Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

David Nebenzahl - 19 Oct 2005 22:36 GMT

Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints
today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography.

What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy
and convenient" as regular film.

Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy.

Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the
number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find
my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Signature

... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
"I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."

(Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)

Reply to this Message

Frank Pittel - 20 Oct 2005 00:43 GMT

: Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints
: today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography.

: What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy
: and convenient" as regular film.

: Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy.

: Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the
: number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find
: my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film.

: Discuss amongst yourselves.

It could mean that digital camera sales are starting to slump. As to "fast, easy
and convenient" you have to admit that there isn't much to using a disposible camera
or one of the newer P&Ss. With a disposible you don't even have to load the film and
for snap shot photography they do a good job.

In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography.
I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards.

Signature

-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Reply to this Message

David Nebenzahl - 20 Oct 2005 01:14 GMT

On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

> : Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints
> : today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography.
> I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards.

But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe &
Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some
tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives
much of a sh.t how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're
interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves.

It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Frank Pittel - 20 Oct 2005 02:00 GMT

: On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

: > : Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints
: > : today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
: > In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography.
: > I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards.

: But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe &
: Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some
: tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives
: much of a sh.t how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're
: interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves.

: It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid.

I'm not sure if you actually believe this or just going of on a scarpitti tangent.
If however you do actually believe your above comments you may want to consider going
to a local college and sign up for an "intro to business" class. Do you honestly believe
that Kodak will continue or discontinue the manufacter of Tmax based on the sales of
their disposible cameras?? The long term survival of Tmax film is based on the sales of
Tmax film and it's profitablity.

As to Kodak and other manufacturers of film (as well as paper and chemistry) caring about
what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about
what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use.

Signature

-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Reply to this Message

David Nebenzahl - 20 Oct 2005 04:57 GMT

On 10/19/2005 6:00 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

> : On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about
> what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use.

You're missing the point. There are thousands of you out there (that is, users
of what Kodak calls "professional" products, like TMax film, sheet film, etc.

There are *millions* of "non-professional" consumers. Which group do you think
Kodak pays more attention to? (Hint: which group does Kodak *have to* pay more
attention to?)

Signature

Reply to this Message

Frank Pittel - 20 Oct 2005 05:42 GMT

: On 10/19/2005 6:00 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

: >
: > : On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
: > what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about
: > what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use.

: You're missing the point. There are thousands of you out there (that is, users
: of what Kodak calls "professional" products, like TMax film, sheet film, etc.

: There are *millions* of "non-professional" consumers. Which group do you think
: Kodak pays more attention to? (Hint: which group does Kodak *have to* pay more
: attention to?)

The problem that you're having is that you think there's significant overlap between
the users of "professional" and "consumer" grade products. A drop in sales of disposable
cameras loaded with "bright" film wouldn't result in a change in the sale of Tmax-100.

The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip.
Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other.
The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival
of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of
business then it all goes away.

Signature

-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Reply to this Message

David Nebenzahl - 20 Oct 2005 05:57 GMT

On 10/19/2005 9:42 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

> The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip.
> Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other.
> The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival
> of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of
> business then it all goes away.

Right--that's the point. Or it all goes away if Kodak decides to get out of
the film business altogether(as opposed to the digital photo business). So the
two markets *are* "joined at the hip" in this way.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Frank Pittel - 20 Oct 2005 07:28 GMT

: On 10/19/2005 9:42 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

: > The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip.
: > Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other.
: > The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival
: > of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of
: > business then it all goes away.

: Right--that's the point. Or it all goes away if Kodak decides to get out of
: the film business altogether(as opposed to the digital photo business). So the
: two markets *are* "joined at the hip" in this way.

The only reason Kodak would stop making film or film products is if it becomes unprofitable to do so.
Since Kodak has publically anounced that thier film division was the cash cow funding their research
in digital there's no reason to think that they will stop making film anytime soon. Emulsions may be
discontinued but film will remain.

Signature

-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Reply to this Message

Stewy - 05 Nov 2005 03:22 GMT

> : On 10/19/2005 9:42 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> soon. Emulsions may be
> discontinued but film will remain.

Digital v Film.

This argument will go on forever.
Only REAL photographers use film, casual snappers use disposables or
digitals. Is this the idea?

Kodak makes big profits on selling film and paper. It's digital division
doesn't seem to do much - look at Fuji - they went into digital in a big
way and sales soared - they were always going to lose out to Kodak for
film and paper so why not change?

The moment film becomes unprofitable, prices will rise and hasten the
switch to digital but there will a market for film for many years to
come - you can get anything if you're willing to pay the price.
Look at Betamax - pro newsreporters still use beta so Sony and Panasonic
will continue to sell it.

Reply to this Message

Joshua Putnam - 20 Oct 2005 06:12 GMT

> The problem that you're having is that you think there's significant overlap between
> the users of "professional" and "consumer" grade products. A drop in sales of disposable
> cameras loaded with "bright" film wouldn't result in a change in the sale of Tmax-100.

There's a huge overlap in the products themselves: the only major
difference between them is the emulsion.

Every roll of consumer-grade film and every disposable camera helps
spread the cost of making film cannisters, cartridges, and base
stock; the cost of making machines to slit and perforate and spool
the film; the cost of producing photographic-grade gelatine, etc.

Eliminating consumer sales might not influence professional demand
for TMAX, but it would certainly influence the cost of production,
which influences retail price, which influences sales.

Signature

josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

Reply to this Message

Gregory Blank - 24 Oct 2005 23:43 GMT

> It could mean that digital camera sales are starting to slump. As to "fast,
> easy
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> photography.
> I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards.

I was shooting a wedding on Saturday, almost every single person there
had a camera or was borrowing one. Lots of table cameras and lots of
digital P&S's. They really were a picture crowd. The nice thing is that
picture people seem to appreciate the work I put into doing the
photography more so than the luke warm people that are almost afraid to
pose.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Reply to this Message

David Nebenzahl - 26 Oct 2005 00:10 GMT

On 10/24/2005 3:43 PM Gregory Blank spake thus:

>> It could mean that digital camera sales are starting to slump. As to "fast,
>> easy
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I was shooting a wedding on Saturday, almost every single person there
> had a camera or was borrowing one. Lots of table cameras ...

Let me guess: these were all one-shot disposables, right? Film wins again.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Rod Smith - 20 Oct 2005 07:36 GMT

> And judging by the
> number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find
> my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film.

I wouldn't read too much into that. Most drugstore photo sections handle
both film and digital. It's possible that most of those envelopes were
filled with prints from digital cameras. (I don't know how LIKELY that
scenario is, though.)

Signature

Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Reply to this Message

Justin Thyme - 21 Oct 2005 13:24 GMT

> Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some
> prints today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying
> to find my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film.

Hard to tell from photo envelopes whether they are prints from film or
prints from digital. If it is a Fuji store they most likely do both. I
occassionally work in a digital only lab that is putting through several
thousand digital prints per day. A friend of mine works in a lab that does
both film and digital - they have seen a slight drop in the amount of film
they are printing, but their digital has increased significantly.
Essentially they are doing more prints than they ever have done. I have
also noticed at the lab I work at, that a significant number of customers
come in to print 200-500 prints at a time - and then you'll see them again
next month with a similar volume. The point is, despite the hype about
digital costing less, and it's big benefit being that you only print your
good photos, people are printing more photos than they ever have done. So
for Fuji digital makes good sense, because people shoot more and print more.

> Discuss amongst yourselves.

Reply to this Message