Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,564   Posts: 1,573,419   Online: 907
      
Page 14 of 45 FirstFirst ... 489101112131415161718192024 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 450
  1. #131
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I wonder how the owner of the site feels about this ongoing thread practically owned by Aristophanes and his never ending call for doom, practically calling out for the death of the site as well?

    Since first posting on this thread, I have shot a roll of Tri-X for a magazine article, sold two images for a book and had two meetings with this well funded art center in regards to bringing a darkroom workshop into the fray for at risk kids: http://thirdstreetcenter.net/

    I just can't effing believe how ineffective this site is in the promotion of both great images made in the analog medium and being a true champion for getting the word out about film. This is beyond frustrating and because of people like the aforementioned, this site is just not worth being a part of anymore in terms of dialog. I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
    If "dialog" in your definition amounts to insults and bitch slaps to total strangers who don't share your views, then I guess APUG just isn't the place. Surprise! There's no party line here. Oh, by the way, I found this a bit troubling: "...just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium." OMG, do you shoot<<gulp>>digital?!

    Happy you're keeping your hands busy.

  2. #132
    naeroscatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Newmarket Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    855
    Images
    39
    Originally Posted by PKM-25
    I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
    The way I understand you should thank APUG for all the technical answers that put money in your pocket rather than bashing this forum. As someone said main scope of APUG is not to promote film. Have you considered becoming a subscriber for APUG so you can actually feel that you contribute to the film community or it is just taking advantage?
    Mihai Costea

    "There's more to the picture
    Than meets the eye." - Neil Young

    Galleries:My PN & My APUG

  3. #133
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,785
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    1) Olympus' scandal has little impact on a high-growth industry. Others can step in. Kodak's demise puts a giant question market on exactly how much demand there is for film of any kind, especially in the long term.
    Why would there suddenly be a question mark? At the moment photographic film seems to have stabilized at a low level while movie film is in steep decline. Kodaks film unit has been mostly profitable throughout the last ten years, while their digital branch wasted money quarter after quarter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    2) Enron did blow up the power market. Certainly in California. I am a bond analyst. That was downright ugly, and the lawsuits are still ongoing at enormous cost to all ratepayers in many states. Enron's demise and lack of diligence all around exacted a huge toll on consumers, and still does.
    3) Kodak going south means that extending credit to all other film suppliers becomes an issue because the central point is the enormous erosion of demand for emulsion products worldwide. Instead of credit and financing being offered mostly on the financials of the supplier, analysts will be looking at the underlying customer base of the product. This could apply to the company making parts for Fuji processing machines to suppliers of emulsion chemicals to distribution wholesalers. If Kodak has to pay cash up front to get its film products on the shelf, then that could very well spread to everyone in the market.
    So which other major power company went bust shortly after the Enron thing or as a consequence thereof? No reasonable investor thinks photographic film has a huge growth potential right now, so the demise of Kodak won't even create shock waves like Lehman or Enron. I just don't see that bunch of investors scratching their head "we would have never thought this digital fad would catch on" ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    4) Yes, the whole question about the survival of roll and cartridge film will reside with the ability to manage small volumes with adequate QC.
    Cutting film to rolls is trivial compared to proper coating. You should rephrase this as "4) Yes, the whole question about the survival of coated film stock will reside with the ability to manage small volumes with adequate QC." And while it is quite popular here to rag on Foma/Adox/Efke here in this forum, a lot of people seem to be happy with their products, especially in larger formats. In a few years a lot of Kodak's film patents are due to expire so we could suddenly see a hike in film performance from former low cost vendors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    5) Doom and gloom is a function of economics and business. Where there's risk, there's doom.
    If you want to beat the market consistently you will have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Omnidirectional doom&gloom panic in the face of a little risk won't do much good.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    6) My major concern when looking at film production and the transfer of assets to someone other than Kodak is the entropy in the camera market. Basically any takeover of the Kodak's operations is like taking over a car part manufacturer for 1980's vehicles. This applies to Ilford as well as Fuji. At a certain point--when it is not known--the suppliers of credit and financing are going to ask where the new customers are, and where they are getting their equipment to load your emulsion product in. Like all creditors they may need more certainty that eBay sales volumes and flea markets. No supply of cameras could lead to a contraction ins the supply of credit and operational funds for film manufacturers. Prices rise, more customer leave as a result, and so on. That's the threat.
    Unlike digital cameras, you don't have to buy a new analog camera every two or three years, so analog camera sales are a lot less relevant to film sales than you make it look. I own and use three analog cameras right now, none of them was bought new. I bought my last new camera 25 years ago, yet I still go through a lot of film every year.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I just can't effing believe how ineffective this site is in the promotion of both great images made in the analog medium and being a true champion for getting the word out about film. This is beyond frustrating and because of people like the aforementioned, this site is just not worth being a part of anymore in terms of dialog. I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
    Well, the name does stand for Analog Photography Users Group, not Analog Photography Promotional Association. I don't really see it as the responsibility of APUG to be "a true champion for getting the word out about film". Actually, I'm not sure I see where APUG has any responsibilities at all beyond providing a medium for those of us using film to talk shop.

    I don't like the one-note doom-and-gloom discussions very much either, but it's not like the site consists entirely of them. You can always quit reading this thread and go discuss something you find more edifying. Pop over to the b&w forum and help holmburgers figure out why his Efke 100 sheets have thin highlights, tell me how to get my Impossible Project film to behave better, sell a lens you're not using, whatever.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  5. #135
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    I see no documentation that film is profitable for Kodak, nor has been for the last 5 years. Their financials statements all say otherwise, as does the demolition of the facilities as they race to downsize. I see no signs of stabilization, just decline.

    Real asset destruction is a loss of money and capital. Always. the decline of film sales is what killed Kodak on the balance sheet. There was no way management could have stopped that trend. What they did botch was management of their original digital lead.

    Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty.

    If colour film goes away, a lot of analog shooters will too. That will impact B&W sales from any source. A smaller aggregate market will increase prices substantially. This bodes poorly for a very small player like Ilford.

    It is very difficult to say if Kodak goes away other suppliers will step in. That may not be the case because there needs to be capital investment to do so and without a visible market bottom money will be reluctant.

    You don't have to buy a new digital camera either. That's your version of doom and gloom. There are certain economic advantages to digital in that every shot after original purchase gets less expensive and with analog it gets more expensive. And the dominant history of film cameras is of near-throwaway models. Refinancing Kodak's emulsion facilities for a market using 20 year-old cameras bought and sold off auction sites is going to raise question marks by anyone financing the Kodak leftovers. The credit will be short term, very expensive, and collateralized. That's a tough sell.

    *You* may go through a lot of film, but the market may require more proof that if you get hit by a bus there's someone to fill your shoes. Investors need to see the customer not yet on the horizon. A declining overall demand and no means to stabilize demand with new products (Lomo gets it correct) is the problem, both for analog film and MP film.

    There are means to stabilize the market or carve out analog film as a niche, but the effort will have to be comprehensive and the backer of deep pockets. The dumbest thing anyone can do is imagine that film will ever compete with digital on quality or convenience. It cannot. Down that path lies marketing ruin. analog film requires its own market space unique to it, not burdened down with unwinnable arguments about superiority. Nostalgia and culture sell. That's the leverage.

  6. #136
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    A picture is worth a thousand words...
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #137
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    I see no documentation that film is profitable for Kodak, nor has been for the last 5 years. Their financials statements all say otherwise, as does the demolition of the facilities as they race to downsize. I see no signs of stabilization, just decline.
    We must assume you can't read then as the coating division has always been profitable ven in a shrinking market.

    Where you may be confused is asuming the coating division is capable of stemming the rest of the companies losses and the very high salaries and bonuses of the directors.

    Just how bonuses relate to losses is only understandable to those recieving them not the rest of the world.

    Ian

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,009
    Well, here's hoping Ian's right!

  9. #139
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Well, here's hoping Ian's right!
    We all need diversity and choice, unfortunately as individuals it's impossible to support all companies.

    There's anti Kodak sentiment but that's againsta Kodak as a whole for their mismanagement and not the coating division. I can only speak from my own experiences and when I couldn't find Kodak B&W films I switched back to Ilford with Foma as my fall back, that choice was made by Kodak themselves not having materials on dealers shelves. It's that simple.

    Ian

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,777
    Has another mole infiltrated? Aristophanes - I agree with quite a few of your points, but digitial hasn't even begun to be able to replace color film for quality - not for portrait applications, and certainly not for large-format film and printing applications. Even if something gets digtially printed,
    the optimized results are going to be way better and more manageable from a LF scan than from
    anything direct capture. Maybe run-of-the-mill stock photography and magazine spreads can use
    DLSR results, but certainly not all of us find it a realistic alternative. Then there's the cost thing.
    Traditional enlargement is way, way cheaper overall to output. Worldwide there's probably
    sufficient demand for somebody to remain in color neg film mfg; and for the time being,
    Fuji is still solidly behind chrome film. Recapitalizing as a startup is indeed another matter. And the
    long-term viability of black and white film is another issue altogether, because it's much easier to
    manufacture than color. Pricing will always be affected by silver, gelatin, petrochemicals behind filmbase, etc.
    But suggesting that film in general will all unravel just doesn't add up. And right now there are plenty
    folks interested in some kind of darkroom work. Cumulatively, that will keep somone in business making the necessary supplies.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin