Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost
From: ljkapner at cox.net (Leonard J Kapner)
Date: Wed Jul 14 08:30:14 2004

B.D.

In the "other" world of industrial and medical imaging, large quantities of
photo-sensitive film products are still being consumed at fairly high rates.


Think about all the dentists with their x-ray devices, and the family
practice physicians who operate chest machines and three-minute darkroom
processors. Those devices were expensive to acquire but are now depreciated,
and function very cost-effectively for the specific purposes intended. They
are not about to be replaced wholesale for marginal ease-of-use advantages.
As making film is process-oriented, keeping the lines running efficiently,
regardless of the chemistry permutations, is what good manufacturing in this
segment is all about.

While the consumer markets' profitability might well recede as quantities
diminish, the need to maintain brand positioning will most likely keep the
Fuji and Kodak photography film businesses in the game until the digital
dust settles enough to allow the strategic planners to assess the changed
landscape and place their bets.

In the photo biz, consumer photographic film might well be the tail of the
industrial-commercial profit dog. As you know, the tail wags the dog only
under very unusual circumstances...

Len

--

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+ljkapner=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D.
Colen
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:37 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost

Ah, but Karen, if a company such as Kodak is already producing film for
all the 35 mm and 120 cameras, and they have the infrastructure to use
the same raw materials to churn out whatever amount of 4x5, 5x7, and
8x10 film is called for, there's no problem; they may even keep
producing it as a loss-leader to show that they are a full-service film
manufacturer. But what happens when the 35 mm operation itself is no
longer worth their time and investment? I'm not suggesting that that
point will come today or tomorrow, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised
to see the number of film choices decline sharply over the next five
years. And then what?
B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Karen Nakamura
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:22 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost


>Maybe the % of non-pro photographers that shoot 120 or 220 (or even 
>35mm) and that take photography seriously (as opposed to 
>family-holidays-... point and shooters) is a bit too small to keep the 
>traditonal film factories turning?

Considering that 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 sheet film is still available, I 
don't think we have anything seriously to worry about for the next 
5-10 years. Talk about a small market.

Karen


-- 
Karen Nakamura
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)