The Death of Digital Photography as We Know It

Terry Breedlove said:

The bottom fell right out from beneath the digital camera market with smart phones destroying the bread and butter small family type point and shoot cameras. Nikon and Canon and the boys made most of their profit off these point and shoots and that is all but gone for them now.
That and people are pretty damn satisfied with the cameras they now own. Back when the digital market was in full bloom with new cameras and higher MP counts going up almost weekly. There was a real driving force for people to buy new cameras and often. That is gone in part because 24mp and above make fantastic prints and most images get shared online now never seeing a print made. Don't need much camera to do that.

Click to expand...

^^^
three basic statement about what happened to the camera I had concluded as well.

The CIPA graph shows that All Analog camera production peaked around 1997-99. Digital camera levels in 2015 are at about the same levels as All Analog of about 1989, right about when AF SLR sales (which were replacing manual focus SLRs) swelled. The conversion from analog P&S to digital P&S helped to swell camera sales, but the smartphone -- the multifunction device that replaced dedicated MP3 players and PDAs and calculators and GPS unit in pockets and pursues -- did the most harm to 'casual camera carrying' of dedicated cameras. dLSRs and mirrorless digital cameras peaked at about 20,000,000 units, and the 1999 peak of 38 Million total analog was (guessing here, as no detail available) over half comprised of P&S cameras. So with about 75% of 7.5 Billion world population (2013 figures) behind over age 15, that is 5.32 Billion old enough to use/own cameras. Let's call that 2.3 Billion households eligible to own one or more cameras, and 38,000,000 are buying dSLR or mirrorless each year or about 2% of households annually buy cameras (not counting smartphones).

Luckless said:

How do I determine they want new cameras?
- New Camera projects have been funded on Kickstarter.
- I want new film cameras as an option.

As for finding what price point, that would be down to 'market research'. Same as any other new product release.

Click to expand...

I don't recall any Kickstarter projects for a new interchangeable lens 35mm film camera being offered or funded. How much would you being willing to pay for one?

Every new iPhone sells gazillions because of "the cult of Apple".....the company has created a wonderful marketing strategy and brand loyalty where people will literally buy the next i-Phone regardless of all factors....simply because it's the new iPhone.

However there is little doubt that smart phones in general have all but killed the "bread and butter market" for camera manufacturers.....compact, easy to use (often point and shoot, or small zoom) cameras. The vast majority of all cameras sold since Kodak invented the Brownie are easy to use, compact (for the day), convenient (for the day) devices. Phone cameras are generally deficient in some areas....the small sensors give huge DOF, Even in "pro" mode my Galaxy S6 has no function to control the aperture, though I can manually control ISO, white balance and shutter speed. Is there a smart phone with an optical zoom? But...to probably 80% of users these do not matter. Joe Public can still snap memories of Junior, his dogs, his wife, holidays and so on.

For those who do have a dedicated camera....how often does one replace it? When pretty much every digital camera on sale in the last 10 years performs at least adequately (which was not the case in earlier years)...where is the incentive to buy a new camera? Unlike phones, the latest camera is not seen as something cool or a status symbol. Indeed a 30 year old film camera might be more of a status symbol than a brand new camera.

The profits in the world of interchangeable lens cameras has never been in the sale of camera bodies. It has always been in the sale of lenses and accessories.

MattKing said:

The profits in the world of interchangeable lens cameras has never been in the sale of camera bodies. It has always been in the sale of lenses and accessories.

Click to expand...

...and film supplies.

Cholentpot said:

What does the cost of chems run at? B&W chems are nice and cheap.

Click to expand...

Kodak Ektacolor 20 litre developing kit in UK is about £39. Bleach fix is about the same, again for a 20 litre kit. It is very stable, I have yet to have a kit 'go off' before I finish it. I use it in a NOVA 3 bath 12x16 deep tank which takes 2 litres of working solution to start it off. Out of the remaining 18 litres I can develop/fix around about the equivalent of 95 prints each being 12x16. I replenish the deep tank at a rate of 100cc per800 square inches of paper Now that is one hell of a lot of prints. RA4 developer as I said is very very stable and so long as you keep the solution fully replenished it will last almost for ever. I have just emptied out the Nova and cleaned it out after almost 14 months of use.

As for the cost of the paper. I buy a 80 metre x 12" roll of Kodak RA4 gloss or lustre paper which if cut into the ubiquitous 12x16 sheets will give me around about 195 sheets The cost of this is about £65 for a bulk roll. I have made a light tight dispenser to hold the roll and cut off whatever size I need for a particular job using a roller bladed guillotine.

Work out the price of 4 x 50 sheet boxes of 12x16 of say Ilford multigrade you will see where the difference cuts in.
After posting this I checked with one of the retailers who sell masses of paper and 4 x 50 sheet boxes of 12x16 Ilford Multigrade resin coated is £224. or around $280 US. That is serious money!

BMbikerider said:

Kodak Ektacolor 20 litre developing kit in UK is about £39. Bleach fix is about the same, again for a 20 litre kit. It is very stable, I have yet to have a kit 'go off' before I finish it. I use it in a NOVA 3 bath 12x16 deep tank which takes 2 litres of working solution to start it off. Out of the remaining 18 litres I can develop/fix around about the equivalent of 95 prints each being 12x16. I replenish the deep tank at a rate of 100cc per800 square inches of paper Now that is one hell of a lot of prints. RA4 developer as I said is very very stable and so long as you keep the solution fully replenished it will last almost for ever. I have just emptied out the Nova and cleaned it out after almost 14 months of use.

As for the cost of the paper. I buy a 80 metre x 12" roll of Kodak RA4 gloss or lustre paper which if cut into the ubiquitous 12x16 sheets will give me around about 195 sheets The cost of this is about £65 for a bulk roll. I have made a light tight dispenser to hold the roll and cut off whatever size I need for a particular job using a roller bladed guillotine.

Work out the price of 4 x 50 sheet boxes of 12x16 of say Ilford multigrade you will see where the difference cuts in.
After posting this I checked with one of the retailers who sell masses of paper and 4 x 50 sheet boxes of 12x16 Ilford Multigrade resin coated is £224. or around $280 US. That is serious money!

Click to expand...

So I guess the only thing holding people back from color processing in the availability of the chemistry and the more involved process.

Cholentpot said:

So I guess the only thing holding people back from color processing in the availability of the chemistry and the more involved process.

Click to expand...

And available time!

Cholentpot said:

So I guess the only thing holding people back from color processing in the availability of the chemistry and the more involved process.

Click to expand...

Skai King said:

And available time!

Click to expand...

And a good way to maintain the proper temperature.

MattKing said:

To get back into that market, they would have to manufacture those parts again.
I might have been misunderstood. I'm saying that there may be more money to be made by them servicing/refurbishing the cameras out there than building and selling new ones. There certainly would be more margin at the retail end.

Click to expand...

Never thought of this. I would love to send all my gear to the original manufacturer (Olympus Stylus+XA2, Nikon F100+F90X, Pentax 67 + Program A) for a CLA and some necessary repairs. The current repairs are done with stripped machines. Not likely to last forever imho. The original parts would give me lot more confidence.

Skai King said:

And available time!

Click to expand...

I actually find it easier to print colour than B&W. If you have adequate processing facilities where the developer temp can be maintained at 35 degrees C and be meticulous and methodical when working the extra lattitude of C41 images make printing fairly straight forward. What is essential is to standardise with film, C41 developer, and temperatures. I use Kodak paper not only because it is reasonably priced, but because the only other alternative, Fuji, I just cannot come to terms with. I find it unpredictable where results are compared and the paper base seems flimsy compared to Kodak. It tends to shift towards the green/cyan end of the spectrum

When I first printed after the recent replenishment I had to adjust the filtration I had been using because over time it does shift slightly as chemicals do age. (But not expire). I expect it to remain close to this for at least several months

BMbikerider said:

I actually find it easier to print colour than B&W...

Click to expand...

Might be worth its own topic, but I'm kind of curious in what way you find colour easier than black and white printing, rather than finding them as easy with a suitable setup? I've been getting ready to dive into doing my own printing, but the usual opinion I've seen has been that doing colour well has been more of a challenge overall than black and white.

The 'fiddling about', with black and white having more of an operating range to work with making things 'more difficult' by way of making it harder to choose exactly how you finalize a print? I can imagine that colour can be kind of a "You did it Right or Wrong" kind of thing, while the options and choices to make on a black and white print are more open to interpretation and how you're feeling that day.

Sirius Glass said:

And a good way to maintain the proper temperature.

Click to expand...

Funny that.

I developed some film in a standard JOBO kit using a stand method. The film came out alright, with no problems. Just took a load of time.

Luckless said:

Might be worth its own topic, but I'm kind of curious in what way you find colour easier than black and white printing, rather than finding them as easy with a suitable setup? I've been getting ready to dive into doing my own printing, but the usual opinion I've seen has been that doing colour well has been more of a challenge overall than black and white.

The 'fiddling about', with black and white having more of an operating range to work with making things 'more difficult' by way of making it harder to choose exactly how you finalize a print? I can imagine that colour can be kind of a "You did it Right or Wrong" kind of thing, while the options and choices to make on a black and white print are more open to interpretation and how you're feeling that day.

Click to expand...

Well I think you can put it down to many years experience, (since about 1990) learning by my mistakes and trying not to make them a 2nd time around. So long as you standardise with film, film developer, paper, paper developer, use as near exact times/temperatures as possible, be very organised. It is relatively simple. It all sounds very complicated, but after 3 or 4 sessions it starts to become 2nd nature.

When checking for correct colour balance you need light as close as daylight as possible. I use a LED bulb with a colour temp of 6500 to7000 dgrees Kelvin and a rated output equivalent of 70watts but only consumes 14 watts.

I also use something we term as a 'Ring-ar-Round' comparison chart. This consists of one print about 10x8 which is 100% correct as far as colour balance and exposure is concerned. Then two or three prints of part of the main print are made with say a difference of 5 units, 10 units and 20 units of each of the colours that go up to make the spectrum possible (Red, Magenta, Yellow, Cyan, Blue, Green) These give a very good guide if the balance is 'off', which direction to go to the correct the imbalance. Of course you must remember that if a print is too Magenta for instance, you add more Magenta, not take it away. It sounds mad but that's the way to do it. Hence the term subtractive printing, it is back to front.

Having only one grade unlike B&W you cannot change it around. If the colour looks drab it may be the colour balance is 'off'. get it right and the colours will jump out.

The saving grace is that I have a safelight which provides adequate brightness. I believe they are still made but are quite expensive (around £270 or $300) They used to be made by Kaiser, and may still, but now carry the name of Wotan) I bought mine used for £40. they appear regularly on E Bay at reasonable prices. It uses a sodium vapour bulb. The light given off by the sodium lamp is virtually invisable to colour paper (within certain parameters).