Telegraph: Traditional camera film makes a come back

[Henning Serger]

CGW, sorry to say, but you know nothing about the photo market.

iPhones are "good enough" for most of them and will only get better. This has killed the market for low/mid price p&s digicams.

The market for p&s digicams was not killed at all. It is still growing, especially due to demand from the NICs.
In 2010 more than 100 million digital p&s were sold. Source: CIPA (organisation of the Japanese camera manufacturers).

Hoping I'm wrong .....

You are .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Why are labs closing? I'd put very little store in facebook stats.

Recession?
Labs: In Germany the number of labs is quite stable during the last two years. There are even new services.
Maybe the situation is different in Canada.

As I said, the facebook numbers are one indication.
Here is another:
http://www.lomography.com/about/jobs

Only fast growing companies are offering so much new jobs.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[CGW]

Recession?
Labs: In Germany the number of labs is quite stable during the last two years. There are even new services.
Maybe the situation is different in Canada.

As I said, the facebook numbers are one indication.
Here is another:
http://www.lomography.com/about/jobs

Only fast growing companies are offering so much new jobs.

Best regards,
Henning

Tell me there are more labs today in your market than 5-8 years ago.

N. American labs have been in steady decline for a decade. Just ask around.

The number of Lomography jobs is insignificant.

 

[CGW]

the market for p&s digicams was not killed at all. It is still growing, especially due to demand from the NICs.
In 2010 more than 100 million digital p&s were sold. Source: CIPA (organisation of the Japanese camera manufacturers).


Since I know nothing, which sells better: smart phones/camera-equipped phones or p&s digicams?

 

[perkeleellinen]

Since I know nothing, which sells better: smart phones/camera-equipped phones or p&s digicams?

This is like claiming ipods are in terminal decline because cars with stereos sell better.

 

[Henning Serger]

Tell me there are more labs today in your market than 5-8 years ago.

Please read my post. I have not said that. I have said we see a stabilisation here during the last two years. No further closings, some new services.

N. American labs have been in steady decline for a decade. Just ask around.

I know that. We had the peak in film sales in 2001 with more than 3 billion films sold worldwide.
Now we have about 10% of that.
Of course that development caused closings of labs during the last decade. No need to argue.

But that is not the question. The question is wether we now see the beginning of the end of this trend. Wether we will see in the next two or three years or can already see in some areas a stabilisation or a little increase.
That is the subject of the Telegraph article.

The number of Lomography jobs is insignificant.

So, you doubt that overall growth rates of 50% p.a. for a company are not an indicator for economic success.
You doubt that an rapidly growing online community is not an indicator for success.
That doubling film sales in one year is not an indicator for success.
That when a company with almost 300 employees is offering 79 new jobs, that that is insignificant and not an indicator fur success.

I think most business people are probably very satisfied if they would have 10% of that

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Since I know nothing, which sells better: smart phones/camera-equipped phones or p&s digicams?

Of course the mobil phones are sold in higher numbers. Because their main use is telephone calls and SMS.

You said that digital p&s were killed by mobil phones. But fact is p&s still have increasing sales numbers on a world wide basis (in some markets the sales numbers are decreasing, but mainly because of market saturation; everyone who wants such a p&s now has one).
And with more than 100 million units sold saying they are killed is a bit exaggerated, don't you think?

Best regards,
Henning

 

[CGW]

Please read my post. I have not said that. I have said we see a stabilisation here during the last two years. No further closings, some new services.



I know that. We had the peak in film sales in 2001 with more than 3 billion films sold worldwide.
Now we have about 10% of that.
Of course that development caused closings of labs during the last decade. No need to argue.

But that is not the question. The question is wether we now see the beginning of the end of this trend. Wether we will see in the next two or three years or can already see in some areas a stabilisation or a little increase.
That is the subject of the Telegraph article.



So, you doubt that overall growth rates of 50% p.a. for a company are not an indicator for economic success.
You doubt that an rapidly growing online community is not an indicator for success.
That doubling film sales in one year is not an indicator for success.
That when a company with almost 300 employees is offering 79 new jobs, that that is insignificant and not an indicator fur success.

I think most business people are probably very satisfied if they would have 10% of that

Best regards,
Henning

It's nice you're enthusiastic about Lomography Inc but it's hardly an engine of growth for the world's economy. It's macro-economically insignificant, sorry.

Stability--and especially some faint stirring--after a decade of calamitous decline in film sales is rather cold comfort. Harman's stock isn't doing badly--there was even a small dividend--but I haven't seen their balance sheet. They're in a bit of a "last man standing" position.

 

[Henning Serger]

It's nice you're enthusiastic about Lomography Inc .....

Again, please read my posts. Look at post no. 5 on page 1.
I am not "enthusiastic" about lomography. I am analysing it on a neutral basis.
I have clearly written that in post no 5, that the toy camera movement has both positive and negative effects on analogue photography.

It is an interesting question why LSI has this success. To analyse the reasons makes sense.That's all.

but it's hardly an engine of growth for the world's economy. It's macro-economically insignificant, sorry.

??? Of course it is not an engine for the world's economy. No one has said that!
But meanwhile they are so big that they have a relevance for the photo film market. With 500,000 cameras and several million films sold every year.
That is the topic.

Stability--and especially some faint stirring--after a decade of calamitous decline in film sales is rather cold comfort.

Maybe that's your feeling. But for film manufacturers stability is "heaven on earth"
after these hard last years.
And for us photographers as well.
Stability is the most important thing. With stability in film sales the future of photo film is secured and we can continue to use our medium.

Harman's stock isn't doing badly--there was even a small dividend--but I haven't seen their balance sheet. They're in a bit of a "last man standing" position.

Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Adox, Foma, Fotokemika......they have all declared in the past they will be the last man standing....... I don't care much for this talk.
I think all of them work hard to keep their lines running. And I wish them all success. And if we really see a stabilisation in the next years, first signs are there, then indeed all of them can stay in business.

I remenber well Photokina fair in 2002: Lots of "experts" said that in 2010 film will be dead and all production will be stopped. And now we even see new emulsions on the market (and new cameras for film).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Michael W]

Harman's stock isn't doing badly--there was even a small dividend--but I haven't seen their balance sheet.

What stock are you referring to? Harman is a privately held company.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I actually thought this was a good news thread: a high profile news site gives film photography some airing and Lomography shifted 4 million rolls of film in one year during the worst recession since 1932.

Anyway, whenever the doom & gloom predictions materialise, I think to a comment made on photo.net back in 2003 and I keep in mind what predictions are: predictions:

I firmly believe that film will indeed disappear for all intents and purposes within this decade [...] Whether there will be any film available by 2010 or not isn't worth debating, the cost will be extraordinarily high. Contrary to the ludicrous contention of some that 3rd-world consumption will be the savior of film, it will in fact be only the affluent collector who will find film affordable.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

The end of any world is usually postponed

Anyway, whenever the doom & gloom predictions materialise, I think to a comment made on photo.net back in 2003 and I keep in mind what predictions are: predictions:

"Making predictions is always difficult, especially about the future."

- Somebody smarter than I

sa

 

[dr5chrome]

Decline

Henning -

CGW is mostly correct in this debate. While there has been great sales in 'toy' cameras, it is really just a fad, maybe a good fad for film.

And while you seem to be stuck in some sort of time-warp there in Germany, World-wide labs are still closing left and right. I don't believe you quite understand what is happening outside of your little world.

It is true that film sale have gone up in the past 12 months, per my connections with some camera shops in the US. This is likely because all the other stores are closed, but in the likelihood there has been a semi-substantial increase in film sales - the manufactures have not let on and we as a lab have not seen more film to process this year.

The problem arises for ALL labs - "CONSISTENT VOLUME". Without it a lab can not maintain quality or keep rates down. The result - they close.

While the rate of lab closure has slowed in the past few years, still over 300 closed in N.America last year.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Docterfivechrome, I believe that Harmon (Ilford) have reported an 8% increase in film moved by them in the last year.

Mick.

 

[CGW]

Docterfivechrome, I believe that Harmon (Ilford) have reported an 8% increase in film moved by them in the last year.

Mick.

8% above what? What's the $ value of that 8% against total film sales last year? That's the big picture background that's necessary to grasp what's going on. Viewed in isolation of that, the chirping about Harmon/Ilford's 8% increase doesn't necessarily mean much.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Doctorfivechrome, I understand it to be an increase in their film volume over the previous year.

Regarding dollar value, which dollar are you talking about? There are quite a few and some of them are doing quite well at the moment.

Perhaps the North American market, which appears to be in free fall from where I sit at the moment, is reflected in your comments.

I'm interested in your comment about there being over 300 labs closed in North America last year. Is there some source to reference this statement?

Whilst many labs have been closing in my country (Australia), there are some opening up, including one not too far from me and another in my sister's country town. This appears to be going against all trends and market statements I know about my own country, but it is happening as I can see it with my own two eyes.

Australia is a small world, I wouldn't under any stretch of the imagination, suggest that Germany is a little world.

Effectively, Germany with it's economy, technology, manufacturing ability and capacity, is the powerhouse of Europe. Interestingly, Germany is currently being lead by a Doctor of Physics, which is a nice change from where most politicians seem to come from.

Mick.

 

[Aristophanes]

Lomography stores and websites? It's absurd. It's the photographic equivalent of the "Easy-Bake Oven."

Which was always the market norm from the Brownie on and carried the mini-lab industry on it's shoulders. "Easy-bake" cameras account for the vast majority of vernacular photos ever taken, probably by staggering margins over everything else combined. Economy of scale is a good thing and the dominant, critical issue facing film and camera and lab production.

If film tries to contest the same fidelity (especially for colour) market space as digital, the table is tilted. At least lomography accepts and embraces film's foibles knowing it cannot compete against the clinical, sterile, non-tactile world of the digital sensor.

As for saturation, maybe the dominant aesthetic emerging is that of Eggleston, in the same way that Rubens liked his women a certain way.

 

[markbarendt]

8% above what? What's the $ value of that 8% against total film sales last year? That's the big picture background that's necessary to grasp what's going on. Viewed in isolation of that, the chirping about Harmon/Ilford's 8% increase doesn't necessarily mean much.

In the grand scheme of things in our commodified world, I agree.

In a more localized/personal sense (for Ilford and us) though this is great news. An 8% growth in volume demonstrates viability for Ilford's business.

I see this as a sign that the film/digital adjustment may be finding some balance, settling into the new norm.

Listened to a show on the radio a while back, NPR book review I think, where they tried to find old technologies/tools that were no longer available. They couldn't find anything that was no longer available and in use somewhere.

My point here is that each technology has it's hey-day then there's a new kid on the block that knocks the aging dude off the pedestal, doesn't mean the old dude goes away he just does things on a different scale.

If you want to watch an example of this technological shift in real time watch the switch from laptops to iPads (and the like). I don't expect laptops to go away but I only open my personal laptop maybe once a month since I got my iPad.

 

[CGW]

Doctorfivechrome, I understand it to be an increase in their film volume over the previous year.

Regarding dollar value, which dollar are you talking about? There are quite a few and some of them are doing quite well at the moment.

Perhaps the North American market, which appears to be in free fall from where I sit at the moment, is reflected in your comments.

I'm interested in your comment about there being over 300 labs closed in North America last year. Is there some source to reference this statement?

Whilst many labs have been closing in my country (Australia), there are some opening up, including one not too far from me and another in my sister's country town. This appears to be going against all trends and market statements I know about my own country, but it is happening as I can see it with my own two eyes.

Australia is a small world, I wouldn't under any stretch of the imagination, suggest that Germany is a little world.

Effectively, Germany with it's economy, technology, manufacturing ability and capacity, is the powerhouse of Europe. Interestingly, Germany is currently being lead by a Doctor of Physics, which is a nice change from where most politicians seem to come from.

Mick.

Monetize the "increase' any way you wish, but it's not really meaningful in isolation of sufficient times series data to show a trend--and that trend isn't very rosy.

The USA market is huge. More people live in California alone than in OZ, Canada too for that matter.

DR5 is in the business. Why wouldn't he know? Labs have been folding steadily in my hood(Toronto)for the past 5 years--both low-end and pro labs alike. The reason? No consistent business. Upticks at surviving labs seem only to indicate the widespread elimination of comparable service. The increase in business doesn't reflect any real rise in the amount of film shot--quite the contrary.

I wish it weren't so but simply denying it and/or citing isolated statistics without context won't change much.

Analog photography may prove to be a "long tail" technology. Let's hope so. But there's no comeback likely.

 

[markbarendt]

But there's no comeback likely.

+1

 

[SimonD]

Maybe not a mass comeback - but a revival is definitely happening.

Last weekend - out in some crowds in Oxford I saw three other people carrying proper SLRs, one guy with a Mamiya RZ67 and someone else with a Diana. That's definitely an increase over recent years.

 

[Diapositivo]

If the glass is half full or half empty depends on the mental attitude of the person looking at it.

If a new wave of youngsters begins using film instead of photography, one can see it as a welcome reversal of a trend which we thought permanently established, or can see it as a fad. Only future will tell us.

If newspapers begin noticing that film sales increase, one can see it as a reversal of a trend, or as a "dead cat bounce". Only future will tell us.

If we notice that all producers of chemical stuff are still alive ten years after the "revolution", one can see it as a demonstration of the fact that film sales follow a different pattern than film camera sales, or can say that the entire industry smell strange.

The only way we have to know if the film industry is still with us in ten years is to wait. In the meanwhile playing Cassandra does only show a certain uterine will to complain about a problem that is not there yet.

 

[CGW]

In the meanwhile playing Cassandra does only show a certain uterine will to complain about a problem that is not there yet.

Erh, the "problem" has been here for about the last decade. Where were you?

 

[Diapositivo]

In the meanwhile playing Cassandra does only show a certain uterine will to complain about a problem that is not there yet.

Erh, the "problem" has been here for about the last decade. Where were you?

I was here and the "problem" (film producers going out of market) did never materialize. The "problem" it's just people like you who is screaming "Wolf" every day, because all this screaming might actually have the Wolf appear. Yes one day the Wolf might appear, which doesn't mean you were right ten years ago, or today. If anything else, it is your attitude which causes the film industry to collapse. If you like film, use it and I say it's no use whining about a future which is unknown to everybody, including me and you.

 

[CGW]

I was here and the "problem" (film producers going out of market) did never materialize. The "problem" it's just people like you who is screaming "Wolf" every day, because all this screaming might actually have the Wolf appear. Yes one day the Wolf might appear, which doesn't mean you were right ten years ago, or today. If anything else, it is your attitude which causes the film industry to collapse. If you like film, use it and I say it's no use whining about a future which is unknown to everybody, including me and you.

"We" aren't the problem, it's everybody else--pro, amateur or otherwise--who stopped shooting film. FYI, the "wolf" took over the lease and sublets us the attic.