stuny Posted May 31, 2012 Share #141 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some visitors of ours from Los Angeles, who we took around New York, asked why New Yorkers wear so much black. My matter-of-fact type answer was, "Because there's nothing darker." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Hi stuny, Take a look here AP interview with Dr Kaufmann. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted May 31, 2012 Share #142 Â Posted May 31, 2012 "Colour film will only be around for five more years, predicts Leica chairman. 'B&w may last longer." Â Â Five years is a long time. Think of the photos you could take in that time. Â And all the film you could stock-pile if you wanted to. Â And all the demand for film you could demonstrate that would persuade the producers to keep going and prove Dr. K. wrong. Â If you wanted to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted May 31, 2012 Share #143 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Imagine if Kaufman had predicted the steep decline (near death) of film photography 10 years ago. I was shooting a Nikon D1 and the thought of 18mp cameras was preposterous. Â A five year prediction of films demise is too long given the last 10-15 year history where we have seen Kodak go from a Dow component to bankruptcy. The writing is on the wall, why shoot the messenger when in fact he is not making much more than a obvious observation/prediction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 31, 2012 Share #144 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Imagine if Kaufman had predicted the steep decline (near death) of film photography 10 years ago. I was shooting a Nikon D1 and the thought of 18mp cameras was preposterous. Â A five year prediction of films demise is too long given the last 10-15 year history where we have seen Kodak go from a Dow component to bankruptcy. The writing is on the wall, why shoot the messenger when in fact he is not making much more than a obvious observation/prediction. Â You seriously think color film will disappear within the next five years? Preposterous. Do some google research and you'll find that people were confidently predicting the death of film 'within a couple years' at least ten years ago. Â In fact, film is currently experiencing a niche renaissance: it's never going to be the medium of choice for the masses again, but neither is the 35mm sensor format. I predict we'll see the death of the DSLR/digital RF long before the so-called death of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 31, 2012 Share #145 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Imagine if Kaufman had predicted the steep decline (near death) of film photography 10 years ago. I was shooting a Nikon D1 and the thought of 18mp cameras was preposterous. Â A five year prediction of films demise is too long given the last 10-15 year history where we have seen Kodak go from a Dow component to bankruptcy. The writing is on the wall, why shoot the messenger when in fact he is not making much more than a obvious observation/prediction. Â You have ignored the fact that it was their inability to make money from digital that forced Kodak into Chapter 11 (bankruptcy protection actually). Â Film has remained profitable for Kodak and they announced that they would focus on film products going forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted May 31, 2012 Share #146  Posted May 31, 2012 ...My discomfort with Leica's behavior is that the leadership often seem both star-struck and also childishly eager to follow what they perceive to be the 'in crowd'. Right now the in crowd are presumably corrupt officials in emerging economies and billionaire gangsters. Some visitors of ours from Los Angeles, who we took around New York, asked why New Yorkers wear so much black. My matter-of-fact type answer was, "Because there's nothing darker."  These statements and those about how Kaufmann's looks in a black tee-shirt and his utterance about — one can almost chose things at random — infect this thread with a nastiness that is not called for. Just weird, really. Had Kaufmann not invested heavily and saved Leice with the current strategy, we'd be spared the nastiness. Must be some good in everything.  —Mitch/Bangkok Scratching the Surface© Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted May 31, 2012 Share #147 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mitch, please read post 121. Most of us are surprisingly on the same boat here. No one wants to be nasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 31, 2012 Share #148  Posted May 31, 2012 You have ignored the fact that it was their inability to make money from digital that forced Kodak into Chapter 11 (bankruptcy protection actually).  Film has remained profitable for Kodak and they announced that they would focus on film products going forward.  It is true that Kodak's Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment group has been profitable but looking at the numbers there's a pretty clear decline in this segment, see below (from the 2011 annual report).  Kodak is transforming, according to its own statements, "from a traditional film manufacturing company to a digital technology company". It says that its "Bankruptcy Filing is intended to permit the Company to reorganize and improve liquidity in the U.S. and abroad, monetize non-strategic intellectual property, fairly resolve legacy liabilities, and focus on the most valuable business lines to enable sustainable profitability."  So, it was in the interest of furthering this transformation and to, basically, ensure they have enough cash for it that it entered into Chapter 11 proceedings.  As a primary source of money Kodak's selling its digital imaging patents portfolio but will, if no one wants to buy it for a high enough price, continue to license it out which ought, together with various loan agreements, provide enough money for the company (see p 44 of the 2011 report). Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/180577-ap-interview-with-dr-kaufmann/?do=findComment&comment=2027817'>More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 31, 2012 Share #149 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Kodak is transforming, according to its own statements, "from a traditional film manufacturing company to a digital technology company". Â Kodak phases out digital businesses, keeps film alive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 31, 2012 Share #150 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Operative word in the part of my post which you quoted being "technology". Â I saw that BJP article when it was published and thought its heading is somewhat misrepresentative of the content as the article (like the 2011 report) provides: Â "Kodak is quick to point out that the move won't mean the end for Kodak-branded digital cameras. Instead, the firm plans to license its brand to third-party manufacturer - a move that mirrors Polaroid's action in the years leading to and following its own bankruptcy." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 31, 2012 Share #151 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Operative word in the part of my post which you quoted being "technology". Â I saw that BJP article when it was published and thought its heading is somewhat misrepresentative of the content as the article (like the 2011 report) provides: Â "Kodak is quick to point out that the move won't mean the end for Kodak-branded digital cameras. Instead, the firm plans to license its brand to third-party manufacturer - a move that mirrors Polaroid's action in the years leading to and following its own bankruptcy." Â I'm not sure how profitable that part of their business actually is, but the film division has been profitable, and Kodak's disastrous losses have come from their mostly misguided digital ventures. Â Still, I continue to fail to see why Dr Kaufmann should be reminding existing and potential customers that he thinks two of Leica's prestigious products are virtually obsolete in the near future. He's done this several times - it's obtuse. In a few short years' time he could well be saying it about the M-system, for all we know - the axe fell on the R system not so long ago, and if Puts is right, it could be the film cameras next. Naturally everyone currently thinks the abandonment of the M-system is inconceivable. But who knows what Leica may find it opportune to promote in the future, at the cost of the present system... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 31, 2012 Share #152 Â Posted May 31, 2012 I'm not sure how profitable that part of their business actually is, but the film division has been profitable, and Kodak's disastrous losses have come from their mostly misguided digital ventures. Â $34million before taxes. A lot of money, but a significant drop from 2010 (91) and 2009 (187). Â Like you, I fail to see why Hr Dr Kaufmann would keep banging on the drum to signal the imminent demise of film when Leica is outputting two film models (even at small numbers) and have a very large number of film photographers out there. Â I can only assume it is to soften the die hard film proponent image that Leica as a brand may have. Today's photographic world is - like it or not - predominantly digital which is why I believe he says this to keep Leica on the radar screens of consumers contemplating a digital camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 31, 2012 Share #153 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Or maybe he says it because he believes it. Â It was an interview, not a statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 31, 2012 Share #154  Posted May 31, 2012 Naturally everyone currently thinks the abandonment of the M-system is inconceivable. But who knows what Leica may find it opportune to promote in the future, at the cost of the present system... Ultimately it’s the customer’s choice … The M9 was and is a huge success; they sold more units than they had ever dreamt of. The M7 and MP are a different matter.  There have always been rumours about Leica abandoning analog M cameras, for a couple of years in fact (just count the threads on this topic), and yet these models are still in production. But Leica cannot change the fact that the film business is in steady decline. It may be able to sustain small companies catering to an equally small market, but not vendors as big as Fuji or Kodak (back when Kodak was big). For those vendors film could be a hobby at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2012 Share #155  Posted May 31, 2012 $34million before taxes. A lot of money, but a significant drop from 2010 (91) and 2009 (187). Like you, I fail to see why Hr Dr Kaufmann would keep banging on the drum to signal the imminent demise of film when Leica is outputting two film models (even at small numbers) and have a very large number of film photographers out there.  I can only assume it is to soften the die hard film proponent image that Leica as a brand may have. Today's photographic world is - like it or not - predominantly digital which is why I believe he says this to keep Leica on the radar screens of consumers contemplating a digital camera. Hmmm.. could you please share the information about the precise number of analog Leica photographers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 31, 2012 Share #156 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Come off it Jaap. No one could possibly know that. It's a generalisation, which is true. There are still a large number of Leica film users out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2012 Share #157 Â Posted May 31, 2012 No heckling on my part - I would be seriously interested in a percentage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 31, 2012 Share #158 Â Posted May 31, 2012 No heckling on my part - I would be seriously interested in a percentage. Â 12.64% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2012 Share #159 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Thanks - I should have thought is was more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 31, 2012 Share #160 Â Posted May 31, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.