PDA

View Full Version : Declining Film orders



George Kara
22-Mar-2007, 13:18
While I was having a lensboard cut I was speaking with the owner of Tempe Camera and he showed me around his retail and production buildings. He has quite the operation with around 50 employees.

Anyhow he stated that his film sales are down 90%!!! from Last year! He use to have 9 coolers for film and has gotten rid of all of them except for 2. He also said that he would process 2000 rolls of film a day and this has significantly declined as well.

Evidently some of the largest declines are in LF and ULF film as well as MF. He doesnt even stock 8x10 anymore.

I just dont understand what the substitute is for LF, ULF film. The MF digital backs are stupid expensive and the scanning backs have very limited application.

Why is LF on the decline without any clear replacement?

George

alec4444
22-Mar-2007, 13:29
There's a lot of photogs (here even) that are selling off their LF and explicitly stating they are going digital. I don't think it's because digital can match the quality, but rather the client demand for instantaneous results at the cost of the higher quality. That leaves the LF market pretty much confined to fine art photogs, hobbyists, etc. The professionals that are switching over may not be happy about it, but they're doing it 'cause they have to.

--A

Glenn Thoreson
22-Mar-2007, 13:32
That's strange. Most information I've come across lately seems to indicate large format is gaining popularity. Used camera prices have been increasing, which also seems to bear this out. I read a post somewhere the other day from someone who had a conversation with a Kodak executive, who said film sales are on the increase. Could it be a local thing? Perhaps home processing is biting into it? I hope it's not decreasing.

Gene McCluney
22-Mar-2007, 13:32
My consumption of LF film has not declined in my business, and my hobby consumption has gone up dramatically.

Eric Leppanen
22-Mar-2007, 13:40
Film has largely become the domain of hobbyists, students, and niche pro applications.

The feedback I have been getting here in L.A. has been that professional C-41 is dead (replaced by DSLR's and MF digital backs), E-6 roll-film and 4x5 is holding on at a low level (a few remaining pro applications, students and hobbyists), and 8x10 is almost entirely a B&W format. That being said, all the remaining E-6 labs have 8x10 hangers (unlike 5x7, which is harder to find), so I still have multiple options for getting my 8x10 E-6 processed.

DSLR's lack the quality of 4x5, but for most pro applications (as well as most stock photography) DSLR quality is "good enough." Fashion and studio photographers are using MF digital backs (when film stock and processing costs are compared, MF digital backs can be quite cost-effective for many studios), wedding photographers are using high-end DSLR's ("good enough" compared to their old Hasselblads), art reproduction folks are using digital scanning backs, and many of the local architectural photographers I know get by with Canons and shift lenses.

LF is becoming the domain of a few niche retailers, as is film in general.

Ron Marshall
22-Mar-2007, 13:43
I just dont understand what the substitute is for LF, ULF film. The MF digital backs are stupid expensive and the scanning backs have very limited application.

Why is LF on the decline without any clear replacement?

George

A Pro with a heavy workload can recoup the cost of a MFDB fairly quickly in savings on film, processing and scanning. They may also not have a choice if their clients demand digital caputure.

The main advantage of LF is that large size high quality reproductions are possible. But for many applications, a 39mp MFDB will generate suitable quality.

Ralph Barker
22-Mar-2007, 13:44
I think the LF market is too complex for one dealer in Tempe to be representative of the whole market. One would need to examine the demographics of his customer base, and then compare that to other areas to arrive at useful conclusions. It could be that his demographic has shifted, or maybe people just don't like him or his services anymore.

The shift to digital for much of the commercial segment started several years ago. So, depending on his demographic, he should have already seen that. At 2,000 rolls/day for processing, I'd guess that he's either doing a lot of consumer processing (which might be going to Walmart now), or a lot of weddings, which is even more strongly digital.

Gordon Moat
22-Mar-2007, 14:03
I think it might be more regional. Apparantly B&H and Adorama are experiencing a growth in film sales. Perhaps these large retailers are replacing some local businesses.

At the small local lab I use in San Diego, there amount of processing has increased for large format and medium format, though has been reduced for 35mm. Some of this might be that a condominium replaced one of their competitors a couple years ago. When I am in Houston, the choices of places to buy film has diminished a little in the last several years.

I think the only definitive statistics would be from Fuji and Kodak. Unfortunately neither company seems to be interested in breaking down film sales by type of film, though both report reductions in overall film sales in the last few years. It also appears that the huge drops are stabilizing, though it would be impossible to predict what might be a bottoming out of demand, or how that might affect supply.

Being on the cutting edge of digital capture means a business plan of replacing most of your gear in 18 to 36 month cycles. We can easily expect 18 to 36 months more of any film we could purchase today, and some lab somewhere willing to process it. Trying to bas decisions beyond 36 months might be a hard target to hit, and not something that influences what I am doing today.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Bill Koechling
22-Mar-2007, 14:28
A Pro with a heavy workload can recoup the cost of a MFDB fairly quickly in savings on film, processing and scanning.

Ron,

Whether I'm shooting film or digitally, my CLIENTS pay for my materials & processing costs. So recouping the cost of equipment is more a factor of setting my rates or increasing my workload than anything else.

Bill Koechling
www.koechlingphoto.com

Bill Koechling
22-Mar-2007, 15:09
Consumer sales is what drives the retail photo market. It always has. If film sales are dropping it is not because of professionals making the switch.

I like where I am right now as a professional. I have more tools at my disposal than I know what to do with. If I can't shoot a wonderful photo it has precious little to do with tools and materials that are available for me.

It's nice to take a look at National Geographic and know that there are many tools used each month in shooting those stories. Eveything from film-based Leicas to digital slrs to large-format film-based view cameras have been used in just the last two issues. The tools are there to do anything we need. And that includes film...for now.

Bill Koechling
www.koechlingphoto.com

Bill Koechling
22-Mar-2007, 15:42
Consumer sales is what drives the retail photo market. It always has.
Bill Koechling
www.koechlingphoto.com

Well, I'll contradict myself before someone else has a chance to. While what I said may be true concerning 35mm film it may not be true for LF.

Nearly all of my work is driven by a client that is in a hurry. Digital serves that too well for me to ignore. Also, the quality of many of today's digital cameras are excellent. It has clearly replaced 35mm.

My LF clients, a niche that I am trying to grow, are not in as much of a hurry. They like my LF B&W stuff.

I purchase way less LF film than I did in years past because my clients don't require it. There are precious few labs who will process it (E-6) any more. In years past the lab's driver would pick up & deliver 2-3 times per day if I requested it. My clients simply don't want to pay for it in time or money.

Bill

George Kara
22-Mar-2007, 16:05
From what the owner said, There are alot of pro Europeans that evidently come to the valley (Phoenix metro area) to do their catalog shoots int the winter. There used to be full Palette purchases by some of these groups to the tune of $ 19+k a purchase in film.

I have also heard that films sales are up in the cinema related hd part of the business. As of yet film is still an economically viable method for hd.

Phoenix use to have one of the major fuji processing labs that has been shut down for economic reasons.

Wayne Crider
22-Mar-2007, 17:22
Tempe camera, as others here know, is right down the street from Arizona State University. This is not to say that there is not a significant customer base from pro's or advanced amateurs in town, but with probably what, 20K kids right down the street, I would have to suspect that the demographic is a significant part of the information revealed. Also, as a Tempe customer whenever I'm in town, I prefer to order my film from B&H and take it with me. The prices are much cheaper and Tempe ain't no cut rate retailer.

Brian Ellis
22-Mar-2007, 21:43
"That's strange. Most information I've come across lately seems to indicate large format is gaining popularity."

It's entirely possible that LF is gaining in popularity (i.e. more people using it or at least trying it) while LF film sales decline. The reason has to do with the types of users. Pros generally used much more film than amateurs. So if the pros switch to digital as they seem to have done, and if the new LF photographers are amateurs, film sales could decline while number of LF photographers goes up. I'm not saying that's the case, I don't know. I'm just pointing out that the two ideas - declining film sales, increasing # of LF photographers - aren't inherently incompatible.

roteague
22-Mar-2007, 22:08
Anyhow he stated that his film sales are down 90%!!! from Last year!

Internet, it is how I get all my film.

roteague
22-Mar-2007, 22:11
Nearly all of my work is driven by a client that is in a hurry. Digital serves that too well for me to ignore. Also, the quality of many of today's digital cameras are excellent. It has clearly replaced 35mm.

I wish I could believe that, but everytime I pickup a magazine and see an advertisement or story with blown hightlight, out of focus, lack of sharpness, I question your assertion. It wasn't that way just 10 years ago, when almost everyone shot film.

Kirk Gittings
22-Mar-2007, 22:37
I wish I could believe that, but everytime I pickup a magazine and see an advertisement or story with blown hightlight, out of focus, lack of sharpness, I question your assertion. It wasn't that way just 10 years ago, when almost everyone shot film.

You are both right. But the current problems are not because of digital vs. film. In a sense everything printed now is digital. The problem with magazine reproduction however is not because of digital capture, but digital output. I have more control of the highlights and the dynamic range in general than I ever had with transparency film. The problem is that files are being prepared poorly for reproduction. In the past this was done by prepress professionals. Now it is done by photographers and art directors who are doing it by the seat of their pants. Regardless of whether you shoot film or digital you usually have to supply files to clients these days, and oftentimes you have to do the press preparation on the files. This is a huge PITA and even after doing this for a few years, I am still mediocre at it even when I have profiles from the printer, because press preparation was and still should be the province of experienced pre press professionals.

roteague
22-Mar-2007, 22:54
You are both right. But the current problems are not because of digital vs. film.

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain out of focus images, blown highlights, etc. Look at the most recent issue of Outdoor Photography (UK) for example; there is an ad on the back page by Lowepro. It may not be the sensor that caused these problems, but it is the attitude caused by a wholesale abandonment of film. IMO

adrian tyler
22-Mar-2007, 23:57
the processing labs here in madrid have died, last year the vultures were circling, this year they have decended. i had to make my last film order to the states. i am thinking seriously about including digital capture in my projects.

also an iteresting discussion:

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/medium-format-digital/72650-does-anyone-shoot-mf-film-anymore.html

j.e.simmons
23-Mar-2007, 05:10
The main photo store here in Jacksonville carries almost nothing film-wise anymore. The pros who formerly shot 120 have switched to digital, as have the camera club and other hobby folks. I have inquired about ordering LF film, paper, etc. - they pull out the catalogs and quote prices that are fully 40% higher than what I can buy from Freestyle or B&H. I'd pay a bit more just to help keep them in business, but that's absurd. So, I buy from the Internet, and the shop continues to think there's no market for LF.
juan

Kirk Gittings
23-Mar-2007, 05:19
Robert,

Unfortunately, the only way forward with magazines is to work with them and not lament the old days. I have a meeting set up next week with my main magazine client, because of similar issues that I want to solve. We as photographers have to be much more knowledgeable, proactive and involved in reproduction than we ever used to.

David A. Goldfarb
23-Mar-2007, 05:38
I spoke with a representative from FS Distributing at PMA, which is Freestyle's wholesale distribution division for Foma, Slavich, Rollei film, Kentmere, and Efke, and he said they've been opening many of their new accounts in university bookstores, rather than in camera shops.

evan clarke
23-Mar-2007, 05:57
I must qualify myself by saying I will never use anything but film because I just enjoy it,I had a huge digital arsenal and have sold it all....Film is winning little bitty skirmishes but losing the war badly. Go take a look at the old news article which was floating around last year, "Ten reasons why steam locomotives will never die"...EC

Brian Ellis
23-Mar-2007, 08:09
"Perhaps, but that doesn't explain out of focus images, blown highlights, etc. Look at the most recent issue of Outdoor Photography (UK) for example"

We know for 100% certain that digital cameras are perfectly capable of producing photographs that are in focus, that don't have blown out hightlights, etc. So when you see an out of focus photograph or one with blown out highights, why would you blame the equipment instead of the photographer or the person making the reproduction?

When I taught Beginning Photography my students often produced photographs that were out of focus and had blown out highlights (or blocked up shadows or underexposed negatives or totally clear negatives because they developed the film in the fix, or you name it). It would never have occurred to me to blame film or darkrooms for these problems. So I don't blame digital equipment when I see similar problems in photographs made digitally.

Marko
23-Mar-2007, 09:00
Perhaps, but that doesn't explain out of focus images, blown highlights, etc. Look at the most recent issue of Outdoor Photography (UK) for example


We know for 100% certain that digital cameras are perfectly capable of producing photographs that are in focus, that don't have blown out hightlights, etc. So when you see an out of focus photograph or one with blown out highights, why would you blame the equipment instead of the photographer or the person making the reproduction?

Because it is such a good-sounding argument that it simply doesn't matter it's false. So good-sounding, in fact, that it gets repeated over and over again, despite being easily refuted each time... ;)

Like here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=213470#post213470) or here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=222459#post222459), to pick only two out of quite a few...

:rolleyes:

David Luttmann
23-Mar-2007, 09:04
"Perhaps, but that doesn't explain out of focus images, blown highlights, etc. Look at the most recent issue of Outdoor Photography (UK) for example"

We know for 100% certain that digital cameras are perfectly capable of producing photographs that are in focus, that don't have blown out hightlights, etc. So when you see an out of focus photograph or one with blown out highights, why would you blame the equipment instead of the photographer or the person making the reproduction?

When I taught Beginning Photography my students often produced photographs that were out of focus and had blown out highlights (or blocked up shadows or underexposed negatives or totally clear negatives because they developed the film in the fix, or you name it). It would never have occurred to me to blame film or darkrooms for these problems. So I don't blame digital equipment when I see similar problems in photographs made digitally.


Thanks Brian....you beat me to it. We see these comments quite often. I find it amusing that some people would even use comments like this in a serious discussion. I have seen blown highlights from sheet film that is also out of focus. I guess that means we can't use sheet film either as it has the same problems.

It is no longer a question of "good enough." Considering the size of reproduction in magazines and advertising, sheet film will show absolutely no advantage in terms of dynamic range or detail. I won't argue that there will be advantages on a 50" print.....but not at 24" or less. Those days are gone!

Gene McCluney
23-Mar-2007, 09:09
Local camera stores are interested in "pushing" the merchandise that gives them the quickest turnaround, with the least effort. The big "names" in the digital camera world give comissions directly to sales clerks (called "spiffs") to encourage sales. This works. Now camera stores only stock what is popular. Those of us who use equipment and materials outside the mainstream have for several years used mail order and internet purchases to fulfill our requirements. I live in a small town, one camera store...I have purchased all my film, paper, chemistry, darkroom utensils and so forth from large mail-order vendors for 20 years now. Even when I was forced to add digital to my arsenal (client demands), I purchased the high-end items from mail-order (phone order) vendors far, far away. I would expect that big internet and mail-order vendors for film and paper, such as Freestyle, B&H, etc., are doing OK with LF and ULF film sales, as more and more they are the only options.

ljb0904
23-Mar-2007, 14:11
I bought some quickloads from Tempe mid to late last year, and I'm not surprised their film orders are slowing down. They seem charge 40-50% more than what I can find from B&H, Adorama, Badger, and MPEX. I won't go there anymore. I understand it costs more to have a storefront, but their prices were ridiculous on everything. Same with Sunset photo in Tucson, tho they don't even look like they sell photo gear anymore. I see pawn shops with more camera gear than they have.

That was frustrating for me in trying to get into LF. I had nowhere I felt I could go to try things out. So, thanks to QT and Thalmann for putting the info on the web that they did.

Robert Hughes
23-Mar-2007, 16:58
I buy from the guy at the counter at Penn Camera in Rockville, MD when I'm in a time pinch, but if I've planned ahead I've already ordered from Freestyle, where it's gonna be cheaper. Did Penn Camera lose my business? No, they just don't have all of it, as they may have ten years ago.

Kurt Magnuson
24-Mar-2007, 14:49
Hello,
I use film because I prefer chemistry to electronics. Photoshop holds no interest to me. It is simply my preference, I also prefer oil painting to acrylic, not because it is superior it is just my preference.
The photography school that I rent space from has all of their students at least learn to wet print, but an interesting thing is happening there. The younger students in their twenties have shown a marked interest in continuing work in film. This has increased greatly in the last couple of years.
The problem as I see it is that probably 90% of all people photographing are snap-shooters and probably always have been since film started. For this type of photgraphy digital is perfect, instantly gratifying.
My hope is that there will always be someone willing to make film and paper for a market, even a niche market. If not I will work with a different medium to express myself.

Brian C. Miller
24-Mar-2007, 22:50
I wish I could believe that, but everytime I pickup a magazine and see an advertisement or story with blown hightlight, out of focus, lack of sharpness, I question your assertion.

There is a significant difference between the photographer's quality and the camera's quality.

I was just reading Ken Rockwell's $150-vs-$5000 camera comparison (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm) and how the camera is used makes all the difference. Also, he has some great pictures from a $3 Agfa (the B&W photos) (http://www.kenrockwell.com/dv/index.htm).

I think we need some guerilla-style street exhibitions, along with the kind of camera used for the photo. That might be a useful tool to spark some interest in film photography. $3 vs $150 vs $5000. Hmmm...

David Luttmann
25-Mar-2007, 07:52
There is a significant difference between the photographer's quality and the camera's quality.

I was just reading Ken Rockwell's $150-vs-$5000 camera comparison (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm) and how the camera is used makes all the difference. Also, he has some great pictures from a $3 Agfa (the B&W photos) (http://www.kenrockwell.com/dv/index.htm).

I think we need some guerilla-style street exhibitions, along with the kind of camera used for the photo. That might be a useful tool to spark some interest in film photography. $3 vs $150 vs $5000. Hmmm...

To protect your credibility....I wouldn't go around mentioning Ken Rockwell as a source of information.

kjsphotography
25-Mar-2007, 13:02
As far as I have seen, and yes, I used to own high end digital gear, highlights would blow out. The digital files form any DSLR I have tried had the same or more time than not less latitude than chromes. Unless I would make 2 exposures, 1 for highlights and 1 for shadows, then merge later in Photoshop I was SOL. Not to mention that if the subjects had highlights in it and was of running water or moving objects I was pretty much finished for the day until the sun lowered in the sky and brought the highlights down to a level where the hand held computer imagining device could capture the difference between highlights and shadow or wait until the subject I was seeking become shadowed from the sun.

With BW film I get much more latitude than that and don’t have to worrying about merging two file together and I can get the image I am after with one take.

J D Clark
25-Mar-2007, 13:11
Local camera stores are interested in "pushing" the merchandise that gives them the quickest turnaround, with the least effort. ...


I've all but given up buying anything at the local Calumet store in the San Diego area -- it's about a 30 minute drive for me, and over the last couple of years, it's become a lot less likely that they'll have in stock what I need in film and B&W chemicals.

That, and the fact that I can't get the attention of a sales person if I have $50 of chemicals in my hands when they're trying to sell a $$$ digital to a walk in. I've tried to make the point that I spend a couple thousand on film, paper, and chemicals a year, and I'd spend it *all* with them, if they had what I need every time I walk in (the list isn't that long). But they're answer is that they'd be happy to order it for me -- which I can do myself online more quickly, and save myself an hour of driving.

I guess this makes me sound a little iritated -- I guess I feel like I'd like to be able to support my local store, but can't because they don't really want my business.

This ties into the original theme of this thread -- if this store provides the same level of service as the place near me, then their decrease in film sales may be reflective of their service to the customer as much as what the service they are providing to those customers.

John Clark

jonsmith
26-Mar-2007, 12:25
if portrait studios switch over to digital, that might have been a large part of the market. Once that's done, art photographers should keep the demand stable. Don't quit!

Clay Turtle
4-Mar-2008, 06:40
Yes , it is very evident to me that digital savvy has lead to a general decline in the quality of photography. Called a local shop that still is suppling film, got somebody who didn't know film at all? Asked about some 35mm slide film, was told all they had was some tungsten-biased film. I thought for a minute then asked what was the ASA. Answer, I will have to look it up so I said wait what is the name of the film? Don't ask me why I did this just a sudden feeling. Oh, we have Provia & Velvia & . . . I stopped them at this point & returned to the original question 'what was the ASA?' Oh, it is ASA . . . & it is daylight film! Yes, I know I will be over later to pick up a roll.
I worked in film processing myself so can remember doing things like rolling processed 35mm color film onto a reel in order to wash it & we always kept a bottle of scratch coat by the printer as well as film cleaning fluid. If a print came out bad because the negative was dirty or scratched, we were to do these things then rerun the print. It came under the heading of customer service . . . seems most processing people think 'cleaning up the negative (positive) means you run the function on the machine or maybe if they have a static cleaner they may do that much.

CG
4-Mar-2008, 18:45
...because they don't really want my business....John Clark

I suspect they do want the business, but can't come close to the pricing and availability of the internet, and also are getting too many employees who wouldn't know which end of a Distagon is the front. Even when film was king, the ignorance of some people in the stores was amazing, and it hasn't got better.

C

cyrus
4-Mar-2008, 19:50
A consolidation is to be expected as the market contracts.

(Whoa! I sound like the head of the Fed!)

The internet and availability of next-day delivery already places significant negative pressure on smaller retailers and distributors. Range of choices in film will also fall.

The end result will be a fewer outlets that sell the majority of film - Freestyle, BH, Adorama etc.

However, Hegel tells us that everything contains the seeds of its own destruction. As digital photography becomes more popular, a certain percentage of the shutterbugs will delve into traditional photography too, so that the hobby/artist class of users will probably increase. More demand for alternative processes too.

Can this sustain the market so that basic materials (BW film, chemicals) remain available? Probably. Just less choice range and higher prices.

Technology has an inevitable backlash. Why do you think people still spend money on analog watches?