Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji...

Let's not forget the good news buried in Kodak's "death of film" press
release (before back-treading..).

Kodak planned to reduce cost of their films to compete with Fuji for the
declining market of film sales volume "aggressively" - i.e., a price war!
;-) ;-)

Granted, Kodak may no longer make all the emulsions we want, but the ones
they do make, they will be selling for much less. Since they haven't been
putting $$ into basic film R&D for almost a decade now (longer for B&W),
they can't rely on their past technology advantages over Fuji or even
AGFA. So they will have to compete on price, and compete aggressively if
they don't want to lose market share and still significant film profits to
Fuji and Agfa and other players likely to bring out new and improved films
during the coming decade(s).

I see the fifteen cent made in China disposable cameras (vs. $1 disposable
cameras made in USA per recent thread posting from Kodak filing) as part
of this future "price war". Kodak has allowed competitors like Agfa to
dominate this lucrative and growing end of the film market for years. So I
wouldn't be surprised at a price war in disposable cameras aimed to
grabbing lost marketshare in this highly profitable segment from Agfa
et. al.

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)

grins bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

In any case, for 35 and MF, the cost of
film is a pittance, IMO. Processing is
at least as expensive, and that's just
for the raw film, let alone the cost of
prints which far outweigh the cost of film.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?


In any case, for 35 and MF, the cost of
film is a pittance, IMO. Processing is
at least as expensive, and that's just
for the raw film, let alone the cost of
prints which far outweigh the cost of film.


So are we now saying digital prints are free? Given all the digiguys scan
their film, why would the print costs be a problem?

--

Stacey

In article , Stacey wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

Chris Brown wrote:

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

Or maybe some of us would -- don't forget that extra negative real
estate will forgive many evils that would be impardonable in 35 mm. I
wouldn't think of using Max 800 in my 16 mm subminiature cameras, even
if I had a convenient way to get two feet of 16 mm C-41 film processed,
but it's acceptable in 35 mm if ISO 400 is too slow; in 6x9 cm (8 on
120), at around six times the negative area of 35 mm, it should be just
fine (or at least the grain and sharpness should be acceptable for
situations where ISO 400 is too slow -- bad color is still bad color,
but once again, if you have the shot with bad color, you can always
correct in printing; you can't correct for missing the shot).

Mind you, if I'm shooting with my Moskva-5 or Kodak Reflex II in light
that's too low for ISO 400 (happens frequently with f/3.5 lenses, I'm
afraid), I'd probably prefer to have Ilford Delta 3200 in my bag (since
I can't get T-Max P3200 in 120). Yes, it's B&W -- but that just means I
can process it myself, with my choice of developer, time, and
temperature, to control for contrast, sharpness, and (to some extent)
grain, qualities that are pretty much fixed by the emulsion with C-41.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

--

Stacey

In article , Stacey wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

Depends on why you're doing it. If you're shooting medium format because you
want similar sized prints from 35mm without the grain, then this may be a
useful choice of film (but then you might as well go to a digital SLR, since
"35mm without the grain" is a pretty accurate description of its image
quality these days, especially at 400 ISO and above). On the other hand, if
you're shooting MF because you want to make big prints, then the sort of
film used in cheap disposable cameras is unlikely to satisfy.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

On 24 Sep 2004 18:11:41 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:

snip

So if Kodak keeps to its announced plans, then we can expect to see even
lower prices for film stocks and disposable cameras etc., right? So
instead of film prices going up as sales decline, Kodak's forecast
suggests that film prices (in USA at least) may decline noticeably? ;-)


And in what way is any of this relevant to
the markets for 120 film?

Because it's the same process?

I think the point is that you probably wouldn't want to put Kodak Super
Duper Ultra Zoom Grotmatic 800, as used in the grainiest 6*4s from a
disposable, in your MF camera.

And why not? I shoot 800ASA film in medium format quite often. Just because
it looks bad from 35mm doesn't mean it's going to look bad from a larger
negative.

--

Stacey

Bob Monaghan wrote:

Let's not forget the good news buried in Kodak's "death of film" press
release (before back-treading..).

Kodak planned to reduce cost of their films to compete with Fuji for the
declining market of film sales volume "aggressively" - i.e., a price war!
;-) ;-)

I'm of two minds on this. It's bad because it slows down others entering
the market. OTOH it shows just how much profit there is in the film market.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

OTOH it shows just how much profit there is in the film
market.



Exactly. Given the profits to be made from -any- film sales, why would film
disappear from the market as long as people are still using it? Someone is
still bothering to respool 620 film for resale and others sell 127 film.
When was the last time anyone made a camera that uses either of those
types??

--

Stacey