If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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************************* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Todd wrote:
Ok, that is one rational way of looking at it, but just how many folks put off buying film because it is too expensive now? I doubt the idea is to grow the market. It's to capture a bigger share of the market. I would think a dramatic cut in prices would only lead to making film unprofitable and more of a reason for publicly owned companies to end production. You have to figure Kodak makes a lot of film every single day. They need volume more then they need high prices. Nick |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak webpage for film? | Bill Tuthill | Film & Labs | 21 | August 20th 04 07:59 PM |
Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO! | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 276 | August 12th 04 10:42 PM |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |
Loading film in Fuji GSW690ii | Stacey | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 4 | March 25th 04 10:28 AM |
Will we always be able to buy film? | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 30 | January 28th 04 05:11 PM |