Film Article

[Photo-John]

I haven't actually read it. But it looks good. So I thought I'd throw it your way and let you guys be the judge. Plus, by posting it, I effectively bookmark it so I can come back and look later

Hope you like it. There aren't many articles in the mainstream press about film anymore, so I am curious.

Kodak clings to film >>

And if it's a bummer - don't blame me, I'm only the delivery boy

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks for the link PJ. It was an interesting read. It's promising in that Kodak states that at least for the next 10 years, they will definitely be in the film business. They realize that a lot of pros still use film for some of their shooting and they state they want to work hard to keep those customers. I'm not so much worried about the pros though. My main concern is the everyday consumer. The article talks about a lot of the grocery stores and pharmacies cutting out film processing. I have to wonder how many consumers will still stick with it once their local developing places close and they have to deal with sending out for development. With that segment in rapid decline you have to wonder how much that will influence the few remaining film companies in continuing their lines. Personally I don't see b&w film going anywhere any time soon but, I don't feel the outlook for color film is very promising after the next decade at most.

Aaron

[brmill26]

The most interesting bit for me is that their film segment is still the most profitable portion of their business. That's surprising.

Unfortunately, Aaron, I think the days of associating the terms "everyday consumer" and "film" are very bleak. Everyone I know, from my age up through my parents' age (in their 50s) seems shocked when I pull out a film camera. That reaction is usually followed by "why." For true consumers - ie, not photographers, but the family picture-taker - film IS dead. The lone exception may be disposables, but that can't represent a large percentage, and clearly wouldn't represent any actual film sales.

The only people left buying film are photographers (professional or hobbyist) and perhaps a small number of consumers who either cannot afford a digital camera and/or are intimidated by a digital/computer interface. So I'd wager that by now, the largest decline in film has already occurred. It will continue to decrease for sure, but not nearly at the same rate it did, say, 5 years ago, because the bulk of the interested market has already made their change (or not).

The eventual result will be less diversity. Films that sell in very low volumes will become unprofitable and will be discontinued. I agree that most color films will probably be hit hardest - I find myself most interested in film and film cameras for the very different B&W look they provide. Of course I think Velvia is fantastic too, but that is easier reproduced digitally than a good B&W film. And therefore I agree that B&W films will probably be more stable, as they offer better differentiation to digital photography.

Developers will probably be hurt the most; I think there's a lot of that left to go. The days of the 1-hr film machine are very nearly over. For me, that makes no difference, as I send my film out anyway. But that's how it will be - the processors who can consolidate the film developing market will do enough volume to keep their prices low, which will further drive film users to them and put the smaller, more expensive developers out of business as their volumes drop below profitability.

But most importantly, film is certainly far from dead. It has merely become a "type" of photography rather than ALL photography. For example, one may now say "I shoot landscapes, sports, and film." I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

[Xia_Ke]

...The only people left buying film are photographers (professional or hobbyist)...

...The eventual result will be less diversity...

True, I think the first big casualty we will end up seeing will be with consumer level color films. Films like Kodak MAX and followed by Fuji Superia I see going first. Teh reason I think B&W will be the one that stands the test of time isn't necessarily because of the difference from digi but, more due to the fact that most people who shoot it, it seems, are developing their own. There's a good amount of dedication in that and you really have to love doing it. Plus, these shooters won't be swayed by lab closings, etc. Who knows though? No one ever thought 10 years ago that film would be where it is now, so anything could happen over the next decade.

[drg]

KODAK refers to professional photographer's in the article who use both film and digital as the And world segment. How much of that is becoming the And 'Raely' segment?

The past six months I've seen nearly every working professional photographer I know go entirely digital except for 'special requests' or occasional personal use to make sure the cameras are tuned up!

I know my film use dropped to a handful of rolls this past year and it was entirely personal, with one exception and that was large format sheet film. I am starting a year long project that I plan to use film for and perhaps film will contribute to a second work, but all my casual personal shooting is digital.

One piece of the puzzle that is not talked about a great deal is the printing side of the equation. Each generation of new print technology for what we think of generally as ink-jet tech, gets much better. It is different from various, halide, resin, polymer, and various silver embedded ragg but then again this is a business and hobby for most about the 'next wow'. Otherwise I believe it would be a very small group of people who make photographs. I'm finding I can do far more with ink based printing of late than I thought would be available for another 5-10 years. I can often do far more than with conventional halide (or Argentic that magic word someone started using at PR recently!) with ink now that ink sets have become available that exceed the tonal range of the conventional process . . .

Photo-sensitive paper is a film type product. It has all the manufacturing and handling/transportation difficulties as the magic stuff we put in our cameras. The economics of this business just aren't making sense to continue forever. Ten Years?? That's a reach.

The commitment issue as stated by KODAK bothers me because it sounds tremendously like what they said before they got in to financial problems the first couple of times. Secondly, Polaroid explored vast arrays of film technology, new applications and methods of delivery with some of the best b/w film ever and look where that got them.

One thing that has always caused dissent at the KODAK shareholder meetings has been about how they report their patent and licensing income related to their forward facing consumer business. My belief has been that regardless of press releases and the like that KODAK has survived almost entirely on technology that has moved for a decade towards the digital world. Whether sensor technology licensing, the digital publishing support industry or even the photo kiosk/order fulfillment sector there are a lot things KODAK makes money from that are buried. Four or five such things that make almost as much money each as pure films sales add up to a bunch more than film manufacturing. The write offs they got from closing and demolishing buildings and revenue income from selling some of the real estate added to the 'plus' column of the film biz. It was a one time thing.

KODAK P.O.'d several industries and individuals a long time ago, and they aren't coming back.

KODAK and Polaroid invented the Easy-Button for photography decades ago. That is changing as quick as new and existing photographers can press the digiEasy-Button it is sad to say.

Shoot film if you want, while you can, but it may get outlawed. It is an environmental issue. Not as bad as what happened with the original Kodachrome but still there are disposal issues that when properly done, are getting far more difficult and costly.

The ride is speeding up!

[brmill26]

Well, Kodak may eventually be gone; maybe not. I have no idea how well or poorly they run their business. However, I'm quite sure film will survive in some capacity. There are simply too many cameras out there and too many photographers, in the aggregate, who will shoot some film. The price may go up, the variety may decrease, but there will be some level of film around for quite some time. It's also worth remembering that for every trend there is a counter trend, just as some people today still love to buy vinyl records, and just as with the popularity of the Holga / Lomo look.

[mtbbrian]

I have a friend from college that's in Europe right now and we had a conversation about film recently.
According to him and the source of the info, Kodak will stop all film production come 2011.
Not that I doubt my friend or anything, but there just seems to be some much contradictory information out there it's hard to know who to believe!
I'll just shoot film until....
Thanks for the post PJ!
Brian

[brmill26]

Well according to the article that was the "old plan" - to depreciate the buildings/equipment by 2010 (meaning, presumably, production would stop by 2011). Supposedly the new plan extends it "through 2015." Not a huge difference, of course. Personally, I couldn't care less if Kodak is still around or not. They are largely consumer-oriented and as we've discussed, that element of film photography is all but dead - thus, Kodak by extension should be nearly dead. I've only ever shot one roll of Kodak and it was ok, but I won't cry if they're gone.

In fact, Kodak's failure may be just what the market needs. Remove one of the giants that's currently diluting revenues and the other companies may then be able to gain enough volume to survive.