Happy you're keeping your hands busy.
Happy you're keeping your hands busy.
The way I understand you should thank APUG for all the technical answers that put money in your pocket rather than bashing this forum. As someone said main scope of APUG is not to promote film. Have you considered becoming a subscriber for APUG so you can actually feel that you contribute to the film community or it is just taking advantage?Quote:
Originally Posted by PKM-25
I will just come hear like many do, find a quick tech solution, not post and just get out and make great photographs happen, regardless of medium.
I don't like the one-note doom-and-gloom discussions very much either, but it's not like the site consists entirely of them. You can always quit reading this thread and go discuss something you find more edifying. Pop over to the b&w forum and help holmburgers figure out why his Efke 100 sheets have thin highlights, tell me how to get my Impossible Project film to behave better, sell a lens you're not using, whatever.
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.
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.
Investors and creditors of emulsion production will be afraid to our good money after bad, especially where there is consumer market uncertainty.
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.
It is very difficult to say if Kodak goes away other suppliers will step in. That may not be the case because there needs to be capital investment to do so and without a visible market bottom money will be reluctant.
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.
*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.
There are means to stabilize the market or carve out analog film as a niche, but the effort will have to be comprehensive and the backer of deep pockets. The dumbest thing anyone can do is imagine that film will ever compete with digital on quality or convenience. It cannot. Down that path lies marketing ruin. analog film requires its own market space unique to it, not burdened down with unwinnable arguments about superiority. Nostalgia and culture sell. That's the leverage.
A picture is worth a thousand words... ;)
Where you may be confused is asuming the coating division is capable of stemming the rest of the companies losses and the very high salaries and bonuses of the directors.
Just how bonuses relate to losses is only understandable to those recieving them not the rest of the world.
Well, here's hoping Ian's right!
There's anti Kodak sentiment but that's againsta Kodak as a whole for their mismanagement and not the coating division. I can only speak from my own experiences and when I couldn't find Kodak B&W films I switched back to Ilford with Foma as my fall back, that choice was made by Kodak themselves not having materials on dealers shelves. It's that simple.
Has another mole infiltrated? Aristophanes - I agree with quite a few of your points, but digitial hasn't even begun to be able to replace color film for quality - not for portrait applications, and certainly not for large-format film and printing applications. Even if something gets digtially printed,
the optimized results are going to be way better and more manageable from a LF scan than from
anything direct capture. Maybe run-of-the-mill stock photography and magazine spreads can use
DLSR results, but certainly not all of us find it a realistic alternative. Then there's the cost thing.
Traditional enlargement is way, way cheaper overall to output. Worldwide there's probably
sufficient demand for somebody to remain in color neg film mfg; and for the time being,
Fuji is still solidly behind chrome film. Recapitalizing as a startup is indeed another matter. And the
long-term viability of black and white film is another issue altogether, because it's much easier to
manufacture than color. Pricing will always be affected by silver, gelatin, petrochemicals behind filmbase, etc.
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.