Film availability

what would be more effective is encouraging some business school reviews
of the film to digital transition, with particular emphasis on shifting
from a product (film/processing/papers) with profit margins in the 40-45%
range (vs. corp. averages of 5% to 17% for even the "most" profitable
pharmaceutical industries ;-) to losses in promoting digital products.

A recent Brit. Jrnl of Photogr. newsletter email noted that some film
making Kodak plants in the UK were being closed down. What interested me
was that these plants involved only a few hundred employees. So the flip
side is that someone buying such plants, or investing to restart them,
would not need immense resources to get started in this highly profitable
business of making film emulsions and products.

The problem now is not that there isn't enough film products, but rather
that there is too much ;-) That's why plants are being shut down, as there
is excess capacity, with demand falling 17% or so in the last year alone.

One way to restimulate that demand for film is to cut prices, and as the
Kodak press release noted, they are evidently planning on cutting prices
to maintain volumes even in the face of such stiff declines, evidently by
taking market share from competitors (e.g., in the disposable camera
market, by importing disposable cameras from China (at $.15 cost) versus
those made in the USA (at $1 cost) etc.).

So I agree that we will see the loss of low volume film products and
formats (e.g., 220 etc.). But I think we may also see lower film costs
(for the reasons Kodak cites) as production capacity is well above demand
and profitability is so high that there is a lot of range to cut prices
while still remaining a profitable product line.

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

Stacey wrote:

I had read this someone else, part of the reason the early models had
Ektar
lenses was the deal they had with kodak.

Victor's grandfather, Viktor, met George Eastman while honeymooning in
London (Viktor, that is. Eastman never married) in 1885.
(Though already involved in the photo-industry (as a photographer since
1877, as a maker of dry plates since, oh.., 1879 - 1880) George Eastman was
then not the photo-tycoon we know him as today.)
Viktor made the "hand shake" deal with George Eastman, making Hasselblad the
distributor of Eastman (later Kodak) goods, and which lasted until the
1960s - 1970s.
This deal is what provided the funds for Victor Hasselblad's camera making
adventure during a good part of the life of Victor Hasselblad AB.
Victor sold "the rights" back to Kodak for quite a considerable sum. Victor
and Erna Hasselblad leaving no heirs, the money is now in the "Hasselblad
Foundation".

And, of course, Victor absolved part of his "apprenticeship" in Rochester
and Eastman Pathé in Paris.

Stacey wrote:

I had read this someone else, part of the reason the early models had
Ektar
lenses was the deal they had with kodak.

Victor's grandfather, Viktor, met George Eastman while honeymooning in
London (Viktor, that is. Eastman never married) in 1885.
(Though already involved in the photo-industry (as a photographer since
1877, as a maker of dry plates since, oh.., 1879 - 1880) George Eastman was
then not the photo-tycoon we know him as today.)
Viktor made the "hand shake" deal with George Eastman, making Hasselblad the
distributor of Eastman (later Kodak) goods, and which lasted until the
1960s - 1970s.
This deal is what provided the funds for Victor Hasselblad's camera making
adventure during a good part of the life of Victor Hasselblad AB.
Victor sold "the rights" back to Kodak for quite a considerable sum. Victor
and Erna Hasselblad leaving no heirs, the money is now in the "Hasselblad
Foundation".

And, of course, Victor absolved part of his "apprenticeship" in Rochester
and Eastman Pathé in Paris.

In article , Stacey
wrote:

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Paul Farrar wrote:

The last I heard, film was the cash cow they were using to support their
money losing digital ventures. In fact everyone was losing lots of money
on
digital in a desperate attempt to survive the shakeout that always
happens when an infant industry matures. Fortunately, for almost all the
players, photography is a sideline to their main business. (Leica and
Cosina being the exceptions.)

A bit off-topic, and yet another Hasselblad thing (i know... it must get
tedious), but here's a historical paralel:

Victor Hasselblad, the producer of that fine, epoch making photographic
equipment, is said not to have made a profit until about 20 years after he
begun selling his cameras and odd-bits.
He was funding his "money losing [...] ventures" milking the very same
"cash cow"*: the sale of Kodak film.



I had read this someone else, part of the reason the early models had Ektar
lenses was the deal they had with kodak.

It is my understanding that VH was the Swedish agent for Kodak.

In article , Stacey
wrote:

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Paul Farrar wrote:

The last I heard, film was the cash cow they were using to support their
money losing digital ventures. In fact everyone was losing lots of money
on
digital in a desperate attempt to survive the shakeout that always
happens when an infant industry matures. Fortunately, for almost all the
players, photography is a sideline to their main business. (Leica and
Cosina being the exceptions.)

A bit off-topic, and yet another Hasselblad thing (i know... it must get
tedious), but here's a historical paralel:

Victor Hasselblad, the producer of that fine, epoch making photographic
equipment, is said not to have made a profit until about 20 years after he
begun selling his cameras and odd-bits.
He was funding his "money losing [...] ventures" milking the very same
"cash cow"*: the sale of Kodak film.



I had read this someone else, part of the reason the early models had Ektar
lenses was the deal they had with kodak.

It is my understanding that VH was the Swedish agent for Kodak.

For what it is worth, I wrote to both Kodak and Fuji and in
their replies they stated that there were no plans to
discontinue MF film in the foreseeable future.
Having said that I can state from personal experience that
it is (almost?) impossible to get Ektachrome 200 in 220
anymore.
I usually buy from B&H and many of the films listed in
their online catalog are continually out of stock.

While cutting prices on 35mm consumer film may increase
sales, I doubt professional sizes are very price sensitive.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

From: Robert Feinman

For what it is worth, I wrote to both Kodak and Fuji and in
their replies they stated that there were no plans to
discontinue MF film in the foreseeable future.

This is what they ALWAYS say ... right up to the day they make a decision to do
otherwise.

You can look back at the comments from Kodak just prior to them dropping
Kodachrome 25 or Ektar 25 and see the exact same "no plans ... in the
foreseeable future" comments.

As someone already pointed out, the only way to ensure they'll keep making it
is for enough people to keep buying it.

From: Robert Feinman

For what it is worth, I wrote to both Kodak and Fuji and in
their replies they stated that there were no plans to
discontinue MF film in the foreseeable future.

This is what they ALWAYS say ... right up to the day they make a decision to do
otherwise.

You can look back at the comments from Kodak just prior to them dropping
Kodachrome 25 or Ektar 25 and see the exact same "no plans ... in the
foreseeable future" comments.

As someone already pointed out, the only way to ensure they'll keep making it
is for enough people to keep buying it.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:31:46 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote:

There are continuing questions about the future availability of
120 and 220 size film. This seems to be having a negative effect
on purchase decisions for MF equipment.

http://www.longbets.com, anyone?

I fully expect to be able to purchase 120 film when I retire in
around 2020. I'll almost certainly have to order it from a
specialty manufacturer, and either develop it myself or send it to an
equally specialized artisan lab, but I don't see it vanishing
completely.

What I do see is a gradual erosion of choice. Choices are already
beginning to dwindle, starting with 120 B&W and 220 in all forms. The
only perforated 70mm films left seem to be Portra, Aerographic and
duplicating films. This process will continue for quite a while
before Kodak (or a successor company) and Fuji totally pull the plug.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:31:46 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote:

There are continuing questions about the future availability of
120 and 220 size film. This seems to be having a negative effect
on purchase decisions for MF equipment.

http://www.longbets.com, anyone?

I fully expect to be able to purchase 120 film when I retire in
around 2020. I'll almost certainly have to order it from a
specialty manufacturer, and either develop it myself or send it to an
equally specialized artisan lab, but I don't see it vanishing
completely.

What I do see is a gradual erosion of choice. Choices are already
beginning to dwindle, starting with 120 B&W and 220 in all forms. The
only perforated 70mm films left seem to be Portra, Aerographic and
duplicating films. This process will continue for quite a while
before Kodak (or a successor company) and Fuji totally pull the plug.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.