Young people flock to film

[c_watson1]

 

<p><em>Dear Mr Watson, sorry, but I have to contradict:</em><br /><em> The data I've posted is from the CIPA, the film manufacturers and photo distributors (digital and film). Selling photo materials is the daily business of these companies, therefore that is not "anecdotical" like you said. These people know their numbers of course better than you.</em><br /><em> Further data (e.g. for film sales), page 19:</em><br /><em> <a href="http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/</a></em><br /><em> More than 300 million films expected to be sold this year worldwide.</em><br>

<em>The CEO of IP, Mr. Kaps, currently said in an interview that IP expects to sell 1 million IP films this year (after 750,000 last year). They sold 12,000 refurbished Polaroid cameras last year, but the demand for their refurbished items has been double of that, so they can't satisfy the big demand at all and are even considering production of a complete new model. Their 'instant film lab' (making instant photos from your smartphones), introduced last Photokina, will hit the market this spring.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Sorry, that is wrong, because</em><br /><em> - there has been a recession only in some countries (like US), but not on a global scale. Asia (meanwhile the biggest market for digicams), Northern and Eastern Europe and most of South American and African countries have had no recession, but ( partly even very strong) growth</em><br /><em> - even in this time of the high yen (compared to Dollar and Euro and Suisse franc) the digital camera manufacturers have either hold their prices stable or even reduced their prices. Therefore price effects could not have a negative influence on sales (only on margins of manufacturers).</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>I remember a statement from the CEO of Harman technology / Ilford Photo: He said the market for BW photo film is about 15 million films worldwide, and that about 90-95% of these films are developed by the Photographers themselves, not by labs.</em><br /><em> So this complete segment is kept alive by home developing. As e.g. the E6 market is probably smaller than the BW market, home developing of course can contribute significantly to a long term stability of this segment.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Your comment on the absence of recession outside N. America is astounding.<br>

Please tell me the dead link you posted isn't Henning Serger's 2012 Photokina "report."<br>

You really need to investigate what time series data are and how to use them to be credible.</p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

When I encounter people who use film and see perhaps more than I used to, I am not looking for facts, I am just living my

life as a photographer. When I have my 4x5 setup on a tripod in the runout of one of the steepest and longest double

black diamond ski runs on earth and it is mostly the young people who stop and say "Awesome, a Chamonix, I would love

one of those, how do you like it?" while an older guy slowly schussed by and said "Stuck in the past eh?" I am not looking

for statistics sir.

 

I don't really give a crap what the stats are, I want film, especially black and white to have a fighting chance so I promote

its use and cite any example I can when I see it happening. If you like using film and want to continue to do so, I don't

understand why on earth you would tell the world in a thread like this that people like me who are just trying to get one

more person to use it are fabulists. Stats or facts be damned, that is self defeating behavior.

 

When an older person, my age of 45 or so and beyond sees me using a Leica, Hasselblad or my 4x5, they almost always say something negative or mostly "Can you still get film for that?" But when a younger person sees the same cameras, it is almost always things like "Wow, I like your camera!" Or "Obviously film on that one"....negative or uninformed and insecure from the older crowd, inspired and informed from the younger crowd. That is what I have personally encountered and I am almost certain I am out with my cameras more than most on here except for Jeff perhaps.

[c_watson1]

<p>"I<em>f you like using film and want to continue to do so, I don't understand why on earth you would tell the world in a thread like this that people like me who are just trying to get one more person to use it are fabulists. Stats or facts be damned, that is self defeating behavior</em>."<br>

<br /> The reality we're in now is the product of decisions tens of millions of consumers made about film use beginning over a decade ago. Hard to deny that. Why misrepresent that reality with private facts about film production and film use that have little or no verifiable empirical basis? Labs steadily closing or withdrawing film service in my area, along with dwindling retail film inventories, suggest that it's just possibly due to a collapse in demand that hasn't bottomed out yet--sadly. Those inconvenient stats you disregard nonetheless informed those business decisions. Believing otherwise or fudging causation is fabulism.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I have had a 4 friends in the past few years come down with various forms of Cancer...in their 30's, 3 died. We were all told they were terminal, we enjoyed each other's company while we still could, knowing full well what the facts were. Things looked very bleak for the one who still made it and after 6 years of remission, it is back so the fight is on again...<br>

What I am trying to get at here is that when you are told facts that state you have a battle headed your way that you may lose, you don't stop living, you be positive and fight. So you state that labs in your area ( Toronto ) are folding, but that does not mean other ones are. Blue Moon Camera in Oregon not only does brisk business in C-41 but still optically prints, they are swamped. The Walmart in Glenwood Springs, CO near where I live also does very well, has no intention of closing shop. Same with Englewood Camera in Denver, they are busy as is Reed Photo Imaging and Mike's Camera in Boulder. No, they are not heyday busy but certainly busy enough to run a clean C41 and E6 line and make a profit. <br>

The bottom line is that all these color labs may eventually fold due to lack of demand but right now they are around and so is the film you can shoot and give them. I have pretty much stopped using color film for the most part because frankly I don't see as good a future in it and it is not where my creative heart lies anymore, my career emphasis in going forward is in doing black and white fine art.<br>

I am not misrepresenting reality, just trying to shed light on the fact that film use is niche, not gone, but niche and still very much usable. But it is exhausting to me to have to keep defending my self, others, film, etc. so I need to bail on it, carry on...</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<blockquote>

<p>Your comment on the absence of recession outside N. America is astounding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr Watson, I highly recommend for you looking at the data of the worldwide economic organisations like the OECD or World Bank to look for GNP growth rates of different countries during the last two years. Then you will find that China e.g. have growth rates in the 7-9% range, most other Asian countries were in the 3-6% range, most South American countries have been in the 2-5% range. Northern European Countries like Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland still have been in the 1-2% range. And the the growing economies in Africa have been in the 3-6% range.</p>

<p>China alone has a population of about 1,3 billion people, India 1,2 billion, Indonesia 230 million, Brazil 190 million. There plays the music nowadays. Not in countries like your country Canada. With its population of (relatively tiny) 30 million people it simply does not a play a role in demand for photographic products (film and digital) considering a worldwide scale.</p>

<p>All you add in this discussion is:<br>

- permanently telling your anecdotes about film situation in your home town Toronto and the GTA (interestingly my friends there tell me it is not as bad as you describe it);<br>

I am currently living in a town with less than 400,000 inhabitants. 4 professional labs here developing film in my town, my preferred lab see increasing numbers of films coming in recently.<br>

Do I draw conclusions from that to the worldwide situation? No, of course not. And you should not do it from the situation in GTA.</p>

<p>- saying that companies like Ilford Photo, Impossible Project and Fuji (here with Instax) are lying when they report stable or increasing business. By the way, all of them have introduced new products. They would not do that if there would be no market for it. These people are not as stupid as you think. They know their business.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Please tell me the dead link you posted isn't Henning Serger's 2012 Photokina "report."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it is not Mr Seeger's report (which was very accurate by the way; I know for sure because I have been at last years Photokina as well), and the link I've posted has a different topic and is working fine here on my computer:<br>

http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Breathtaking. No recession in the Eurozone? No unemployment in Spain, Italy,Eire, France, UK, Germany, Greece?<br>

<br /> What matters is per capita income anywhere. Compare China or other developing countries you cite to Canada and the US, OK?<br>

<br /> Toronto is the 5th largest city in N. America. I'm guessing the film situation here--for better or worse--isn't wildly different than in other large N. American cities. Ask your Toronto/GTA pals how many pro labs are up and running here as of today.<br>

<br /> Film matters to Ilford. Fuji? Not so much. IP is a tiny niche player. You need time series data to measure movement. <br /> Serger's Photokina report was largely data-free and relied on marketing chatter from booth reps--nothing more.<br>

<br /> Your link is still dead.</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Are we still in a recession? I have been hearing about a recession for close to 10 years, other than 2007 I have not seen any proof of that. What I have seen is through the roof car sales. It is not unusual for someone to come in for an oil change and drive away in a brand new car. I shot at some local lakes this weekend and could not believe all of the brand new, full size pickups pulling brand new bass boats. I have been on this earth for close to 50 years and I have never seen so many people with so many new expensive toys. Recession, yeah right!</p>

<p>As for film sales, I dont really see the point in arguing over it. I am just happy it is still available.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Update from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/18/174665717/vintage-sounds-the-whirs-and-clicks-of-film-cameras</p>

<p>While youngsters delight in the unpredictability of film, oldsters are nostalgic for the sounds of film cameras.</p>

<p>I always thought photography was about the quality of images.</p>

[phil_derosier]

... the death of a loved one is always painful. but after a period of mourning, balance and cognition must rule over irrationality. get over it,

people: steam locomotives, buggy whips ... and film ... are dead.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yet another record-breaking thread for photo.net cliches</p>

<p>You know who likes film? People who like film. Prove me wrong.</p>

<p>You know who likes "Film Is Dead No It Isn't" threads? Apparently everyone.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Record-breaking is easy when you are playing a broken record....

 

I call these "Fart in the buffet line" threads.

 

Folks like Brian M. and Phil show up, let little stinky squeak-toy-esque colonastic connotations go right next to the guy cutting the roast beef and then leave for fresher inhalation as we get to fill our nostrils with

their self serving odiferous expressions...

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Another misuse of data. In the US, nobody pays $649 for an iPhone. The cost gets buried in the monthly usage, which they would pay for regardless of their phone. The only part that might get cut would be data if one didn't have a smartphone, but data is something people now expect. And the camera is just part of the functionality, so nobody is paying $649 for a camera when they buy a phone.<br>

I might be able to find a copy or two of <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Misused_Statistics_Second_Edition.html?id=hT_ELDzB99gC" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this book </a>for those of you that enjoy misuse of statistics. You would probably learn a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>US smartphone penetration only just passed the 50% mark in Q3 2012. There are far more non-smartphone users than there are regular film users. If you are going to write the non-smartphone people off you might as well round the entire film user number down to 0 and say there are none of them as well.</p>

<p>Up front iphone contract costs at the major US carriers is typically $199 not $0.</p>

<p>The off contract smartphone market in the US is not 0%.</p>

<p>Anyway my remark you quoted was just a flippant remark showing that the meme of the "free" iphone and expensive film is not grounded in fact. I had a simple phone for many years. I only got a smartphone about a year ago and only because there was no upfront cost for the phone and I got a massive discount on my contract through work. Otherwise it would not have happened. I analyzed contract and noncontract phones from a broad spectrum of telecom companies prior to making my decision. And that $649 number is real. In fact as many people over at XDA will tell you depending on your needs buying a smartphone outright and skipping the contract can save you hundreds in the long run. So that number could be considered to be on the low end. Some people may need an iphone. Some people may purely be reckless with their money. But I don't think the numbers, assumptions, and comparisons that were being made were valid. That was the only reason I made that quip. I didn't mean to get into this level of analysis.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess, Jeff, that the exception proves the rule. Not.<br /> Funny but film is what I mostly use, bro. <strong>I live in the 5th largest city in N. America</strong> and film processing worth the $ is hard to come by compared to just 2-3 years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry if I missed where you stated clearly your location. But depending on how that statement is translated you either live in Toronto or the DFW metroplex. If it is Toronto my remarks were quite clearly confined to Walmarts in the United States. That was stated clearly. If you live in DFW a Walmart should be easy to find. Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. It is hardly the "exception." If film processing is expensive in your country I am sorry.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No answers to your appeals seem to suggest few people are using film or are happy with their exploitative labs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I posted a link to my thread where people from across the US reported their experiences with the Walmart send out service and a couple of them thanked me for the information and creating the thread. Why do you keep posting stuff like this instead of just reading the thread I linked to? Walmart processes 220 C-41 film for $0.84. How is that "exploitation?" If you live in another country and don't have access to similar processing I really am sorry but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist for hundreds of millions of other people. For the record I totally understand in different geographic regions things cost more. I have a passport and I have lived, worked, and studied in multiple countries on multiple continents. Whatever things I experienced, good or bad, in those countries I would never extrapolate to the entire planet. My remarks were about one nationwide retailer in the US. That is all.</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<blockquote>

<p>Breathtaking. No recession in the Eurozone? No unemployment in Spain, Italy,Eire, France, UK, Germany, Greece?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well no overall, general recession in the Eurozone and in Europe. Only in some weak countries. No real recession in the the last two years in UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Suisse, Austria, Czech, Slowakia. Some of these countries even had quite strong growth like Norway, Germany and Poland.<br>

Don't believe the lies lot's of North American politicians and media tell you...;-).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> What matters is per capita income anywhere. Compare China or other developing countries you cite to Canada and the US, OK?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Important is that in China a huge middle class of already 500 million people exist, which have money to buy photo products, I've been there several times. I've seen what is happening there, you have not. There are e.g. huge shopping malls only for photography products, digital and analog!<br>

That does not exist in North America.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Toronto is the 5th largest city in N. America. I'm guessing the film situation here--for better or worse--isn't wildly different than in other large N. American cities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been in New York, Boston, Seattle, Portland, L.A., Denver. No problems at all there to get films and development.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Film matters to Ilford. Fuji? Not so much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji has to manage the boom in their instax films, therefore the new, additional plant in South Korea. They had a complete booth at Photokina for Instax, lot's of people there, mostly very young photographers. In Asia the demand is even much higher than in Europe.<br>

https://de-de.facebook.com/FujifilmInstaxIndonesia<br>

They also introduced new RA-4 paper products at Photokina last year; reintroduced Neopan 400 because of increasing demand</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Serger's Photokina report was largely data-free and relied on marketing chatter from booth reps--nothing more.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Your bashing is completely unfair (and stupid). You haven't read what he had written. He reported which (new) analogue products has been presented, and the assessment of the manufacturers. He had clearly said that, and he had said at the end of his report that of course the market faces severe problems in many segments. No one is denying that. That was just a report about a visit on the Photokina fair, not more, not less. Not a market research.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br /> Your link is still dead.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Still working fine here. It is a market research article about the global film market, expecting 310 million films to be sold in 2013. And reporting that RA-4 is keeping much more stable than market researchers had expected some years ago. Much bigger market (considering m² volume) than the film market, because a huge amount of digital prints is made on RA-4 via Lambda printers (e.g. very popular in Europe; huge mass volume labs are doing that; e.g. CeWe and Fuji Eurocolor).</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Proof, meet pudding, not "Lomo"either:<br>

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101220-Teen-photographer</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

These threads are always hilarious. The people who stopped hsing film hears ago always proclaim it dead. These film is

dead threads have been going on for about 10 years....and yet film is readily available, and new emulsions come out all

the time. Even 110 film is available again....and I have a handy old 110 camera I'll be making low-fi landscapes from.

 

These threads makes no more sense tha the LP is dead comments.....it's been dead for 30 years yet I can still pick up

virtually every major release on LP.

 

Some people just like to have the blinders on when it comes to reality. Film is alive and well because I can buy it

everywhere and get every format I need. If it was dead....I couldnt.

[Dave Luttmann]

Oh...and I for one can echo Daniel's comments. I live in Victoria, BC...and am regularly in Vancouver and Seattle. I see

lots of young folks with 35mm, Holga, and other MF film cameras. When I am using my D700 or D2x....I NEVER have

anyone ask about the camera. When I am using film bodies, people come up all the time asking about them....mainly

young folks. Friends of mine have commented on the same experience in cities where they live.

 

I think I've seen enough of it first hand to know that many young people do have an interest in film and think it has a cool

factor.

[donbright]

<p>Film is a highly evolved technology with numerous years of testing, depicting its subjects in the most realistic way, bringing the Photographer along as a partner to work a little harder.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"...<em>new emulsions come out all the time</em>."</p>

<p>When did Kodak or Fuji last roll out a new emulsion(pun intentional)?</p>

<p>"<em>When I am using film bodies, people come up all the time asking about them....mainly young folks</em>."</p>

<p>Funny but it's mainly retirees asking when I'm out with something recognizably analog like a MF camera. "Young folks" use mostly smartphones, occasionally digital p&s, rarely DSLRs or MILCs.</p>

<p>"<em>I think I've seen enough of it first hand to know that many young people do have an interest in film and think it has a cool factor</em>."</p>

<p>Maybe but I doubt "many" go the whole nine yards and purchase film cameras and film on a regular basis--"cool factor" notwithstanding.</p>

<p>Agree with Jeff Spirer that what you're saying is anecdotal and largely meaningless for lack of any supportive data.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Cool factor won't cut it.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

Oh really....guess you have never seen young people buys clothes for the cool factor. Seriously, if you think a cool factor

doesnt exist in purchasing decisions, you have a lot to learn

[Dave Luttmann]

To address your questions C Watson....Kodak released the Portra line. Lomography has released a half dozen files in

everything from MF down to 110. Other companies have released film as well. That however is a red herring to the

discussion. Film is available in stores. According to manufacturers, sales have stabilzed. That ks the factual information.

Myself, I've never had elderly people comment on my film cameras. I have however photographed weddings for over 20

years and at each one I am surrounded by young people....many who ask about film cameras and film...none who ask

about the DsLRs.

[john_h.1]

>>>Market data: I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been

so kind to give me the current numbers:<<<

 

There is another problem with these figures in terms of context beyond what has already been

discussed. Citing a stabilization of sales or increased percentage of sales is too isolated. There has to

be a reference point. If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.

If a product is one percent of market share, then a 25% increase means its still a minute part of market

share. As to sales, without regard to market share, its hard to know if the increase is enough to make

the sale of the product viable for long. Whether it is a worthwhile product for the seller. Its all relative to

whether the overall profit is sustainable enough to justify the products existence. If a company makes

some profit, a 25% increase could be significant. On the other hand, the company might need to sell

much more. A quadruple increase may be needed for example.

 

The most the data tells us is that sales in some particular categories are not in free fall so it might bring a

more steady marketplace for such items. As for squawking on internet forums about the state of film, it doesn't reveal a

"resurgence". If some people here or there begin to enjoy it or come back to it, great. But its not

a 'comeback'.

[john_h.1]

>>>>guess you have never seen young people buys clothes for the cool factor. Seriously, if you think a cool factor doesnt exist in purchasing decisions, you have a lot to learn<<<

 

Context is everything. Cool has its limits. Young people are going to buy clothes no matter what so, sure, they get what's fashionable along the way. Film, for all its glory, is burdensome for people accustomed to instant gratification and compatibility with what they already are doing.(Using devices ect) Young users will have to go out of their way to deal with film stuff and then scan it anyway to go online which many would want to do. Its a motivated hardy demographic we are taking here, not fickle shopping square types.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is what vinyl sales are about. Sure, they've gone up as a percentage, but it's meaningless. Especially when people try to compare them to CD sales.<br>

<br>

BTW, as someone who has worked in the music biz and is still fairly involved (although "the biz" is no longer what it was), there is still a substantial portion of vinyl sales that has to do with DJ servicing rather than consumer purchasing.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Thanks, John H, for making the point(s) yet again. Garnier's and other village explainers' fact-free discussions are consistent with the breathtakingly innumerate flame wars that raged at apug.org after Kodak skidded into Ch. 11 in January 2012. They'll never get it.</p>