Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,386   Online: 1056
      
Page 52 of 63 FirstFirst ... 2424647484950515253545556575862 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 624
  1. #511
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,653
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    I never said "immediate". And I never said when Kodak declares Ch. 11. this will happen.

    I said that if Kodak contracts the film market it will cause contractions of credit and raw materials all around. This will take time, but it actually accelerates the market problems with film (access to product, loss of product lines, loss of labs, quality control, key personnel leave).
    You said here, that Kodak filing for ch 11 is a "credit event", causing "considerable creditor (not just investor) scrutiny of anything to do with film".

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

    While you certainly didn't say the exact word "immediate", predicting the demise of photographic film until the year 2512 is pointless. Let's both agree here that markets respond to risks and adverse situations very quickly and if your predictions would have come true these scenarios predicted by you would have happened within a few weeks after Kodaks ch 11 filing. Well, those weeks have passed and absolutely nothing happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    What is happening to film is structural. It's like a virus that will manifest itself in the other suppliers. The reason why is because there is no consolidation of supply to match the consolidation of demand. The best producer with the most efficient and capable equipment (Kodak) is the one in trouble. So not only is the market over-supplied and robbing itself of reinvestment revenues, the most efficient means of supply is on the ropes. That is classic mis-allocation of capital. In abstract terms, you DON'T want Ilford to survive because their B/W monoline market, quite old machines, and history dogged by bankruptcy, is the supplier least able to keep broad market appeal necessary for film to thrive. Film is a mass manufactured industrial-scale product that does not scale well (nor affordably) to niches.
    Ilford is profitable and successful because they properly responded to the fact that film has indeed become a niche market which they still supply with affordable products. While film manufacturing scales up extremely well, there is some money to be made from properly scaling it down. Kodak on the other side might have the best coating machines in the world, but if they really really really need 1 km of leader before they turn out useful product, it's obvious they'll go the way of the dinosaur in the long run if they can't get their act together.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  2. #512
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Rudeofus - Wooohooo well said, thread solved! Can we close it now Aristophanes?! Do you agree? Can we move on? Or will you reply something about the lack of labs, new cameras and scale down of MP stock?
    Andy

  3. #513
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Want to wow them even more, shoot it on film and print it in a real darkroom....and leave your competition choking on your dust, period.
    If you've got the eye.

    If you don't have the eye, then you've spent a lot of money for nothing.

    OT, but what the digital revolution did in the pro world is lower the barrier to entry for people who thought they had the eye. And some of them did. Many didn't. So you have a lot more suck-o "pros" out there today than you do decades ago because you can go to Costco and drive home with the tools to self-pronounce that you're a "pro" now.

    I'm not a pro. I'm a self-avowed hobbyist. Been posting that here and all over the internet for decades. But I've got a dark room, mostly from eBay cast offs, that would have made many pros drool in the '70s. Because the pros don't want the stuff any more.

    Once in a while I'll get a real Wow'em scene. Mostly I'm just OK. But it's all film.

    MB
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  4. #514
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    You said here, that Kodak filing for ch 11 is a "credit event", causing "considerable creditor (not just investor) scrutiny of anything to do with film".

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

    While you certainly didn't say the exact word "immediate", predicting the demise of photographic film until the year 2512 is pointless. Let's both agree here that markets respond to risks and adverse situations very quickly and if your predictions would have come true these scenarios predicted by you would have happened within a few weeks after Kodaks ch 11 filing. Well, those weeks have passed and absolutely nothing happened.


    Ilford is profitable and successful because they properly responded to the fact that film has indeed become a niche market which they still supply with affordable products. While film manufacturing scales up extremely well, there is some money to be made from properly scaling it down. Kodak on the other side might have the best coating machines in the world, but if they really really really need 1 km of leader before they turn out useful product, it's obvious they'll go the way of the dinosaur in the long run if they can't get their act together.
    Right. It is a credit event for the #1 supplier. Greece has a credit event and all the other countries are scrutinized and their risk profiles rise. AIG had a credit event, and insurers suddenly had solvency issues all over.

    And of course its creditors who will now scrutinize because they are the ones who losses now become adjudicated in Ch. 11. That's the process. Shareholders are wiped out. This is an industry rife with solvency problems.

    I never said weeks, either.

    We do not know that Ilford is profitable. They are a private company who were management rescued from insolvency. They exist on the fringes of a market defined largely by Kodak and Fuji. They are likely majority dependent on home darkroom hobbyists, an industry under considerable duress judging by the free darkrooms on the market (those people, too, have put down $ on Photoshop rather than into defunct Jobo). Where I live, no darkroom supplies are available. None. It's all mail order or nothing, and vast geographic swathes are subject to the same problems, so on the balance of facts, Ilford will eventually have problems as well. If there is more supply of darkroom than demand, then the same will happen to film. If the biggest supplier has problems in ANY industry, there is strong potential for cascading problems throughout an already stressed supply chain.

  5. #515

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,353
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    We do not know that Ilford is profitable. They are a private company who were management rescued from insolvency.
    We DO know that Ilford is profitable, as their financials have been published here a couple of times. Private firm info is available from Companies House in the UK. Sales and profit are small compared to Kodak, however that shows they are viable as a niche supplier, exactly what is needed these days.

  6. #516
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    697
    Images
    5
    ... Is all this less a headache than time spent playing with digital workflow?
    Yes

  7. #517
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    The word 'workflow' even gives me a headache.

  8. #518
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    697
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael W View Post
    We DO know that Ilford is profitable, as their financials have been published here a couple of times. Private firm info is available from Companies House in the UK. Sales and profit are small compared to Kodak, however that shows they are viable as a niche supplier, exactly what is needed these days.
    Yes, it's that simple. They are a private company that wants to be in the film business. As long as they make some money and can keep buying silver nitrate, the lights on and everyone paid, they are happy. Apparently they are not beholden to stockholders demanding more and more profit all the time no matter what.

    That will be the future of the business. Just like today's makers of horse saddles - people that are in the business because they want to be and can make a living out of it. When they cannot make a living at it any longer they will shut off the lights and slam the door.

  9. #519
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    697
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
    The word 'workflow' even gives me a headache.
    Absolutely

  10. #520
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    CGW, have you finally arrived at the point where you are going to tell us we should all go digital because it's easier/faster/whatever?
    Nope. Just that it's doubtful that many busy, successful pro photographers in 1995 processed and printed their own film. Isn't that what pro labs and printers did? Not sure why DIY film workflow is suddenly any more advisable now than it was back then for a busy pro. Oh, no pro lab? That is a problem, isn't it?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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