expand...

Let me try this again. I know no one working now as a professional photographer(commercial/editorial/PJ/portrait/creative) in my area who shoots anything other than digital. Several have never shot film professionally.YMMV but shooting film is not the hallmark of "professional" photography in 2012. I respect your opinions but don't regard them in this particular instance as canonical.

As for hearsay, I simply defined that upstream as what I heard people say to me about this question. What more do you want?

MaximusM3 said:

I hate this thread but I think you are right
The way it should be worded is that digital photography killed Mr. Bender's very specialized business. That's not to say that all is alive and well, but his statement is not correct either.

Click to expand...

+1, an ebay search on his cameras reveal nada.

CGW said:

If you're trying to widen and increase film use, then I'd say no dice to this. A lab offering process and scan service is what will encourage film use. DIY processing won't. It's 2012 and new film users aren't likely to see much convenience in futzing around with tanks, reels and chemistry.Scold all you like but many just won't bother with DIY processing, much less home printing. To deny this is just digging the grave faster for film.

Click to expand...

+1

Having a lab or not is not going to change how those of us feel about working in our darkrooms in doing black and white, but it will change the outlook on film use for those who want to shoot, send it off to a great lab and get back negs, prints, an index print and a CD, especially with color.

I shoot 120 / 220 color neg and a tiny bit of chrome, in terms of souping it at home, I have no desire whatsoever to "Master" that task at all. Like it or not, a network of good quality controlled labs that do decent scans are going to be fairly key in keeping the numbers of film users up.

Photo Engineer said:

Yeah, well it can be done bat the cost would be high and the expectations would be high as well.

PE

Click to expand...

I would never dream of forcing anyone to make an E-6 version of Kodachrome. Would it be nice? Sure, but I wouldn't force you or anyone else. The E-6 materials we have now are very good; I just hope they stay available for a long time to come.

Toward that end, I'm heading out today to shoot some more 35mm E-6. It's a beautiful sunny day, so why not! Plus, it's almost time to order some more!

ME Super

CGW said:

Let me try this again. I know no one working now as a professional photographer(commercial/editorial/PJ/portrait/creative) in my area who shoots anything other than digital. Several have never shot film professionally.YMMV but shooting film is not the hallmark of "professional" photography in 2012. I respect your opinions but don't regard them in this particular instance as canonical.

As for hearsay, I simply defined that upstream as what I heard people say to me about this question. What more do you want?

Click to expand...

Just because you don't know anyone doesn't mean there aren't professional photographers still shooting film.

Your mistake is to assume that it's an either or situation, it hasn't been for over a decade. The way many photograpgers see it capture choice whether B&W, Colour negative, Colour Transparency, Polaroid or Digital is made to suit the required assignment. While there's been an overwhelming swing towards digital many still use film for specific projects or because it's the best way to meet the clients requirements.

Perhaps something you've missed is that many photographers who have only used digital professionally are exploring the use of film.

Ian

CGW is dealing with an important problem - he is in "the centre of the universe!".

(That reference will probably only make sense to Canadians).

On a slightly more serious note, it is interesting to me that the market for film and film related products seems to be a lot more healthy here on the west coast of Canada than it does in the GTA.

We here have choices for film supplies and choices for pro labs (including two that have moved to larger, new premises) and a decent number of one hour lab choices too.

There may be cultural differences, but I expect that it is an issue of self-fulfilling prophecies as well.

It may be very important to recognize that film markets may be best served if they become geographically localized - support and enhance them where they are still strong, and depend on the mail and couriers elsewhere.

It may be that the best thing we can do to support our "local" resource is to assist those internet resources who serve our needs in becoming more local. I think of B & H's relatively recent addition of Canada friendly shipping as an example.

CGW said:

Let me try this again. I know no one working now as a professional photographer(commercial/editorial/PJ/portrait/creative) in my area who shoots anything other than digital. Several have never shot film professionally.YMMV but shooting film is not the hallmark of "professional" photography in 2012. I respect your opinions but don't regard them in this particular instance as canonical.

As for hearsay, I simply defined that upstream as what I heard people say to me about this question. What more do you want?

Click to expand...

OK, so your knowledge is limited. What is your point? I don't know anyone who drives a Cadillac so it must not be a viable product. Does that by itself make it true? Of course not.