DB_Gallery Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Hey joyus John, FYI, black and white is film too and is *fine*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>Very good Daniel. I'm sure you know what the point being made is nevertheless.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>I don't think anyone has mentioned yet what is likely the real reason for the hikes.</p> <p>Silver metal price has increased tenfold in the recent decade, especially moving up strongly in the last few years. Silver is a critical part of film and paper emulsions, in addition to the color dyes and other components.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Sure John, but film is not going to just disappear, there are a lot of people who still use it and will continue to so there is a market for it, just not at the scale that it used to be. So smart companies made the right choices in their offerings and prices years ago, it's simple economics, you don't just discard a product line worth millions in revenue because it no longer brings in hundreds of millions, you change your scale or sell it to another company that is willing to run the business properly. This is why simplistic statements like "Film is Dead" or "The Film ship is sinking" serve no purpose other than to make the person saying it feel vindicated or cause a stir. You have this so called hero next to your name which means you contribute to the site in terms of learning and what not....but when you say these things, you make a mockery of everyone using film, from legends like Mary Ellen Mark and Michael Kenna to the young 20 something that just got handed down his grandfather's Leica. I am a fairly decent photographer who makes a great living in photography and as far as I am concerned I am using more and more of it every year, so I don't care for these useless one liners, frankly it is offensive and shows an overall lack of tact and being informed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I mentioned silver Arthur, I expect film and paper prices to nearly double because of it in the next five years. That is why I think paper that would cost me $10,000 to buy now might cost as much as $30,000 in 2017 so I am in an "arms race" right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_smith55 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>In 2003 silver was trading at less that $5 oz. It shot up to almost $50 oz. Currently it is trading at over $33 oz. Ilford raised their prices due to the increase in the cost of silver. Kodak is now mulling an increase. This is news or unexpected how?</p> <p><a href="http://silverprice.org/silver-price-history.html">Silver Prices</a>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randrew1 Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>The amount of silver in a roll of film has increased form about 10 cents worth to about 65 cents. Other chemicals have also increased in price, but not as much. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <blockquote> <p>This is why simplistic statements like "Film is Dead" or "The Film ship is sinking" serve no purpose other than to make the person saying it feel vindicated or cause a stir</p> </blockquote> <p>Wrong. In this case at least. I didn't say film will disappear altogether. I used a metaphor about film continuing its decline which is an actual phenomenon. It was made in response to hyperbole about business management as though it would somehow have ultimately spared the poster the disappearance of favorite films, price increases or whatever other grievances are harbored about the state of film availability.</p> <p>I didn't realize that this would have to be explained to others making wild assumptions about it insulting the integrity of generations of esteemed photographers despite making the comment in connection to a quote on completely different issues. IOW, you had no idea what I was talking about.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_smith55 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I used a metaphor about <strong>film continuing its decline which is an actual phenomenon</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href=" says that sales of their professional films are UP</a>. Sounds to me like a certain poster has an AGENDA and is passing it off as fact.</p> <p>Silver prices and any one company's ability/inability to manage their business over the short term are not indications of consumer/professional interest in a particular art form. You like digital, great, good for you. That doesn't change Kodak or Ilford's sales numbers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <p>James, that link you provide is to one individual's comments that have never shown up in any Kodak official documents. Also, he's a Marketing Manager for the segment, which might color his comments. If you look at the <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIzMzk0fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1">Business Segment Review</a> that is on Kodak's <a href="http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-irhome">official documents page</a>, you will find that film is not even mentioned, which is probably a good indicator of where Kodak is going. In the <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIzNDAxfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1">Public Lender Presentation</a>, they list "Core Businesses," "Growth Businesses," and lump film into another section called "Manage for Cash/Value," which makes it pretty clear where things are headed. They've already sold off Gallery, also listed in the "Manage" section.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_smith55 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>James, that link you provide is to one individual's comments that have never shown up in any Kodak official documents. Also, he's a Marketing Manager for the segment, <strong>which might color his comments</strong>. If you look at the <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIzMzk0fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Business Segment Review</a> that is on Kodak's <a href="http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-irhome" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">official documents page</a>, you will find that film is not even mentioned, which is probably a good indicator of where Kodak is going. In the <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTIzNDAxfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Public Lender Presentation</a>, they list "Core Businesses," "Growth Businesses," and lump film into another section called "Manage for Cash/Value," which makes it pretty clear where things are headed. They've already sold off Gallery, also listed in the "Manage" section.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wait a minute. I have an <em>audio tape</em> of an executive at Kodak (not just a random "individual") saying very specifically that Kodak Professional Film met the previous year's revenue number in October and the rest of the year is gravy and you rebut with... inference and conjecture?! How in the world does that rebut <em>an audio tape</em>?! Color his comments?! "We met last years revenue figure in October." How is that "colored"?! Either you meet the revenue figure or you don't. You are basically, without proof mind you, accusing Kodak of fraud.</p> <p>Secondly if you reread my post I quite clearly say...</p> <blockquote> <p>Silver prices and <strong>any one company's ability/inability to manage their business over the short term are not indications of consumer/professional interest in a particular art form</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are plenty of companies that f'up a great business opportunity. You should <a href="http://filmwasters.com/podcast/archives/211">listen to one of the executives at Ilford</a> echoing many of the same thoughts expressed on the <em>audio tape</em> I linked to. Bottom line message is <strong>the precipitous fall in film sales has ceased</strong>. There still is a gradual decline but there is an uptick in certain segments. Also the price of silver looms larger on these guys at the moment than digital. Furthermore a large lumbering multinational that is mechanically set up to do gigantic continuous runs of emulsion may have trouble right sizing to the current market size. Ilford argues that they are no where as big as Kodak or Fuji so they can do smaller runs profitably. They don't have the infrastructure to maintain. Smaller machines, faster switch over, etc.</p> <p>The price of silver and an individual company's business acumen or lack there of has nothing to do with the end user's interest in shooting film. Well in an indirect way high silver prices and incompetent business practices can eventually put the consumer off but at the moment the demand is there.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Jeff, those are very telling documents to be sure, but there simply is no way to know how this is going to pan out with Kodak. I would say in a worst case scenario, they currently have master rolls made of enough product to slit & distribute most of the existing still film product line well into next year. So it is easy at this point in time to say they are committed to making and selling film. The fact that their E-6 emulsions are toast does not say as much as you might think as that product line made up only 1% of recent gross revenues according to a recent interview with Kodak engineer Ron Mowery. It would be interesting to know how many materials vendors are shared among the major players in film. For example, the base material Kodak uses for film is made in house where as Ilford gets it from a supplier. There are simple things that go into making film at Kodak and then there are involved ones that depend on high volume such as some of the more complex films collecting some 40 different layers in one long pass. I think there is no question we are going to see more Kodak films come to pass as time and proceedings move along, how that all plays out, who buys what from whom is an ongoing saga so there is not nearly enough factual information out there for John to make one-line broad statements like "The film ship is sinking and there isn't anything anyone can do about it." Ships tend to sink to the bottom as in gone, film is not going to do that for quite some time if ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 James, you also bring in some good points, but as far as Kodak's numbers are concerned, while still films may be flattening out a bit and in terms of black and white, seeing a bit of an uptick, the motion picture industry's exit from film product in the coming years is going to have a pronounced effect on the balance sheet. In terms of Kodak still films, they face a tougher set of financial critics than those of Ilford because they have been riding on the big profits of the motion picture industry since film started a sharp decline in consumer and pro still markets. I am optimistic about the future of black and white film and wonder about the fate of color. I am very cautiously optimistic about the future of any Kodak stock. I know who is behind the commitment to film at Kodak and I know they are praying for an Ilford-like rescale, but their hands are tied and this whole enchilada is a very different re-structuring than what Ilford went through. I have stocked up and now I consume and replace depleted stock on a regular basis, other than that, I just try to make great photographs, print them and forget about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I have an <em>audio tape</em> of an executive at Kodak</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br /> Your link comes from a marketing manager. That's very different than an executive.<br /> </p> <blockquote> <p>You are basically, without proof mind you, accusing Kodak of fraud. </p> </blockquote> <p>When they put it in a Kodak document, then it could be fraud. Until then, if it's the link you gave, it's just a mid-level manager saying something. I didn't say anything that anyone could construe as fraud. You might want to get some legal training before making those kinds of remarks.</p> <blockquote> <p>Jeff, those are very telling documents to be sure, but there simply is no way to know how this is going to pan out with Kodak.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br /> I don't see a great way out for them, they are dependent on others at this point. It's not going to be their decision in the end. It's pretty sad, Rochester will look like the next Buffalo the way things are going.<br /> </p> <blockquote> <p>Ships tend to sink to the bottom as in gone, film is not going to do that for quite some time if ever.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br /> If you are referring to companies as ships, that's not true. Look how many computer companies have gone under, or been bought and vaporized. Look at car companies, they come and go. I may be a pessimist, but I think Kodak's fate is almost certain at this point, which is not the same as making a comment on film's fate.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Jeff, re last paragraph above, I took John's quote to be film in general, not Kodak only, I agree with you then in terms of Kodak. Kodak' s ability to make and sell film is the subject, best case, they find a way to make a niche like Ilford, worst case, they stop and it all goes away. I am hoping that something in between happens, but who the heck knows, it's all corporate damage control at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_smith55 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Your link comes from a marketing manager. That's very different than an executive.</p> </blockquote> <p>"Scott DiSabato is Kodak's U.S. Marketing Manager for Professional film and the U.S. National Sales Manager for imaging specialty channel accounts."</p> <p>Spin it any way you want. This isn't some random guy spewing BS.</p> <blockquote> <p>When they put it in a Kodak document, then it could be fraud</p> </blockquote> <p>I have never heard that narrow definition of fraud. An executive at a company going around and purposefully lying about revenue numbers to investors, consumers, partners, and suppliers at trade shows is fraud dude. And frankly its a bizarre charge when made with NO PROOF.</p> <blockquote> <p>the motion picture industry's exit from film product in the coming years is going to have a pronounced effect on the balance sheet.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't really have much insight into the future of this dynamic. From my understanding <a href="http://qnt008-blog.weareneoco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Digital-Screens-V-35mm.jpg">most movie houses in the United States have switched to digital already</a> for screening purposes. Film is still considered the gold standard for shooting... I believe. This was an interesting blurb about film in <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047834.html?cmpid=RSS|News|LatestNews">Variety</a>...</p> <blockquote> <p>Kodak execs say its motion picture stock business is a profitable, viable business.<br> "We're still making billions of feet of film and will continue to do so," Kodak VP of marketing Ingrid Goodyear told Variety. "Right now and for the foreseeable future we still see film to be an important of Kodak's business."<br> Hollywood may be abandoning film, said Goodyear, but "India is still very, very film-centric. It's very strongly embedded in their industry and their psyche. Interestingly enough, we saw some decline in Japan, that was 2010 versus 2009, and this year we've seen some stabilization."<br> What's more, Kodak is seizing the one area where film is unquestionably superior to any digital solution in the market today: archiving.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>I took John's quote to be film in general, not Kodak only, I agree with you then in terms of Kodak.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yup me too. One company can certainly botch a good thing. That doesn't mean consumers and professionals don't want to use a particular medium.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_p Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <blockquote> <p>The film ship is sinking and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.</p> </blockquote> <p>John,<br> Film ship is not sinking. It’s being sunk. If you don’t see it you’re either too naive or just fooling yourself.</p> <p><strong>Note to mentors:</strong> I believe that expressions like “Film is dead” or “Film is vanishing” or similar must be strictly prohibited from usage in public media since they are generating anger and hate. Such expression can be classified as an attempt to discriminate and abuse individuals based on their artistic preferences. Why should we constantly listen these meaningless and idiotic words especial on website which is supposed to support photography? Just because Nikon or Canon are not supporting film anymore? Please don’t covert this website to another commercial machine seeding disbelieve in the art of traditional photography. And I agree with Daniel that saying “Film is sinking…” John H. has disgraced himself as a “Hero”. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 <p>Oh please. I responded to a post about actual anger towards some executive as though it would made a difference in current trends affecting Kodak. Trends that actually exist. This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.</p> <p>Grow up.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_z. Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 <p>Daniel, Sorry it's taken so long for me to get back here. You may well be right about the timing of that price hike, but still, it was sizable, and in this tough economy, I cringe at the thought of another one. As recently as last summer, I already felt compelled to purchase the various emulsions I use from three of the major suppliers, as each seemed to have meaningful differences in the price of these films. I was paying $7.50 in August from one of them, then there's a bill for $8.50 a roll in November, from another… And I'd been considering purchasing some more just a week or two before reading this, and they were all at $8.50.</p> <p>I'm as guilty as anyone for not shooting a lot of it, because I've been doing much more people and event photography in lower light levels in the last few years. But I still love this film for what it's meant for. I was pretty miffed when I wrote my first post in this thread, as it was a beautiful day here, and I was thinking of getting out for some shooting, but instead came across this. Sorry if I sounded obnoxious.</p> <p>And thanks for naming some of the folks that have a hand in producing these great products. I had the pleasure of speaking with one of their counterparts several years ago, but I can't remember his name. This man had a lot to do with the version of Kodachrome that was on the market then, and he was very upbeat about the quality of this Ektachrome.</p> <p>Yeah, it is really a shame that these products are not thriving… I think that were it not for digital, we'd surely have the faster versions of Ektachrome that I dream about.</p> <blockquote> <p>"…As much as I use it for work, I think what digital and the Internet have done to the photo world flat out sucks…"</p> </blockquote> <p>I could not agree with you more. One example: I recently shot the dress rehearsal for a friend's play with Portras and BW400CN. Because of the costs, I'd originally thought to shoot a couple of rolls of Portra 800 just so that she would have some nice memories. Well, as soon as it started and I realized how very good they all were, and also, how photogenic the whole scene was, I got carried away and shot it as if I were getting paid, just for the hell of it, and to maybe build my portfolio. Well, they all seem to really love the images, and have been raving about them, but my friend realizes the work and expense, and wants for me to get paid at least a little for the quality I produced for them. She is irritated that the others think photography is, basically, "pretty much free these days"... At this point at least, if it gets too much worse, I really think I'd give up photography before giving up film photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_z. Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Oh please. I responded to a post about actual anger towards some executive as though it would made a difference in current trends affecting Kodak. Trends that actually exist. This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.<br /> Grow up.</p> </blockquote> <p>John H., You make me laugh. You started this with your negative, petty comment, and then continued with it!<br /> <br /><br />How can you say that? I think others have illuminated the incompetence of these executives and how that has hurt Kodak... Wouldn't it be AT LEAST as plausible to say that had Kodak not wasted millions upon millions of dollars on disastrous ventures and stupid divestitures, that they would not have to milk film so hard, the only, or close to the only, profitable division, by the way (and without discernible marketing of any kind!). <br /> <br /><br />Daniel, James, Roman, and others have a passion for film. You obviously do not, and I find it an ongoing mystery why people like you continually show up here, ready to parse everything that doesn't strike your fancy and argue, and end up wasting our time and energy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 <blockquote> <p>I find it an ongoing mystery why people like you continually show up here, ready to parse everything that doesn't strike your fancy and argue, and end up wasting our time and energy.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Speaking as a moderator, photo.net does not require that people only post on certain forums.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Daniel, James, Roman, and others have a passion for film. You obviously do not</p> </blockquote> <p>I shoot film fairly frequently. I have Kodak slide films, including ebx, stocked up, Some favorites Agfa Ultra 100 Optima 100 and APX 25 still frozen and well expired trotted out from time to time as well as Fuji and other films on hand and used.</p> <p>The only thing that is "obvious", then, is the extraordinarily poor analysis in making the remark above. That somehow saying something about the bad state of the film market 'must' mean it is all some sort of 'hate' for film or effort to insult and cause grief to those who enjoy film. Especially when the comment iis made to dispute the contention that its all some executive's fault that people are buying less film and, thus, less Kodak film.</p> <p>Disagreeing with the point being made is all well and good but assigning these wild accusations about motives and so on is, with all due respect, childish. Moreover, it amounts to the kind of behavior that you are condemning.</p> <p>The fact is that the film market is diminished and will continue on that course and, as much as it may be desired to blame people at Kodak for its woes, the market condition is reality. You will encounter people discussing this when participating threads like this one. If it is too distressing, it may be best not to participate.</p> <p>Best wishes.</p> <p>John H.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 <p>Sorry guys. If we can't discuss business in a thread about business, I'll leave you to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_z. Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 <blockquote> <p>The fact is that the film market is diminished and will continue on that course and, as much as it may be desired to blame people at Kodak for its woes, the market condition is reality. You will encounter people discussing this when participating threads like this one. If it is too distressing, it may be best not to participate.</p> </blockquote> <p>John, I was a little hot when I made my original posting in this thread. I tried to explain that, and clarify what I meant. I'll try to do so again.<br /><br />Yes, the film market is diminished; we are all aware of that. But no, it is not inevitable that it will continue on that course. Perhaps slide film will, but there are significant signs that the overall decline has at least leveled off. <br /><br />No one that honestly has passion for film would would have your tone. You can tell me that you regularly shoot every emulsion in production, but you don't appreciate them, or you wouldn't make these dispassionate-seeming, fatalistic statements. And you are completely (and conveniently?) ignoring what Ron and others have clearly pointed out about executive mistakes at Kodak that have directly led them on the path to dire financial straits. This is <em><strong>over and above</strong></em> what's happened in regards to so many turning to digital photography. What part of this don't you understand?<br /><br />Here's what Ron said, and I've heard similar accounts from others:<br /><br />"It wasn't the been counters who shot down diversification efforts. When George Fisher arrived as CEO, he reversed decades of mostly successful diversification and divested Eastman Chemicals, sold the blood analyzer business to J&J, sold the pharmaceuticals business to Bayer, sold the household products to somebody (I forget who), split off Ultra-life batteries, and sold the space sensing systems to ITT. The stated goal was to raise enough capital to invest in digital imaging to be successful. They were also milking the film business in those years for the same reason. The current value of all of the billions of dollars poured into digital imaging is less than zero. If Kodak has kept those other assets and planned an orderly decrease in the film business, the company would be thriving today."<br /><br /><br /><br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_p Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 <blockquote> <p>This isn't some 'discrimination' case to be made to the U.N.</p> </blockquote> <p>Good sense of humor, John.<br> Well, suppose the film market is diminished. But what are you doing as a Hero except just keep yakking about it and fueling up this animosity.<br> I guess you must take more responsibility for what you’re saying publicly. We have enough nuts on this site to “distress” our community.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now