Positive news: Film at Photokina photo fair

<p>Hi,<br>

there are some very positive news concerning the film market coming from this years Photokina in Cologne, Germany (the Photokina is the most important and biggest photo fair in the world; 185,000 visitors this year).<br>

Here is a very informative and detailed report from optical expert Mr Serger who visited Photokina and talked to all major film manufacturers:</p>

<p>http://www.apug.org/forums/forum390/111070-photokina-2012-report-english-version.html</p>

<p>(well, the whole thread is extremely informative)</p>

Wow. Great info. Glad to hear about Neopan 400.

<p>Thanks for posting this...it gives me hope! I really liked using (among many other film types) the Maco IR 820 infrared film and was sad to see it go away. I would also like to see Fuji bring back RVP 50 in 4x5. And their RAP 100F was great, hope that returns too. </p>

<p>"...it is not completely excluded that Astia 100F might come back one time. It's all about demand."</p>

<p>I find this a curious statement. If a product is discontinued, what then signals demand? Emails to the company? A guy with a sign outside HQ?</p>

<p>Scott, please read the whole thread!<br>

Because in another very detailed and informative postingin this thread Mr Serger explained all the factors concerning demand (and reversal film / Astia 100F).</p>

<p>Already posted a few days ago:<br>

<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00azB6">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00azB6</a></p>

<p>Well, after reading the link, it has the sounds of people coming to their senses. Film offers us choices of different pallets for different subjects, this is paramount to the creative process for the creative soul. Choice. I grew up with that, how lucky I've been.</p>

<p>Serger is among the more voluble film fabulists at APUG--and a firm believer that Lomography will bring back the good old days of film. Though he says it, it's not clear that he really understands that it is, and always will be, about demand for film materials. With Kodak stumbling and Fuji out of cine film and dependent on film for only a tiny bit of their earnings, it's really about smaller players, and well-run right-sized Harman/Ilford, who can supply a shrinking, niche market. Serger can't grasp that the German market isn't a patch on the huge N. American market where demand for film materials has been falling for a decade. Anyone still shooting film in the US or Canada has already seen this movie. The flame wars on APUG following the January Kodak crash show that few there really got what brought Kodak to the brink.<br>

Agree with Scott that petitions and letters to Fuji don't constitute a miraculous renewed demand for products cut for lack of sales.</p>

<p>P.S. that comes first: please read the entire post befor flaming.<br /> Not that I want to rain on the parade (I do like film and hope that it'll be around as a commercial product for a very long time) but all this is a marketing talk. <br />"Strong orders" means that "the decline is not as profund as we expected."<br /> "Increasing interest" = "people ask but dont bite."<br /> "Quite a stable demand" = "you know the truth so why are you asking!"<br /> Etc.<br /> <br />KODAK 2012 film sales (to date higher than all of 2011) are due to the orders/stockpiling of discontinued emulsions (just wait for 2013 to see the real decline.) Hopefully KODAK will turn its film manufacturing into a profitable "boutique" operation because it will simply not survive intact in their medieval corporate structure and might fare even worse upon sale.<br /> The decline of Japan (aided by their overvalued currency) is so profund that all Japanese companies must cut the unprofitable stuff or else, so expect Fuji to prune mercilessly. I wouldn't be surprised if all/most Fuji film was gone on 2-3 years<br /> The small film makers might fill the vacuum left by EFKE and the rest of the crowd is merely in the repackaging game.<br /> ILFORD seems to be the only bright spot and I'm in awe of their persistence.<br /> LEICA with its new B&W model may be a major factor in the decline in use of B&W film, BTW, especially if other camera manufacturers follow.<br /> If we want to save film we need to be realstic as to what is really going without undue optimism and fanboism.<br /> Oh, and simply use it :-) I've shot only 500 or so rolls this year (all 120, all 6x17 with the exception of 1 roll 6x6) and even though I'm miles ahead of the "buy film not megapixels" kiddies who talk a lot but seldom take pictures, that's still perhaps only 1% of my digital shooting. Why? Because digital does everything better so unless I get a specific request for film...</p>

<p>Interestingly again all the doom and gloom sayers here are not able to read and understand. Why shoot the bearer of a message? Mr serger has reported about what was presented and said at Photokina. Not more, not less. If you want to criticise, then criticise<br>

- Fuji for re-introducing Neopan 400 because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand<br>

- Fuji for introducing a new Instax instant camera because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand (the responsible Fuji manager explained there is a real boom in instax film; see FPP interview )<br>

- Fuji for introducing three new silver halide color papers for photo books because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand<br>

- The Impossible Project for introducing several new films because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand<br>

- Adox for introducing three new films because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand (and they are intensively working on the revival of Polywarmtone paper ( http://www.polywarmtone.com/Blog/English.html )<br>

- Ilford for introducing a 8x10" Titan Pinhole camera because of the huge success of the 4x5" model, they see increasing demand for their product range ( http://www.harmantechnology.com/Blog/tabid/60/Default.aspx?tabid=60&EntryID=71 )<br>

- Ilford for introducing their new direct positive paper on PET base<br>

- Kodak for stating that they see increasing demand and sales for their BW films (see the FPP interview )<br>

- Maco for their statement that they see increasing demand for their products and working on new products<br>

- Arca Swiss for their statement that they see increasing demand for their film cameras<br>

- Voigtländer that they see increasing demand for their film cameras<br>

- DHW that they see increasing demand for their film cameras.<br>

- Lomography for introducing a new slide film and a new camera line because of <strong>increasing</strong> demand</p>

<p>You should criticise those. Because all of you, who are not working in the photo industry, of course know the numbers and situation much better then the manufacturers themselves.<br>

You are all so wise and clever, and all the film and film camera manufacturers are of course all idiots who don't know what they are doing......</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Serger is among the more voluble film fabulists at APUG--and a firm believer that Lomography will bring back the good old days of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is complete nonsense. He has never said this, nor does he believe this. I remember several threads on apug where this has been discussed, and Mr Serger explained in a very objective way all the pros and cons of the low-fidelity photo movement.</p>

<p>But you always like to ignore that Lomo and Holga are a relevant market segment now:<br>

- more than 1 Million photographers are doing it worldwide<br>

- growth rate of more than 15% p.a.<br>

- Lomography sell about 500,000 cameras p.a.<br>

- they are opening about one new shop each month on average<br>

- Holga sell about 200,000 cameras p.a.<br>

- the average low-fi shooter shoot about 30 rolls p.a.<br>

- The LSI (the Lomo company) is already much bigger (more workforce and bigger balance sheet) than Ilford<br>

[this data is from a market overview in a European photo magazine]</p>

<p>All of you who are permanently talking about the death of film have said that instant film will die first, because you have the instant access with digital.<br>

But what happened despite your prognosis? There is a real revival of instant film! Impossible has significantly increasing demand, is introducing new and improved films, opening new shops around the world.<br>

And the same with Fuji and their Instax films: They do marketing for it, introduced new cameras, sales are increasing.<br>

The most doomed film segment see a real revival. </p>

<p>Just an addition. As C Watson above said the German market is irrelevant. I've just emailed my film distributor (one of the biggest here in Europe) whether he has some data. Got the answer some minutes ago, he has data:<br>

Last reported year in the USA about 19 million films were sold (single rolls; single use cameras are excluded in this number, they are extra). Source: PMA.<br>

In Germany in the same period about 19.5 million films (also SUC cameras excluded). Source: Dt. Photoindustrieverband.<br>

He said the German photo market in general has always been one of the strongest worldwide. The Germans go for quality and pay per capita much more on photo products and buy more than almost all other nations. Only the Japanese have a higher per capita photo consumption than the Germans. And the per capita photo film market in Germany is very strong.<br>

My distributor wrote in his Email there are more than 30 different companies in Germany which are producing new films, photo papers, photo chemistry, film cameras, enlargers and other darkroom accesoires, slide projectors, slide mounts etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't suppose you received any specifics on when that "last reported year" was, did you? It was 2010(likely based on 2009 numbers), when the PMA reported 19million rolls sold. Just for some perspective, your film distributor neglected to mention that 1 billion rolls were sold in N. America in 1999.<br /> <br /> Elsewhere, your previous post is a reprise of the magical thinking(denial) and data-sparse arguments made repeatedly on APUG earlier this year when Kodak crashed. Fuji's dinky instant film--62mmx46mm--isn't likely to fuel much of a revival. Smartphones and Instagram/Hipstamatic are the "new" instant film. Film materials are part of a small niche market now and aren't likely to break out. Ask anyone here about lab closings, especially pro labs, and what they believe accounts for it, especially in N. America. None of this makes me happy but I've yet to see much concrete evidence to inspire optimism as a longtime film shooter.</p>

<p>The most dangerous people to the future of the film are those who say that it is all peachy and that the future looks rosy. <br>

There is no way to keep the KODAK, Ilford, Fuji, etc. film lines running profitably for 38 million rolls sold (or whatever, 100 million rolls a year doesn't cut it either.) These lines were meant for several <strong>billions</strong> of rolls sold worldwide, so unless Fuji and KODAK turn their film operations around today, their shareholders (or courts, in case of KODAK) will force them to turn off the switch. Public companies have legal obligations to cater first and foremost to their shareholders. Don't count on film repackaging operations and instant film: as of today, IP is where Polaroid was 50 years ago and Fuji instant film (and cameras) are a sad, rustic joke in terms of quality.<br>

Use film and actively prod the few remaining serious manufacturers to slim and modernize their film operations and thus ensure that at least some high-quality film is available in the future because I for one don't want to be stuck with low-fi film named "Very Frigging Lucky Goldstar."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't suppose you received any specifics on when that "last reported year" was, did you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Numbers for 2010, reported in 2011. The point are not the absolute numbers, but that the German sales figures are <strong>not</strong> significantly smaller as you have said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Elsewhere, your previous post is a reprise of the magical thinking(denial) and data-sparse arguments made repeatedly on APUG earlier this year when Kodak crashed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your problem is that you completely ignore all positive developments of the market, and focus exclusivlely on the negative developments. It is not a "black or white" world, there are lot's of greytones in between. Some segments of the market are currently still decreasing (like consumer CN film), some begin to stabilise (like professional color film), some are increasing (BW film and color home developing), and some are strong increasing (Impossible and Instax instant film).<br>

The market is not homogenous, it is heterogenous.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji's dinky instant film--62mmx46mm--isn't likely to fuel much of a revival.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They offer two formats, the mini and the wide format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Smartphones and Instagram/Hipstamatic are the "new" instant film. Film materials are part of a small niche market now and aren't likely to break out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely wrong, Instax has already broken out. It is a booming market. Listen to the FPP interview. There Fuji clearly explain it. They had an exclusive booth only for presenting their Instax system at the Photokina. They invest significantly in this market. Demand is from young people who have grown up digital. Smartphones are normal and sometimes boring for them. To have a real picture in their hands is a different and exciting experience for them.</p>

<p>If the San Francisco Lomo store is any indication, "Lomography" is not the future of photography. It's more of an exercise of "how many hipsters can you fit on the head of a pin?" </p>

<p>"<em>LEICA with its new B&W model may be a major factor in the decline in use of B&W film"</em><br>

Sorry but this statement made me laugh out loud. Yeah! Those $8000 Leica digital cameras will really appeal to B&W film shooters! Shoot film. Shoot digital. I do both but prefer film 9 times out of 10 when I have the time and money. I don't see the point of poking holes in either person's balloon. Sadly this forum has a lot of lurkers who love to do just that. If Ilford and Rollei are the last men standing in film manufacturing that will be fine with me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The most dangerous people to the future of the film are those who say that it is all peachy and that the future looks rosy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one is doing that.<br>

But dangerous for the future of film are the digital marketing guys who permanently say 'film is dead, you have to switch to digital because you cannot buy film in the future". Self fulfilling prophecies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> There is no way to keep the KODAK, Ilford, Fuji, etc. film lines running profitably for 38 million rolls sold (or whatever, 100 million rolls a year doesn't cut it either.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are about 330 million CN films expected to be sold this year (page 19):<br>

http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>These lines were meant for several <strong>billions</strong> of rolls sold worldwide,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They have already been downscaled significantly. And at Fuji there had not been the implementation of the biggest machines like Kodak did it in the 90ties. Therefore Fuji could more easily adapt to the lower demand. And they can still offer more niche products like Superia 1600 and the slide films. Ilford and Foma can even now run very small coatings of only 5000m² (source: CEO of Ilford).</p>

<blockquote>

<p> and Fuji instant film (and cameras) are a sad, rustic joke in terms of quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely have to disagree from my experience with Fuji instant films: The quality is very good, much better than Polaroid in their best times.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Show us the numbers, Francois. You, like Serger and the other APUG boosters, aren't supplying any data that back-up the time series arguments you make. I share Jeff's view that Lomography stores are just another hipster nano-trend and represent no significant contribution to demand for film--all of theirs is just rebranded anyway and pricier than many superb pro films(Portra?).<br /> <br /> The PMA numbers I've seen are virtually the same as yours and were reported in 2010. The absolute numbers do very much matter: 19 million is a great deal smaller than 1 billion.<br /> <br /> Aggregate demand is likely still in free fall. "Stabilized" demand is meaningless without time series data. "Increased" demand for b&w materials isn't supported by any data in Serger's report or by you here. The market is a great deal smaller now than a decade ago--so small that Kodak killed b&w paper and a variety of C-41, E-6 and b&w materials, Agfa went broke, and Fuji scrapped its cine film line in that period. No way "survivalist" solutions like home processing will ever begin to repair the damage.<br /> <br /> Fuji Instax film produces credit card-sized photos. It's also far pricier than simply getting a 4x6 print made from a smart phone shot--no camera required, either. Besides, who among this target demographic doesn't own a smartphone??? Fuji salesmen are, well, salesmen and will tell you, the FPP boys or Serger at Photokina that it's all roses. That's what they do.<br /> <br /> Again, you need to grasp the scale of the decline in demand for film materials and how it affected the service infrastructure that once supported it. That's not coming back. Where we stand now is the result of decisions consumers made about analog and digital over the last ten years.</p>

<p><em>> Yeah! Those $8000 Leica digital cameras will really appeal to B&W film shooters!</em><br>

Quote me in extenso, preferably the entire sentences... Yes, the B&W Leica will appeal to some B&W film users (DR + lots of trickery makes it look "better" than any B&W film I know of) but if the others follow, you may have a slew of $2K B&W cameras...</p>

<p><em>> lurkers</em><br>

Really? Look at my tag...<br>

I use film and I care about the future of film. I shoot film becasue I like it but there is no rational (say, quality) reason to do so. I just refuse to hype the regress and quantity freefall as progress. There are places on earth where the "hipsters" carry around film cameras; just how often do you see them actually using them..?</p>

 

<p>Leica bling!<br>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/fashion/leica-cameras-favored-by-celebrities.html?_r=2&</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Show us the numbers, Francois.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've shown it, but you are always ignoring the numbers which does not fit in your extrem fundamentalistic "sky is falling" believe. I've given the numbers from the market research published in the European magazine. To say more than 1 million Lomographers shooting about 30 rolls p.a. on average is not worth to consider, is just ridiculous and ignorant. Same for 330 million CN films for the whole market. We all know it has been 10x that at the record times 1999. No one has ever said that we will see these figures again. The major question is, when the CN market will have found a stable basis. Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Foma, Adox, Foma, Maco and some big film distributors has said that the BW market has now this stable basis and is even in an upswing. Evidence is that Fuji is producing Neopan 400 again. And that Adox is introducing new films, Ilford introducing new products, Maco stating they are working on new products, Jobo introducing new lab equipment, and new print magazines hit the market recently which concentrate exclusively on anlogue photography. No one would do such investments if there were no market for it.</p>

<p>All these companies invest in new products because there is demand. They don't burn their money for fun. These companies are not run by idiots. They know their numbers.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I share Jeff's view that Lomography stores are just another hipster nano-trend and represent no significant contribution to demand for film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Saying that 30 million films sold p.a. and growth rates of 15% are "nano" is just stupid and ignorant. Companies in digital photo industry would be very lucky to have growth rates of 15%. In most segments they are fighting against market saturation and decreasing sales numbers (e.g. with compact digital cams).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Stabilized" demand is meaningless without time series data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense. Stabilising is the important factor. The companies are still there and producing. When now the demand is stabilising then they can of course stay in the market and continue production. That is all what is needed. We don't need the sales figures of the record year 1999. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Increased" demand for b&w materials isn't supported by any data in Serger's report or by you here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilford has made a statement on apug that they had the turnaround in sales already in 2010 with a 8% increase in sales. At Photokina Kodak reported increased sales for BW (see FPP), Adox, Maco, Fuji all said they have increasing demand for their BW products. Whether they have 5%, 10%, 15% or more increase is not so important. But as most of them introduce new products, it is very likely that it is a significant increase. Otherwise they would not do invest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, who among this target demographic doesn't own a smartphone??? Fuji salesmen are, well, salesmen and will tell you, the FPP boys or Serger at Photokina that it's all roses. That's what they do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again wrong, no one at the Photokina had said it is all roses. Look at the report, the FPP and the Photokina TV shows / interviews.<br>

They have introduced new instax cameras and invest in marketing for Instax. They would not do that if the market would not be attractive. What they do is developing an increasing, attractive market. Same with Impossible Project. Fuji and Impossible don't burn their money.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are places on earth where the "hipsters" carry around film cameras; just how often do you see them actually using them..?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at Lomography.com . It is, like that or not, the biggest online community for film shooters (more than 125,000 members; apug has about 60,000; "I shoot film" on flickr has about 75,000).</p>

<p>There during the summer months 6000-8000 film pictures have been uploaded <strong>every day</strong>. Now, with autumn it is about 4000-6000 pictures every day.</p>

<p>Saying that Lomographers or Holga shooters are only carrying their cameras and not using it is simply ignorant and a lack of knowledge.<br>

What do you think why Freestyle is concentrating for years on this segment, promoting itself as "Holga Headquarter", offering the whole range. I remember a statement from FS that FS alone is selling more than 40,000 cameras of these types every year.</p>

<p>Foma, Adox and Maco are <em>very</em> small players--and will probably survive because they are. Ilford is smart and right-sized but also privately-held, so numbers aren't readily available. Demand for b&w materials isn't likely to do anything for Kodak's predicament. Why? Because demand is minute.<br>

<br /> The Lomography numbers are the same as those Serger trotted out at APUG some time ago. It's not enough to stop the slide. You're still not showing any annual data over the last ten years to back your arguments. I guess that really doesn't matter, right?<br>

<br /> "<em>At Photokina Kodak reported increased sales for BW (see FPP), Adox, Maco, Fuji all said they have increasing demand for their BW products. <strong>Whether they have 5%, 10%, 15% or more increase is not so important</strong>. But as most of them introduce new products, it is very likely that it is a significant increase. Otherwise they would not do invest.</em>"<br>

<br /> Right. According to this, the actual sales/production series data is irrelevant. Kodak has been wary of posting <em>volume</em> figures. Sales figures can be misleading simply because higher prices can mask lower production volume. Fuji's Instax technology isn't new and producing another plastic camera is cheap relative to the decidedly un-toylike X-Pro 1, X100, and X-E1 cameras and optics. Fuji can probably hang on with low sales/production volume but will still bail when film no longer pays its way.<br>

<br /> Not sure JOBO didn't wait too long to roll-out a pricey processor. Same goes for Plustek with their new medium format scanner. Nikon stopped making film scanners due to poor sales 3-4 years ago. Are things better now? Not proven.</p>

<p>I'll bite:<br>

<em>> lomography.com</em><br>

OK, so according to your numbers (260,000 users) if every Lomographer used just 1 roll of film per week that would be 13, 520,000 rolls per year, which is circa 80% of yearly film sales in the US. And the sites mentioned by you cannot possibly represent 80% of all film users, so something is not right with these numbers, eh?<br>

<em>> Saying that Lomographers or Holga shooters are only carrying their cameras and not using it is simply ignorant and a lack of knowledge.</em><br>

To that I only have lots of anecdotal evidence except the above numbers: if they were using their cameras the film sales numbers would go through the roof. As for the anecdotes, I was hanging around Piazza Navona in Rome for a few days earlier this year and have seen literally dozens of people with film cameras but I have not seen even one of them actually taking a picture.</p>

 

<p>The definitive word above is, <strong>Increasing Demand</strong>.</p>