My bad. I guess I'm better at thinking than emoting about this.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
I wonder at what point was film less than 50% of their gross sales. In 2000, it was 19%. That's not much. I'm guessing that in 2000, film was a much higher percentage of gross sales for EK. Fujifilm was highly diversified before the great decline of film usage.
At Fujifilm, photo films accounted for less than 1 percent of the company's total sales in fiscal 2011, down from 19 percent in fiscal 2000.
The strength of the commitment to film is clarified in this release:
Originally Posted by Henning Serger
Error 404 on that link, Mark_S.
Page Not Found
We're sorry, we can't find the page that you are looking for.
If you would like to report this error, please email what has happened and the link to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Otherwise, please click back to the previous page you were visiting and use the search box in the top right of the page to find what you are looking for.
Again, apologies for the absence of this page.
Here's the correct link: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...essional-films
Fuji discontinued Velvia 50 in 4x5 and 8x10 and Velvia 100F in all formats just a few days ago.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
I guess the real question is "I wonder at what point was film less than 50% of their NET sales?"
Trimmed line-up and higher costs for customer?
If a company doesn't market their product, of course sales will slump.
I think if their sales volume continues to suffer, it will be nothing to do with lack of demand. It will because the companies will push away their current customers.
You can't just keep trimming your product and charging more to compensate for marketing errors.
Then we shoot B&W. And when B&W film is gone, we coat and shoot glass plate.
Or maybe an Impossible-like project will come along, we could be part of it, and we'll make and sell some crappy approximation of today's decent film that we'll nevertheless be happy to shoot, hipster like, but better than nothing. Until we die. And who cares beyond that?
I don't know. I doubt it will work out. I love instant film but the Impossible Projects imitations are practically worthless to me. I don't know of any serious photographer who would even consider using it. You'd need a product of at least comparable quality.
Originally Posted by SkipA
I don't know, E76. I suspect you are mistaken. People create art with the materials that they have available to them. But then, most of us aren't artists. I am probably not even a serious photographer, despite the fact that I shoot all formats and every kind of film from 8x11mm to 8x20 inches. But I have an SX-70. I'm happy to be able to use any instant film I can get for it. I got some great photos of my dog tonight, an old girl, and I fear she won't be with me for much longer. I'm going to treasure these photos. I like photography, even when it's not serious.
I wouldn't say that Impossible film is an "imitation" of anything. I think they are doing their own thing, marketing to the hipster / Lomo crowd. It seems to be working for them. I'd like better color, sharpness, and saturation, but I'll take what I can get. It can be challenging to get what I consider a "good" photo with Impossible film, but I like a challenge. Go browse their galleries. You will find at least some photos you consider good, imitation film or not.
For every serious photograher who won't consider using a crappy approximation of today's decent films, I bet there will be 50 casual photographers who will, if that is all that is available to them. The serious photograhers can go explore digital, if that floats their boat. Ugh. I can't think of anything more lifeless and boring.