Film photography, a good business in the future ?

[Marko]

Excellent point! Both technologies with the different look that they are able to bring to the table, are immensely useful to all image makers. Instead of driving the nails into the coffin of one, we should strive to keep both technologies alive and well. It's only to our advantage.

Thomas

If you think striving to keep alive and well a technology that can't do it on its own any more might be a good business in the future, you should go ahead and start one.

Personally, I don't do any of this as a business, I do it as a hobby and I will happily use what is available. I've been using film since the early 70's or so and digital since 2003. I still use both and I like them both, but it is not my business to keep any of them alive or even promote them.

I'm simply commenting on what is (or should be) obvious. And I leave ideology to ideologues.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I think the film photography business will have a good future until someone will develop a revolutionary technology to capture images with reliable archiving technology inherited. . . . .

And you base your opinion on what? With Kodak's film sales declining every year, with wet labs disappearing, with the major camera manufacturers not even making film cameras any more, and with almost nobody using film for any purpose (including those purposes for which you think film is perfect), I'd say the film business isn't looking very good. What do you see that makes you think differently?

As for "archival" properties, film and the prints made from it aren't inherently "archival." They have to be properly fixed, washed, and stored. And most importantly, kept. I have many family photographs from the turn of the 20th century forward. Some of the prints look great, many don't. My grandmother pasted prints in photo albums. They're pretty much ruined. Others that were stored loosely are bad because they were just thrown in boxes and put who knows where. Others are bad most likely because they weren't properly fixed and washed.

But most importantly - I don't have a single negative from all of those prints. Nobody bothered to keep them.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . **If** Kodak should ever be forced to close, there will be some investors to take over the film production. It still is a multi million Dollar business. As far as I remember Fuji's film sales last year had been around 280 million US$. Kodak's film sales should be at the same level. I don't have any data from Agfa.

From Kodak's quarterly report for the second quarter of 2011:

"Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $396 million, a 14% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume delines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $2 million, compared with earnings of $36 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes , partially offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment. . . . " (emphasis added)

Decreased sales and decreased profits aren't good and don't generally attract investors, especially when they're consistent with the historical pattern of declining revenues and declining profits in the film business that's existed for the last decade or so.

And this from the Kodak president sounds a little ominous:

"We are investing in these growth businesses to create a new profitable, sustainable digital company by 2012.”

[Kirk Gittings]

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

[Greg Lockrey]

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

Yeah, then if you want to stay in business you'd have to learn to shoot with "toy" cameras.

[Kirk Gittings]

Doesn't affect my commercial business at all, but it sure as hell might impact my b&w personal photography!

[Brian C. Miller]

Apparently Perez is trying to do what Nokia did. Nokia used to be a logging company. However, Nokia changed when technologies were young and markets were undeveloped. Kodak is trying to change when technologies are ubiquitous and markets are saturated with competition. Why buy a cheap point-and-shoot from Kodak when your cell phone has a camera and there's choices from at least five other competitors?

OK, so back to the topic for this thread (Kodak business thread here), film photography is an attraction factor for a photography business.

Besides esthetic process, there is also the very real measurable effect of the final product. Using a small film format, such as half-frame or Minox, results in real grain. The larger formats render grainless images, and can be used with real alternate processes. In the possible event of a total demise of film, there's hand coating glass plates, which is an effective business model now.

There is a selling point to a 100% optical-chemical image path. Use what you have to make an effective business. Find the profitable niche, fill it, and advertise it.

[Mark Stahlke]

This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes...

I wonder how much of the decline in volume is self inflicted. Kodak discontinued a lot of products and packages like Readyloads. See also the many threads about the availability of current film products. If none of the dealers have Kodak films in stock then we're forced to buy other brands.

[Richard Raymond]

Q.T.,
From a strategic investment perspective one of the real issues with the film photography business is the use and disposal of chemicals for both manufacturing and processing of film. It is quite possible that the expense of meeting increased environmental standards will be a major factor in limiting the business. This will be true also for those who wish to do their own processing as the availability of chemicals will be severely limited. Chemicals for making film may not be available at even a higher cost, film manufacturers may not want to pay for cleaning of the chemicals used and the same goes for film processors. This risk is even more pronounced in a market with down sloping demand curves ... and the farther into the future one projects the greater this risk is. So, no, film is not a good business investment for the future as the product margins do not cover the increased risk.
Ric

[toyotadesigner]

with the major camera manufacturers not even making film cameras any more

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

Seems you don't know how long you have to wait for an Arca Swiss or Ebony or Linhof or Cambo or...

They still make cameras, in most cases with two options: with a Graflok back or an adaptor for digital backs. The majority of the cameras however is sold for film backs.

In this particular context I remember the wise guys back in 2001, when they claimed that film is dead. Since that time Kodak and Fuji have developed new emulsions, and we have seen new film manufacturers entering the market (for b&w).

Obviously you prefer to hide many facts on the film side.