Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[Ko.Fe.]

See, this is the pseudo sealioning I’ve alluded to in the other hot thread on this site.

No! The Epsons are terrible scanners, and you with huge certainty know the reasons I’d list.
The Plusteks are only slightly better.

It’s like having an otherwise excellent hifi, and then hooking up a pair of random plastic boombox speakers.
Sure, you can hear what’s going on, and it’s “useable”, but that’s not really why most people buy hifi equipment.

To me both are good, not expensive scanners, with good results and easy handling.
I'm not anal about resolution of film. And I like grain. It is organic, speaking of Huss and veggies . I don't need huge prints.
I enjoy film cameras for simplicity of use and film for funky colors and BW tones. I'm just not stuck with film in 2020.
If for whatever reason I need accurate colors, huge resolution, no grain and large prints, I have no issues to use digital.
While both scanners are absolutely good for letter sized prints from 135 film and 120 film scans from Epson are awesome on larger prints.

 

[Team ADOX]

So if film sales are up as you say, then they are so insubstantial as to not even be visible in a financial report.

You are mixing things up: Demand for a product and profitability are two different things. Demand for Kodak film has doubled (photo film) and even more than doubled (movie film) from 2014 to 2019 (before the economic crisis caused by the virus).
Profitability is big problem in film production for at least the last two decades: Film is a very complicated to manufacture high-tech product. It is expensive to make, and during the digital revolution the film market has lost about 98% of its volume from the record level in 2000/2001 to the bottom reached around 2015 (since then the market has been increasing again).
Therefore a huge impact by negative economies of scale on profitability. That is the main reason why price increases have been absolutely necessary in the last years to continue film production.
Another reason is that meanwhile with the significantly increasing demand new investments in machinery and staff had to be made. Additional costs in the short and mid term.

Further, hitting "control F" and searching each document for the world film shows ZERO hits for any reference to positive film sales in the 2019 report. Nothing.

If you have found nothing, then you haven't done a proper research. It isn't complicated at all, as you can find almost all you need even here in this forum, see under "Industry News":

1.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...rong-increasing-demand-new-investment.171280/

2.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/eastman-kodak-strong-increasing-demand-for-movie-film.172406/

3.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/my-local-camera-shop-business-booming-anyone-else.168718/

4.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...phy-in-the-digital-age-nbc-left-field.172341/
In the video you will find the official Kodak statement that their photo film sales have doubled.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How can it be RFF when we have so many SLR and TLR users? Next you will be complaining about the cost of film.

No difference from Phortio at all. Phortio is only different for LF and long, technical talks about chemicals, film processing and alternative process.
Why should I praise fast growing prices of film.... To me it is main factor of "death knell of film photography".

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry to keep contradicting you, but the facts do not support your statement. The following figures concern only Kodak's film division. I can't see where the 2014 numbers are but I"m sure they do not contradict the trend below.

2015 revenue: 265 million, with a profit of 52 million dollars.
2016 revenue: 216 million, with a profit of 16 million dollars.
2018 revenue: 210 million, with a loss of 22 million dollars.
2019 revenue: 209 million, with a loss of 9 million dollars.

If sales have increased, WHY has revenue shown a significant drop? These facts certainly do not support a "doubling" of film sales in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree with me you surely must see how logical it is to interpret such facts to this conclusion.

Trying my hardest to see your point, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Kodak film sales are so low as to be invisible in the above numbers. If sales went from 7 million, to 14 million, that would probably be hard to spot in the above numbers. That's the best I can do.

Dropping revenue with steady increasing product price might show increased manufacturing cost. You sell more, for more, but your own cost of film is too high. Or not the self cost of manufacturing, but bonuses self-assigned by company management.

 

[MattKing]

Unfortunately, the Eastman Kodak financial statements don't actually report numbers for a photographic film division. The division that includes photographic film includes other things as well, and the breakdown is not shared.
The film production part of Eastman Kodak was having difficulty keeping up with demand before Covid-19. Part of that difficulty was due to having relatively few employees, while another part was due to delays and difficulties in obtaining constituent ingredients from third party suppliers. With E6 production alone, some constituent ingredients have at least a 6 month lag time.

 

[Kino]

Sorry to keep contradicting you, but the facts do not support your statement. The following figures concern only Kodak's film division. I can't see where the 2014 numbers are but I"m sure they do not contradict the trend below.

2015 revenue: 265 million, with a profit of 52 million dollars.
2016 revenue: 216 million, with a profit of 16 million dollars.
2018 revenue: 210 million, with a loss of 22 million dollars.
2019 revenue: 209 million, with a loss of 9 million dollars.

If sales have increased, WHY has revenue shown a significant drop? These facts certainly do not support a "doubling" of film sales in the past 5 years.
Even if you disagree with me you surely must see how logical it is to interpret such facts to this conclusion.

Trying my hardest to see your point, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Kodak film sales are so low as to be invisible in the above numbers. If sales went from 7 million, to 14 million, that would probably be hard to spot in the above numbers. That's the best I can do.

And, after hearing directly from a film manufacturer who is directly tied-into film sales and who's livelihood depends on film sales, I am trying very hard to see why this is even an concern on your part.

Either you have a vendetta against film or just want to argue for argument sake.

Profit does not equal use. Period.

 

[Kino]

What exactly IS your point?

I am sensing an energy vampire on the loose...

 

[Team ADOX]

Sorry to keep contradicting you, but the facts do not support your statement.

Sadly your reply clearly indicates that you haven't read the links given to you, where all the facts are presented.

If sales have increased, WHY has revenue shown a significant drop?

In general:
When your product (category) isn't able to cover all costs (variable and fixed costs), and you then have increasing demand, your losses will of course increase, too.
That's a situation occuring not so rarely in industrial production. Lots of industries have faced it.

As explained above, profitability in the high-tech industry film production has been a problem for a long time due to the extremely challenging market situation. It's a problem for all film manufacturers.
Therefore price increases have been a must for survival of production.
And as Matt King has correctly said, the Kodak sub-division that includes photo films includes other things as well, and the breakdown is not shared.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.

 

[destroya]

I sense a reborn ratty mouse back here to stir the pot with regards to his long standing anti kodak rant. maybe im wrong, but just wanted to throw it out there.

Dont feed the trolls

 

[Kino]

I sense a reborn ratty mouse back here to stir the pot with regards to his long standing anti kodak rant. maybe im wrong, but just wanted to throw it out there.

Dont feed the trolls

+1

 

[Helge]

To me both are good, not expensive scanners, with good results and easy handling.
I'm not anal about resolution of film. And I like grain. It is organic, speaking of Huss and veggies . I don't need huge prints.
I enjoy film cameras for simplicity of use and film for funky colors and BW tones. I'm just not stuck with film in 2020.
If for whatever reason I need accurate colors, huge resolution, no grain and large prints, I have no issues to use digital.
While both scanners are absolutely good for letter sized prints from 135 film and 120 film scans from Epson are awesome on larger prints.

I guess I'm just tired of that being the predominant story with film, told to the public at large, and passed on internally in film circles as raison d'être of film.
IE that it's kooky/whimsical, "organic" (whatever that means to different people), "authentic", "slows you down" etc. and a whole host of other hand wavy, fey terms.
I'm absolutely not against any of "that", and have some of "it" as personal secondary or third reasons to shoot film, as ephemeral and vague as they may be.

It's very important however to communicate clearly and soundly that film is absolutely not primarily "that".
It might be to some, I'd say a vocal minority (not that the size really matters), but the vast majority of the greatest photos ever taken was captured in film, and is as technically and artistically impressive as ever.
There is no reason why that shouldn't continue.
It's also very hard to see a sustained interest in film, with the investment in time and money necessary, if the "sales pitch" is so easy to shoot down (you can just simulate the "crappyness" and save the money, seems to be one of the popular notions) and is based on such vague and subjective notions.


Bad scanners such as the the above mentioned help to spread those notions, of film as a quaint far secondary circus horse that can be pulled into the ring once in a while for a laugh.

Film was, is and will be for a very long time (until something fundamental changes) the vastly superior image sensor, in most of the important ways.
Bad scanners make a mockery out of the decades of research and production expertise that has been put into film.

I fear people won't truly understand until they see a direct A/B comparison of some of their own work, between a flatbed or early two thousands technology consumer based scanner, compared to quality stuff from either a DSLR scan or one of the unoptanium scanners.
Unfortunately that will happen very rarely for most film shooters.

Resolution over what a flatbed offers is not a luxury or redundant. You will be able to see the difference, even on a standard 8x10 print. And it's not just something technical for the resident Asperger in all of us to geek out over. Resolution has real emotional significance and importance in an image.
To take something easy to put into words: It can mean the difference between recognising a face and only seeing a smudge. But of course there is much more to the importance of resolution than just being able to tell "what's in the image".

 

[MattKing]

The reason we don't see many announcements about the film part of Kodak's business is because the investment world doesn't believe in that part of the business as a source of dependable growth of profit.
The shareholders are almost all investment funds.
The proof about inability to keep up with demand comes from statements from Kodak Alaris about increased orders and the inability to fill orders in a reasonable time. Some of us also have some contact with some insiders - the tiny amount that I have makes it clear that Eastman Kodak has been very, very busy in the film part of their business. They could use more capital, and more people.

 

[Helge]

Very true. I make the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that the vast majority of this division concerns movie and still film. Kodak's consumer printing division died many years ago and whatever revenue/profits it used to contribute should be minimal. I am not aware of any other component of this division that would supersede the contributions from the film business. However, they may in fact exist.

Kodak is required by law to disclose to shareholders important aspects of their business at each quarterly report. You can read many statements about how things are going with all aspects of each division. Some examples are:

"Volume for KODAK SONORA Process Free Plates grew by 9 percent for the full year"
"Volume for KODAK FLEXCEL NX Plates grew by 16 percent for the full year"
"PROSPER sale taking longer than expected"
"Annuities revenue for KODAK PROSPER grew by 5 percent year-over-year"

I am confused by the total lack of any comment regarding Kodak's film business. Surely if the trend was a double of the business in the past several years, it would merit a comment in the financial reports.

Why is it missing?

This is a logical question.

If there is no proof to these statements that Kodak's film business is unable to keep up with demand, surely it is not unreasonable to believe that the statements might in fact be incorrect.

Especially when the available figures clearly show a decline in revenue for the film division that has gone on for the past 4 years.

You erroneously assume that Kodak want to make it easy to glean information from their reports, or that they have to make it easy.

Something that is as detrimental to overall profit and security of a company over stretches of many years, like you suggest, would not be allowed to continue in any kind of traded company and in any organisation by for simple economic reasons.

 

[farmersteve]

Wow you guys went off the deep end. We just want some new cameras for crying out loud.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow you guys went off the deep end. We just want some new cameras for crying out loud.

And unrelated to the fiscal health (or lack thereof) of the film industry, we're not going to get them in an affordable price range. That niche is gone, for film. Most of the old cameras we enjoy as good photographic tools were premium models when they were introduced, or at the least were beyond the resources of average "family photos" consumers -- the kind who'd have two different Christmas trees on a single roll of film, even with 120/620 that produced twelve frames. That latter class has been entirely the domain of smart phones for several years. The former, cameras are are intended as or can be pressed into service as serious photographic tools, can't be produced in traditional ways at prices ordinary folks can afford -- they're Cessnas in a Chevy market.

The only way we're going to get affordable new camera models, for film, is for someone to come up with a way to build shutters and optics without human intervention, without thousands of hours of human design and prototyping effort, without having to start up a million-units-annually production line for a thousand-units-annually market.

Fortunately, we don't need affordable new camera models to keep the film industry going -- we just need to actually use the century of good (and not so good, but fun) cameras we already have. If we keep buying and shooting film in sufficient quantity, one or more companies will continue to produce it, and the chemicals to process it, paper to print on, etc.

 

[Kino]

Wow you guys went off the deep end. We just want some new cameras for crying out loud.

Not trying to be combative, but I have to ask; "What are your suggestions"?

 

[MattKing]

I don't believe that we know what the revenues are for the film manufacturing part of Kodak.
We just know what the revenues are for the division that includes the photographic film manufacturing part of their business.
From the 2019 Annual Report:
Brand, Film and Imaging
The Brand, Film and Imaging segment is comprised of five lines of business: Consumer Products, Industrial Film and Chemicals, Motion Picture, Kodak Services for Business (“KSB”) and Kodakit. Kodak’s Brand, Film and Imaging products are distributed directly by Kodak and indirectly through dealers. Brand licensees use the Kodak brand on their products and use their own distribution channels. One Industrial Film and Chemicals customer of professional and consumer still photographic film and chemicals represented approximately 20% of total Brand, Film and Imaging segment revenues in 2019.
• Consumer Products:
• Includes licensing of the Kodak brand to third parties. Kodak currently licenses its brand for use with a range of products including batteries, digital and instant print cameras and camera accessories, printers, and LED lighting. Kodak intends to continue efforts to grow its portfolio of brand licenses to generate both ongoing royalty streams and upfront payments.
• Consumer Inkjet Solutions, which involves the sale of ink to an existing installed base of consumer inkjet printers.
• 3rd party sales of specialty inks and dispersions.
• Industrial Film and Chemicals:
•Offers industrial film, including films used by the electronics industry to produce printed circuit boards, as well as professional and consumer still photographic film. • Includes related component businesses: Polyester Film; Solvent Recovery; and Specialty Chemicals.
• Motion Picture: • Includes the motion picture film business serving the entertainment industry. Motion picture products are sold directly to studios, external laboratories and independent filmmakers. • Kodak motion picture film processing laboratories offering onsite processing services at strategic locations in the U.S. and Europe.
• Kodak Services for Business:
• KSB assists organizations with challenges and opportunities created by the worldwide digital transformation. It provides business process outsourcing services, scan and capture solutions, records conversion services, workflow solutions, content management, and print and managed media services that assist customers with solutions that meet their business requirements. KSB has expertise in the capture, archiving, retrieval and delivery of documents including in depth knowledge of handling legacy media. KSB serves enterprise customers primarily in the banking, insurance and government sectors. Sales in KSB are project-based and can vary from year to year depending on the nature and number of projects in existence that year.
• Kodakit:
• Kodakit is a platform that connects businesses with professional photographers to cater to their photography needs. Customers include global hotels and online travel agencies, real estate companies, marketplaces, advertising agencies and global brands. 6 • In October 2019, Kodak decided to discontinue the operation of Kodakit.

Net sales for Motion Picture and Industrial Film and Chemicals accounted for 14% and 12% of Kodak’s total net revenue for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Good luck pulling out just the photographic film numbers.

 

[Pioneer]

You guys enjoy yourselves. It was a good thread while it lasted.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, you are right.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When you include inflation, film has never been cheaper. Arista 400 for $4.29/36 in 2020? That would be something like a nickel in the 1980s...

+ 10,000 Some people just like to bitch.

 

[Helge]

I don't suggest that Kodak's film is detrimental to its profit and security. That is not the point that I am making and further, I don't believe that is true. The only point, the sole point, the single point I'm making is that the film division's revenue stream does not suggest that there has been a surge in film sales, both motion and still.

That's it, nothing more. I don't understand why those who don't believe this, attack me personally rather than refute the facts. If it is that easy, that true, then go ahead and prove it. Are we not adults here?

Well, do you think it’s reasonable to expect Kodak to readily divulge such information? It is after all their lifeblood, emotionally and historically anyway.

If you look around you though, I’d think it’s very reasonable to say that all the renewed interest in film, must logically have stemmed from and have resulted in surging sales.

But you might be denying or doubting the renewed interest too?

 

[Sean]

This thread may be missing some content, we've had to re-ban a disruptive account coming in under a new alias. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

[ts1000]

not easy to have a opinioned and yet constructive online conversation that covers:
- assumptions
- ideations/suggestions
- economic facts and economic predictions
- future market demands predictions

While acknowledging and separating out
personal anecdotes and personal confirmation bias from externally confirmable evidence and facts.


In my view the thread sofar has been thought provoking, interesting and largerly engaging.
I think majority of folks acknowledged that OP observed the film photography issues correctly:

• Future lack of film camera due to dwindling affordable parts supply.And how it hinders the potential investment/development into film manufactures
• Others, have added that lack of modern, high quality and cost effective film scanning/digitizing is also an additional fundamental problem that must be addressed

I personally agree with above.
I had also learnt about increasing film demand (which I did not realize before).

Then a few folks offered several suggestions on how to address some of the issues outlined above:

• Buying out an old manufacturing facility (eg Kiev)
• Creating a open source Film photography collective to host innovative designs/blue print (this was my entry, but did not receive much interest, I do not think)
• Building out a manufacturing capacity in a low-labor cost country, manufacturing m42 older style design of a 35mm if possible (I think this what OP mentioned in his initial video).

Overall, all are reasonable suggestions and at least, in my view, all are viable solutions.
I do not think we had covered how to address a problem with affordable, easy to use high quality film scanning.
But may be if the discussion goes on -- this will be covered too.

I find the whole topic is interesting and most contribution are well meaning.

You guys enjoy yourselves. It was a good thread while it lasted.

 

[wyofilm]

Thanks ts1000 for the summary. It is an interesting topic for me, as well. Let's see if I can help by posing my observations on scanning, as I continue to be bedeviled by scanning/digitizing.

My summary of personal observations:
1. Limited options for new 35mm scanning. Maybe this new scanner (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...image_primefilm_xas_scanner.html?sts=pi&pim=Y) is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, keeping old scanners running from a decade or more ago seems to be a good bet. Although, I'm pretty sure I don't have the patience for the operating system gymnastics required. My Epson 750 flatbed scanner never did it for me. The fault could easily rest with the user! I now use a digital camera set up. This is faster, gives better results and is much less frustrating. The downside is that I don't have the convenience of Vuescan, etc.

2. Scanning MF and LF seems to work better for me on the flatbed scanner than 35mm. Why is this? I'm not sure. Since I have the digital camera set up for 35mm I now digitize MF the same way. I rarely scan/digitize LF.

3. To save the hassle I often send in 35mm/MF color and slide film to North Coast Photographic Services for processing and scanning. Why? C41 and E6 doesn't lend itself to the creative process like BW film developing does and the process of scanning sucks. I print B&W in the darkroom. For now, I print color on a canon printer.

4. Small companies seem to recognize that they can improve the scanning process through the sales of better film holders, for example.

5. What will film labs do to solve the scanning problem when commercial scanners age out? I can't imagine. If the Photo labs can't scan film, color film sales will take a big hit, I think.

It would be great to hear what the more experienced/successful folks who scan think. I find scanning film to be tedious and wish it was more seamless.

 

[Helge]

I learned to use a changing bag back in the original "film days". Once you've practiced loading a few rolls of sacrificial film in daylight, transferring the "feel" to a changing bag is really just a matter of a few practice runs. A changing bag costs under $25, and requires no space.

I really don't feel that any of the material considerations or availability of chemistry and products is much of a challenge these days. We've got it pretty good.

Andy

Using a changing bag is a nightmare.
It collapses on your hands disturbing the process, and after just a couple of minutes and a few mistakes it’s becomes a tropical biosphere.
It’s even worse with 120 than 135. I’ve never been able to find my way with it.

I tend to use gravity as a helping hand in keeping the film on track, which is impossible in a bag.
And you are royally screwed if you forgot even a single of the components of the tank or scissors when you are inside the bag.

I doubt I’ll ever find my peace with the changing bag.
And I suspect most new film users have the same experience.

I’ve heard of small changing tents that leave a bit more space and ventilation to work in.
That might be the ticket, though since they didn’t become popular, I doubt that they are a very different experience.