Agfa Returns !!! Email the new president !!!

Bill Hilton wrote:

From:

I disagree, I think this is a very big deal, it means that the film
division is "liberated" from the rest of Agfa's operations, meaning
that if they continue to turn a profit, they won't have to worry
about being done away with.

The original announcement (a couple of months back) said they were being
"liberated" because sales were dropping 15-20% per year due to digital.


So? Given there is little investment needed to continue, I'm betting the
profits are still very high for this division. Dropped sales doesn't mean
they aren't making any profit.
--

Stacey

davidb wrote:



********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.

--

Stacey

davidb wrote:



********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.

--

Stacey

davidb wrote:



********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.

--

Stacey

I'm not a big fan of Agfa's slide film either, but there are those I know, who in
fact are better photographers than I am, who revere the "pastel" look of the film.
Scala is awful and Agfa should be ashamed of it. Don't expect the "best" films to
survive. After all, Tech Pan was one of the first to go.

Bill Hilton wrote:

From:

I think we can all agree that the film side of the photography business
is due for a shakeout. I think Agfa has made the right choices in
preparing for this upcoming reduction in the number
of film producers.

I think they will be the next ones to go under. The two Agfa films I evaluated
were terrible (the 100 speed slide film, AGX?) and mediocre (50 speed print
film). I wouldn't shoot either one of these if they were given to me for free
with free processing.

I can't see how they compete well against Fuji or Kodak, unless it's a European
market home-grown thing. That's why to me it's no big deal that they have
reorganized.

Stacey wrote:

davidb wrote:


********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.


Agfa is the only outfit now able to offer a "reasonable" alternative to
Tech Pan either with their microfilm products or with APX 25. You have to
consider which films are being dropped by other makes when speculating on
which products might be good for Agfa to offer.

Scala is crap. Sorry.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey wrote:
davidb wrote:



********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.

Scala?

Scala is crap. Sorry.

Chris Brown wrote:

In article , Stacey wrote:
davidb wrote:



********** I think we should ask for the return of APX 25
***************

It was the ONLY product in their B&W line that stood out from anything
offered elsewhere.

Scala?

As long as they keep producing Agfa Multicontrast Classic 111 I'll be
happy. I've never used their films, so can't speak and really don't
care about those. But I've used their papers for years, starting with
Portriga Rapid of late lamented fame, and now their Multicontrast, which
I like a great deal.

Shelley wrote:

Dropping sales does not equate a declining profit rate. If you can


downsize your


workforce and equipment, you can continue to maintain the same profit rate


even


with declining sales.



True, but that isn't much comfort when the profit rate is applied to a
constantly decreasing volume, which is what's happening to film. Kodak has
had a much greater drop in roll film sales than they were expecting and they
were expecting a 10%-12% drop. They're getting 16%. I believe Agfa in its
original announcement said their film sales had been declining about 15% a
year for the last three years. Ilford is in receivership, Forte is gone. The
fact that profit rates aren't declining (or even are increasing) means
nothing when the number against which that rate is applied (gross revenue
from sales) is declining so rapidly.

wrote in message
...


Dropping sales does not equate a declining profit rate. If you can


downsize your


workforce and equipment, you can continue to maintain the same profit rate


even


with declining sales. Most large firms have layers and layers of


overhead. Niche


products cannot afford such overhead and therefore trimming down the size


of the


firm could help Agfa's film products significantly. I think we can all


agree that


the film side of the photography business is due for a shakeout. I think


Agfa has


made the right choices in preparing for this upcoming reduction in the


number of


film producers.

Bill Hilton wrote:



From:


I disagree, I think this is a very big deal, it means that the film
division is "liberated" from the rest of Agfa's operations, meaning
that if they continue to turn a profit, they won't have to worry
about being done away with.


The original announcement (a couple of months back) said they were being
"liberated" because sales were dropping 15-20% per year due to digital.


With a


business model like that the main "worry" is that soon you won't be in


business


at all.

in article , at
wrote on 11/8/04 15:57:

I'm not a big fan of Agfa's slide film either, but there are those I know, who
in
fact are better photographers than I am, who revere the "pastel" look of the
film.
Scala is awful and Agfa should be ashamed of it. Don't expect the "best"
films to
survive. After all, Tech Pan was one of the first to go.

Bill Hilton wrote:

From:

I think we can all agree that the film side of the photography business
is due for a shakeout. I think Agfa has made the right choices in
preparing for this upcoming reduction in the number
of film producers.

I think they will be the next ones to go under. The two Agfa films I
evaluated
were terrible (the 100 speed slide film, AGX?) and mediocre (50 speed print
film). I wouldn't shoot either one of these if they were given to me for
free
with free processing.

I can't see how they compete well against Fuji or Kodak, unless it's a
European
market home-grown thing. That's why to me it's no big deal that they have
reorganized.

Scala is awful?

I'd been tempted to try just one roll of it in 35mm as a "why not?"
exercise.

Dieter Zakas