Renew My Faith Please ...

[naturephoto1]

I don't believe it Robert. In fact if you want to prove it, buy me a ticket to Oahu, put me up in a fancy hotel, take me out shooting and then on the last day show me her store

Dinesh,

That might be pushing it, but Robert may put you up for a visit.

Robert, You beat me to the punch line.

Rich

 

[Ed Sukach]

I didn't say 'market surveys'. I said sales reports. As to whether or not anything is more important than sales, you'd have to ask that to the shareholders. I'd suggest that profits are the most important thing to them, and sales drive profits in the sense that if you haven't any sales, you probably haven't any profits. Companies without profits tend to absent themselves from the marketplace.

Startling News!!!! I'll bet you are counting your "I win"s, by enlightening me. Do you really think that I am so stupid that I don't know that?

However we are talking about future predictions, and I would submit that a "Market Survey", couched as it is, with the understanding that any expansion to predict the future is more "truthful" about its inherent risks than "sales reports"... which in the last analysis are HISTORIES of what has happened before.

You say that the sales of film are down ... 20%. I won't bother to question that. .. even though I would be interested in the source of your information.

How about bring some balance to the question? This discussion only makes sense as a comparison ... what are the sales trends relating to (pardon the expression) Digital Cameras and Media? I cannot speak with authority here - I have really never taken a great deal of interest in the money-making aspect of camera sales - but I seem to remember something about a precipitous drop in Digital Media sales as well - something to do with market saturation.

Your pronouncements about the logic of some of the assumptions here are interesting - dismissing another opinion with one fell swoop, "Not logical", without any discussion.

I thought about this discussion today, listening to a radio commentator when a telephone caller asked him about a public opinion poll, where the inference was that only 35% of the American Public agreed with his view of a certain question. His answer: "See - that PROVES that I am right. Only 35% of the people know what is going on!! The rest are totally ignorant, insensitive dolts, not worthy of citizenship!!!"

Translation: "It is right because *I* say it is right!"

What do you think of that brand of "logic"?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I hate myself for reading this thread for the past 3 weeks.

I've commited myself to reading every 20th page

Murray

 

[naturephoto1]

I've commited myself to reading every 20th page

Murray

Hi Murray,

I had almost given up on this long ago. But, maybe I should follow your lead. That means I don't have to read until page 40 or 41.

Rich

 

[MurrayMinchin]

ssssshhhhhhh...I'm not really here on page 21...I just had to see if Richard's post was in reply to my post...see you in 19 Richard...ssssshhhhh...

Murray

 

[DBP]

The last year I have been able to find worldwide figures for is 2001, in which sales totalled 3.12 billion rolls, plus .37 billion single use cameras. If we assume sales reductions of 20% per year from 2001 to 2016, the figure that Wiggy keeps citing, then this year the market will be 1.1 billion rolls and in 2009 the market will be over half a billion rolls. I believe that for Wiggy to be correct all of those will have to be black and white and all the producers will have to decide to walk away from a 2016 market of 120 million rolls. I don't know what the minimum economic order quantity is for an emulsion, though I'm sure PE does (and probably can't tell us). But I sincerely doubt it is anywhere close to a million rolls, which is, after all, over two hectares of emulsion, or about 5 acres. So i think there will be a manageable market for a long time, even if sales do continue to decline at 20% per year, which I doubt.

 

[MikeM1977]

The last year I have been able to find worldwide figures for is 2001, in which sales totalled 3.12 billion rolls, plus .37 billion single use cameras. If we assume sales reductions of 20% per year from 2001 to 2016, the figure that Wiggy keeps citing, then this year the market will be 1.1 billion rolls and in 2009 the market will be over half a billion rolls. I believe that for Wiggy to be correct all of those will have to be black and white and all the producers will have to decide to walk away from a 2016 market of 120 million rolls. I don't know what the minimum economic order quantity is for an emulsion, though I'm sure PE does (and probably can't tell us). But I sincerely doubt it is anywhere close to a million rolls, which is, after all, over two hectares of emulsion, or about 5 acres. So i think there will be a manageable market for a long time, even if sales do continue to decline at 20% per year, which I doubt.

Yup, multi-billion dollar industries don't disappear overnight no matter how disruptive the technology. Heck, there is even a market TODAY for CD players with analog tubes (and record players for that matter). Kodak may not be the top supplier of film in 2015, but somebody will.

 

[copake_ham]

Please don't rationalize Wiggy!

I have e-mailed both the site sponsor and the chief moderator of the RFF site begging them to encourage Wiggy (Bill) to return home. (Note: unlike me, he is NOT banned there - he's just chosen to "visit" himself upon us here).

If any of you are members of RFF - please initiate a thread titled, perhaps: "Won't you come home Bill Mattock" or something similar.

Every clown needs a circus; but each clown should only inhabit one circus!

 

[DKT]

I would be interested in the source of your information.

magic eight ball. works for me all the time.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Startling News!!!! I'll bet you are counting your "I win"s, by enlightening me. Do you really think that I am so stupid that I don't know that?

No, I don't think you're stupid. I failed to read your sarcasm. Online communication can be like that sometimes.

However we are talking about future predictions, and I would submit that a "Market Survey", couched as it is, with the understanding that any expansion to predict the future is more "truthful" about its inherent risks than "sales reports"... which in the last analysis are HISTORIES of what has happened before.

The sun came up yesterday, and the day before. This establishes a trend, and although the sun may not come up tomorrow, it increases the possibility that it will. This is what historical values do; establish trends. Trends change, clearly, but usually not without being acted upon by an outside force.

You say that the sales of film are down ... 20%. I won't bother to question that. .. even though I would be interested in the source of your information.

As you requested:

Kodak 2005 Annual Report:
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/11/115/115911/items/189563/annualReport05.pdf

U.S. consumer film industry sell-through volumes decreased approximately 25% in 2005 as compared with the prior year. Kodak’s sell-in consumer film volumes declined approximately 36% in the current year as compared with the prior year, reflecting a continuing reduction in U.S. retailer
inventories as well as a decline in market share.

From the Kodak 2004 Annual Shareholder's Report:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/corp/annualReport04/annualReport2004.pdf

As previously announced, the Company’s current estimate of worldwide consumer film industry volumes for 2005 could decline as much as
20%, with U.S. volumes declining as much as 30%

From the Kodak 2004 Annual Shareholder's Report:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/115911/reports/ek_ar03.pdf

Net worldwide sales of professional sensitized products, including
color negative, color reversal and commercial black and white films and
sensitized paper, decreased 13% in 2002 as compared with 2001, reflecting
primarily a decline in volume, with no impact from exchange. Overall
sales declines were primarily the result of ongoing digital substitution and
continued economic weakness in markets worldwide.

Fujifilm does not break out their sales the same way - they consider themselves to be three organizations (imaging, documentation, and information systems) and they will only report revenue in that manner. That means sales revenue of digital and traditional film gets reported in the same set of numbers and they don't break them out that I can find. However, they have closed two of their film coating plants - one in South Carolina, the other in the Netherlands, in the past six months.

Agfa? Well, I guess we know where their sales went.

The industry is all over this as well:

http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=2&id=91

Note: September, 2005

New data on film sales was released on April 29 th by Matthew Troy, imaging analyst for Smith Barney, who must wear night vision goggles to stay on top of the industry the way he does. According to Matthew, "EK roll film unit sales fell 40% in the latest four week period (ended 4/16), steeper than both the 28% decline at Fuji and 15% pullback in private label. This was the sharpest decline in sales since the secular decline in film began."

Matthew continued: "EK single-use camera unit sales fell 11%, slightly better than Fuji's decline of 12.5%."Interestingly, he reported that sales of private label single-use cameras for the period were up 24%.

We all know what has been happening to film. Matthew's numbers just puts some reality to it. For the small photo specialist the impact is seen primarily on the processing end, not in film sales. He just orders one brick less next time.

Please note that my previous statements are supported by reality - single-use camera sales ARE up, but the overall trend of film sales is down. This downward trend is for the traditional photographic film in total.

How about bring some balance to the question? This discussion only makes sense as a comparison ... what are the sales trends relating to (pardon the expression) Digital Cameras and Media? I cannot speak with authority here - I have really never taken a great deal of interest in the money-making aspect of camera sales - but I seem to remember something about a precipitous drop in Digital Media sales as well - something to do with market saturation.

Digital camera sales have been predicted to reach saturation point for several years in a row now, but they have not done so yet. The industry reports say that 2007 will be the year - but they said that for 2006 and late 2005, and it didn't happen.

But what if it does? Well, it doesn't mean anything with regard to the lifespan of photographic film. It doesn't mean fewer digital cameras out there, it means a leveling off of sales - a flat market. What does that do for film? Nothing, per se.

Your pronouncements about the logic of some of the assumptions here are interesting - dismissing another opinion with one fell swoop, "Not logical", without any discussion.

When someone says "film sales are increasing" they are not being logical, because it is not true. There is no need for discussion. If they say that single use camera sales are way up, it means nothing - because the category that they inhabit, film sales, are still declining. I can't change the numbers - they are what they are. Unless you wish to engage in a debate about whether or not the film manufacturers are lying about their film sales, it is QED.

When someone says, "Well, I refuse to believe that film is going away," that's an opinion. Fair enough, we all get one, and his could well be right. But it's just a flat statement, not backed by anything other than his belief, as far as I can tell. If he has facts, let's see 'em.

I have opinions, and I present them strongly. I don't understand why others do not present theirs in a similar fashion. I have done the research, I have plodded through the financial reports, I follow the news releases and the news of plant closings and so on - I think my opinions are correct interpretations of the situation with regard to film - in other words, I think I'm right. That doesn't mean I *am* right - it means I believe it, and I have gone through the work to prove it to my own satisfaction. I share my data with whomever wants it - and it is out there for anyone else who cares to read it.

I thought about this discussion today, listening to a radio commentator when a telephone caller asked him about a public opinion poll, where the inference was that only 35% of the American Public agreed with his view of a certain question. His answer: "See - that PROVES that I am right. Only 35% of the people know what is going on!! The rest are totally ignorant, insensitive dolts, not worthy of citizenship!!!"

Translation: "It is right because *I* say it is right!"

What do you think of that brand of "logic"?

I think that brand of logic is silly and self-supporting. I don't think that is my brand of logic. I am not making things up - my facts are checkable. I am making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on what I know and what I believe - we all do that, every day of our lives. However, I am open and honest about what I believe to be true about the future of film, and I invite both criticism and contradiction - you have seen me do so in this thread.

And in the end, time will tell. I don't think I'm wrong, but it's always possible.

 

[BrianShaw]

(snip) And in the end, time will tell.

Now there's a great bottom line. That's what I'm waiting for.. time to tell. There is no better validation of a theory/hypothesis/prediction than that!

 

[Wigwam Jones]

The last year I have been able to find worldwide figures for is 2001, in which sales totalled 3.12 billion rolls, plus .37 billion single use cameras. If we assume sales reductions of 20% per year from 2001 to 2016, the figure that Wiggy keeps citing, then this year the market will be 1.1 billion rolls and in 2009 the market will be over half a billion rolls. I believe that for Wiggy to be correct all of those will have to be black and white and all the producers will have to decide to walk away from a 2016 market of 120 million rolls. I don't know what the minimum economic order quantity is for an emulsion, though I'm sure PE does (and probably can't tell us). But I sincerely doubt it is anywhere close to a million rolls, which is, after all, over two hectares of emulsion, or about 5 acres. So i think there will be a manageable market for a long time, even if sales do continue to decline at 20% per year, which I doubt.

Agfa Photo did not close their doors because they could not sell roll one. They closed their doors because they could not afford to sell film at the rate they were selling it. There is always a point at which it is no longer profitable to manufacture a product, and a that point, the manufacturer generally ceases to make it. No one intentionally 'rides it into the ground' down to sales quantity zilch. They get out while they still have inventory they can clear.

I don't know what the amount of film is per roll for any individual company before they can no longer afford to make it. I'm sure each one of them has a pretty good idea, though. The continued closing of plants says that they are responding to these pressures.

 

[copake_ham]

Now there's a great bottom line. That's what I'm waiting for.. time to tell. There is no better validation of a theory/hypothesis/prediction than that!

Hi Brian,

Good to hear from you.

Yes, absolutely.

It's known as the "With Hindsight, I Knew I Was Right" theory. This predictive approach has a 100% correct record!

 

[MikeM1977]

Agfa Photo did not close their doors because they could not sell roll one. They closed their doors because they could not afford to sell film at the rate they were selling it. There is always a point at which it is no longer profitable to manufacture a product, and a that point, the manufacturer generally ceases to make it. No one intentionally 'rides it into the ground' down to sales quantity zilch. They get out while they still have inventory they can clear.

Agfa closed their doors because they couldn't remain competitive in the shrinking market. In other words, there is no longer room for three big lions and they couldn't compete with Fuji and Kodak. Survival of the fittest. But somebody will survive even if a fraction of their size today. There is a market for film that is $10/roll.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Agfa closed their doors because they couldn't remain competitive in the shrinking market. In other words, there is no longer room for three big lions and they couldn't compete with Fuji and Kodak. Survival of the fittest. But somebody will survive even if a fraction of their size today. There is a market for film that is $10/roll.

You are probably right that there is a market for film at $10 per roll. Even $20 per roll. The 'consumers' that make up that billion-roll per year sales figure won't be buying it, though, will they? I am going to guess they'll pass when it comes to that and go on to digital. That leaves the enthusiast market. How large is that market?

That's the rub - consumer sales keep volume up, though sales are declining. Volume and competition allows the market to be relatively efficient and price-per-roll to be as low as it can be to the consumer - and we enthusiasts benefit from that. A recent article I read in Photo Reporter said that retail film outlets averaged about 1% profit on a roll of film sold. That's pretty efficient from the consumer's point of view. In fact, according to their interviews, if the film outlet did not subsequently capture the processing and printing of that roll of film, they could not actually afford to sell it - that 1% is gross, not net, and they'd go out of business if that was their source of revenue alone.

When the price rises (due to higher silver cost, higher fuel costs, and higher raw material costs and other factors), the consumer base is less inclined to buy film and cameras that use film. When they stop buying, then the price REALLY shoots up, and we enter the end-game scenario. Each subsequent price increase drives away the market stabilizing force (the consumer) and that in turn drives volume sales down and prices even higher.

As you said - some will readily pay $10 per roll for film; but what about $100? What about $500? I doubt film will ever hit those levels, but that would be the trend if prices raise in connection to the future drop in sales.

My argument has been that a film manufacturing company cannot physically downsize easily - huge plants remain huge plants, and fixed costs are fixed costs - heating, taxes, insurance, even payroll (you can cut wages and employees, but there will always be a minimum needed to run the plant at all).

Yes, you can close film plants and consolidate operations, but essentially, film plants, like all manufacturing plants, were designed to be most efficient at maximum operating capacity. When they are run less often, or slower, they cost more to run, so the cost per produced roll of film must rise to compensate for that.

I have been set back in my argument by Photo Engineer here on APUG, who, being a retired Kodak employee and film engineer, has a superior grasp of whether or not a plant can be scaled down - so I can't really rely on that assumption anymore. I don't have access to his data or to his knowledge base, so I'll have to defer to that without proof.

I do think that sales will not taper off to zero - I think they'll drop, drop, drop, and then hit a brick wall and that will be the end of it for all intents and purposes, at least for color print film in the near term. However, I have been moved by some of Photo Engineer's statements regarding how possible it is to 'make film' oneself - he is doing it, and he is teaching it.

Can one say that film is 'not dead' if there is someone making bespoke rolls of it in his basement or workshop? Perhaps not; but I think it is an argument in semantics. To me, if a consumer can no longer readily purchase a roll of color print film either at retail or by normal distribution channels (mailorder, internet, etc), then it is dead for all intents and purposes. Will there be stockpiles frozen in huge lockers? Sure. Will there be guys making a buck off of those rolls, selling them off for the next twenty years? Sure. Will there be guys like Photo Engineer, making film for themselves? I had argued not, but I am clearly wrong about that. Does that make film viable again? I'm going to go with 'not'.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wiggy;

You post things here that you read about in the papers and guess about. You are no financial analyst AFAIK, nor an expert in the current status of the photo industry, just a 'guesstimator'.

Simon is the expert here and my data comes from years of experience and also talking to experts at EK on a regular basis.

All of my data disagrees with yours!

Film will never go away but product choice will be severly limited compared to todays market. Everyone knows this and disagrees with your statements. In fact, when you consider the matter everyone's data disagrees with yours and it is not a matter of hiding our heads in the sand. It is a matter of hard fact such as the increase in disposable camera sales especially in Africa and SA, not to mention China.

You know so little of what is going on, and you are like a parrot repeating back what you read, not what you have found out by investication by talking with sources, that the situation is useless when it comes to communication.

You give newspaper quotes when I talk in person to the person you are quoting. You give opinion, when Simon speaks from his own figures on his desktop.

I think it is time you give up. Sorry, you are not well enough informed. From my perspective, and probably others, you either get a kick out of this stuff or the situation regarding your knowledge of the photo industry and your desire to 'report' on it is rather pathetic.

I wish you well, but I suggest that you abandon this thread or prove my worst fears about your motives or mental state or both.

PE

 

[DBP]

One more comment on the quantity of film in use out there - a recent US Air Force solicitation called for 144,000 linear feet of color film in a mix of 16mm, 35mm, and 70mm. See http://www.fbo.gov/servlet/Documents/R/530400. And that is just one purchase by one agency of one (admittedly large) government. And I suspect that government purchases were not included in my earlier figures.

Anyone who thinks that any large national government would, or even could, give up on a technology as widely used as film in less than a few decades does not have any idea how things work.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I wish you well, but I suggest that you abandon this thread or prove my worst fears about your motives or mental state or both.

Dissent is a dangerous thing, isn't it? Good day, Ron. I wish you well, too.

 

[Andy K]

I keep getting a mental image of a guy in sandwich boards proclaiming 'The End Of The World Is Nigh!' We've all seen him, he twitches a lot and holds conversations with himself.

 

[Black Dog]

And now I know how Joan of Arc felt.........

Well, all any of us can do is offer an opinion (unless we have inside knowledge of course). But clearly some are more accurate than others :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

PS- a little knowledge is an even more dangerous thing

 

[Ed Sukach]

No, I don't think you're stupid. I failed to read your sarcasm. Online communication can be like that sometimes.

You took that as something else? I can only say, !!!!!

The sun came up yesterday, and the day before. This establishes a trend, and although the sun may not come up tomorrow, it increases the possibility that it will. This is what historical values do; establish trends. Trends change, clearly, but usually not without being acted upon by an outside force.

Another astounding revelation!!! More astounding still would be a situation where there were NO outside influences. Consider clouds.

As you requested:

Kodak 2005 Annual Report:....

Aha! I am a little surprised that you place so much faith in "Annual Reports"! ... I had assumed a greater level of intelligence. You should read the Annual Report to Stockholders from that corporation ... before its demise.... what was its name ... Oh yes, I remember -- "Enron". Glowing predictions about the future - based on history...

Annual reports are PR - Sales documents, calculated to present the top management of a given corporation in the BEST (not necessarily the most honest - in fact, very rarely, honest) light possible. They are, to a great extent, salary reviews, written by top management FOR top management. Example: "Our losses were far less than (we) predicted; we only lost $2 billion, instead of $5 billion, so we have decided to give ourselves a 200% salary increase, along with astronomical bonuses to celebrate the ` + $3 billion in savings' figure".
They also are the media for justifying top management decisions, some REALLY strange ... often bereft of the slightest traces of logic whatsoever.

I thought EVERYONE knew that.

Digital camera sales have been predicted to reach saturation point for several years in a row now, but they have not done so yet. The industry reports say that 2007 will be the year - but they said that for 2006 and late 2005, and it didn't happen.

Here we go again ... WHAT "Industry Reports"?

On second thought ... If you don't want to reply to that, it is totally OK. I have darkroom work to do, and it will take precedence over continuing this discussion.

When someone says, "Well, I refuse to believe that film is going away," that's an opinion. Fair enough, we all get one, and his could well be right. But it's just a flat statement, not backed by anything other than his belief, as far as I can tell. If he has facts, let's see 'em.

Arrgghhh!! Just as I was going to abandon this infernal keyboard and get to my darkroom...

What was that old saying about "The pot calling the kettle black.."?

I have opinions, and I present them strongly. I don't understand why others do not present theirs in a similar fashion.

Other than, "I thought we were", possibilities: Discretion! Tact. Pausing to consider someone else's opinion. Frustration. The presence of nude models in the studio. Pending darkroom work (!!)

Enough.

-30-

 

[copake_ham]

Hey Ed, does that "pending darkroom work" have anything to do with the nude model?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hey Ed, does that "pending darkroom work" have anything to do with the nude model?

Yes - but not directly. Mostly with their images - but I've met a few who were ACCOMPLISHED photographers.

Strangely, there seems to be a preponderance of cello players among them. What the correlation there is ... I have NO idea!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, all any of us can do is offer an opinion (unless we have inside knowledge of course). But clearly some are more accurate than others :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

PS- a little knowledge is an even more dangerous thing

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a lot of knowledge is even more dangerous. (A. Einstein)

PE

 

[bob01721]

"... Annual reports are PR - Sales documents, calculated to present the top management of a given corporation in the BEST (not necessarily the most honest - in fact, very rarely, honest) light possible. They are, to a great extent, salary reviews, written by top management FOR top management. Example: 'Our losses were far less than (we) predicted; we only lost $2 billion, instead of $5 billion, so we have decided to give ourselves a 200% salary increase, along with astronomical bonuses to celebrate the " + $3 billion in savings" figure'.
They also are the media for justifying top management decisions, some REALLY strange ... often bereft of the slightest traces of logic whatsoever.

I thought EVERYONE knew that..."

I'll be darnded. I always thought they were financial documents submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-K for publicly traded companies) or to the IRS (Form 1120 for privately held companies). And that that had to account for sales and expenses according to procedures established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. And that these reports are submitted under oath. Et cetera.

Dang! For fifteen years I submitted annual reports for my company and never knew what they were for. Thanks for clearing that up!