larger formats being phased out ?

rafe bustin wrote:



I'd guess MF film profits are 90% from
pros vs 10% from consumer/hobbyists/
noncommercial.

And that's probably shifting.


35mm is... probably much
more complicated.


Given lots of the 35mm film is sold as disposables...



Digital capture will need to get a *whole*
lot better and cheaper before it kills off
either MF or LF film.

I agree there.


There is OTOH a general cultural tilt
towards immediacy and away from "classical"
notions of quality which bode ill for the
larger film formats. Does f64 appeal to
Gen X or Gen Y? Does it matter?

Vast profits to be made selling miles
of 35mm to the masses. But the folks
who still *need* LF/MF are from the
commercial/corporate world, and there's
good money there, too -- for now.



I can't see any of it disappearing in 5 years like some people predict.
--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

I'd guess MF film profits are 90% from
pros vs 10% from consumer/hobbyists/
noncommercial.

And that's probably shifting.

35mm is... probably much
more complicated.

Given lots of the 35mm film is sold as disposables...

But that's going away. With everyone having a camera in their cell phone,
there's no point in buying a disposable any more.

On the other hand, the film in the disposables isn't useful for serious
photography, so it's not clear that disposable sales really helped or that
its disappearance will make a difference.

Vast profits to be made selling miles
of 35mm to the masses. But the folks
who still *need* LF/MF are from the
commercial/corporate world, and there's
good money there, too -- for now.

I can't see any of it disappearing in 5 years like some people predict.

But the problem is that the only stuff that will remain will be the stuff
that's useful in the commercial/corporate world. Fuji released several new
pro 120 negative films this year, but none of them sound any better for my
purposes than Reala.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Stacey" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

I'd guess MF film profits are 90% from
pros vs 10% from consumer/hobbyists/
noncommercial.

And that's probably shifting.

35mm is... probably much
more complicated.

Given lots of the 35mm film is sold as disposables...

But that's going away. With everyone having a camera in their cell phone,
there's no point in buying a disposable any more.

On the other hand, the film in the disposables isn't useful for serious
photography, so it's not clear that disposable sales really helped or that
its disappearance will make a difference.

Vast profits to be made selling miles
of 35mm to the masses. But the folks
who still *need* LF/MF are from the
commercial/corporate world, and there's
good money there, too -- for now.

I can't see any of it disappearing in 5 years like some people predict.

But the problem is that the only stuff that will remain will be the stuff
that's useful in the commercial/corporate world. Fuji released several new
pro 120 negative films this year, but none of them sound any better for my
purposes than Reala.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

Con: Digital capture will replace 35 mm
well before it replaces MF or LF. Lots
of 35 mm SLRs and even nice Point & Shoot
cameras are probably being quietly retired
these days.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple with MF. It seems that there are two
classes of MF users - the professionals, who do stuff like weddings, etc.,
and probably use mostly MF SLRs, and amateur/hobbyist users, who are using
all variety of cameras, TLRs, rangefinders, folders, and yes, SLRs as well.

The former seem to be abandoning the medium in droves for high end digital
cameras. For them, it's purely a business decision.

Those of us who use this stuff because we enjoy it (I've only got into MF in
the last year, and am having the time of my life with it), will probably
carry on almost indefinitely. From the point of view of the equipment
manufacturers (film and cameras), this represents a shift in the market, and
in the future, MF will probably be more like the sort of "cottage industry"
that is LF. A number of films will cease to be available in 120, and a lot
of cameras (mostly 645 SLRs) will stop being manufactured.

We've seen the start of this already, and I think it will continue. There
will be some unfortunate casualties. It's a great shame that Fuji have
discontinued their 6*9 rangefinder - ISTM that was precisely the sort of
camera that would survive the shakeout, but presumably Fuji felt that it
wasn't financially viable to continue it.

Tim Smith said:
As I and many others have pointed out in this
NG, the major profits for the film companies were in
industrial/commercial products, such as photolithography, medical and
dental X-ray, etc., etc.

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.

For the month of November film sales outside of film in disposable cameras
were down worldwide by 25%. Fuji was down 27%, Kodak was down 25%, and
private labels were down 23%. Disposable camera sales were up a little for
the month but down by something like 7% for the year l IIRC. Apparently
those old folks who just like their film cameras didn't get out of the house
much in November. : - )

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

Plus I know lots of "old folks" who just like their film cameras. Many
aren't that computer literate, don't like the shutter lag most P&S
digitals
have and since they use MAYBE 1-2 rolls a film a year, there isn't enough
money spent on film to save anything.

At one to two rolls a year, they aren't going to keep the businesses
making film in business. As I and many others have pointed out in this
NG, the major profits for the film companies were in
industrial/commercial products, such as photolithography, medical and
dental X-ray, etc., etc. All this either has or is rapidly converting
to digital.

I like my film cameras too, and as I just got a Nikon 9000 scanner, I
hope that film (both 120/220 and 35mm) will continue to be available
for a few more years. 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).

Tim Smith

On 28 Dec 2004 00:32:54 GMT, (Quest0029) wrote:

Is it true that medium and large format films
will be the first to go and that 35mm will continue
long after they have gone?

sheet films are coming back and discontinued sizes like 5x7 are
available again.

THOM
Thanks
AL

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:30:10 GMT, Chris Brown
wrote:

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

Con: Digital capture will replace 35 mm
well before it replaces MF or LF. Lots
of 35 mm SLRs and even nice Point & Shoot
cameras are probably being quietly retired
these days.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple with MF. It seems that there are two
classes of MF users - the professionals, who do stuff like weddings, etc.,
and probably use mostly MF SLRs, and amateur/hobbyist users, who are using
all variety of cameras, TLRs, rangefinders, folders, and yes, SLRs as well.

The former seem to be abandoning the medium in droves for high end digital
cameras. For them, it's purely a business decision.

Those of us who use this stuff because we enjoy it (I've only got into MF in
the last year, and am having the time of my life with it), will probably
carry on almost indefinitely. From the point of view of the equipment
manufacturers (film and cameras), this represents a shift in the market, and
in the future, MF will probably be more like the sort of "cottage industry"
that is LF. A number of films will cease to be available in 120, and a lot
of cameras (mostly 645 SLRs) will stop being manufactured.



I'm just not sure what sort of market clout
you and I have. As it stands, my choice of
C41 emulsions in 120 (and even more so in 4x5)
is already quite limited.

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.

Digital is chewing into the film market from
the bottom up and the top down. MF is some-
where in the middle. It'll be interesting
to watch.



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

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:30:10 GMT, Chris Brown
wrote:

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

Con: Digital capture will replace 35 mm
well before it replaces MF or LF. Lots
of 35 mm SLRs and even nice Point & Shoot
cameras are probably being quietly retired
these days.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple with MF. It seems that there are two
classes of MF users - the professionals, who do stuff like weddings, etc.,
and probably use mostly MF SLRs, and amateur/hobbyist users, who are using
all variety of cameras, TLRs, rangefinders, folders, and yes, SLRs as well.

The former seem to be abandoning the medium in droves for high end digital
cameras. For them, it's purely a business decision.

Those of us who use this stuff because we enjoy it (I've only got into MF in
the last year, and am having the time of my life with it), will probably
carry on almost indefinitely. From the point of view of the equipment
manufacturers (film and cameras), this represents a shift in the market, and
in the future, MF will probably be more like the sort of "cottage industry"
that is LF. A number of films will cease to be available in 120, and a lot
of cameras (mostly 645 SLRs) will stop being manufactured.



I'm just not sure what sort of market clout
you and I have. As it stands, my choice of
C41 emulsions in 120 (and even more so in 4x5)
is already quite limited.

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.

Digital is chewing into the film market from
the bottom up and the top down. MF is some-
where in the middle. It'll be interesting
to watch.



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

Quest0029 wrote:

Is it true that medium and large format films
will be the first to go and that 35mm will continue
long after they have gone?

Yes.

Uhmmm...

No!
126 instamatic format will be the one that outlives every other.

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Stacey" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote:

I'd guess MF film profits are 90% from
pros vs 10% from consumer/hobbyists/
noncommercial.

And that's probably shifting.

35mm is... probably much
more complicated.

Given lots of the 35mm film is sold as disposables...

But that's going away. With everyone having a camera in their cell phone,
there's no point in buying a disposable any more.

Not everyone has this, many people I know that have them have no idea how to
transfer the images to a place where they are useful, nor do they want to
pay the jacked up fees many providers charge for "uploading" them. Others
just don't trust this technology for important pictures either. Also most
people assume (rightly) that a camera phone picture isn't going to be even
as good as a disposable. I'd also guess lots of the people who are buying
disposables so so because they can't/dont want to afford a camera, so
probably can't afford a camera phone?


On the other hand, the film in the disposables isn't useful for serious
photography, so it's not clear that disposable sales really helped or that
its disappearance will make a difference.

Still keeps the film repoduction lines profitable where I'm sure they'd
close it down in a minute if they had to depend on "pro" film for all the
production. I'd be shocked if that was more than 20% of their sales.




--

Stacey