The Future Today: Ricoh and Pentax to End Mass Production

Discussion in 'News' started by c_watson|1, Jan 21, 2022.

  1. Not again. Please share the time series data for film production since 2012 that shows the substantial turnaround trend you're imagining. I think you'll have trouble finding it. Kodak and Fuji have greatly reduced their film offerings over the last decade. Why? Just the usual magical thinking.

    Hopefully you're just playing provocateur.
  2. C, use Google and you will find Kodak's own report of sales increasing by up to 30% per annum, resulting in that doubling i reported. All in the time frame you want to limit your view to.

    Here's a quote to help you find what you are looking for:

    “We are making more than twice the amount of rolls in 2019 than we made in 2015. It’s been a steady increase – it’s gone up 15, 20 even 30% per year. It’s great for us, it’s been a challenge for us, but it’s been great for us to see that growth.”

    It is real.
  3. Not this one again...Did it ever occur to you that those percentages are meaningless without actual production figures, absolute numbers, time series data to show the magnitude of the "increases?" How many rolls made in 2015, 2020? See the problem? You're simply repeating companyspeak. Have a look sometime at Eastman Kodak worldwide revenues from 2005-2020. Hopefully, you'll get the problem with claims of those large "increases." No apparent effect on revenues.

    Yup, film's still available but it all but vanished years ago in many N.American retail spaces where it was often purchased, along with fast, inexpensive dev/print service. People simply stopped buying it. That's now a very old tune but one I guess you've not heard--or rather chose not to listen to.

    That's "real." Besides, what's the point of dragging this thread into OT territory? This supposed film "revival" is old news, which is to say "no news." Enough trolling.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    Jochen likes this.
  4. No, C. When the question is whether there is an incline in film sales, we're talking about relative numbers. Nothing else. See your problem?

    That the absolute number of film sales is nowhere near as high as it was before digital took over is of course true.
    But, as mentioned, it would be a mistake to look at those, comparing today with 30 years ago. Especially when you stipulate that we must look at the last decade.

    I mentioned candles and lamp oil. It is undeniable that with the advent of electrical lighting, sales volumes dropped enormously. But despite that, the market for candles and lamp oil is still here, shows no sign of ever going away, and many companies make a good living producing and selling such.
    No matter that the "absolute numbers" can't compare with what they once were.
    So, again, do not confuse a small market being small in comparison with former glory as a sign of failing health and unprofitability.

    The "magnitude of increases"? Again, Kodak (pronounced dead very prematurely) alone reports a doubling in about 5 years. I.e. 2 times more.
    Very clear.

    Sales are up. That is reality.

    Trolling would be to jump on people who mention a continued interest in film and film cameras, as in this thread, responding with suggestions that those people are living in a fantasy world. Your contribution is demonstrably incorrect, and says something derogative about those people (for instance that they are trolling). Ignorant rant aimed at asserting your personal superiority. Troll? You, sir. Textbook example.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
  5. Troll? Me? Hardly. Your record speaks for itself, though, Here, you're just demonstrating determined innumeracy and unwillingness to face facts. Kodak's vital signs aren't exactly encouraging, nor do they reflect anything resembling meaningful growth. It barely has a pulse. Put another way, would you invest in this company? Sad.

    Eastman Kodak Revenue 2006-2021 | KODK
  6. My record, C, shows that i do not shy away from calling BS when it is posted. As in your posts here.
    Your "mirage", "magical thinking" et cetera post is ill informed and incorrect. You were given the correct info, but still you insist in dismissing that as being "provocatuer" and such, and implying that an increase does not an increase make unless you can read "absolute numbers". You understand how silly that is?

    So once again: the increase in interest in film is documented, real. People who signal that are not deluded. People who want to dismiss that must have some dark motives for doing so.
    Why, C, don´t you like that film sales are increasing?

    And re your new attempt to spread misinformation: have you read what those Kodak figures are about?
    Eastman Kodak Company is a technology company. It provides hardware, software, consumables and services to customers in graphic communications, packaging and functional printing. It operates in two segments: Graphics, Entertainment and Commercial Films (GECF) and Digital Printing and Enterprise (DP&E). The GECF segment consists of the Graphics and Entertainment & Commercial Films groups, as well as Kodak's intellectual property and brand licensing activities. The DP&E Segment consists of Digital Printing, Packaging and Functional Printing, Enterprise Services & Solutions, and Consumer Inkjet Systems businesses. The Company serves entertainment and commercial films markets. Eastman Kodak Company is headquartered in Rochester, New York.
    Where do you find figures about how much the film division contributes to the overall health of the company? What conclusions do you think you can draw from these numbers about the increase or decline of film sales? "Magical thinking" indeed.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
  7. LOL
    Aw, did your local Costco's closing down their film processing kill all your joy? No worries- as of yesterday, Rite Aid has you covered! :rolleyes:

    Being pretty deeply immersed in the film & analog community- which is indeed very much alive, I'm having fun enough. I don't need any data or sales numbers to know what's going on around me. I encourage you to "get out" more often, to see that film is readily & widely available, that photo labs are booming all over the place, and people are shooting film and interacting as a global community.

    PS; vinyl records and tube amps are "back" too.
    See ya at the old school Jalopy Drag Races.
  8. I do get "out" quite a bit.

    I live and work in Toronto, still a film-friendly city with good labs like Downtown Camera and Toronto Image Works and a few surviving small guys. Business is good, in large part simply because of the "last man standing" effect. It's in the city's large 'burbs and surrounding towns where the analog ecosystems collapsed--and not recently, either. There's no shortage of film shooters but they're part of niche market, the long "tail" of demand for film and film services. Think this is what you're enthused about. Everyone--me included--whines about the escalating cost of film here: Kodak 120 TMY-2@C$15-17per roll means my Mamiyas and Bronica only get the occasional binge shoot; 35mm isn't much better even for "cheap" Superia and Gold. Thankfully my fridge and freezer still have some. Forget E-6 materials.

    I'm not pissing on anyone's cornflakes but think it's unfriendly to encourage the idea that there's some sort of widespread film "boom." It's all very location-specific. It's not on everywhere. Kodak never tells you how many rolls it sells and claims sales percentage "increases" without actually showing how those are calculated based on actual production. Put another way, it's not a stock I think you'd buy.

    If the resources are in place, great; if not, newcomers can tire quickly of the delay, expense, and effort involved. I know having given away SLRs with 50s that got shelved after a few rolls. Same with vinyl. Got some or a pile of it? Buy an entry-level Pro-Ject or Rega table. If not, then maybe Spotify is still your friend. I sold my tube amps when I got tired of shelling out for KT88 and EL34 tubes.

    Have fun!
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
  9. Photography did not replace pencil, pen, brushes or block prints, although they sharply declined in commercial applications. Likewise, while film will never reach the level of use before arrival of digital in the commercial world, it will remain a viable option for those who enjoy the film-photo making process. There is a different feeling in using film compared to viewing through an in-the-camera computer followed by sitting behind a computer. Not a question of which is better, but one of preferences.
    q.g._de_bakker likes this.
  10. One of my most beloved Pentax cameras was the PZ1P film camera. I can't tell you how many rolls of slide film I shot with that camera. Unfortunately, film/processing costs rose a lot and digital came onto the market sealing my camera's fate. I do miss the fact of not having a slide or print...something I could put my hands/eyes on over digital. Digital wins for overall cost factors. Today, to make sure I have something to show I make a yearly book of my favorite digital images.
  11. Years ago, we used to have lots of conversations like this, especially on a forum called "Off Topic".

    I especially remember one guy from Australia violently denying that temperatures were increasing in Australia.

    Sometimes, I miss the Off Topic threads. o_O

    I do still like my old Heiland Pentax H2, also.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2022
  12. According to nearby C41/E6 lab, Covid lockdowns increased demand for their service.

    With reduced Covid restrictions, that might go back to previous values.

    But yes, only larger cities can support labs. Mail costs make it less affordable for others.
  13. I bought my first digital camera last year--Canon 5D, which I replaced it with a Canon 6D. I still prefer to shoot 35mm film and use the digital as backup--though I sometimes use the digital first then film. It depends on what I am doing or intend to do. Digital cameras have come a very long way from their "fuzzy" beginnings--I am amazed how well they capture the scene today--for me, I still prefer the quality of film. I found this discourse to be very interesting to read--it contained a few main threads running along side or entwined throughout it.

    I was sadden the day that Canon announced they were ending the EOS 1V production and decided to divest themselves from their 35mm film technology to further their aims into their digital technologies, which from a business perspective I fully respect. As a 35mm film consumer and camera buyer--I'm glad that the Canon 35mm products are very plentiful in the "Used" camera environments.

    The discussion portions of this discourse regarding Kodak reminded me when they announced they were stopping the production of Kodak Gold 100 ISO 35mm film, whereas it forced me to start buying their Kodak Ektar 100 film and using more Gold 200. After I ran out Gold 100--I thought at that time, it was a business decision to reduce their production costs to stay in business since it was reported the Gold 100 had the lowest market share in the US. I used Gold 100 a lot where it was great for day-time shooting recreationally. Kodak Ektar 100 is great film IMO and better than Gold but I am more judicious in its use now. So it will be interesting to see what Kodak does in regards to it film production and their market expectations--wonder what is their next move after re-introducing Gold 200 for 120 format?

    Kodak and Fujifilm are still adapting to the ever-changing photographic markets--just like Pentax and Ricoh. I know that Canon continues to stay ahead of Sony (#2) and Nikon (#3) in market shares where Ricoh and Pentax are not in the top five or top ten. So, it makes sense what others have stated and expect from Ricoh & Pentax to do in the next few years.

    Will 35mm film usage ever end?...probably not any time soon since it is the core and the heart of photography, which the digital technology always has to compare itself to. I have never been much to following fads since I am one who walks to my own "drum beat"--so reading about the "resurgence" of 35mm film is interesting (alongside with the resurgence in LPs in the audiophile realm, which I still enjoy using my Dual players and albums). From my point of view since I never left the 35mm film arena, to attribute the fascination and resurgence of 35mm & MF 120 film to some celebrities' using film cameras and their fandom's adoption for it (as I previously read in some articles) is like believing social media represents our national opinion--it does not; hence, they ignore the merits of 35mm film and the quality and essence of it. I tend to believe these new adherents are discovering what we already do and know (and they love it). As far as I can see (from my personal perspective), no digital MF camera has duplicated what Ansel Adams did in his timeless B&W photographs of Yosemite, Oak tree, the dunes, or trees in winter (amazing works of art).

    I really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts in this thread...thanks guys for sharing!!
  14. tommyfilmist

    tommyfilmist Moderator

    the digita
    l camer will not duplicate the manipulated photos adams produced, but photoshop will
    za33photo likes this.

Share This Page