Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,333   Online: 859
      
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 175
  1. #121
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Like I said, go digging on the CIPA site. I did.

    I don't think things went better for other makers than it did for Nikon:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/te...y/12nikon.html
    Oops, didn't see that you edited.
    I couldn't find anything worth anything on the CIPA site.

  2. #122
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    *$@ggvoV374$&&#&HDBOg#g#()4HFH. HJF:likjDoO8&Y^^9bdb...

    &^$&%)hOBVdN=+)9*^%2fKNDKbK.^!!!

    &g$
    I can see that when it comes to typing, you are now stumped!
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by fstop View Post
    While sales dropped off, it didn't justify camera makers dropping out of the film market altogether.Try to find a F6 or FM10 in stock.
    Kodunk says oh lets stop making Kodachrome 64.

    Between bone head manuevers of camera makers qutting the film camera biz and the great yellow father stopping production of film speeds and types they drove the industry to where it is now, THEY gave up on it.
    How many people would still be shooting film if the could buy a new 35mm slr,get their favorite film,get conveinent processing etc.
    The general public thinks film is dead now. They threw the market away.
    My girlfriend used to work at Unique Photo (yes...that Unique Photo) when they were located in Florham Park, NJ. Seldom a day went by when she'd get a call from someone, such as a customer or camera store, for a particular film, paper or chemical, only to be told that, "Sorry, the manufacturer has discontinued that product." (Or in the case of Agfa, "discontinuing" the entire company.) The disappointment was palpable.

    You're right about the manufacturers' throwing the market away, if my GF's experience is any indication. The demand for these things is very much still there, despite what the marketing hype will say otherwise; witness The Impossible Project's resurrection of Polaroid instant film. In light of the "digital juggernaut," companies such as Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and Agfa hit the panic button when they saw "alarming" declines in the film market. It was a knee-jerk reaction, too.

    Dieter Zakas

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    But, the truth is the truth. Kodak did not kill Kodachrome. Lack of sales to you customers killed it! That is the absolute truth.

    PE
    And crappy processing in the 70's to 90's. Sorry, but that's also a truth.

  5. #125
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    And crappy processing in the 70's to 90's. Sorry, but that's also a truth.
    Yes it is.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #126
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,614
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Re: facts. Publicly traded companies have stockholders and government organizations regulate their disclosure practices. What you're saying might be best applied to privately-held companies. Ever hear of an SEC 10-K?
    As PE already pointed out, it's quite easy to shift profits between departments. Seriously, if accounting were so strict and simple and wouldn't allow for creative trickery, most corporations wouldn't bother with tax heavens.
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Film camera sales slid along with film. Who still makes film cameras on a scale comparable to ten years ago? Nikon makes 2 now. Ever bother to look at trend lines of film sales since 2000?
    Film camera sales must have sled a lot more since you can shoot film only once whereas cameras last for a long time. The used camera market is swamped with professional analog gear in top condition. And apart from sensor technology there hasn't been much progress in camera technology: sensor vs film aside, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is a piece of junk compared to my 12 year old EOS 3.

    And despite all that, there are still makers and buyers of new analog cameras. Think about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    There's considerable difference between "Chicken Little" alarmism and realism. It's hard to be sanguine about the next several years and film production/availability/variety as we currently know it.
    Some films will go away, others will come. I weep for Fuji Astia and would really weep if Kodak E100VS ever went away. At the same time I cheered for Fuji Provia 400X and the new Kodak Portra films.

    I am quite sanguine because I have access to a large freezer and to quality film stock that our ancestors couldn't have dreamed of.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  7. #127
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
    Oops, didn't see that you edited.
    I couldn't find anything worth anything on the CIPA site.
    LOTS there if you bother to open the PDF annual/monthly reports.

  8. #128
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Like I said, go digging on the CIPA site. I did.

    I don't think things went better for other makers than it did for Nikon:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/te...y/12nikon.html
    It sounds like Kodak dumped film cameras before Nikon.

    If Kodak goes into bankruptcy, the future of it's film production is entirely at risk because the # of cameras under manufacture to serve as a vehicle for the film product is too small now to even warrant data collection.

    Film sales are now entirely dependent on legacy cameras which are subject to physical depreciation and exit from the market. Therefore the film supply must dwindle correspondingly. Even if current film sales are OK, the medium and long-term prospects are a problem for any entity purchasing the film manufacturing segment. This is reflected in the stock price. Even Ilford is subject this problem. Kodak's financial freefall, and Fuji's huge pullback both signal an inability to properly capitalize the market.

    For roll film to survive what is required is:

    Camera manufacture in a variety of known design types.

    Labs that offer traditional services plus scanning, all affordably. Rationalization through mail order may actually improve the quality/cost ratio. Tie-ins to social media and improved "retronomics" marketing are required. The original Kodak slogan of "You push the button, we'll do the rest" is prescient and ironic. That's where film is today.

    The manufacture of scanners and lab equipment. For the tiny % of people who home develop, the continued manufacture of enlargers, parts, etc. There is probably not enough home darkroom demand to sustain any roll film industry, so lab services are essential to broaden the market.

    Papers, chemicals, and so on should not be a problem. Nor should distribution. The film industry would be so small that storefronts can be Internet based. Think ham radio, audiophile, telescopes.......

    This is all sunk cost stuff.
    Last edited by Aristophanes; 10-11-2011 at 06:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,584
    Sometimes bankrupty is the best thing that can happen in a scenario like this, because there are always
    investment groups looking for a bargain and willing to rethink what went wrong in the first place. Best of
    all, it is sometimes the only way of purging out the old mgt. But it's always a roll of the dice. The new
    mgt might be worse. Publicly traded corps are highly subject to the willy-nilly winds of media hype, which in the case of film becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because the foreseen demand for film
    is no longer actually profitable, but because investors are basically speculators looking for a quick buck,
    and frequently don't even understand the nature of the business they're putting their money into (or that some mindless computer is automatically doing for them). A more tightly-held rearrangement could
    in theory buffer out some of this nonsense and still hold toghether Kodak's viable divisions, while ridding
    them of the hopeless ones. Unfortunatley, the last people they'd ever sell their film patents to would be
    Fuji, and Fuji is the only competitor at this point in a position to make high-quality color films and papers.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,584
    PE - for once I've got to slightly disagree with you. As once a heavy 35mm film user, prior to converting
    to large format, I personally stopped using Kodachrome once they spun off the development to Kodalux
    and the processing got horrible. I heard the same story from other photographers, over and over. Then
    when the silver bullet of 120 Kodachrome came along, the processing disappeared almost as fast. It's a
    matter of reliablilty. Kodak repeatedly burned their own reputation among pros. They wiggle their little toe into the water and then pull it out if the temperature isn't just right. Typical of corporations that are
    just too big to manage properly and treat their minor divisions like unwanted stepchildren. I had friends
    who were put out of businesses a lab owners because they signed onto extremely expensive service
    contracts for scanners etc, then found out that just when they needed the service, Kodak had pulled
    out and left them high and dry. But even for a small fry like me back then, spending a week in the wilderness and then seeing a big scratch all across your roll of Kodachrome didn't inspire confidence.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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