Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

zumbido · Feb 11, 2012

wblynch said:
I think that APUG is a beautiful source of information and communication about the enjoyment, practice, preservation and usage of traditional photographic tools and products.

Meaning FILM.

Certainly I can only speak for myself therefore it is my humble opinion that people coming here and using every chance they have to denigrate those principles ought to just pack up and get the hell out.

Thank you.

I've never seen anyone denigrating film here, and certainly not in this thread. I *do* see people who get so crazed after the ten thousandth delusional, polyannaish comment about how digital sucks and film is on the comeback trail that they snap and start beating their head against the ivy-covered brick walls of Pig Whistle University.

removed account4 · Feb 11, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
Sorry for saying this John, but his point is that he wants to be right!

In this context though, no one is right. Truth is somewhere in the middle. For example P&S cameras or Lomos or what have you may be selling hugely (and Kodak says that P&S sales are either up or holding steady, depending on reports). The thing is that even at the sales we see here and some elsewhere, it is not enough to sustain the market. So the truth is somewhere in between, a mixed bag if you will. But, some insist on having "the truth" to dispense to us right or wrong.

Film camera sales may be up, but film sales are down. People buy Lomos but may not keep using them. People buy P&S cameras and often have problems getting the film processed. Or they may find processing and printing too expensive. One of our children had 10+ rolls of film in her desk drawer because it was too difficult and time consuming to drive to one of the rare camera stores here after the supermarket stopped processing film. I took them in for her.

PE

yeah
i know what you mean ron ...
thanks for the reality check

redrockcoulee · Feb 11, 2012

One local lab in city of 60 000 compared to three 15 years ago (stopped K6 last year). But also still two or three places to drop it off for developing.

Since year 2000

Kodak has introduced Ektar and upgraded Portra and TMax 400
Fuji has introduced at least one new medium format rangefinder camera
Several new or re introduced rangefinder 35 cameras on the marker
European film companies have introduced new films and papers
At least two new large format companies started up and several new models and formats from existing ones
Lomography of course many new cameras
Impossible Project

None of this means that film sales are booming or even increasing. But it does mean that people and companies are putting their money into the market. And people on this board are putting their money into the products. Are there enough of us? I do not know. I see no reason to discourage people from shooting film and do what I can to assist. Reading balance sheets is for some one else, promoting film as well as photography in general is a better use of my time.

"You can be sure the futures ahead" is about as close as I come to predicting Kodak or film's future but I will be shooting it as long as I can. (and digital too)

Photo Engineer · Feb 11, 2012

Kodak still makes P&S (also called disposable) cameras. The names can be interchanged in some markets. I have 6 of them here right now. They contain 800 speed film and are one of Kodak's biggest sellers to consumers. It is one of the few sources of film that I can get at the local supermarket. They are hanging on pegs at each checkout.

Kodak introduced a new version of their Vision MP film last year as well as some other improvements to color products.

PE

keithwms · Feb 11, 2012

....and don't forget, since 2000, the cost of using some really spectacular film gear has come down too. As long as apuggers and our colleagues do their part and show great work and present their positive side online, newcomers' interest in the equipment, the media, and the analogue processes will stabilize and perhaps even pick up. Again, as I tried to say many times in the blog and elsewhere, the value of analogue output is going up. This is a great time for someone curious about the film to reach out to us and get some encouragement and assistance.

Ken Nadvornick · Feb 12, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
I do not have an ignore list. I think it important to say this.

Agreed. I think it is VERY important to say this.

I have not on APUG, nor on any other forum I have visited, ever clicked "Ignore" on anyone. No matter what they said. About the topic, or about me. Not even once. Not ever.

To my way of thinking, to do so would be trying to surround myself with only people who will tell me exactly what I want to hear. And only what I want to hear. It's a very dangerous road to go down. I won't do that. And I'm thrilled to see that I'm not the only one.

And if someone chooses to Ignore me? Fine. But rest assured that I will still read every word you write. Even when - especially when - I disagree. Partly because of my respect for your right to speak differing points of view. But mostly because of my respect for myself.

Thanks,
Ken

Toffle · Feb 12, 2012

Ken Nadvornick said:
Agreed. I think it is VERY important to say this.

I have not on APUG, nor on any other forum I have visited, ever clicked "Ignore" on anyone. No matter what they said. About the topic, or about me. Not even once. Not ever.

To my way of thinking, to do so would be trying to surround myself with only people who will tell me exactly what I want to hear. And only what I want to hear. It's a very dangerous road to go down. I won't do that. And I'm thrilled to see that I'm not the only one.

And if someone chooses to Ignore me? Fine. But rest assured that I will still read every word you write. Even when - especially when - I disagree. Partly because of my respect for your right to speak differing points of view. But mostly because of my respect for myself.

Thanks,
Ken

Point well made, Ken. My preferred way of dealing with unpleasantness online is to walk away from my computer and use my cameras.

Cheers,
Tom

Michael W · Feb 12, 2012

I just checked my ignore list & there are 12 names on it. Not sure how many of them are still current members as I suspect many of them may have been banned. The ignore function is one of the most useful things ever invented - it means I don't have to be annoyed by dreary trolls.

Steve Smith · Feb 12, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak still makes P&S (also called disposable) cameras.

Wrongly called disposable.

Steve.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 12, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Wrongly called disposable.

Steve.

Indeed, maybe it would even be better marketing to call them, properly, "recyclable."

I'll refrain from saying anything about the disposability of electronic gear that has an 18-month replacement cycle.

keithwms · Feb 12, 2012

...meanwhile, I am trying to figure out how to make a film back for my blackberry smartphone...

Indeed, megapixelitis, which helped Canon and Nikon and others convince people to buy the next best thing every year or so, is now their worst nightmare. As I and many many others predicted, they're up against a hard wall, and the smartphones now offer - golly gee! - high resolution photography in an even more convenient, all-in-one appendage that has an integrated social sharing device too!

Aristophanes · Feb 12, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak still makes P&S (also called disposable) cameras. The names can be interchanged in some markets. I have 6 of them here right now. They contain 800 speed film and are one of Kodak's biggest sellers to consumers. It is one of the few sources of film that I can get at the local supermarket. They are hanging on pegs at each checkout.

Kodak introduced a new version of their Vision MP film last year as well as some other improvements to color products.

PE

Well...we're at the point of saying that film sales will depend on:

1) Super high-end Leica's and Zeiss's.
2) A salvage market of current users, local sales (Craigslist), and eBay.
3) Plastic lens disposables.
4) Plastic lens Lomo.

Except for #2 none of these have AF, a huge market driver for more casual, but accurate snaps.

My point is none of this will get you a $300 million LOC. None of this drives new sales and film still has per roll purchase and processing costs, none of which apply to digital.

About the same time as Kodak introduced a new MP film, all the MP film camera manufactures stopped manufacture save on very costly build to order. Pretty soon machining critical parts will not exist or be so costly as to be not worth it:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/

If you don't have new cameras, you have fewer customers. Fewer customers = less investment, especially over the long term. Kodak's new shareholders are not in it to make film for cameras no longer in production. They won't invest in consumers who are not there. And plastic lens cameras cannot replace what existed only 10 years ago with extremely good AF compacts like an Olympus Stylus.

This is not the kind of investment scenario akin to making carburetors for 1978 Corvettes or VW vans. Take a look at the list of secured creditors and you will see these are financial groups requiring absolute return from capital intensive industries, not products with equity loss.

A private equity house that puts film, processing, and camera manufacture under the same financial group is what I think (my conjecture) will save the Kodak legacy, but it cannot be in the publicly traded, post-Ch.11 Kodak.

Aristophanes · Feb 12, 2012

Rudeofus said:
I have argued repeatedly that an overall decline in sales of the FPEG group does not automatically translate in a decline in still photography film, and several folks have posted numbers that still film sales were up last year. In other words, Kodak film is already where you want them.

No one has posted numbers. They've posted anecdotes. The only numbers can possibly come from Kodak and their financial still say "decline" in black and white.

The only thing have seen directly about films sales is from Fuji where they said recently the decline is not as bad as it once was. It's flattening. It is still declining.

There's likely a reason why Kodak does not break down its data. They don't want Joe Investor to see just how bad the market erosion is. All you have to do is look around and see how the labs are disappearing at a frantic pace and people on APUG are continuously posting about the scarcity of supplies.

These anecdotes contradict the others. Forget the anecdotes, Follow the money.

keithwms · Feb 12, 2012

Aristophanes said:
Well...we're at the point of saying that film sales will depend on:

1) Super high-end Leica's and Zeiss's.
2) A salvage market of current users, local sales (Craigslist), and eBay.
3) Plastic lens disposables.
4) Plastic lens Lomo.

There is a fantastic and diverse collection of high-end gear that is now far more affordable than it ever was. And I see young people coming over to try film gear all the time. Juxtapose that marvelous assortment of TLRs, RFs, SLRs, view cameras, pinholes, and other cool doo-dads against the lack of variety that is the current digital market, and realize that young people like to be different. So let us summon our most positive natures and help them... and not continue to whine in this manner.

This childish attitude of "waaah somebody took my binky" really gets old. Get over yourself alright! If you had access to special information then you'd be in legal trouble for posting it in open forum, so let's be clear, nobody knows what's up at EK, and nobody knows where their film production will be in 1,3 or 5 years. Enough! Sheeze. Say something we haven't heard fifty or a hundred times before.

markbarendt · Feb 12, 2012

keithwms said:
...and the smartphones now offer - golly gee! - high resolution photography in an even more convenient, all-in-one appendage that has an integrated social sharing device too!

Don't forget video there either.

The social thought there is truly key.

Wayne · Feb 12, 2012

I have never used the ignore function at any forum, let alone this one, nor do I want to. But consider the following:

Definition of OBNOXIOUS

1 archaic : exposed to something unpleasant or harmful used with to
2 archaic : deserving of censure
3 : odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive

To that I would add

4: a redundant and unrelenting and unrepentant flogger of horses

keithwms · Feb 12, 2012

Haha Wayne, there is a beautiful proverb, attributed to the Lakota Sioux, which translates roughly, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

Steve Smith · Feb 12, 2012

Aristophanes said:
1) Super high-end Leica's and Zeiss's.

Someone's getting rich catering for the superfluous apostrophe market!

Steve.

CGW · Feb 12, 2012

keithwms said:
Haha Wayne, there is a beautiful proverb, attributed to the Lakota Sioux, which translates roughly, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

You first, Chief.

keithwms · Feb 12, 2012

CGW said:
You first, Chief.

My steed is quite healthy and likes to run, but thanks.

Aristophanes · Feb 12, 2012

keithwms said:
There is a fantastic and diverse collection of high-end gear that is now far more affordable than it ever was. And I see young people coming over to try film gear all the time. Juxtapose that marvelous assortment of TLRs, RFs, SLRs, view cameras, pinholes, and other cool doo-dads against the lack of variety that is the current digital market, and realize that young people like to be different. So let us summon our most positive natures and help them... and not continue to whine in this manner.

"Different" is a marketing campaign.

While Apple was blasting that slogan everywhere they were also working very hard (through the fellow who is their new CEO) to drive their prices down because the single biggest problem was Apple's high prices.

Or, as one analyst said, "Anyone can think different, but fewer can afford it".

Even if you drive the capital cost of the cameras down, there is still operational costs and time (which is money) to purchase ad process film, and, increasingly, mail order.

Different...but affordable. The industry superstructure now is not about affordability. It's about salvage cameras mated to increasingly expensive film. The delta between the two is probably no greater than it ever was, but eventually all those old cameras will wear out with no replacements in sight, and in any case, there's not enough older gear (most older P&S AF's are not durable) to drive volume sales.

Threfore the delta between the cost of the camera and and the cost of the film will narrow on the rise. Not good ad it's already happening. Kodak's increasing prices. This is about recovering revenues lost to those cheap old cameras and riving that portion of the discretionary spending back to the film itself. They have no choice. They have to stem the revenue losses to survive.

keithwms · Feb 12, 2012

Aristophanes said:
"Different" is a marketing campaign.

It isn't mere marketing though. Difference is at every step of the way we work with analogue imagery. Moreover, prints produced in this way are becoming more rare, even as images sourced by other means and replicated all over cyberspace to the point of nauseating ubiquity... which implies something about their long term value.

The analogue difference is also obvious when you consider today's pro-sumer DSLR with all it's buttons and features... many of which are virtually identical among competitor's brands. I loon on my shelf and see a lot more gear variety... many different pieces finely tuned to particular purposes. We need to realize how important that is. No matter how accomplished you are as an artist, your tools still do affect your output; gear does affect creative thinking.

Roger Cole · Feb 12, 2012

Ken Nadvornick said:
Agreed. I think it is VERY important to say this.

I have not on APUG, nor on any other forum I have visited, ever clicked "Ignore" on anyone. No matter what they said. About the topic, or about me. Not even once. Not ever.

To my way of thinking, to do so would be trying to surround myself with only people who will tell me exactly what I want to hear. And only what I want to hear. It's a very dangerous road to go down. I won't do that. And I'm thrilled to see that I'm not the only one.

And if someone chooses to Ignore me? Fine. But rest assured that I will still read every word you write. Even when - especially when - I disagree. Partly because of my respect for your right to speak differing points of view. But mostly because of my respect for myself.

Thanks,
Ken

Suit yourselves of course but I DO have people on ignore on virtually ever forum I'm on (the previously mentioned FADU is, so far, an exception - they do seem to be a very pleasant bunch) but not for disagreeing with me. I ignore people who are nasty about it, "nasty" being entirely up to my interpretation of course. Essentially, when they make disagreements personal they go away from my universe.

In fact I've stayed with Firefox 3.6 specifically because of the plugin FfVb which the developer stopped supporting and distributing when 4.x came out. It allows ignoring users on vBulletin forums far more effectively than the ignore function built into vBulletin, which still leaves a blank area where their post was with a link you can click to see it and leaves quotes intact. Ignore someone with FfVb and it removes their existence from your reading. No "not shown because xxx is on your ignore list" no link to click, even anything someone else quotes that has their name in the quote tag is GONE. It occasionally looks oddly like folks are talking to themselves but thoroughly avoids the "train wreck syndrome" of the little link - you can't help looking even though you know once you do you'll regret it, so you do, then you regret it!

So far I haven't ignored Aristophanes or CGW because they HAVEN'T been personal or nasty, just repeating the same arguments ad nauseam. But I admit I'm getting sorely tempted. It's nothing to do with surrounding myself only with people who agree. Others present those arguments without the incessant gloom and doom drumbeat, and I'm not even tempted to ignore them. But ultimately I go online and into online forums because I enjoy discussing topics of mutual interest with others. When people make that unpleasant rather than enjoyable, I reserve the right to remove them from my little hobby within a hobby. I'm not offended if someone does likewise to me.

Henning Serger · Feb 12, 2012

CGW said:
Nice try, Henning. LSI's not exactly an engine of economic growth.

O.k., your opinion is that this 'low-fidelity' film shooter group of about two million people is not worth to be looked at. They are peanuts in your eyes.

Kodak, Foma, Fuji, UEI, Freestyle, B&H, Adorama, Firstcall, Maco, Fotoimpex and some dozen other companies worldwide offer lots of products and services for this group.
At least they don't share your opinion. They know the numbers, they satisfy the demand.

Regards,
Henning

pentaxuser · Feb 12, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Suit yourselves of course but I DO have people on ignore on virtually ever forum I'm on (the previously mentioned FADU is, so far, an exception - they do seem to be a very pleasant bunch) but not for disagreeing with me.QUOTE]

That's my experience of FADU also, Roger. Once unpleasantness creeps into a site it is very difficult to restore the previous atmosphere, unfortunately

pentaxuser

Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency