Which B&W film will be around longest?

[Alan Johnson]

G.W.Crawley (known for the FX series developers) writes in Amateur Photographer 12 Feb 05 of increasing sales of developers for B/W film as a result of scanning and digital printing now being used by those who could not be bothered with darkroom.Maybe a B/W film that will also scan well?

[rowland_mowrey]

You are truly brillant.

 

Wonderful listing of facts. However, consider this:

 

I didn't say digital sales were not growing.

 

I didn't say film sales were not dropping.

 

I said that reversal film sales within the group "film sales" had dropped very very much, and that negative film sales within that group "film sales" had increased for the reasons cited above, making the drop less severe.

 

This is a quote from what I said above:

 

"The drop in film sales in reversal color was offset in part by an increase in sales of color negative film, B&W, and color and B&W papers."

 

How exactly, is that contrary to what you have said?

 

I have just spotlighted one particular area to shed some light on details within that area.

 

And your reports do not include 4th quarter, or did I miss something. At mid-year, EK was behind Sony in digital sales, but by the end of the year, EK was #1 in digital sales in the US. This is a very dynamic situation changing continually.

 

I see Jimmy Chung has left Fuji. I have not seen him for about 10 years. We had dinner together at a great Chinese restaurant in NYC last time I saw him.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[._._z]

Or else he sees increased sales of some developers (note: not increased film sales) as

some other developers have been discontinued.

[rowland_mowrey]

That post does not make sense in this context.

 

Ron Mowrey

[claudia__]

re: the original post. i don't think one can actually pick a film and stick with it. the situation is very shakey. i personally think BW film will continue to be produced by someone. but it will probably be reformulated just as it has been in the past. you just have to try what is available and learn how to adapt it to your needs via developer choice and technique. don't see a problem with developers as you can alway mix your own.

[._._z]

Thanks for calling me brillant (sic). Beautiful!

 

Are you now claiming that color neg sales did not increase? You said they did before.

Which is it?

 

If you ever get any facts to support your claims, please drop by and present them.

Otherwise, you're unfortunately just blowing smoke.

[rowland_mowrey]

Read what I said.

 

I guess you don't understand or don't take the time to read. It is relaitivity but doesn't need an Einstein to understand.

 

But maybe you failed math. One thing can increase relative to another while the total sum of both decreases.

 

I said: "The drop in film sales in reversal color was offset in part by an increase in sales of color negative film, B&W, and color and B&W papers."

 

You might even find this fact if you closely examined those reports you posted.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

You might want to go here and buy the article:

 

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=democratandchronicle&f_site=democratandchronicle&f_sitename=Rochester+Democrat+and+Chronicle+%28NY%29&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_field_base-0=&f_product=RDCB&p_product=RDCB&p_text_base-0=kodak+sales&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=keyword&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=

 

which is the only way to get it, or call Ben Rand, the author at the D&C in Rochester. Have fun.

 

But then you know how hard it is to search these archives and you know that the articles are for sale only. Next time, I'll clip it and save it just for you. In fact, that might not be the article, as there are so many on EK.

 

The reports came out of the Conventioal Photographic Platform that was under Dr. Mary Jane Hellyar, who has now moved to the Digital Platform at EK. Why don't you call her?

 

I hope that is enough detail for you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[ryuji_suzuki]

"[...] don't see a problem with developers as you can alway mix your own."

 

I think paper is facing more danger than film.

 

Also, I don't see much of a problem with papers and large format films as I can always mix my own. It's just a bit of pain in the azz to coat them.

[._._z]

R., you provided a link which does not substantiate your allegations. If you are claiming

that any segment of film sales increased in the last year, you are simply wrong.

[._._z]

Ryuji, there are people who make their own Dag plates, so yes, if you want to shoot

non-digitally, you can, but it will be a PITA.

[rowland_mowrey]

Z;

 

I doubt that you bought any articles at the D&C site. I also doubt if you went beyond a superficial analysis of the EK sales data.

 

The article I read, described in words and in bar charts the generic plot I'm enclosing below. The chart explains clearly to anyone what happened. If you don't understand that, then I just don't know how to explain it to you.

 

A segment of film sales can increase while total film sales decrease. Total sales of the increasing film will be higher than before, but not greater than total film sales.

 

See below, and in the future, I hope I remember to save every such article from the D&C just for people like you.

 

Oh, I have checked with a few people that I know, and their information or memory in this matter agrees with mine.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Z;

 

I add again that this did not happen for Fuji AFAIK. Both film types decreased in sales, contributing to their sharp loss in the last quarter.

 

Ron Mowrey

[._._z]

Rowland, your suggestion that I spend money to suport your unsupported

remembrances is rather amusing. No: you make the claim, you support it.

 

You earlier recommended that I look at Kodak's annual reports; the fact that I have and

that nothing there supports your beliefs apparently does not suggest anything to you.

 

Yes, "A segment of film sales can increase while total film sales decrease." But there's

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this has occurred, aside from your bald, unproven, yet

repeated entreaties that this is so.

 

It isn't.

[rowland_mowrey]

Well Z, I fully understand your POV, much better than you seem to care to understand mine. I really don't know whether I could find the article easily myself on the D&C web page without paying for several articles before I find the right one, but I assure you it exists.

 

My satisfaction comes in knowing that it does exist, and that you dismiss the fact that I may know it with a wave of the hand. Knowing that you can overlook a fact like this is quite interesting to me in view of your purported extensive knowledge in this area. You see, since the data does exist, and I know it, the fact that you do not diminishes your credibility in my eyes, regardless of what the other readers here may think of either one of us.

 

I assure you that I will do better in the future to present documented facts, as I hate having someone dismiss something I know to be true so disdainfully. However, I assure you that seeing it in the paper made me feel that it was common enough knowledge that I didn't need to cut it out for proof.

 

I have stated above, that I don't believe this behavior of negative film sales (which you imply that I am making up), can be sustained very long anyhow, so it is an artifact frozen in the time period in which it takes place and no longer, perhaps 1 quarter, maybe a year or two, IDK.

 

I will keep track of this as long as possible because it interests me. I cannot promise that anything more will be written about it or disclosed by EK except in quarterly reports. I also know that in the long run, negative sales will gradually decline in the same manner as the reversal films. The time scale is totally unpredictable.

 

Ron Mowrey

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><i>Basic Corporate Finance 101:

<p>

Any money invested has to generate Equity-Value-Add that meets or exceeds some pre-determined ROI calculated by that investor - or it must be given back (i.e. investor dumps the investment).

<p>

Being able to eke out just isn't sufficient. Wish it were...</i></blockquote>

<p>

And one day, that mentality took over automobile manufacture.

<p>

Not much later, the automobile manufacturers went broke, because people stopped buying automobiles.

<p>

A thousand years hence, historians pieced together a probable sequence of events. It seems that shortly after the auto makers stopped building cars with seats, heaters, and wheels, people refused to purchase the cars.

<p>

The automakers tried reasoning with the customers. They explained that the return on investment was very poor for things like seats, heaters, and wheels, and in order to satisfy the day traders, they had to prove that they had "trimmed away the fat", so, they had to drop those unprofitable items.

<p>

They then reminded the customers that, "By removing these low-profit items from our automobiles, we are able to continue maunfacturing cars at affordable prices."

<p>

For some odd reason, the customers would hear none of it, and continued driving their old cars.

<p>

Meanwhile, the "profit at any cost" school of thought took hold in the grocery business, and before too long, a typical supermarket had shrunk down to the size of a minivan. One shelf held "bread", another "meat", and a third shelf held "milk". ("Would you like a pound of meat, Sir? Meat is on sale today! Meat, five percent off!")

<p>

No one could explain why profits continued to plummet, even though all those "low-profit SKUs" had been removed from inventory. It was paradoxical! The more "fat" they trimmed, the less "meat" the customers would buy!

<p>

Stranger yet, millions of people suddenly took up gardening, and at the same time, small livestock management cooperatives sprung up all over the place.

<p>

By the way, can I interest you in some "shoes" or "clothes"? They're in stock this month down at the local GUM store. "Shoes" are manufactured in pairs -- one left, one right -- and "clothes" come in <i>three</I> varieties! You can purchase "mens", "womens", or "childrens" clothes.

<p>

The "Commercial Supply Distribution Division" is having a sale on "Signs" this month too. As usual, "Signs" are available in what economists have determined to be the least unprofitable design. They continue to say, "Have it Our Way!"

<p>

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I assure you it exists. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Who cares about your baseless assertions, especially when you say, 'Go prove me right'

when asked for substantiation?

[rowland_mowrey]

Reuben;

 

I don't think EK is taking that approach. If they did, they would not be doing as well as they are. I would also wonder why Fuji is doing so poorly in view of their past success. OTOH, you have some valid points.

 

However, I have heard top EK managers state a philosophy that would amount to essentially the opposite of what you have posted.

 

Z;

 

I am not asking you to prove me right, I am asking you to consider the fact that I might be telling the truth. Is this so impossible for you to believe? Is the possibility that I'm right so beyond your comprehension?

 

Does the performance of EK revolve only around your interpretation? Or have you considered the fact that you might have missed something? Well, in the absence of any hard evidence, I can't prove it one way or another, of course. I'm truly sorry about that.

 

My contention is that you have missed something, and the data is out there. I'm not fabricating the information. But, in terms of the broader picture, it is probably just a blip in any event. But here is a hint. Take a look at sales of single use cameras. Take a look at EK sales in China vs Fuji sales in China (market penetration).

 

Maybe you might make a good analyst yet.

 

Good luck.

 

Ron Mowrey

[._._z]

I'm considering that you've stuck your foot in your mouth while shooting it off. Please:

since you recommended that I look at Kodak's annuals/10-Ks for this elusive info, go

through this publicly available info and drag out the evidence you think supports your

contentions. Otherwise, you're STILL blowing smoke.

[claudia__]

actually, Charles and Camilla don't look like they move very fast. should be possible. but then i am often wrong. and that post could be a red herring.

[rowland_mowrey]

Please go here for some interesting information:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B0AM

 

My thanks to Peter Svensson for pointing this out to me.

 

Also try the Rochester D&C for one of the articles supporting the above reference (Sunday, August 8, 2004, page 5E - "Fading data Fears.....") There is a small paragraph at the end under "What can people do...". This article is less negative than the other two that I read in the D&C. The URL above is quite interesting.

 

This is one of a series of articles leading up to the 'backlash' among digital photographers that has caused the small tic upwards in negative film sales I have said was reported.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Z;

 

Thanks to Peter's help, I find that the breakdown I speak of is not in the 10K either, so the article may have gotten it from a press briefing. IDK.

 

Ron Mowrey

[._._z]

Keep dreaming.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>Since this thread has degenerated to yet another pissing contest, wave bye-bye to it.<p>

<p>

Sorry, Robert. It was a worthwhile question.<p></i>