Jump to content

Film sales now 1/50th what they were in 2000


andybarton

Recommended Posts

I can't say that surprises me.

 

So why shouldn't I prefer to explore a new and interesting device rather than use ones that work like the same old ones that I've been using for decades? Am I now supposed to get a thrill out of using an old Minolta SRT 101 and a 50mm lens for some reason? (Insert other camera here that should be especially enjoyable to use ___________) But an eyeglass camera opens up an entirely fresh approach. As do the screens on front while filming. A lot of skiers and cyclists mount cameras to their helmets for video and time lapse.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just knew Alan was walking into a minefield with that one. ;)

 

As I said in the "anectodal film" thread - where I work, there is still significant film activity. Certainly more than 2%, whether processing volume or used camera sales (Leica being the only line we carry that still really sells "new" film cameras). And growing, as the competition has dropped used camera sales (i.e. all film cameras except Holgas and Dianas - if those).

 

I'm just smart enough to realize that where I work - and "the people I know" - are no indication of the big picture. We're the only frog in a shrinking puddle, but so long as the puddle doesn't shrink too much more, that is a good place to be.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kodak is also reporting increased film sales:

New55Project: Kodak reports that sales of films are INCREASING

I must admit I am surprised, as I now very rarely see film cameras being used.

 

I have to admit I only get through about 2 to 3 rolls of 35 mm and 2 rolls of 120 a year.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is an exact re-run of several other recent threads.

 

Yeah we can debate what a "real resurgence" means again. The only thing new here is the specific sales info. Also an unattributed projection of a 20% decline in annual film sales anticipated. That seems higher than I pictured. (10%)

 

As Adan said there is a bit of a vicious cycle going on here with film getting more expensive, harder to find, fewer emulsions, and fewer labs. But also with digital cameras improving, getting cheaper, becoming ubiquitous, and as more people become comfortable with digital photographic technology. E.g. I don't know why you'd buy a disposable camera if you have a camera in your cell phone or could pick up a very cheap digital camera.

 

That being said film will appeal to certain users for various reasons as long as it can excel in some aspects or just for those who want to use the medium. All we can do is speculate on what number that will be next year, 5 years from now, 10 years from now.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best comparison for this phenomenon is to see how popular oil painting is.

 

Look around, oil painting is still going on. Even after 800 years. Does it disappear tomorrow because people use digital for painting? I work on both (mixed media)

 

What I love about analog works is that I can look at works 24/7 without spending any watt. and it looks better than 96 dpi screen with limited color space, pixelated. Much better, you can even see 3d there :D No hocus pocus. When I create every new analog work, it is no way I can hide and turn that to 0-01-10-1-0, of course I can print out digital but I never do it, i thought it was enough to store those on harddrive in "darkness")

 

Oil paintings can be sold for high prices, while companies are using digital illustrators for hourly rate cheaply as workhorses. Similarly to photo industry.

 

That large population of people who use phones for photographing, it makes me happy because "serious" digital photography is on decline too. No way it will go up, it will be ironical when films goes up and digital goes down while getting replaced by fifth dimension or something in future (as Jaapv guess, me think too). it separates people to consumers and pros/artists.

 

Ah, that wonderful life irony. and real works will outlast screens, servers, 0-1-0-1-1

Edited by tomasis7
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson, that link of yours is 7 months old. Four months after that, Kodak reported their first ever LOSS on the film division.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/164506-what-moves-kodak-can-we-expect.html

 

They've just had another loss - five times as big - for Q1 2011.

 

Kodak First Q 2011 results (April 18, 2011): News Release

 

"Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group (note the "Entertainment" - this INCLUDES motion picture film sales)

 

First-quarter sales were $367 million, a 14% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines. First-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $15 million, compared with earnings of $22 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment."

 

Kodak keeps reducing costs (e.g. by replacing two flavors each of Portra 400/160 with one each) - and still keeps falling behind.

 

Mind you, I'm no fan of Kodak management, and suspect they are just letting film lie there and bleed rather than putting effort into supporting it aggresively. (Seen any TV ads for film recently?). But if, as suggested in AndyB's original article link, they want to sell the "still-profitable" film division to someone who can make it work - well, it ain't profitable right now.

 

I'm in the business - I want film to be around for everyone who wants it.

 

But the first step in solving a problem is acknowledging the problem exists, not in trying to deny it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

".....First-quarter sales were $367 million, a 14% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines. First-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $15 million, compared with earnings of $22 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment."

 

It's my understanding that Kodak's film loss was largely do to a major drop-off in the sales of motion picture film. There was quite a thread on APUG about this a few days back. Lot of good stuff there from people in the know (retired Kodak film engineer, etc.).

 

Jim B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, what's funny is that here on this forum, the assumption seems to be that the large volume of motion picture film ("Hollywood") is what will keep film alive even in the face of declining still or consumer demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about percentages. The only thing that matters are the actual numbers. Even if film sales go down 95%, but the remaining 5% means 4 million people worldwide are still using film, I'm okay with that. Kodak might decide to move out of the market then, but I don't think 4 million is a small number to Ilford, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that B&W may be the survivor. Both the reformed Ilford and Rollei seem to be doing OK and people like Adox (was Efke) are even bringing out new products. I would guess it is easier financially to be a niche player looking for modest increases than a huge player like Kodak and Fuji, trying to stay profitable while downsizing. Andy, I did not realise that quote from Kodak was 7 months old as it was quoted in the Sunday papers 10 days ago.

 

Will Kodak regret dumping Kodachrome? I wonder if they might. Film is now an enthusiast market and that was an enthusiast film. Surely worldwide, they could have kept one plant still making it and one processing station.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

II did not realise that quote from Kodak was 7 months old as it was quoted in the Sunday papers 10 days ago.

 

As a journalist I can only bow my head in shame - it was bad enough when papers were giving us news 1 day old.....;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really sad is the role Kodak played in developing the first digital camera and then management effectively ceded that industry to the rest of the world -- save for making sensors for Leica, for now. Had Kodak embraced digital technology as an industry they would have the financial offset to sustain their film business and perhaps work through marketing and/or research to find a way to keep that business at some sort of stasis. But they didn't and they don't. Film will always be around but it will be around for those with the wherewithal to pay for the privilege of using this wonderful medium. But it will eventually go the way of so much technology that came before whose value becomes rooted in nostalgia more than reality as the new technology continues to improve. After all, no one complains anymore that books come bound instead of hand written on scrolls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best comparison for this phenomenon is to see how popular oil painting is.

 

Look around, oil painting is still going on. Even after 800 years. Does it disappear tomorrow because people use digital for painting? I work on both (mixed media)

 

 

But it is pretty much only artists who make oil paintings isn't it? There aren't commercial applications for it today, nor do people typically record their kids birthday parties in oil. Stone carving and various forms of sculpture are also still around, as are daguerreotypes and many other media and techniques. My guess is the materials available to artists have as great a selection as ever. And artists can always find stone, hammers, and chisels or make their own oil paint and paper.

 

However a lot of photographic materials and processes that can't be made at home are no longer available such as Autochrome, Aero Infrared, dye transfer, carbro, Kodachrome, etc. And more will follow. (Perhaps you could make your own Autochrome.) I'm just talking about ones that have nothing similar left in the marketplace unlike the many types of films and papers that have been dropped. For instance people find working substitutes for litho paper since Kodalith was dropped.

 

This is why I say that at some point film will mostly be used by artists and enthusiasts because virtually all the other applications of photography will be more economical to do digitally or better suited to digital capture. But what film and other materials will be around 10-20 years form now is uncertain because we have no idea how large a market there will be for it. Whereas the market for oil paint or watercolor material is pretty large, stable and long standing.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some very personal considerations: first, after an abstinence of about 10 years I felt a strong attack of nostalgia and decided for a switchback from digital to film. So I suppose I'm one of the few ones going counter stream. I'm already the happy owner of an M8. I wanted to exaggerate and treated myself with an M3, a Rolleicord V and a Rollei 35S all in good condition. The three together costed me less than half of what I paid two years ago for the 2nd hand M8. I think one of these days I'll start a thread about the how and why.

 

Right now I can only assume - probably wrong - that as is the digital is rougher than film. Not in terms of resolution, but of tonal rendition. No matter that we shoot in RAW, shrub it in PS or whatever, when it comes to printing we usually end with a .jpg file. And a .jpg has only 8 bit grayscale, meaning that in a b&w picture there can be no more than 256 levels of grey against the virtually endless rendered by film.

Not to mention all of the subtle variations that can be generated by all film/speed/developer/dilution recombinations whereas the digital is limited to a single one.

 

Right now I have the strong feeling that the film is not about to disappear anytime soon. Sure, the sales shrunk and will shrink further but the impression is worsened by the fact that there's an increasing users base making massive use of convergent devices. They make numbers swell and make shrink the film percentages in the overall photography pie. But IMHO one shouldn't consider an undetermined albeit sensible share of these latter, because they just happen to use the media in a previously non-existant context. I mean that all those youngsters taking snapshots and facebooking them wouldn't behave the same way if they had real cameras - either film or digital. They are smartphone guys using images to communicate in new fashions, they are not amateur photographers in the conventional sense and most likely wouldn't buy a real camera for the reason it might not fit their needs.

 

As is, the film share will reach a lower stable threshold. This won't be profitable for all, but it's likely that smaller, more flexible companies like Adox, Foma, Rollei, Mörsch just to name a few will survive. Ilford is said to have increased their market share. I'm very happy about this albeit I'm afraid this happened at the expense of someone else who is no more (Agfa?) rather than for their own merits.

 

Film - especially b&w - has turned into a niche product and will survive as such for an indefinite period. Two parallel instances come to mind. The first, obviously, the rangefinder cameras. There's been a period during which they dominated the photographic scenario. But their real estate shrunk progressively eroded by the rise of SLRs and digital later didn't help for sure. But they're still there. Almost all brands disappeared. One survived (Leitz), another resurrected (Cosina/Voigtländer).

 

Another instance: the vinyl disc. Once ruling the hi-fi as the alpha medium, too many experts forecasted its death at the hands of the CD. 30 years later, the CD is on the verge of extinction, replaced by "liquid" music and the vinyl is still alive. In small series, mostly in special editions or high-end making, but it's still there and recently it even increased a bit its share. Does this ring any bell? No?

Well, at this stage I'd expect that digital sensors as we know them are more prone than film to disappear in a few years replaced by some new technical wizardry.

Some days ago I was wondering about what happened of Foveon technology that had interesting premises and accidentally came to learn that nothing less than Hasselblad came out with more complicated a technology that actually augments the files by taking multiple shots whilst shifting the sensor each time: H4D-200MS

If this proves successful and becomes available for the mass market we can start saying buh-bye to our "traditional" sensors - just imagine a camera the size and the shape of the M9 with a sensor sized 24 x 36 but capable of 72 Mpix resolution - whilst the film will still be there.

And in the meantime film is still subject to progress. Slow, but however progress. So if I had to place a bet, my "new" M3 is 9 years my senior. Properly treated I'm pretty sure she'll outlive me by a good margin whilst my M8 might turn into an expensive übercool paperweight in a few years. Well, we'll see.

 

Oh, and one more thing: one of the main shops here in Genova is still nicely provided with film stuff. Not a wide coverage, but enough to meet mainstreet needs: http://totalfoto.it/easyStore/index.asp?CategoriaID=130002

If this means something...

 

Good light everyone

Bruno

Edited by !Nomad64
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding X-Ray scans, our local rural hospital has the Aquilion ONE. You might want to look it up. Not even the famous Mayo Clinic has one yet. And they use it a lot. During my next-to-last accident they took three scans - at $1,6000 each. It's a real money maker, and of course a real benefit to the patient.

 

Oh, some good news: I found the visor that was knocked off my helmet in the last accident.

 

Was finding the visor anything to do with the X-rays they took? Ouch. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I can only assume - probably wrong - that as is the digital is rougher than film. Not in terms of resolution, but of tonal rendition. No matter that we shoot in RAW, shrub it in PS or whatever, when it comes to printing we usually end with a .jpg file. And a .jpg has only 8 bit grayscale, meaning that in a b&w picture there can be no more than 256 levels of grey against the virtually endless rendered by film.

Not to mention all of the subtle variations that can be generated by all film/speed/developer/dilution recombinations whereas the digital is limited to a single one...

 

B&W film has only two tones: black and white. The gray scale is the result of dithering, or the aggregation of black grains with white grain holes. A raw digital file can be processed with numerous software packages in a huge number of ways, yielding a huge number of subtle and not-so-subtle variations. A single digital negative can be processed over and over and over again to try many variations on a single image, and 256-tone pixels can be dithered just as easily as the 2-tone grains can be. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, just clearing up some misconceptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...