Resurgence of film?

<p>It just a supply and demand cycle. The supply dropped so the demand went up, which means prices are up, which means the film makers are making good profits on fewer products, which means less wasted resources on products that do not sell. For us the film consumer we are going to buy what ever they offer us because that's the only choice we have if we still want film to stick around.</p>

<p>Less film is being sold each year, that trend may no continue forever but I don't see a resurgence at this time. I think the film market is going to shrink a whole lot</p>

<p>Just because there is no real resurgence does not mean film is dead, but just because some people are going from digital to film does not mean a resurgence either.</p>

<p>In the end does it really matter?</p>

<p>Walmart has never been any good for anything except underwear, socks, t-shirts and jeans. Never would I have considered purchasing any photographic material from them. They never had a great selection of slide or B&W film.<br>

Selling cheap Fuji and Kodak film to the masses is just that and nothing more. Good film most always came from dedicated camera stores or via mail/internet order. I mostly shoot B&W film. It didn't go away when color film came around and it didn't go away with digital. Fact is it's not going away anytime soon. Folks like myself who want to feel as though they are part of the process and enjoy playing alchemist will be using the stuff for quite a while. Even if sales decline someone in China or Eastern Europe will continue make the stuff.</p>

They blather on about the same thing with vinyl versus CD. Yes, vinyl is growing again but it is a modest increase on a distinctly small market. So is that market enough to warrant a shift in manufacturing? Probably not. It will take along time for film to die, but will it in future ever be more than a specialist niche?

 

<blockquote>

Kodak techs realized that most film is scanned at some stage in a photographer’s workflow, so they made it scanner friendly. <strong>Contrast was lowered to better allow the scan to capture the full range of tones, and the color gamut “is not pumped up so much that it begins to compete with some of that tonal information.</strong>”

</blockquote>

Hang on - aren't those the very benefits that film advocates talk about? I which case isn't this like turkeys not only voting for Christmas but handing the axe to the farmer.

 

<blockquote>

<p>The article we are discussing is about a comment that film is doing extremely well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Extremely well is a bit... well, extreme. What it probably merans is not quite as bad as last year.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They blather on about the same thing with vinyl versus CD. Yes, vinyl is growing again but it is a modest increase on a distinctly small market. So is that market enough to warrant a shift in manufacturing? Probably not. It will take along time for film to die, but will it in future ever be more than a specialist niche?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But you can still get the vinyl even though its death certificate was signed and dated years (decades?) ago. We have to understand that what we're working with here is a specialty product, and some inconveniences will come with that, but that's not the same as it disappearing.</p>

<p>But resurgence is a strong word for what we're seeing. There's definitely a noticeable increase in film cameras you spot on the street, relative to a couple of years ago, but it's not like the market for the stuff is back up to the level it was at 30 years ago.</p>

<p>This summer I was on a cruise ship with about 1,300 passengers. I admit that I didn't check each passenger or room but on the ship and at each stop (together) I only saw two other people shooting film. I used two Canon film SLRs. I would like to see film experience a resurgence. I just don't see it. There are a few young photo students who want to experience Kodachrome before it's too late and who want to try outdated Technical Pan and Panatomic-X. They are in the minority. </p>

<p>Michael Ferron;</p>

<p>****RE "Never would I have considered purchasing any photographic material from them. <strong>They never had a great selection of slide or B&W film.</strong>"</p>

<p>Many Walmarts awhile back had Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200; two Ektachrome(s) ; Tri-x in 35mm and 120 and Verichrome Pan; Kodak slide projectors; screens; Kodachrome and Ektachrome in Super-8; and once Kodachrome in regular-8. Walmart once carried Verichrome Pan in 110, 620 and 120 too. Walmart once carried 35mm in Plus-X too.</p>

<p>**Do *YOU* consider Kodachrome,Tri-x, Plus-X, Verichrome Pan to be CHEAP PRODUCTS;<br /> <br /> (1) because Walmart sold these are great prices;(lower than NYC mailorder)<br /> <br /> (2) or you are an Ilford/Fuji man; thus you consider Kodak products as garbage? (ie Kodachrome is garbage?)</p>

<p>(3) you are not old enough to remember when Walmart sold these items; thus you only saw Kodak max zoom 800 Joe Six Packs films? (Kodachrome and Tri-x were at some Wlamarts 5 years ago)</p>

<p>Cheap can mean low in cost; or low in quality.</p>

<p>I really am interested if you think Kodachrome is total garbage.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> ****Are folks on this thread HAPPY that folks in the heartland of America can no longer buy at a Local Walmart Kodaks great products like Kodachrome; Ektachrome; Tri-x, Plus-X, Vericrhrome Pan, D76, Stop Bath, Fixer, Enlarging papers?<br /> <br /> ***Are you HAPPY when a personl can no longer buy great film based photo items at a local walk in store? ie do you feel happy and celebrate the closing of local store who sell film based photo items; or when Walgreens of Walmart stopped carrying say Tri-X in 35mm rolls?</p>

<p>*** Is your happyness too that Walgreens dropped many classical films?<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />By the tone of the anti Walmart on this thread; folks here are HAPPY that some kid in Iowa does not have any Tri-x in 35mm anymore at a Walmart. Your stance is nobody buys locally; to hell with anybody who has or wants to</p>

<p>Kelly, I do remember WalMart selling Kodachrome, in fact I remember my local grocery store selling it up until 4-5 years ago. I just wont shop at WalMart no matter what the product or "deal". I guess that's really more the point.</p>

<p>I remember Both Walmart and Target selling Kodak Ultra Color 400 in three packs for a great price. Maybe 5 years ago? <br>

Over the summer I bought Kodak film at Target- they had a rack full. I know they are not the biggest retailor in the nation- but they are still big. <br>

They are only going to keep stocking film if we keep buying it.</p>

<p>" It will take along time for film to die, but will it in future ever be more than a specialist niche?"<br>

It is already a niche market. Which does not mean that it is doomed. There are plenty of solvent niche markets. But what this means is we should not expect to buy film from mainstream outlets, and that we should be ready to pay more than what we already pay for films. <br>

Also, BW film is less at risk than color film, as as it can be produced with much smaller investment. I read in several places that the production of color film was heavily dependant on the movie industry. the switch to digital in the movie industry could be a hard blow to color film.</p>

<p>As much as folks seem to enjoy going back and forth because one retailer doesn't carry a particular brand... I've heard opinions varying from film sticking around forever to film disappearing completely in 5 years. I've *been* hearing opinions like that for a couple decades now, so I put about as much stock in "film is dead" as I do in "the end is nigh." Also in a lot of ways I'd be more worried for Fuji... Wally World isn't always known to be kind to their suppliers.</p>

<p>That said, I don't have the same memories some folks seem to of going into a grocery/drug store as recently as 10 years ago and seeing a complete selection of high-end films... even 20 years ago the only "now hard to find" things I can think of are 110 film and flashbulbs, both of which were just as "average consumer grade" as anything else outside a photo shop. Granted, this was small-town, and now it *is* hard to find more than a couple token rolls of 35mm looking like they're just there to fill space next to the disposables, but it wasn't always a matter of dropping in to the grocery store to pick up some B&W film.</p>

<p>As for the article that prompted all of this... it definitely has the feel of a canned press release, but it also has a bit of stability attached to it- Yes, film sales in the US (and I'd imagine the UK, EU, etc.) have been steadily declining, but the market is still significant enough Kodak is willing to throw some R&D money at it. Sure, I expect the film cubbies at the local camera shop to narrow in selection a bit more and it won't surprise me if I don't have any 1-hour type developing options a few years from now, but I think that there are plenty of people who still prefer film to keep it available with about the same variety as there is now (definitely post-heyday, but not "dead"). One of the big forces I see keeping a film market alive is the hobby crowd (which is where I consider myself). Sure, pros all but *have* to go digital because they have clients with expectations. Meanwhile hobbyists can do whatever we want, and often are more interested in the "classic" ways to do things, because a hobby isn't something you do because it's practical, or gives the best results; hobbies are more a personal affair and often about "doing it yourself." Digital detracts from that feeling, at least for me, just like using a boxed cake mix leaves me uninterested in eating the cake "I" just baked.</p>

<p>Does that mean digital (and cake mix) is bad? No, not at all, if someone needs a cake just about ANYONE can bake a cake from a box and have it be acceptable. If someone needs a photo, just about ANYONE can take a digital photo and have it be acceptable. This is what makes digital cameras and cake mixes very popular, and why so many people can't bake if they have to start at plain old flour. Cameras even have the added benefit that you can do really great things with them that you could never do with cake mixes, like use them professionally and be taken seriously (because in a lot of ways, digital photography fills the need as well as or better than film), but just as I seriously doubt we've seen the last cookbook, I seriously doubt the final death of film is as near as a lot of people think. Yes, it will be harder to find film (and film-photography equipment) especially in smaller communities, just like it is pretty hard these days to find a lot of things that used to be pretty common, but I also wouldn't be surprised if sometime this decade at least one of the major camera manufacturers comes up with a "classic re-release" of one of the more popular 35mm film bodies (probably re-worked to fit to modern lenses and all). The market is different, smaller, but likely has a point where it will stabilize for a decent length of time, which for all intents and purposes could be labeled a "resurgence." Do I think we're there? Probably not, but I don't think there will be too many unpleasant surprises from here on out.</p>

<p>Mr. Flanigan...<br /><br />"Walmart is savy with suppliers." <br /><br />How did you come up with such a nice word as "savvy" for their supplier relationship practices? <br /><br />"Maybe they just told Fuji they wanted 800 C41 film at a tad lower price and Kodak said no; and Fuji agreed." <br /><br />That's a real possibility. Next time Wal-Mart's buyers decide they want something, Kodak may be the chosen supplier and they'll throw Fuji under the bus as fast as they had previously thrown Kodak. And of course, waiting in the wings, is the Bangladesh Film Company, who may be the next supplier in line. <br /><br />"ie Kodak figured since they have been with Wal-Mart for 40+ years that they felt fat; dumb and happy in their bid?" <br /><br />Like their new slogan says, that would be "So Kodak". Speaking again of "So Kodak," what type of arrogant, vain, self-important thinking would come up with a slogan like that, without knowing that a lot of their customers were laughingly using it in a negative way?<br /><br />"Now today in 2010 with a vist to New Orleans; no store there; even pro carries a single darn roll of B&W 120;..." <br /><br />I spent this last summer near Tampa, FL, a fair sized city, not just a little town or burg. In Tampa, the last photo store/camera shop had gone almost all digital (and would no longer print digital) but was still a shell of its former self. They catered to advanced armatures and "pros". They had a few boxes of C-41 in 35mm and no 120 or E-6. There was also a specialty printer in Tampa who catered to large commercial accounts. He had a limited supply of film but at least in 35mm, 120, C-41, E-6 and traditional B&W. He also had access to a specialty non-retail film processor in nearby St. Petersburg for his customer accounts. <br /><br />"By the tone of the anti Wal-Mart on this thread; folks here are HAPPY that some kid in Iowa does not have any Tri-x in 35mm anymore at a Wal-Mart." <br /><br />I really dislike the post-Sam Walton Wal-Mart. I would not and did not do business with them as a supplier. As a customer I use them only as a desperate last resort. However I do not want a single employee at the local Wal-Mart to loose his job or have his hours cut. I would not want someone in my little town to loose the ability to buy cheesy Chinese crap because that may be the only way he can afford to have something and otherwise he would have to do without. I don't want any of my fellow photographers to loose the ability to get their digital prints done on Sunday. <br /><br />"There are folks in the midwest where a dumb Wal-Mart really is the only camera store except for mailorder; thus they equate seeing non more Kodak film as Kodak does not make film anymore." <br /><br />And so the perception of reality becomes reality almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.<br /><br />Mr. Anderson....<br /><br />"......Wal-Mart other than seeing how skanky white trash teenage girls are dressing these days." <br /><br />Now THAT is an astute observation.<br /><br />Mr. Smith...<br /><br />"Most big supermarkets do not need to make a profit on anything. When you go into the store and buy something they have your money immediately. They will not pay their suppliers for at least sixty days (or two months). That means that at any time they have one sixth of a years takings at the tills to invest and earn interest on." <br /><br />I do not think that is true. There is little cost to money today. It is not worth much. There is little advantage today with no-cost supplier credit unless you have no capital and have to pay them as you sell their product. But... much of the large retailers' gross profit is made from such items as slotting fees, advertising assistance, where house fees, and new product introduction fees. For instance, If they charge you a slotting fee of $2000 (1997 average chain supermarket slotting fees were around $1000 per front inch of shelf space for each block of 50-100 stores) and only made $.20 profit by selling only one of your 2" wide items, they still made $2000.20 on a single $.50 bottle of retail product. <br /><br />Mr. Joseph...<br /><br />"Kodak finally woke up." <br /><br />I have a hard time believing that. I think it is beyond them. I do not believe in the tooth fairy either. <br /><br />Mr. Fernandes...<br /><br />"I sold my 5D Mark 2 and 85mm 1.2 Mark 2 last week. With the money, I bought a Nikon F6, an 85mm 1.8 AFD, an Epson V700 scanner, and tons of film. I am feeling good for many reasons. One, I know that my camera will not be a paperweight in 10 years. Two, my negatives will never crash and be inaccessible. Three, film for me has an intangible quality that digital does not have. And the F6 is freaking beautiful." <br /><br />You sound pretty delighted with your purchase. Good for you. I'm glad you had the choice. America had traditionally been the country where choice was in abundance and of high value to its average citizen. I see the current trend away from that and it saddens me. Yes, I know that the F6 is now old technology but then so is the Rolls Royce Phantom VI. Nikon, Canon and Contax each made some film cameras that were a joy to use, a thing of beauty and felt just right in your hand. And now you too have had the opportunity to really know that first hand. <br /><br />Mr. Scharf...<br /><br />"Why are we even talking about what Wal-Mart sells or don't sell?" <br /><br />Because alas, today the big box stores so dominate the retail market that any mass market consumer goods cannot survive without them stocking it. The 1950s style traditional retailer is doomed to sell specialty goods and services that do not meet the volume standards of the Wal-Mart class of stores. <br /><br />Mr. Douglas...<br /><br />"Digital photography allows for quick dissemination of our photos and gives us a digital darkroom. However, for most of us, most of our pictures are displayed on a monitor that provides lower quality than what we see in paper pictures coming from film cameras." <br /><br />Yes, and that is setting the quality acceptance standards of photography. Fewer and fewer consumers are expecting better than monitor quality work even from the so-called "pros".</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The dude at Kodak who is quoted in the original article would NOT make a spurious statement like this unless he had some (A) hard facts to back it up, and (B) the confirmation to make such a public statement by his corporate superiors at Kodak.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's somewhat surprising that there are still those who take these marketing execs puffery literally.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Want to see the resurgence of film? Go look at the number of NEW film images and Film related Groups springing up over at Flickr.com. Simple as that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Groups emerging is not indicative of film sales up or down. Its merely indicative of the number of groups emerging. Same with new images being shown. You're creating a correlation without any supporting foundation. There have been many internet based old style hifi stereo groups forming but there are virtually no manufacturing and sales of that particular product. If your correlating theories were valid, there would be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film and Vinyl is a good analogy for the small resurgence of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If its small, its not a resurgence.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak and Ilford have re-tooled their production and culled their lines to be much leaner and more efficient. Think of them as the Ford Motor company coming out of the U.S. Auto Meltdown lean and mean</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's well and good but is irrelevant as to whether there is any film "resurgence".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The film resurgence is real</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you apply the definition of resurgence to the word resurgence.</p>

<p>I'm not one of the film is dead people you write about but I'm not one of those film is resurging claimants either. A realist approach. Unfortunately none of the arguments in the post these quotes came from are helpful to determining the state of film sales. If you can point to actual statistics showing that there is significantly more sales of film than a couple years ago, please supply it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hear that vinyl records have been making a resurgence, too. I notice more and more vinyl records for sale at the local Half-Priced Bookstore, so there may be some truth to the idea. ;-)</p>

<p>Scott DiSabato at Kodak marketing said this too; but this was in 2008:<br>

“film is far from dead and has a ‘bright’ and ’sustainable’ future.” <br /> <br /><br /> "DiSabato’s claims cites the remixed T-Max 400 and Tri-X as leading the resurgence in black and white film" http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/11/kodak-claims-fi/ <br /><br /><br />Hardcore folks will still buy film via mailorder/internet. I did this even 45 years ago for weird and oddball stuff. <br /><br /><br /> Now the hazard fees even on little items can be high; they get tacked on tubes of glue;paint too <br /><br /><br /><strong>****The declining volume issue:</strong> <br /><br /><br /> In one old photo/imaging chemical item I buy for resale it has to be shipped to me by truck. My company has bought and resold this for 5 + decades. I have a dozen local customers; who use this alternate process.<br /><br /><br /> Each purchase even if 1 gallon or 32 or 128 gallons has about a 140 buck hazard fee; besides the truck freight for the weight and distance. <br /><br /><br /> My last purchase was 5 years ago; I have to weight the cost of inventory versus the delivery costs. I will have to increase my sales price from about 13.5 to about 22 bucks when I look at my next purchase; and that 5 year supply might end up being infinity. It use to be (1970's) that the stuff was shipped by Greyhound bus and we just picked it up; now the freight and hazard fees are the bulk of the cost. Thus with this declining market of mine; do I just kill it off and stop selling the papers too? With this chemical; a lone single internet purchase makes it more like 42 bucks a gallon; not the 13.5 I sell it as a dealer where folks pick it up from me. <br /><br /><br /> The financial equation has risk; to figure the number of gallons to buy ; it use to be easy; the usage was constant like those sheltered finance problems in college Finance class. <br /><br /><br /> To make another buy/wad of the chemical; the price increases mean I have to go up to 22 from 13.5; *IF* sales are constant. The added price and the fickle broke starving artists mean they probably use less; thus I should buy less units. This means my cost per unit is even higher; and the sales price might have to be 30 bucks; more in line with internet. <br /><br /><br /> Even at the last of the 13.5 buck stuff; folks bitch and moan at the price. It was about a dollar in 1960 and about 2 in the 1970's<br>

<br /><br /><br />Another solution is pulling the plug; I just stop selling the item; and let folks go elsewhere. Then the whining about prices can be directed to the mailorder places.</p>

<p>Ryan;<br>

RE "As much as folks seem to enjoy going back and forth because one retailer doesn't carry a particular brand."</p>

<p>Look at it this way:</p>

<p>(1) Kodak's Amateur film sales are greater than pro film sales</p>

<p>(2) Kodak's largest USA customer of Amateur film's dropped Kodak</p>

<p>So why is the largest customer of the bigger part of Kodaks still film sales not important?</p>

<p>In the wacky world of Photo.net's artsy folks; actual finance really does not matter. You have a trust fund; a rich uncle; a grant.</p>

<p>In actual commerical work; loosing the largest client that is in the "pie" with more than 50 percent of ones sales matters.</p>

<p>Hey Kelly, I have a trust fund, a rich uncle and a grant? Really? I don't know anything about the first two, and the only grant that I know I have is one 50 dollar bill with a picture of U.S. Grant on it!</p>

<p>Just want to put in a businessman's perspective: Wal-Mart (presumably) doesn't carry Kodak film for the same reason we don't carry Kodak film. Kodak has one single distributor, and they're broke. Another company bought them out, but there was so much debt that went with the buyout that these new guys might go under too. It's been about a year and-a-half since we could order Kodak film and have it show up with any reliability. Except for Tri-X and Portra, oddly enough. But Tmax, Gold, and Max/Ultra take forever, and we don't usually get everything we order.</p>

<p>B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, and some of those other places sell so much, and have so much stock, that they're not as affected. If I order three cases of film a month, I need to go with Ilford and Fuji, because I need that film here. If I were ordering fifty cases a month, it would be no big deal to order 100 instead, and just sit on the other ones if my next order took longer to show up.</p>

<p>Also, there IS a resurgance in the 'artsy' films; black and whites, and 120 stuff. Almost nobody buys plain old colour 35mm anymore. I suspect this is because most people that want a 35mm digital can afford one, but there's still an enormous gap between 120mm film and digital cameras. My guess is that if a Mamiya DSLR were $3000, we'd sell a LOT less 120.</p>

<p>Zack<br>

<br /> RE:"Almost nobody buys plain old colour 35mm anymore."</p>

<p>In still camera film sales; the majority of film sold is color 35mm iso 400 and 800; it eclipses all pro films.</p>

<p>Joe Six pack's purchase of theses "plain old colour 35mm" supports pro films; the minority/dinky/smaller section of the total film pie.</p>

<p>If you draw a circle around a city; there are more rolls of amateur "plain old colour 35mm" film consumed than pro films.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From Stephen ******, with 40 years in the business.<br>

What we are seeing is the market for digital maturing into two groups: The "point and shoot brigade" and the "if its complicated and expensive then it must be good" brigade. The pros know what they are doing.<br>

Competant photographers are now looking critically at the ease of use issue with semi pro and pro digital bodies. And the contrast is becoming obvious. One example is the Leia M9. There is no questioning its image quality, and it has one menu. Top end cameras from the major brands have between 14 and 21, and often four layers deep. They are great when you set everything up, but how long does it take to setup a D3 from the default factory settings. And once you have made them, can you remember what all the settings are, and if you need to make a quick change, how long does that take? One I know has three D3's on hand, each with different settings and lenses. Thats $40k orth of kit. I know another who still uses his Hassy gear and it could be bought for a tenth of that. Another does studio portraits. He has a D700 that he has tethered to a laptop. Once he gets the correct setting of aperture and film speed correct, and the flash set working, he shoots the keeper images on film with a Rollei MF.<br>

We have many customers who are not upgrading their digital bodies now as they do the job. But thay are also buying used film bodies that are compatible with their lens collection. This is particularly the case with Nikon. They are rediscovering the fun and anticipation of film and this sector, apart from MF and LF users is growing.<br>

I work in one of largest multi franchise shops in Sydney. We have a waiting list of people who are looking for good film bodies to buy. Used Leicas are also not staying on the shelf for long either. We used to have a reasonable range of Leica M bodies to choose from, but now they walk out the door. We don't keep lenses for long either.<br>

On looking at sales of film, we saw a big dip in 2007- 2009. This year it has improved. We once had three double door fridges just for film. That went down to a half full one. Now we are ordering more from our suppliers, especially Fuji. Ilford is going ok too.<br>

The interest in film has resurged a measurable amount. We have to always have at least one salesperson familiar with film in the shop. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The interest in film has resurged a measurable amount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where's the measurements?</p>

<p>Large format is almost dead too, but people still buy large format cameras and there are new lenses coming out for large format all the time! It has its uses, just as it did 20 years ago, when large format was "dead" for most people.<br>

-<br>

I have a friend who still insists on using film. He has barely used digital, and he gets his scans as JPEG images in about 10 Megapixel size. And this is a guy who knows what he is doing. It seems unbelievable to me, but he does this, wasting $20 to $30 per shoot. He spends enough money on film and processing each year to buy a good digital camera body each and every year, yet he STILL refuses to buy a 12 Megapixel digital camera (like a Nikon D90). He just WON'T do it, and no matter what I say or do, he still just won't see the light. He has told me that he will buy one when the Nikon D3x sensor is in a more affordable camera, but he tells me he won't buy the Sony A850 (which only costs $2000), so I believe he just believes that film is the best medium to use for shooting photos of models. He also refuses to use the liquefy tool in Photoshop, because that would not be "realistic" - lol.<br>

-<br>

My point is that there are hold-outs. He is one of them. He has been shooting more lately. Maybe that is a trend. It seems like more and more people are out there, shooting more photos lately, whether it's with digital or film. Maybe that's what they are seeing. Maybe it's related to the economy - people staying home, shooting photos, rather than spending even more money going boating or playing golf.</p>