larger formats being phased out ?

rafe bustin wrote:


An MF camera that goes to a serious amateur
from a working pro is likely to use a lot less
film from that point forward. The people
moving to MF film backs are the people who
*used* to shoot 100 or 1000 rolls per year.

As compared to my use as an amateur -- let's
say 40 or 50 rolls a year.



Without real numbers this is all speculation but I'd guess there are 1000
amateurs to every 'Pro' so these 50 rolls a year turn into 50,000 relative
to their 100-1000.


--

Stacey

"Shelley" wrote:

Not arguing, just curious - what's the basis for this statement? I don't
know about Fuji but Eastman Kodak has three business units for financial
reporting purposes, "Photography," "Health Imaging," and "Commercial
Imaging." For FY 2004 70% of Kodak's revenues came from the Photography
Unit. Only 18% came from Health Imaging and even less (12%) came from
Commercial Imaging. While I realize that revenues and profits aren't the
same thing it's still a little difficult to understand how the two units
that contribued only 30% of total revenues could have been the source of
"the major profits" of Kodak.

In my case, I was thinking of the situation in the 1960s (when I
worked at Kodak), and the 1970s. I had a rather menial (summer) job,
cleaning out big stainless steel vats in the film emulsion division.
It was quite evident then that what was being cooked up and sent down
to coating wasn't mostly 'chromes and Tri-X, but specialized film for
graphics and medical purposes.

I don't know (or remember) if Kodak was divided then as you report it
is now. But my father was a director at the company, who had access to
the financial figures, and it was his statement that most of the
profit came from the commercial side of the film business, and not the
35mm/120 sales.

If Kodak's revenue is now so low in medical and commercial, then that
perhaps says a lot about the loss of film use in these areas. You'd
have to compare that with 20-30 years ago in terms of total revenue,
suitably adjusted.

But I make no claim to financial or business expertise. Just reporting
what I've heard and seen.

Stacey wrote:

Tim Smith wrote:
But I suspect that by 2010, my film scanner, my
FM3A, and my Mamiya 7II will be relics, about on a par with my Intel
286-based computer (now resting in a landfill somewhere).

Maybe the scanner but I highly doubt film will disappear in 5 years. I
suspect my newest OM E300 digital will be a relic long before my rolleicord
is!

I think that for most film shooters who make prints (and who shows
slides anymore?), scanners will be around as long as film. Not many
people setting up wet darkrooms these days. The enlarger will be the
first traditional item to become a true relic.

I agree with your second statement.

Perhaps if the 1-hr processing labs begins to target digital processing
over
film processing at a more favourable charge-out rate, we may begin to see
the demise of film (esp 35mm) at the consumer level.

Cheers.


That's already happened here. All 1-hr labs that are still in business have
switched to digital printers. They print digital and film images on the
same printers at the exact same print prices. Some of them charge extra for
film processing, some don't.

KB

But I make no claim to financial or business expertise. Just reporting
what I've heard and seen.

That's fine, it just would have been kind of nice if you told us that the
your unqualified statement about the source of Kodak's profits was based on
observations made while cleaning vats and something your father told you in
the 1960s. Industrial and Health aren't now and in my years of following
Kodak never have been the major source of profits for the company.

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
"Shelley" wrote:

Not arguing, just curious - what's the basis for this statement? I don't
know about Fuji but Eastman Kodak has three business units for financial
reporting purposes, "Photography," "Health Imaging," and "Commercial
Imaging." For FY 2004 70% of Kodak's revenues came from the Photography
Unit. Only 18% came from Health Imaging and even less (12%) came from
Commercial Imaging. While I realize that revenues and profits aren't the
same thing it's still a little difficult to understand how the two units
that contribued only 30% of total revenues could have been the source of
"the major profits" of Kodak.

In my case, I was thinking of the situation in the 1960s (when I
worked at Kodak), and the 1970s. I had a rather menial (summer) job,
cleaning out big stainless steel vats in the film emulsion division.
It was quite evident then that what was being cooked up and sent down
to coating wasn't mostly 'chromes and Tri-X, but specialized film for
graphics and medical purposes.

I don't know (or remember) if Kodak was divided then as you report it
is now. But my father was a director at the company, who had access to
the financial figures, and it was his statement that most of the
profit came from the commercial side of the film business, and not the
35mm/120 sales.

If Kodak's revenue is now so low in medical and commercial, then that
perhaps says a lot about the loss of film use in these areas. You'd
have to compare that with 20-30 years ago in terms of total revenue,
suitably adjusted.

But I make no claim to financial or business expertise. Just reporting
what I've heard and seen.

But I make no claim to financial or business expertise. Just reporting
what I've heard and seen.

That's fine, it just would have been kind of nice if you told us that the
your unqualified statement about the source of Kodak's profits was based on
observations made while cleaning vats and something your father told you in
the 1960s. Industrial and Health aren't now and in my years of following
Kodak never have been the major source of profits for the company.

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
"Shelley" wrote:

Not arguing, just curious - what's the basis for this statement? I don't
know about Fuji but Eastman Kodak has three business units for financial
reporting purposes, "Photography," "Health Imaging," and "Commercial
Imaging." For FY 2004 70% of Kodak's revenues came from the Photography
Unit. Only 18% came from Health Imaging and even less (12%) came from
Commercial Imaging. While I realize that revenues and profits aren't the
same thing it's still a little difficult to understand how the two units
that contribued only 30% of total revenues could have been the source of
"the major profits" of Kodak.

In my case, I was thinking of the situation in the 1960s (when I
worked at Kodak), and the 1970s. I had a rather menial (summer) job,
cleaning out big stainless steel vats in the film emulsion division.
It was quite evident then that what was being cooked up and sent down
to coating wasn't mostly 'chromes and Tri-X, but specialized film for
graphics and medical purposes.

I don't know (or remember) if Kodak was divided then as you report it
is now. But my father was a director at the company, who had access to
the financial figures, and it was his statement that most of the
profit came from the commercial side of the film business, and not the
35mm/120 sales.

If Kodak's revenue is now so low in medical and commercial, then that
perhaps says a lot about the loss of film use in these areas. You'd
have to compare that with 20-30 years ago in terms of total revenue,
suitably adjusted.

But I make no claim to financial or business expertise. Just reporting
what I've heard and seen.

Tim Smith wrote:

The enlarger will be the
first traditional item to become a true relic.



I still think it's easier to do -good- B&W in the darkroom than with
digital. If nothing else it has a different look and for people who work on
a computer 8 hours a day, getting -away- from a computer is something they
would probably enjoy! :-)

--

Stacey

Tim Smith wrote:

The enlarger will be the
first traditional item to become a true relic.



I still think it's easier to do -good- B&W in the darkroom than with
digital. If nothing else it has a different look and for people who work on
a computer 8 hours a day, getting -away- from a computer is something they
would probably enjoy! :-)

--

Stacey

Tim Smith wrote:



I don't know (or remember) if Kodak was divided then as you report it
is now. But my father was a director at the company, who had access to
the financial figures, and it was his statement that most of the
profit came from the commercial side of the film business, and not the
35mm/120 sales.



I wondered about this when I was at the dentist the last time. He's gone
digital with his Xrays and imagine the loss of almost every dentist as a
customer has cost them something.
--

Stacey

Tim Smith wrote:



I don't know (or remember) if Kodak was divided then as you report it
is now. But my father was a director at the company, who had access to
the financial figures, and it was his statement that most of the
profit came from the commercial side of the film business, and not the
35mm/120 sales.



I wondered about this when I was at the dentist the last time. He's gone
digital with his Xrays and imagine the loss of almost every dentist as a
customer has cost them something.
--

Stacey