Where's the big market for film?

[DBP]

Yes, I still see, and buy, 110 film in local supermarkets. Unfortunately, the Kodak cartridges are miscoded. It mostly goes into my Pentax 110, and a Minolta Weathermatic that travels more than I do.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is there a place with growing film sales? .

Dear Stephen,

I fear we're it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

BTW, my latest digital computer equipment came with a warning that the equipment contained toxic materials and must be disposed of properly, not just placed in the garbage. That was a note applicable in the EU. When will the USA become aware of this? IDK, but it is something largely ignored here but it is developing into a problem and if that is recognized then disposable digital will never become the norm.

PE

The sooner this happens, the better. A friend who works for a VERY large printer manufacturer says that the thinking is going back towards products that are built to last and capable of being repaired and upgraded. The environmental cost of disposable electronics is going to become a major issue quite soon, in his opinion and in the opinion of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Science, better known as the RSA.

Cheers,

Roger (FRSA)

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Hello Roger,

Isn't the ultimate expression of a prosperous society the ability to simply throw away or consume as much as possible?


No . . . I am not serious about that, though if one just looks at the high turnover of many products, it does seem that glutony drives some buying habits. However, this is almost too cultural anthropology applying niche cultures habits to large populations. There is also that materialistic emphasis of having something new, or perceived as cool.

The value of a brand is an ancient concept that still drives some companies, or at the very least keeps them around. Unfortunately some companies that drift away from their core values, or whatever made them well known, can find themselves in trouble. Kodak needs to please investors, but if they left their core of film they would lose a great deal of admiration. Partly that would be because leaving film production would be seen as a failure, and any failure would be detrimental to the reputation of a company. It seems that to avoid that, they would at the very least continue to offer it as a premium niche product to select customers, while still indicating to the public what they are doing.

Fuji is also in that sort of dilemna. Both Fuji and Kodak can invest heavily in other industries, such as graphics arts, commercial printing, medical imaging, et al, though both need to avoid announcing too many things perceived as failures. Staying in film is not viewed as a failure as long as continued profits are shown. Both are public companies that must please the psycological needs of their investors, often living under the buy on the rumour, sell on the news mentality. We read comments that either should dump film production, but they are the voices of the few, perhaps some with vested interests.

Environmental issues and expenses are other issues. While some companies can off-shore to avoid or minimize liability, at some point those new countries will adopt more regulations. These issues will need to be dealt with in the near future. It is surprising that the US is not doing more about this, though one needs to remember that these things are better implemented when the economy is in better shape. No politician wants to push issues that might cause companies to shift more production off-shore, cost US jobs, nor raise the prices of goods.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

 

[srs5694]

Going off at a bit of a tangent (but along the same lines) I am surprised at how available 110 format film still is, even though I can't remember the last time I was aware of anyone (other than myself) using it.
...
Someone must be using the stuff

I don't know much about it, but I believe there's still a 110 "Barbie" camera being made and sold -- or at least it was being sold until fairly recently. (I don't know if its current status.) I'm sure that alone drives a lot of the sales of 110 film today.

 

[MAGNAchrom]

BTW, my latest digital computer equipment came with a warning that the equipment contained toxic materials and must be disposed of properly, not just placed in the garbage. That was a note applicable in the EU. When will the USA become aware of this? IDK, but it is something largely ignored here but it is developing into a problem and if that is recognized then disposable digital will never become the norm.

Hey if you want a computer that LASTS get a Mac. I've owned PCs continuously since 1982 and Macs continuously since 1986 and I can tell you that I get on average 3-4 years MORE per computer with a Mac than a PC. This is why they cost more. But in the end, I find they cost less.

Or as the old saying goes: the best ecomomy is quality.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hey if you want a computer that LASTS get a Mac. I've owned PCs continuously since 1982 and Macs continuously since 1986 and I can tell you that I get on average 3-4 years MORE per computer with a Mac than a PC. This is why they cost more. But in the end, I find they cost less.

Or as the old saying goes: the best ecomomy is quality.

Who said it was a PC? I said computer equipment. It was packed with a generic peripheral usable on either type of equipment.

PE

 

[Bromo33333]

This reminds me of the LP vs. CD switch in the 1980's. Clearly CD/digital is the dominant format c. 2006, but when people realized how well LP's perform there is a growing market in "analog" LP's - first amongt those of us who had LP's and record players, and now with the younger generation (under 25 set) who became disenchanted with MP3. There is even a new generation of record players that blow away the stuff I recall from the early 80's and aside form that a bunch of (gasp) TUBE equipment prized by audio-enthusiasts.

Given the dynamic range and tone issues with cameras - and the memory intensivelness of high fidelity images (much of which won't go away very quickly)- film is likely to stabilize and grow amongst people who become disenchanted with low quality images. Even with higher technology, the larger formats will survive well enough (a 4" x 5" digital sensor is rather impractical for instance) as an artistic medium.

But the "decline" will continue, bottom out and then grow, amongst those that appreciate it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But the "decline" will continue, bottom out and then grow, amongst those that appreciate it.

I believe the same. But how much of my belief is wishful thinking?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[jovo]

It's been interesting to see the way digital work has become increasingly complicated and expensive for hobbyists in particular. Now, shooting RAW is the recommended format leaving to the user to do what jpegs and tiffs would otherwise automatically do in camera. Then there are printer profiles, which can be purchased at considerable expense or done by the user with software that isn't cheap and isn't easy. Then there are inksets which cost a fortune. (I was reading about a new high end Epson printer that uses a large number of inks the cost of which was cited as....$900!! for a set.) And printer paper isn't cheap either, especially the 'art' papers that are highly touted.

So....the high end issues above, or low end issues like shutter lag (which really, really pisses people off when they're photographing their kid's sporting events or concerts or plays) lack of quality in larger prints, and water soluble inks that run and bleed (if you so much as sneeze while chortling at the pic of your dog licking your cat) used in one hour photo type shops should do in the whole digi craze...right? Yup...uh huh. That'll happen when I win Lotto, Mega Millions, and the raffle at our church barbeque all on the same day. I can't wait.

 

[copake_ham]

Yesterday, Sony had a half-page ad in the NY Times touting their "new" DSLR and the fact it works with all A-mount lenses (Konica/Minolta I presume). The picture showed the body and a long line of lenses flanking either side.

I think (darn it) that Sony is on to something with this kind of marketing. They are tying the NEW (DSLR) to the EXISTING (all those lenses that enthusiasts have gathered over the years).

Couple this with the fact that Leica's new digital M8 can be used with virtually all existing lenses (albeit with an inexpensive compatability retrofit to the lens for optical pickups) and suddenly I am not feeling all warm and fuzzy that people will soon come to their senses and go back to film.

 

[firecracker]

I think (darn it) that Sony is on to something with this kind of marketing. They are tying the NEW (DSLR) to the EXISTING (all those lenses that enthusiasts have gathered over the years).(

If you make a close observation, the new Sony camera is not attracting people like us here on APUG who are experienced with (film) cameras: They are targeting new potential camera users who "don't know how to take good pictures."

 

[Samuel B]

But the "decline" will continue, bottom out and then grow, amongst those that appreciate it.

I believe the same.

But I am starting to wonder if this is just wishful thinking, or totally delusional thinking.

As for the Sony DSLR accepting older Konica Minolta lenses, did I miss something because doesn't the same apply to Canon, Pentax Nikon DSLR's? Hardly anything new is it?

 

[copake_ham]

I believe the same.

But I am starting to wonder if this is just wishful thinking, or totally delusional thinking.

As for the Sony DSLR accepting older Konica Minolta lenses, did I miss something because doesn't the same apply to Canon, Pentax Nikon DSLR's? Hardly anything new is it?

Sam,

The Nikon DSLRs will mount all F-mount lenses. But will hardly work at all with manual primes (certainly no metering capability).

I think the D-200 is more backward compatible than earlier Nikon DSLRs in this regard - not sure.

The implication I got from the Sony ad was that not only would the full line of A-mounts fit their DSLR - but were also truly compatible.

 

[Bromo33333]

I believe the same.

But I am starting to wonder if this is just wishful thinking, or totally delusional thinking.

With LP's a lot of folks sold off all of their LPs and record players at fire sale prices from about 1985 - 1995, and from about 1995 or so the LPs have been growing.

While LP's are not a mass market by any means, they are growing amongst enthusiasts.

I expect film to continue to decline and then grow a little bit.

I think we have only seen the beginning, though. And it will be choppy, I think.

 

[firecracker]

Speaking of the sales of CDs and records, what do we with Tower Records that's gone bankrupt? Is it a big news around the world?

 

[dolande]

that people will soon come to their senses and go back to film.

I don't think they will. New generations will discover film and some will use film but most of the people will be digital. And regarding digital quality, I know people in this forum actually gets better results with analog; but lets face it digital is a very capable medium and results are or will be as good or better than analog for the main public.

 

[Bromo33333]

And regarding digital quality, I know people in this forum actually gets better results with analog; but lets face it digital is a very capable medium and results are or will be as good or better than analog for the main public.

With all the automation for cameras in the digital domain, it is easy to get "acceptable" results for the consumers. And I don't think that anyone really disagrees that people are going to dump digital and jump to film en-masse.

PLus given some real limitations on sensor and pixel sizes - coming up with a "killer app" large format digital solution promises to be very expensive as far as I can tell. (Scanning backs + a multi-thousand dollar computer system being the best for high quality so far - seems problematic for non studio work as far as I can tell)

 

[Bromo33333]

RIT - CAMPUS CONNECTION

Probably the best local-to-Rochester source of film is closing end of year since the bookstore is being taken over and managed by Barnes and Noble. Not suprised, really, but I am wondering how the Photography department is going to deal with it, since they need the supplies.

I don't think this is part of the consumer decline of film, but it is telling since RIT's department is one of the best in the nation.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Regarding the Campus Connection, you must know it is a moot point regarding color chemicals, as the school there will not let the students process their film or prints because the chemicals are 'too toxic'. And, why buy the paper if you can't process your prints. You have to hand them over to someone else to process. Same with film.

Within 3 months they went from about 90% film to 90% digital on the shelves.

They have coating equipment they never used and discourage the teaching of conventional photography from what I have heard. Basically, analog photography is not politically correct there.

PE

 

[Dave Parker]

Sam,

The Nikon DSLRs will mount all F-mount lenses. But will hardly work at all with manual primes (certainly no metering capability).

I think the D-200 is more backward compatible than earlier Nikon DSLRs in this regard - not sure.

The implication I got from the Sony ad was that not only would the full line of A-mounts fit their DSLR - but were also truly compatible.

The new Sony A-100 is fully compatible with all of the Maxxum lenses that have been made, the only ones you might find that don't work correctly may be some of the earlier 3 party lenses from Sigma and Tamron. Also in addition to being compatible with the Maxxum lenses, they have introduced 19 new lenses that were made by Ziess for this system.

Dave

 

[ajuk]

Right now at my local supermarket (where I work) they are stugling to keep up with the demand, I wen't to collect my films yesterday 2 days later than I could have, only to find that they had not beem printed. Admitedly this is down to the time of year and a lot of single use cameras.