Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
I dont think it is that simple. If you read Fujifilm's quarterly results, they do not make much money at all from digital cameras. Hard to believe but it is true. In fact, their entire imaging division LOOSES money. I looked back from today's year all the way back to 2005. Not one year reported a profit in their imaging division. Not one. It seems that their film chemicals keep the looses from being too high.
Well, Fuji's annual report is certainly an interesting read http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/p...r_2012_all.pdf

63% of imaging revenue is from photo imaging and the rest from digital imaging. And yes, combined they are making $40 million loss.
The breakdown does not go more into detail, so it's hard to say what percentage of photo imaging comes from film. Fuji seems to bet on color photo paper and printing services. To an average APUG member, those would probably qualify as "electronic" anyway.

It's impossible to say really what's the current demand for film from the report. Some people in the industry know. Kodak, Fuji, Adox and their distributors do. We could guess some of the numbers or at least trends by studying Adox and fotoimpex revenue, for example - but I'm not sure the data is publicly available, at least not for free?

What is sure though is that price elasticity of demand for film is getting lower. What this means is that you are going to buy Velvia or Acros no matter the price - because you really need them to achieve what you want or because you are loyal to the brand. So the whole economics of film is changing upside down, from high volume commodity to low volume niche. It also means we can expect further price increase also by other manufacturers (if they are smart, they should follow Fuji's lead).