Resurgence of film?

<p>Saw this link to an article about Kodak and a possible resurgence of film.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/kodak-sees-a-very-real-resurgence-for-film/">Link</a></p>

<p>THought it was an interesting read. Sorry if this link has been posted before and my apologies if not in correct forum.</p>

<p>Unless they can point to some statistics, it's just a press release intended to sell product.</p>

<p>The largest Retailer in the USA is Walmart.</p>

<p>If Jeff Flies into a photoshoot and his airline bags are lost; In Ames Iowa at Walmart one can buy a CF card; Coca Cola; Everready batteries; Colgate toothpaste; spare clothes; a jacket; but no Kodak film.</p>

<p>In flying into the New Orleans area last spring; I called ahead and found all my old favorite camera stores there no longer carried 120 film in B&W; thus I got some in SoCal and also gots some sent in from B&H NYC.<br /> <br /> When I was a kid every drug store carried 620 and 120 in B&W; now with a town the size of New Orleans; not one single roll can be bought.</p>

<p>Any "resurgence" is just some cyclic movement along the downward sloped flight path of the long crash of film's sales</p>

<p>"The largest Retailer in the USA is Walmart."</p>

<p>Maybe, but our local Wally World only sells Fuji film...</p>

<p>Tintypes are having a resurgence, too. I read an article last year about a fellow doing them. :)</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<em>Kodak’s US marketing manager of pro film Scott DiSabato said that sales of color film are steady, and that black and white is “doing extremely well.” He sees it as a mini-revolution, adding that “it almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film.”</em>

</blockquote>

Mini-revolutions and feelings of a very real resurgence of a product generally arise when there's an actual <em>increase</em> of sales rather than being "steady" and "well". But you never know, that nuclear pulse may get launched one day and fry all those digital devices amid all the other destruction. Digi-cam owners will rue the day they sold of all that film gear.

<br />

 

 

<br />

 

<p>William; that is EXACTLY my point ; the largest retailer dropped Kodak.</p>

<p>If somebody said Eveready was having a big rebound and Walmart drops them; the general public thinks that they are toast; ie gone and not sold anymore. If somebody likes Duracells and Walmart drops Duracells; it looks odd.</p>

<p>If somebodys only Home Improvement store is Home Depot and they drop Milwaukee sawsalls; they often equate that product is gone.</p>

<p>The point is how can Kodak film be in a resurgence if the Largest retailer dropped Kodak. Maybe if B&H dropped Kodak folks could say that Adorama still carries Kodak; but only in APS?</p>

<p>What if Fuji/Kodak was Pepsi/Coke?; if Walmart or McDonald's dropped Coca Cola would it be trival?<br>

<br /> There are folks in the midwest where a dumb Walmart 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>

It really is true; Kodak is on a death spiral .</p>

<p>To many folks; Kodak dropped out of the film business already; they burned their bridges and one can no longer buy any Kodak film locally anymore.</p>

<p>I really think you are underestimating the affect of internet sales orders. I really doubt that most people who still shoot film give up when they cant find a particular product locally.</p>

<p>I really like this quote “it almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film.”<br /><br />He does not say there is a real resurgence of film use, but that it almost feels that way, yup film is coming back.</p>

<p>Film will always have its adherents and artsy kids in small numbers will always discover its merits but digital has so many advantages (such as high ISO with low noise) it's insane to think film will ever come back. Look at some of the prints being made from digital. It's gorgeous. The only people that need film are large format shooters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only people that need film are large format shooters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They may not need it but many people want it.</p>

<p>True. Film will always have its fans. I never stopped thinking it was the coolest stuff--I miss black and white processing sometimes. I just don't think it will be enough fans to support manufacturing it as a commodity and providing the support for it. If I were Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Wal-mart and Wal-greens I have to ask myself how much money I can make making film and scanners and offering wet processing.<br>

In a large sheet, though--for detail and tonality--I have no doubt it will be a very long time, if ever, before they figure out how to equal the quality at a reasonable manufacturing cost. View cameras will be around a LONG time.</p>

<p>Folks said the early 1990's that process cameras would never go away either.<br>

<br /> Sales folks would say there was a comeback.</p>

<p>Digital came out in giant Xerox type 36" printers about 1988; we got ours in 1992 for 58k.</p>

<p>In the 1970's there were many vendors of process camera films; after digital/1988 it got down to just Kodak and Fuji; they prices rose and volumes contracted.<br /> <br /> Then with only two players; pricing became goofy compared to having 3 players. It got where either Fuji or Kodak would drop and item; then prices rose at the end; all due to digital; except it happened 15 years ago.<br /> <br /> It is sort of interesting to see folks on photo.net reactions as films disappear; an echo of what we saw and went through in process camera films.</p>

<p>Here is a few grand's worth of old two 30 and two 42" 100 foot rolls; plus some 120 and 35mm in the Fixer; to recover the silver. These 30/42" rolls were about 300$ in the 1980's; and about 700 + in the early 1990's as volumes dropped.<br>

<br /> At the end one had to buy new old stock process films from other labs; from Canada; from Mexico using Ebay 12 years ago; and hope that it was not fogged.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/fixer%20and%20dev/DSCN1118FIXER.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Rotating stainless anode; fixed grapite cathodes:</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/fixer%20and%20dev/DSCN1120anodesilver.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>...my former printer wanted to GIVE me their process camera! But as far as film is concerned, I never stopped shooting it. There is room of both digital and film in my life. Lately I've been printing from all of the Kodachrome shot over the past couple of months and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed by the results obtained from a good (and properly calibrated) scan. As far as obtaining ANY <em>quality</em> film...I'm not likely to find it at WalMart or any other department store. The biggest camera shop in my town (Cleveland) charges 75-100% more per roll than can be had from B&H or comparable on-line sources; why would I buy local?</p>

<p>The day I go to Walmart to buy ANYTHING is a sad day. So, I certainly would not go there for film. Locally, we have a group of people that are dedicated film users, and I see young folks coming in and learning about film photography. As attractive as digital is, film still has some qualities that endear many to it. It will be a boutique item, and will never be what it once was. However, so long as the many millions of 35mm and medium format cameras are working, there will be users. In fact, I was driving home the other day and saw a younger person using a 4x5 view camera. </p>

<p>Paul and Mark;</p>

<p>Walmart once sold Kodachrome; Panatomic-X; Verichrome Pan; Tri-X and even some places had Dextol; D76 stop and fixer too and enlarging paper too. These actually are/were quality products.</p>

<p>Kmart once sold Nikkormat Ftn with a F2; Minolta SRT101's; Kodachrome; even Verichrome Pan and Kodachrome in 110 format too; and once Yankee developing tanks and trays too; plus tripods; projector bulbs; movie/slide screens</p>

<p>My dad bought his Kodak Retina IIIc from Marshal Fields in Chicago; my uncle got his at Hudson's in Detroit.</p>

<p>My Brother got his enlarger from Sears in Detroit; they once had a big camera dept. Once they stocked 4x5 films; 4x5 film pack; enlarging paper; developers; stop and fix. My brother got his print dryer at a Sears store.</p>

<p>Once many folks actually bought most camera stuff locally; the sales taxes were less; one got to see and feel the items. I got my Tiltall tripod in the 1960s from a dinky camera store.</p>

<p>Walmart often has Fuji 800 Superia cheaper than B&H</p>

<p>If one takes the bulk of all amateur cameras; a big chunk was bought at a local retailer.</p>

<p>As the number of local places drops that carry films; this can drop film demand</p>

<p>Lowly department stores once carried a new Nikon F. Sears had them in Detroit once.</p>

<p>Mr. Zwieir...<br>

<br />"If I were Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Wal-mart and Wal-greens I have to ask myself how much money I can make making film and scanners and offering wet processing." <br>

<br />That is certainly part of what those companies must consider. However there is more. Take Wal-Mart for instance. They run expensive newspaper inserts with a list of sale items. Their purpose is not to sell you a product that you might otherwise buy simply at a lower price and profit to themselves. It is to get you into the store. As long as you are there you might buy your groceries that you bought last time from Safeway. You might buy your kids shoes that you had otherwise planned to buy at Target or Kmart both of which are closer to you. You might also buy some 'impulse items" which typically have a higher percentage of gross profit than their average products. On the other hand, you might just pop in grab a sale item and pop out. <br>

<br />They used to put their photo department in the rear center of the store. You had to walk the impulse isles to get to it. One hour processing usually kept you in the store that long. Might as well look around and perhaps see something you might buy. Or you might as well do your grocery shopping and get the shoes rather than waste the hour or have to drive somewhere else and back again. The photo department both made a profit itself and also increased sales and profits for all the other departments. A store like that can even run a department at a loss if it more than makes up for that loss in increased sales and traffic in the rest of the store. Plus the more often you are at Wal-Mart the more often you tend to go there in the future. They want you to develop a habit of going there rather than at Kmart or Target. Of course Target wants the same thing. Remember where their photo department was? <br>

<br />Fuji and Kodak have to keep a customer base. Ford, GM, Kodak and Fuji do their best to keep you in their product family. They do it several ways. For instance, Ford Motor Company built the low volume Continental in 1956. They happily lost big money on each one. Why? A lot of people walked into the Lincoln-Mercury showroom to see it and sit in it but bought a Mercury or a lower line Lincoln. It worked. They did it again in 1957. It also helped sell Fords by brand association. I guess enough men thought that by buying a Ford, made by the same folks who brought you the Continental, helped make up for the social stigma of having a De Minimis Pud. <br>

<br />Mr. Flanigan...</p>

<p>"William; that is EXACTLY my point ; the largest retailer dropped Kodak."</p>

<p>True, but why did they do that? Some years back a Kodak competitor house branded film to a large discount retailer. The retailer also bought Kodak (and other) film in big sale lots and sold it under the manufacture's brand at a higher price than their house brand. </p>

<p>The housebranding mamufacturer sweetened their deal with the retailer for an exclusive source contract and it was agreed. While the retailer was arguing out the contract's fine print (stalling as it turns out) the manufacturer bought land and let contracts to build additional facilities that would allow them to properly service the contract. Rumor has it that meanwhile the retailer's top executive was in negotiations with Kodak. That contract was signed and Kodak became the retailer's exclusive film source. <br>

<br />I do not have an inside source at Wal-Mart (and if I did I'd be too ashamed to admit it) so I do not know why they are Fuji only now. Was it low sales and/or poor pricing and/or poor service from Kodak? Or did Fuji make them an offer they could not resist? Or maybe it was some other reason that if we knew it would make sense or alternately make no sense at all. </p>

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

<p>A.T; Walmart is savy with suppliers.</p>

<p>Maybe they just told Fuji they wanted 800 C41 film at a tad lower price and Kodak said no; and Fuji agreed.</p>

<p>ie Kodak figured since they have been with Walmart for 40+ years that they felt fat; dumb and happy in their bid?</p>

<p>Other vendors; say for thumb drives; baseballs; pencils; soap; paint; toilet plungers come and go all the time at Walmart. There is always some other vender leaner; hungrier; or "wants to make it up in volume".</p>

<p>One can have a breakdown on pricing; payment terms; returns to be taken back; or whom really owns the inventory.</p>

<p>I suppose if B&H is savy with suppliers on price they are angels; and if Walmart is savy with suppliers they are the devil.</p>

<p>In a way photo.net's base is really not about business; most folks do mailorder to skirt local sales taxes. Even if a roll of film with tax is 6 bucks at Walmart; and 6 with shipping via out of state mailorder; folks here preach screw the local city/state tax and screw walmart. Like is is some how better morally to evade use tax and not support local businesses. It might be too that much of photo.net is liberals and Walmart is non union.<br>

If some countys only store that sells film is a Walmart; my stance is that they should sell film. Others maybe happier is all Walmarts stopped selling all film</p>

<p>I don't know any statistics but I have a system for shooting film that requires mail order purchasing of film and mail order processing of film. However it works very good and I do not have a problem with it. Recently my N80 stopped working and I considered dropping film but I found a camera on Craigslist and tomorrow I am going to buy it. It's a Nikon FM2n and I figure it will work very well. Basically I will stick with film as long as possible. I have a DSLR also but I prefer to shoot film most of the time. I am looking forward to trying the new Portra film and I will buy some as soon as I see it for sale at BHPhoto. However I doubt that film is in a resurgence. I figure evidence of that will occur when you see some new film models showing up. Basically if Nikon brings out a new model then we could take notice that there is a refreshed market out there. It is nice that Kodak is bringing out a new film but they are dropping Portra 400 VC and NC for one new entry. Hopefully it will fill the shoes of those two films.</p>

<p>Let's see...the world has more than 6 billion people in it. I'd venture that more than 5 billion of them do not have computers, photo printers, or digital cameras. Film sales may be weak in the US, but I've heard that worldwide demand is up with Kodak and Fuji having a tough time keeping up with the demand. The US isn't the only market. Film will be around for a long time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> A store like that can even run a department at a loss if it more than makes up for that loss in increased sales and traffic in the rest of the store.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Harry, what rubbish. Film still has advantages over digital that are relevant no matter the format. Just choose the right medium for the task at hand. I use both digital and film, and if I chose digital for jobs that I would normally use film for, it would be a compromise. </p>

<p>High ISO, why all of a sudden do so many people people need to shoot so much stuff in the dark? I can think of more exciting things to do at night. Or maybe it's because DSLR users just love their zoom lenses, which are moderately slow at best. ISO is the ONLY thing that Nikon and Canon can actually improve on, so that is what they market the hardest. Image quality of digicams at normal ISO's haven't improved in years. I'd much rather have more dynamic range than better high ISO.</p>

<p>I agree with Ty.Tried all the FF cameras from all the brands for a number of years.Now I even bought the Pentax 645D to use it with my collection of Pentax lenses.They just don't do it for me,I much prefer the look of film .</p>

<p>In most parts of Africa film is still dominant and will be for some time to come. I would venture to say that other "Third World" areas are similar. The market for film is still huge and while it may be declining in the "West", other parts of the world will keep it alive and well for many more years to come.</p>

<p>It is funny; Wal-Mart became indicator of well-being, I never seen decent photo gear in Wal-Mart anyway, does that mean that Canon and Nikon must drop they hiend DSLR and those overpriced, big, heavy and so desirable for all of us on this site lenses, just because Wall-Mart does not carry them ? And if you will find “Prada” and “Louis Vuitton” in the Wal-Mart, that would mean they are on the way out of business for good.<br>

It is quite possible that in few years, film will became expensive luxury, not affordable for main stream of photographers, even now, try to find film scanner with good resolution for cheap. For commercial work you want drum scanner, or if you go “cheap”, you can save money and buy Digital Hasselblad H4D.</p>