Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,291   Posts: 1,535,410   Online: 757
      
Page 15 of 45 FirstFirst ... 5910111213141516171819202125 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 450
  1. #141
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    '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.'


    Right...The earth probably does look flat from where you're standing, too. Same old denial and magical thinking. Sorry!

  2. #142

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,584
    My mistake ... thought I was on APUG, but obviously stumbled onto the cell-phone-camera forum.
    Just where do you think commercial display photography is going to come from if high-end output options are going extinct? And just how many times do you think studios are going to amortize new
    equipment outlays every five years? Right now I'm about to coach a studio photographer in large
    format FILM use because he can't deliver competitive quality digitally. And believe me, this ain't the
    flat part of the earth - I'm right smack dab in the heart of the tech empire, and I grew up right smack on the second deepest canyon on the continent. Flatlander I'm not. You'd be amazed at how
    many Silicon Valley types on the trail ask to look under my darkcloth and with they had darkrooms
    of their own. They guys who invent this stuff still know the difference, even if some of the moles
    inflitrating this forum don't. Change is inevitable, but everything digital will change too, and probably
    a lot faster. We'll see what goes extinct first.

  3. #143
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Could I ask a favour? Could some of you please give your personal opinions on the future of pyro developers? I think that'd make this even better.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #144
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,614
    Images
    10
    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.
    PE has commented extensively on the profitability, and he suggests money was shifted from the film division to the money losing digital branch to lower the overall tax burden. Tearing down excess facilities only means the market has declined, not that the remaining part loses money. And I have to remind you again: the current decline in film sales at Kodak comes from movie film, not photographic still film. Movie film, especially print film might well go away in the next few years, I don't know. The question is, whether one can make only color photographic film at the current volumes profitably. But still: Ilford, Foma, Adox and Efke couldn't care less about movie print film sales.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    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.
    Well, technically they could have used the excess money from their film branch to fund a proper downscale of their operations. As people here have already said, stock holders would have revolted against this because it would have devalued their stock. Well, look where this got them ....
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty.
    And photographic film is the only uncertain market right now ....

    Others have mentioned that Kodaks film business was mostly profitable even in the last 10 years. Kodak with its long time monopoly status used to be very generous when it came to worker compensation and retirement benefits, and they are paying dearly for this now. A chapter 11 might well release them from this burden and turn them into a quite profitable film business at 1/10 of their current size (or at their current size if the movie industry wants).

    There will be investors who will invest in a profitable business and others who won't touch anything film related and rather invest in the next AAA rated pile of fertilizer (lots of growth potential here! ).
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    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.
    If the APUG forum is any indication, I'd say the vast majority of current analog shooters use mostly B&W. Ilford won't be harmed but rather see a boost if former users of Kodak's color offerings pour into the B&W market. If Kodak completely stops making B&W film, Ilford makes a close enough match for every Kodak B&W film (PlusX/FP4, TriX/HP5, TMax/Delta).
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    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.
    The near throwaway models have been thrown away by now or are (not) sold to collectors for 1$ a piece. Even photographic doofuses like me own high end professional cameras which would have been completely out of reach pipe dreams just 10 years ago, and these cameras will most likely be serviceable for decades to come.

    There are a much more pressing dangers to Kodak's credit options: a huge unprofitable digital branch which can't even sell their patent portfolio for a reasonable price and the aforementioned burden from previous golden decades in the form of huge pension and health benefit liabilities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    *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.
    That bus hitting me might put a small dent in the film/chem/paper sales in my town but it's not going to put anyone out of business. Investors do see customers for Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, Adox and others. If Kodak really goes away and if its product line gets chucked, I'd be somewhat afraid for color film, but B&W would rather thrive than wither.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  5. #145
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    My mistake ... thought I was on APUG, but obviously stumbled onto the cell-phone-camera forum.
    Just where do you think commercial display photography is going to come from if high-end output options are going extinct? And just how many times do you think studios are going to amortize new
    equipment outlays every five years? Right now I'm about to coach a studio photographer in large
    format FILM use because he can't deliver competitive quality digitally. And believe me, this ain't the
    flat part of the earth - I'm right smack dab in the heart of the tech empire, and I grew up right smack on the second deepest canyon on the continent. Flatlander I'm not. You'd be amazed at how
    many Silicon Valley types on the trail ask to look under my darkcloth and with they had darkrooms
    of their own. They guys who invent this stuff still know the difference, even if some of the moles
    inflitrating this forum don't. Change is inevitable, but everything digital will change too, and probably
    a lot faster. We'll see what goes extinct first.
    Funny how the ad/editorial world seems to be getting along without film. People I'm acquainted are getting by nicely(i.e., profitably)without it.

    Think you're suffering a wee bit of hypoxemia under that dark cloth.

  6. #146

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,584
    I know people who hold digital photog patents who do their personal work on film for quality reasons
    and not just for fun. Plenty of C-paper is still being sold. I can even walk into the local camera store
    here and they've got stacks of Crystal Archive in the freezer and stacks of 4x5 color film in the refrig. The schools and UC teach with it. Commercial printers still use it. On the other hand, my friend
    who does tabletop food photography with a Betterlight has only a finite time to get that serviced;
    it is already defacto extinct, and there's no real substitute. Scanners are getting difficult to maintain. Large format color film still really has no practical substitute in the long run. But no, not
    any flat earth around here, either topographically or intellectually. And we fine-art printers are pretty
    small in volume compared to commercial display applications, which still demand good detail and color
    reproduction, especially for cosmetics ads etc (big dollars). I don't have any crystal ball either, but
    I suspect some version of high-end film will be around until there's a REAL digital substitute.

  7. #147
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,614
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Funny how the ad/editorial world seems to be getting along without film. People I'm acquainted are getting by nicely(i.e., profitably)without it.
    People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Think you're suffering a wee bit of hypoxemia under that dark cloth.
    How often are you going to retry writing this? It just got deleted before ....
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  8. #148
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,212
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too.
    Oh dear...

    Those are hilarious!

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  9. #149
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?
    Wow, that was painful to look at! The best comment: "eye-gougingly awful."
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #150
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    People apparently get by profitably with this kind of work, too. What does it prove, though?

    How often are you going to retry writing this? It just got deleted before ....
    Feel free to shadowbox all you like. That you can't/won't accept what's happened in the past decade is your burden. To say film is different is fine by me but to say it's better is pointless and does nothing to make a case for film. BTW, did you watch the Monty Python clip?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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