Are film companies killing film?

[michael_dimarzio]

I really like film, there are great films out there, I love Tri-X, E6 and C41 selections, but should K and F

actively compete against digital imaging?

 

Why wouldn't they actively compete?

 

I was in Wally*World getting some C-41 done, and the friendly gal said that they envision shutting down the

processing in 2 years.

 

The easy answer of course, is there is no market, or a shrinking market, but that is to easy and not the point of

the post. The point being, why don't they compete on a scale that they can? A small inexpensive lab such as a

Jobo ATL "X"

 

Inexpensive b+w, custom scan resolutions, E6. None of this would work if not promoted, and since it's not

promoted, or the market developed, it won't exist. Make film cool for others of my generation?

 

Lost in the 60s-md

[sean_r2]

The easy answer is it--film is no longer mainstream enough to support at big mainstream stores. They support what they can make money from, hands down. At least, for the time being, film is supported, thanks to the abundance of disposable cameras, but even those are being replaced by digital disposables.

[randall ellis]

Walmart is a poor indicator of the future of film, to say the least. As a measure of the death of the independent business (mom and pop shop) it's perfect, but not any good for predicting demand for film developing, or film sales for that matter. The film and film service market experienced an adjustment in scale due to digital, no doubt about it, but having someplace like Walmart stop developing film will only give that much more business to the better quality film service providers that are still around - which can only be a good thing in my book.

[mharris]

I was in Texas recently and found two pegs full of Tri-X. I bought it all. My new motto: See it, Buy it, Support it

[joe_jackson4]

"Why wouldn't they actively compete?"

 

With the inexorable transition to digital...? Because they can't. Technology has moved on, and the film manufacturers know that better than anyone.

 

I wonder how many Kodak and Fujifilm employees are shooting digital these days...? :)

[waltflanagan]

Why aren't the glass plate companies actively competing with film anymore?

[atlatling]

Most of you don't remember the really great films like Plus X and Panatomic X, and Super Double X or . . . on and on. They eliminated them just as I was getting used to them. That time has passed and we must move out of the way or get run over by technology. Alas...

[david_dorcich1]

Plus X is still around in 35mm and 120.

[michael_dimarzio]

Sean, W*M sells a lot of things that are not mainstream. While I agree that they need to make money on floor

space, I don't think K and F are trying to market their film products. They make great film, but the consumer is

not enabled here by good post sales support.

 

Randal I agree with everything you have said, but instead of the manufactures adjusting to the new scale, I think

they are abandoning the new scale. The WM business model of piling it high and sell it cheap may not be the most

amendable to film. And of course a film manufactured on a machine that has to crank out 50,000 rolls a day can't

be profitable. But are they just abandoning the market instead of adjusting and staying profitable in today's

market reality?

 

Posted is a picture of the future of digital, W*M style. I like the 30 dollar digital camera complete with a

book "Digital Photography for Dummies", great image on the cover! Here the "dummy" is a middle aged lady taking

a photo of some college grads.

 

Paul, technology has moved on? Come on, that is pretty empty of an argument. Have you seen NASA's "new" design

for the future moon missions? Saturn V anyone? My point being what works, will always work. Technology can

only make it better.

 

Thank you all for not mentioning D vs. F!<div></div>

[NK Guy]

It's not that film doesn't work or that it's just bad marketing. I think it's pretty clear it's economics here.

 

It's not economically viable to produce small quantities of film for a vanishing niche market. Up until now the zillions of people taking

photos of their families or their drunk friends at restaurants has subsidized the cost of running the film factories. Take that huge market

away and film isn't economically sustainable anymore.

 

Maybe in the future we'll see a few small niche companies, equivalent to the Ilfords in terms of scale, producing film for the aficionados. I

kinda doubt it - from what I understand it's much more complicated and expensive to make colour film than black and white.

[michael_dimarzio]

A note on the above crop. It was taken with a Leica MP and 28mm Elmarit-M, rewound at the counter, processed in 45 minutes, negatives and CD delivered for 3 bucks. Considering the cheap film was a buck and change, it is also a great bargain.

 

Why not do it with a custom scan res, delivered as a TIFF and keep the price under $5? I think it could be done profitably.

[Brad_]

>>> Why wouldn't they actively compete?

 

Little demand. Why engage in a market you're going to lose money on?

[ellis_vener_photography]

The lack of business at decent labs is what is killing film. There simply isn't the volume to keep them open.

[joe_jackson4]

Michael, like it not, the fact is that consumer film cameras have a similar long-term mass-market future to the

cassette tape Walkman and the VCR...

 

Digital technology has brought a level of convenience to the consumer that traditional media doesn't offer, and it

has been adopted by the masses accordingly. It's clear that 35mm film will rapidly disappear from popular use,

like other

technologies have in other fields.

[carl_klitzke]

Md, I think you're missing the point. The fact is that film sales from these stores have been declining. W*M does not give a damn about film if they are not going to make money from it. In three years I watched a "good" day go from 70 rolls/800 digital prints to 25 rolls/2500 digital prints. Digital printing is a better profit center since it involves maintaining less equipment with less mess, fewer chemicals to keep on hand, and less labor (the orders print pretty much automatically so long as the machine is set up for that size of paper) . In addition, it allows the best opportunities for upselling (photo gifts, enlargements) which the suits love. The reason Wal*mart does photo developing is because it makes them money, it has nothing to do with the CEO's love of Kodachrome. In addition, many of the customers simply prefer the convenience of digital, its flexibility is unbeatable and we live in a world where digital anything is perceived as better. I dunno, really just repeating everything else in the thread, but I can tell you from working in one of those godawful "labs" that there simply is not enough business to keep it viable.

 

CRK

[matt_needham]

"Are film companies killing film?"

 

Of course, just as Kodak roll film killed the Eastman Dry Plate Company.

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1878_1929.shtml

[michael_dimarzio]

Carl, the dedication of W*M is not the question. I'm asking, perhaps not very clearly, if K and F are abandoning

a market when their old business model is longer valid, instead of changing to meet the requirements that would

enable them to remain in the field profitably.

 

Maybe it's a blame the patient for getting cancer item that I'm raising, but that is not my intention.

 

I'm asking if their inability to stay profitable in this market is a fault of corporate structure, creating a

self fulfilling prediction of the obsoleting of film. It's still a very functional technology, and is there a

business case for future investment? Falling sales is to simplistic of an answer, removing room for pondering

would could be.

 

I'm not sure about the plate vs. roll analogy. It may be the way it is.

 

Ok, thanks for looking and replying-md

[waltflanagan]

<i>I'm not sure about the plate vs. roll analogy. It may be the way it is.</i><p>

What does that mean? You said you didn't want "empty arguments" or "simplistic" answers yet that is exactly how you replied.<p>

Roll film became more popular than plates because people liked the convenience of being able to shoot a series of pics and not having to change the plate after every shot.<p>Digital has become more popular than film because people liked the convenience of immediately seeing the results and not having to drive twice to the photo lab. To get quality film processing I have to drive 20 miles to my pro lab. That's $8 in gas right there.<p>

Fuji got rid of the original Velvia 50 but released a pretty good 100 version, then went back and reengineered the film base and brought back the original Velvia 50. I guess you'd like to see more companies do that but that's going to be the exception rather than the rule.<p>

You keep saying that the film companies should adapt to the market and find a way to stay profitable. How? No amount of technology invested in film is going to give the instant results that people want today. I think Kodak and Fuji have done a lot of dumb things but don't you think they've thought about how to make the film business more profitable? Do you think they are run by complete idiots?<p>

Film will be around a long time but there will be fewer choices of emulsions and fewer places to do processing.

[michael_dimarzio]

Walt, it means that I had not considered that historical change in the industry. Not that it was a simplistic answer. Apologies for not being more clear, and for so casual in the acknowledgment of that may be a valid analogy..

 

I was asking for discussion on how film could compete. <<You keep saying that the film companies should adapt to the market and find a way to stay profitable.>> Obviously it can't for instant results. I did offer some suggestions for discussion, 1 hour turn around on custom scans, choice of file formats, for example. The technology is there to create the service, if the service isn't offered, it can't be either a success or failure.

 

Yea, I think the film industry is run by complete idiots, say what? So much for discussion on what points film could compete with digital imaging.

[Spearhead]

<i>Yea, I think the film industry is run by complete idiots, say what? </i><p>How many of these "idiots" have you met and discussed the issues with? How many of these "idiots" have you explained your vision of the world to?<p>I love how insults can be slung without ever having had any meaningful discussion. I guess it's the way of the internet...

[waltflanagan]

Every Walmart and drug store I know of offers scans and images on CD in under an hour. Most people could care less about TIFF vs JPEG. A higher default scan resolution would be nice though. My pro lab will scan at whatever resolutions their Fuji Frontier supports and will burn either a JPEG or TIFF to CD but you pay a lot more for an experienced operator that actually understands what color correction is and how to turn it off. I still shoot E6 in 135 and 120 but if you want quality processing and scanning you have to pay for it. Even if Walmart gave me a roll of film and processed and scanned it for free I still wouldn't be interested since their consistency is awful.

[yog_sothoth]

I wonder how Kodak gold 200 is trending vs Tri-X or the new T-Max 400? Have black and white sales been hit as hard as consumer grade color negative film?

[jerry_gitomer1]

The problem does not lie with the film makers, but with the ever declining number of places that are willing to sell and/or process film.

 

Just last week when I called my local Ritz Camera shop to see if they had elitechrome 100 in stock I was told that Kodak has discontinued color film, but that they had Fuji Astia and Sensia. (I was lied to by the clerk) I needed the film and since no one else carrying slide film would be open when I could get to the store I bought a roll from them. Apparently Ritz is no longer carrying Kodak color film because sales have slowed to the point where it isn't profitable for a chain the size of Ritz to carry the product. That certainly isn't Kodak's fault.

 

Today I dropped off the slides for developing -- actually to be sent out to one of the few remaining processors in Southeastern Pennsylvania and must wait a week or two until the processor has enough slide film to justify mixing a batch of chemistry and setting up a slide processing run. This certainly isn't Fuji's fault.

 

The problem is that demand has shrunk to the point where it is no longer profitable for the vendors to carry and process a full line of film. The customers have voted, digital has won and the merchants are providing the customers with the products and services their customers want.

[g_omalley]

Being able to get color film processed will be a problem and possibly impossible at some point. However, I think because we can all easily process black and white film and it is kind of an "art medium" vis a vis photography I do not see the total collapse of the b&w film market. I just got a CanoScan film scanner and am amazed at the ease of scanning hi quality results from negs. So, I am off to the storage space tomorrow to retrieve my Hassy kit. I so much prefer holding up negatives to searching my hard drive for images. But I do love digitial too. In a more perfect world I could have my digi files for my fave pix easily turned into negatives. Perhaps in the future but for now it is a little of both that works for me.

[michael_dimarzio]

<<How many of these "idiots" have you met and discussed the issues with? How many of these "idiots" have you

explained your vision of the world to?

 

I love how insults can be slung without ever having had any meaningful discussion. I guess it's the way of the

internet...>>

 

Jeff, that was sarcasm in reply to another post. Sorry you missed it. Actually, no I'm not.