Some Reassuring News from Ilford!

[SilverGlow]

I imagine it's because of the amount of time it takes to master a film plus the fact that many people try for a consistent look in their work. Having to start again with a new product takes a long time and by implication slows down output. For an amateur this can be a big hassle, for a pro it can mean loss of income. For this reason, you'll notice people tend to be much more 'angry' when a manufacturer gives little or misleading information about a product compared to a phased discontinuance or replacement.

I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.

 

[AmsterdamMartin]

Nice writing from Ilford. I guess they mean what they say and hope it will work out.
The only truth is YOU, and whether you believe it or not.
Have you ever seen a site like nikonrumours, or some posts about film availability on this site ? It makes me want to vomit because of all the stupidness. Now that film is not mainstream anymore, I would hope we would get rid of that.
Glad there is an ignore threat button.
From Ilford it is just a statement and a dedication.
btw have you seen their analog and digital silver gelatine print service ?
I just ordered 16 8x10 inch prints, just to see what it is like.
If you have an opinion please just show me, do not tell.

 

[perkeleellinen]

one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice.

Yes, I think this is entirely sensible.

 

[dr5chrome]

..I don't think your preaching to any choir here by this statement. How little you understand the high-end user my friend..

I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.

 

[Van Camper]

I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.

I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.

Obviously you do not understand what is going on. With the arrival of digital it was expected that film sales would get cut in half (what else did you expect?). Of course production will get cut in half, we’ll have half the employees, half the film choices we once had. Of course you can expect market restructuring (no more film cameras sold at Wallmart or the average camera retail store). It is a niche market, and now a specialty goods class product as classified by marketing people. Of course it will be handled differently. The market is also in maturity now, characterized by many competitors, many models, many upgrades, and a good decade later film is still around. Why? Because it was the 35mm and 120market (wedding shooters) that all switched to digital. Today the amateur/wedding/sports/magazine/journalist is fully satisfied with a dslr. However, even they want sometimes more quality, and digital backs are not cheap, nor match the quality of the smallest format (4x5 film). Film remains affordable. This is why we still see over 15 mfrs of large format cameras, new mfrs still appearing (Gaoersi, Fotoman, Chamonix…at a time a few years ago when things were at there worse around 2006),new models being introduced, upgrades to existing products (eg- to technorama, technica 3000). It is business as usual, and everything in this market one day will be special order (for a niche market). Don’t expect to see it just anywhere, and expect to buy your camera and film by mail, even processing may go this route. But the demand is there, and there is still no affordable replacement to 4x5 film. When someone asks you what is high-end photography, the answer still is 4x5 film (and 8x10 is in another league). Photokina 2008 already was having various mfrs (from the horses mouth) reporting stabilization and growth in large format film sales. It will be interesting in a few months what Photokina 2010 brings us for news. We also had a new Fuji 6x7 folder film camera introduced (I think they no a bit more then us, and would not cut their own throat by eliminating all their own films…they just cut back to a smaller selection). We have Ektar 100 introduced….so new products are being introduced, rather then staying with the old (which you would expect if it were true and film was dead). The problem is we have too many amateurs who never saw a large format film telling us all film is dead (but know diddly), and the rest who know little about the business end of things….with a lot of bad word of mouth in the end.

 

[GeoffHill]

Sales of large and medium format film are dwarfed by sales of 35mm format film.

Without 35mm film, there would be no large format.

Why do you think Ilford has 7 types of 35mm film, yet only 3 types of LF film

 

[Ian Grant]

Sales of large and medium format film are dwarfed by sales of 35mm format film.

Without 35mm film, there would be no large format.

Why do you think Ilford has 7 types of 35mm film, yet only 3 types of LF film

Maybe but growth is in the LF market, just look how many companies manufacture them, and then how few make new 35mm cameras.

ian

 

[mikebarger]

Are there really more LF new cameras sold than 35mm? I guess I'm really out of touch with the market.

Mike

 

[GeoffHill]

Although the growth is there, it is never likely to grow to sufficient size to sustain manufacture of film without 135 format. The long term availability of all film is linked to the continued (declining) use of this format.

 

[Ian Grant]

Are there really more LF new cameras sold than 35mm? I guess I'm really out of touch with the market.

Mike

I didn't say more sold, I said more manufacturers, one thing about MF and particularly LF users is they make each exposure count, so shoot proportionally less images.

Ian

 

[mikebarger]

Sorry Ian, I jumped to the conclusion that growth equaled volume/units not the number of manufacturers. My fault.

Mike

 

[Van Camper]

Although the growth is there, it is never likely to grow to sufficient size to sustain manufacture of film without 135 format. The long term availability of all film is linked to the continued (declining) use of this format.

You're looking at it as a single market, when there are many. The 35mm format is still popular in the North American and European market with the older population who never were comfortable with computers or digital. This is why local neighbourhood labs are gone, but a regional one (Wallmart) still processes 35mm film. The 35mm market is also popular in 3rd world countries, but that is it. Also 35mm is in a decline even with Ilford, simply because most amateurs don't have darkrooms and use their dslr. It is the serious breed of amateurs and pros (wedding/sport/magazine/journalism) who make their living with a dslr but want to do their own fine art using larger films. The 35mm format has already been replaced by a dslr, why shoot it, unless you're not comfortable with digial. But the 120 market is hanging in, because there still are no affordble options to replace 6x7, 6x9, and were a long way off in affordability to match the quality of 612 or 617(a growing market). Many of us need to print big (look at fine art galleries...average print size 40 inches and bigger), and presently a P45 or P65 back is limited to only a 27-30 inch print without the need for interpolation. Lets not forget there is a market for quality, a high-end market....and nothing matches the quality of 4x5 or larger film, and nothing comes close that is affordable by most of us. The digital back market is also not growing, because the dslr is taking over. There are line ups at shows for dslr, and little for these high-end digital backs (with lower ISO performance) because as mentioned before the wedding/sport/magazine/journalism market are more then satisfied with existing dslrs. Film growth does not depend on 35mm, it's major growth is in 120 and sheet film. Check out comments from Photokina 2008 where already film sales are reported as stabilizing. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Total sales are down, as more sales drop in the 35mm market, but large format sales are growing. We have the new Fuji 6x7 folder film camera just introduced, a new Schneider 350mm lens introduced about 3 months ago, a second Shen-Hao 617 non folding camera, new mfrs in large format appearing (Gaoersi, Chamonix, Fotoman). When large format mfrs decline to only a few, and their product lines shrink to a few, then I'll start worrying, but for now it is growing.

 

[railwayman3]

Going back to the OP and some earlier posts, I suggest that it's rather harsh to doubt that Ilford/Harman are not genuine in their Press Release.

Of course, they can only commit themselves for the "foreseeable" future, and we cannot expect them to continue products which become unprofitable. After the management buy-out they are a private company owned by the directors, so their commitment to B&W must be total, having taken on the liabilities and responsibilities of running the company. From their support of B&W seen here, elsewhere, and from the factory visit, that is very evident.

The only thing which we, or any of the photo manufacturers, can be sure of is that neither analogue photography nor digital imaging will be the same in 50, or even 25, years time from now.

 

[mikebarger]

how about 5 years?

 

[clayne]

how about 5 years?

Why are you so incredibly negative about film around here? Every single thread we're discussing it you're almost always out there predicting it's death. Why are you here?

 

[mikebarger]

I'm trying to keep you happy, it's my personal goal.

My post about five years was just a statement that the market is continuing to change, we won't have to wait 25 year to see the next change. I don't see that as being negative, do you?

You can't go a month here, hardly a week, without someone reporting on a product being dropped and carrying on like it is the end of the world.

I'm not negative about film, I don't even own a digital camera. I don't understand why anyone thinks a company shouldn't change their business model to meet changes in market demand. I'd prefer they change their product offerings if it will keep them in business making analog products. I'm of the persuasion you buy the products that available and move on. It amazes me these threads run on like they do, but it's like a train wreck, I can't keep from looking.

So yes, I guess I do like to poke an occasional stick at that group.

Mike

 

[markbarendt]

The 35mm format has already been replaced by a dslr, why shoot it, unless you're not comfortable with digial.

There are actually can be some very good business reasons.

The first in my head is understanding that if I'm doing photography as a business I probably can't do everything myself. I need to decide what work I need to be doing?

My time is the limiting factor.

Is it more profitable for me to "hire a lab so I can be out selling and promoting my work?" or to "hire a sales person and do my own processing?"

I'm going to suggest that most photographers would be more profitable if they spent more time selling themselves instead of processing their own stuff.

Another question is will I make more money if I buy a D3, lots of software, and a big laptop or if I buy 3 F100's and an advertisement in "another" wedding guide or two and let somebody like Richard Photo Lab do my back end work?

I'd suggest the latter actually makes more business sense for most people.

 

[fotch]

I'm trying to keep you happy, it's my personal goal.

My post about five years was just a statement that the market is continuing to change, we won't have to wait 25 year to see the next change. I don't see that as being negative, do you?

You can't go a month here, hardly a week, without someone reporting on a product being dropped and carrying on like it is the end of the world.

I'm not negative about film, I don't even own a digital camera. I don't understand why anyone thinks a company shouldn't change their business model to meet changes in market demand. I'd prefer they change their product offerings if it will keep them in business making analog products. I'm of the persuasion you buy the products that available and move on. It amazes me these threads run on like they do, but it's like a train wreck, I can't keep from looking.

So yes, I guess I do like to poke an occasional stick at that group.

Mike

That a boy Mike

 

[clayne]

35mm replaced by DSLR entirely? What a load of BS. If anything there are more digital people picking up 135 cameras now than before. However that seat of the pants metric has nothing to do with the fact that 35mm film is perfectly adequate next to digital.

 

[mikebarger]

I'm going to suggest that most photographers would be more profitable if they spent more time selling themselves instead of processing their own stuff.

I can't guess anyone would be any more passionate about a body of work than the photographer him/herself. I deal with several small business owners in my job and I'm always impressed by the owners enthusiasm about their work/service.

Mike

 

[Ian Grant]

More Ilford news

Perhaps this shouldn't be forgotten

Ian

 

[fotch]

Perhaps this shouldn't be forgotten

Ian

2 for the price of 1

If you buy Polaroid today, you help not 1 but 2 companies as well!

 

[SilverGlow]

..I don't think your preaching to any choir here by this statement. How little you understand the high-end user my friend..

Are you suggesting I know as much about this topic as you know about customer service and business in general? It seems you're the one that knows little about anything "friend".

 

[SilverGlow]

I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.

Obviously you do not understand what is going on. With the arrival of digital it was expected that film sales would get cut in half (what else did you expect?). Of course production will get cut in half, we’ll have half the employees, half the film choices we once had. Of course you can expect market restructuring (no more film cameras sold at Wallmart or the average camera retail store). It is a niche market, and now a specialty goods class product as classified by marketing people. Of course it will be handled differently. The market is also in maturity now, characterized by many competitors, many models, many upgrades, and a good decade later film is still around. Why? Because it was the 35mm and 120market (wedding shooters) that all switched to digital. Today the amateur/wedding/sports/magazine/journalist is fully satisfied with a dslr. However, even they want sometimes more quality, and digital backs are not cheap, nor match the quality of the smallest format (4x5 film). Film remains affordable. This is why we still see over 15 mfrs of large format cameras, new mfrs still appearing (Gaoersi, Fotoman, Chamonix…at a time a few years ago when things were at there worse around 2006),new models being introduced, upgrades to existing products (eg- to technorama, technica 3000). It is business as usual, and everything in this market one day will be special order (for a niche market). Don’t expect to see it just anywhere, and expect to buy your camera and film by mail, even processing may go this route. But the demand is there, and there is still no affordable replacement to 4x5 film. When someone asks you what is high-end photography, the answer still is 4x5 film (and 8x10 is in another league). Photokina 2008 already was having various mfrs (from the horses mouth) reporting stabilization and growth in large format film sales. It will be interesting in a few months what Photokina 2010 brings us for news. We also had a new Fuji 6x7 folder film camera introduced (I think they no a bit more then us, and would not cut their own throat by eliminating all their own films…they just cut back to a smaller selection). We have Ektar 100 introduced….so new products are being introduced, rather then staying with the old (which you would expect if it were true and film was dead). The problem is we have too many amateurs who never saw a large format film telling us all film is dead (but know diddly), and the rest who know little about the business end of things….with a lot of bad word of mouth in the end.

It must be nice to live in the world where one states the obvious, and suggests delusions of grandeur. The film companies, their cancelations, their dismall sales say otherwise what you wrote. I love film but I'm not going to adhere to fantasy either. Film is not dead, but it is nearly dead...I can state this and still be a 95% film shooter and film lover too.

 

[SilverGlow]

35mm replaced by DSLR entirely? What a load of BS. If anything there are more digital people picking up 135 cameras now than before. However that seat of the pants metric has nothing to do with the fact that 35mm film is perfectly adequate next to digital.

No, this is not BS....my Canon EOS 5D Mark II smokes my Canon EOS 1v SLR 35mm film camera in resolution, clarity, and resolved details.

This is not to suggest I prefer my DSLR...I truly love my film SLR and use it 95% of the time, but I use it because I love the film look and not because I think digital has not eclipsed it in resolving power.