I had a look at the link to the rangefinder forum. Based on what is being said there, has anyone had the heart to tell Simon Galley about the inevitable fate that shortly awaits Ilford as well? It seems that the worst case scenario( total failure ) is in fact the only case scenario but no-one at Ilford has spotted this yet.
Simon Galley may think he is helping to run a viable business but is actually arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
On the other hand it might just be that the Ilford board knows a bit more about the future of their business than we as outsiders do.
I said "At the bottom end" and suggested a modernized version of that concept - the whole lomo thing is exactly that. You ignore that I also addressed the upmarket.
Originally Posted by CGW
Hmmm. What are all these?
Originally Posted by CGW
I agree that there is not enough demand to warrant "mass" production. That is a very different thing from there not being enough demand for a niche producer. Kodak cannot survive as a mass producer, that is a given, and I am addressing the possibility of a niche-market successor. In declaring my argument as fact free, you have chosen to ignore that qualification.
Damn! And to think I was just about to pull the trigger on one of those non-existent brand new film cameras! One of the non-existent Fuji 667 folder bellows cameras, no less. I've got the money in hand, but apparently there is no existing camera in sight. Only advertisements and pictures at B&H. Do they know they don't have any? Has anyone told them?
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
And I was also counting on Simon for 120 film to put into that phantom camera. Has anyone told him that his company is on the short road to extinction? A Dead Man Walking?
Guess I'll have to buy an i-something instead. And find a virtual Fuji 667 to use on it. I'm sure there's an app for that.
What was I thinking? Glad I read this thread!
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014
Film can't compete against the digital mass market, that's just stupid to think. Film is it's own thing and should (still) be branded as that. For artists and photographers it's a way of working and a tool to choose for the expression you want. For "normal" people the choice is more about workflow and less about the picture quality. I hear one thing a lot from customers, "My kids gave me a digital camera, but I use my film camera because it's easy to use and I get prints done easy." And for people using two-three rolls of film each year film is still cheap.
I totally agree with Aristophanes, the "You press the button, we do the rest" slogan is still something Kodak can work with. For many people, especially old, digital is not easy.
The days of high volume mass production multi billion business in the film industry is over, so those who want to be in the business must adapt to smaller volumes. The p&s family&holiday snapshot film market is soon dead, so it will defently be a niche market like the one Ilford has adapted to. When I say "dead" I mean there won't be a one hour minilab in each city, but it will of course be commercial labs for many, many years to come. For most people it will be via mail.
Just another fact-free argument. Despite a clinical level of denial, you seem to be mistaking a possible "dead cat bounce" for an uptick in the market. Demand for film has already cratered--why deny it? The reason no one buys new is that there is no "new." Used gear is a "long tail" phenomenon and testament to just how much film was shot and gear bought over the past 30-50 years. But let's see: no more Kodak b&w paper, film line-ups pared by Kodak and Fuji, Agfa dead, Ilford back from the dead(thankfully), mass extinction of pro labs and mini-labs in N. America, higher prices, local chem/paper access difficulties...
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
Sorry Rudeofus but you're reminding me of the Black Knight in the old Monty Python sketch from the "Holy Grail."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Be sure to send us pix of you nuzzling your new Arca-Swiss, OK? Fact-free stands. We've lots of used gear to burn through, so much that it will probably outlast the future supply of film. The Kodak misery pains me deeply but there's reason to think "right-sizing" Kodak's photofilm production will be easier said than done.
Originally Posted by pbromaghin
Film is widely regarded by the masses as less than, obsolete, or flat out gone due to the hype of the digital juggernaught. So what it needs is brilliant imagery as it's front man. Unlike Flickr or other places drowning you with billions of images, this site has the unique opportunity to engage people based on this brilliant portrayal, but it falls short for a few reasons...
1. There could be a looping slideshow of some of the best new analog work out there on the home page, but there is not.
2. There could be a more flavor forward feel of the content of the images in analog being easily detected by the new forum reader, but again, there is not.
3. Perhaps lock out the forum topics from non-paying or visiting site users rather than the very things that are not only to bring in more potential film users but more paying site users, THE PHOTOS.
Instead, it is more and more technical just like a lot or other forums and in the case of those on here who are both outright uninformed and negative but love to hear them selves talk like Aristophanes and CGW, they do nothing to further either the craft of the medium or even the future of this site. I see no work by them and yes, it matters to me....and it matters to those who right this very moment might be asking "Why should I use film, show me why?"
We need more talented users of film to come forward and make great images readily accessible in *every* discussion, end of story. This site is missing out on being the advocate for analog use due to a lot of reasons, one of them being that one of the very first things a site visitor should see is great imagery on film.
This is a visual medium we are talking about here, you are not going to gain new film users by posting a bunch of hot air and have great imagery buried in a bunch of forum subsections and under lock and key...
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Last edited by PKM-25; 01-05-2012 at 04:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
A great investment?
Anyone looking to take over the Kodak b&w film business will have their work cut out, that's for sure. First thing is, take a look at the competition. True, Fuji film has been dropping like flies (goodbye SS & NP1600) but most likely they'll carry on with NP400 & Acros (they are Fujifilm after all). Then there's Ilford offering a large range of film and paper as well as other European producers such as Foma & Efke not to mention Lucky in China. And you're going to turn this thing round on a dime in the middle of a recession (depression?). Personally I doubt it.
Kodachrome Project, right...
Originally Posted by PKM-25
So we scan negs and trans and post them here. Flickr already contains zillions of film shots--some great, most not like much of Flickr content.
"Uninformed and negative" is a remarkable charge. You don't have a clue what I do to promote film locally. I was on photonet for years and never critiqued because I never posted. You seem to have been very busy there posting images. Did you help out in the forums? Your choice--and mine.
APUG probably works best by connecting film shooters locally. We often help former film shooters get back to reality; we know the local ecology of labs, services, and shops and share information they otherwise would miss. That works for me and seems to work for others. I live way more of my life in public than online and prefer it that way.
If you feel mobilizing interest in film is best served by posting images, then rock on. But don't crap on people you don't know, who do things elsewhere, and who work for a shared interest differently than you do.
Last edited by CGW; 01-05-2012 at 07:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I'd hate to interrupt the entertainment so I will try to be succinct.
(1) Kodak isn't film photography;
(2) The US and European markets aren't the entire market for film;
(3) Some of us use the "other" technologies quite happily but also still see plenty of reasons to shoot film;
(4) The value of film-derived art is going up, not down; and
(5) Film photography is not Kodak.