I think it is just terrible that there will be no more film. Exactly the same thing happened with all of those old processes, like pt/pd, cyanotype, collodion, etc. You can't find out ANYTHING about these things - no books, articles, etc. - no one uses these processes anymore, and no materials are available. They just disappeared into history.
Get the point? Even if the giants leave the market, there will be a cottage industry. The parameters may change dramatically (including price), but if there are enough people shooting, there will be sheet film.
In my opinion, we should be neither surprised nor disheartened by "pro-digital press" coming out of Kodak execs. Most of those pronouncements are aimed at the folks on Wall Street, the same folks who brought us the dot-com bust as a result of unrealistic profit and stock-growth expectations.
While our emulsion choices may shrink due to the obvious economics, I have no worries about the availability of film in the future - particularly in "standard" sizes. Considering the efforts that are being made to support the ULF market, I'm even more bullish about the future of companies like Ilford/Harman that have adjusted themselves to current market realities.
As to the adoption of high-end digital backs, and the corresponding effect on film sales within the pro market, I have mixed feelings. A $30,000 expenditure is still a $30,000 expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that it can be depreciated. The pro shop still has to maintain profitability and cash flow. And, I'd guess that the percentage of commercial work that actually requires a 40mp original capture is fairly small - meaning that cost-justifying the $30K expenditure is even more difficult for all but the high-volume shops.
Bottom line, we shouldn't over-react to comments aimed at the Wall Street crowd.
Ralph, I agree $30,000 is steep, when these pro shops need to spend $10,000 for an Imacon scanner, and still need to purchase sheets of film and have them processed, the $30,000 is no longer that far out of the ballpark. However, as you said, most studios do no require a 40MP back. The standard 22MP multi scan backs available today have 88MP output that is more than enough for large poster advertising needs.....and are in the neighbourhood of $20,000 & less.
Ralph, I agree with your comments.... the worst part of the film to digital transition is the fact the users that use the most film, are the ones that can justify the most expenditure for digital. It's those users that keep eroding film sales at a super fast rates, not the hobiest that spend $400 a year on film. This scenario works against film, and plays right into the hands of digital back makers. With high volume users, the investment in a digital back represents a "return on investment" issue, and what's worse, its NOT just film cost, its processsing, scanning, scanning supplies, scanner repairs, etc... it all adds up, and for anyone making a living at this, the return on investment is pretty fast for even a $30k digital back. At $15k, its a no brainer for most pros. Of course, i am referring to the high end digital backs....
Dave, your points are very valid.... the alternatives, assuming one needs a scanner, etc., it simply makes the digital back purchase more feasible / sensible. Also, for static subjects, scanning backs will surely beat out film, fortunatly, this represents a small segment of the market.
The one thing which gets mentioned often is the fact the B&W market has stronger legs then the color film market. B&W LF film can record a better image then a digital back, assuming the output is high quality B&W. B&W film is much higher resolving then color film which broadens the gap between it and digital. In addition, it seems B&W is more of a cult like following, more purist, i.e. concerned as much with the process as the final output. On the contrrary, many color shooters objective is the final output, and most will take the path of least resistance to get there. Also, the cost of B&W as mentioned in a previous post is more economical, further solidifying it's staying power for the serious hobbiest. But color has every strike against it..... so digital vs. dilm discussions should isolate, B&W vs. color, as i think their longevity is totally dependent on different variables...
I think Fuji and Kodak may slow down their film manufacturing due to them
having their fingers in too many pies, but that will leave a gap in the
market for smaller companies who only make film and nothing else. Film
can't disappear altogether as it's need in hospitals, movies, and other
specialist fields. It's ironic that large film manufactures like Fuji and
Kodak has destroyed their own film based industry with them pushing
digital. Joe public don't need to buy a new film every time they want to
take some snaps, now they can re-use their memory cards over and over
again saving them money and killing Fuji and Kodak's film sales. If you want to try something different, check out www.retrophotographic.com they're got some great films, papers and accessories available.
C. Alex.... its nice to see these small companies like Maco make color film, even though its negative film.... who knows, someday they may be the Kodak and Fuji of today!
I think the film manufacturers may have shot themselves in the foot as they may have overestimated the long term revenue from digital camera sales. Case in point: My sister bought a Fuji digital camera and she loves it, but, she has no interest in megapixels or any other whiz-bang feature, thus she has no plans of upgrading said camera. So Fuji made a one time sale from her and unless the camera breaks down, they won't see another dime from her. Previously, she bought Fuji neg film to shoot in her point & shoot camera and had prints made. Last year, she had only a handful of prints made, the rest being stored on a CD or her hard drive; more money of hers Fuji (or Kodak) will never see. I imagine the majority of digicam shooters out there are in the same boat.
Kodak and Fuji had a good thing going, it's always better to sell consumables if at all possible. Look at the printer manufacturers, they practically give their inkjet printers away, but make a killing on ink and paper. You think they'd be interested in developing a "digital" printer that did not use any ink, or had ink cartridges that were re-usable indefinitely? Kodak and the other film m'fers should have fought hard against the digital onslaught because now they're direct competitors with the other major camera manufacturers which have been at that game for much longer.
Either way, the whole digital industry is going to experience a shakedown in the next few years as sales begin to flatten out. Unfortunately for camera companies, investors don't like sales that are flat and I suspect before long, their sales will be just like they were in the 80s and 90s.
Rob, if Fuji and Kodak were the only two making digital cameras, your point would be accurate. But that is not the case, so therefore, Fuji and Kodak were forced into digital before loosing even more sales volume in the "new" camera market, to competitors that were not even considered competitors just a few years ago. In the past, Canon / Nikon had a cozy relationship with Fuji/Kodak, they needed each other, one helped the other with innovative products. Now, they are bitter rivals. Again, this entire market one day will be studied in Business Schools, just like the success of Polaroid was the subject matter of many higher education business school books. It is capitalism at its best. It also demonstrates how small companies can catch the sleepin Giants off guard....although Canon was no small cocnern, but many of the other companies were small players in the photo market prior to digital.
As for the digital market flattening out, well, this IMO, is a function of just how many breakthroughs occur in the field in the next few years. If we next see 18 MP camera bodies that have 11 stops exposure lattitude, full RGB sensors, lenses to make super wide angles very sensor friendly, at a price point of say $3 - 4k, well, I think the industry will have an entirely new surge in sales again. Lets face it, photographers are worse then car buyers, they always want the latest and greatest.... assuming its much better then what they have....
I agree that the film manufacturers were forced into this market, but I think they could have done a better job stemming the tide. As for continued growth in the digital market (of which DSLR sales are a small fraction of overall sales), I'm skeptical. Read Thom Hogan's 2006 predictions where he also speaks of short-term growth into 2007-8; he's usually pretty accurate.
http://www.bythom.com/2006predictions.htm
As for new sensor designs and breakthroughs, there really hasn't been any whisper of new technologies, just more re-hashing of the same Bayer designs. Foveon may have had a good idea, but it's just a memory now. I don't see any reason why digital will be any different than the cellphone market, the Palm Pilot/PDA market, the DVD player market, the MP3 player market, the PC market, the dot-com industry etc etc etc. All started off with a big bang, enjoyed huge sales figures for the first few years and then the bottom fell out leaving a few manufacturers clamoring for scraps. Once consumers the world over have their digicam, they'll be content and looking for the next gadget to fall in their lap; their cameras will once again be sitting in some junk drawer collecting dust. Meanwhile, we LF shooters will still have our film and will still be schlepping our "antique" cameras around the countryside at the amusement of many a bystander.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks