Old 02-05-2019   #41
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Your data is not correct: In 2003 was the film sales record in North America with this 960 million rolls.
The global sales record was in 1999/2000 with 3 billion rolls.
But that is all irrelevant for the current market.
Look for example at the digital camera market: In 2012 more than 121 million cameras sold, in 2018 only 19,5 million cameras. Less than 1/6 only six years after!

So the collapse was even stronger / bigger / faster in the digital camera market than in the film market (the film market was much bigger six years after its record, more than 1/3).
But all these looks in the past are not helpful. What counts is the current and future situation.
3-4 million additional rolls caused by instant film photographers are a significant support for the current market and very welcome.
Ok, but three billion rolls sold per annum at the end of the 20th century only amplifies my point. History is always relevant, but usually difficult to read . . . though perhaps not in this case. The figures on digital camera sales that you provide are part of the story, which is the collapse of the camera market and its uncertain survival. I believe or wish to believe that photography shall survive, but I am still trying to figure out how to present my images in a world awash in trillions of cell phone snapshots and videos. I think the growing tendency toward film on the part of enthusiasts is part of that search.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2019   #42
maigo
Registered User
 
maigo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 292
The Rochester NY Democrat and Chronicle newspaper thought this such high-profile story that they reported it three days later (today) via a Gannet wire story.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2019/02/05/kodak-film-business-sale-kodak-alaris-plans-shed-ektachrome-photo-assets/2776110002/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
---------------------------------
My Flickr Photostream
My Flickr Albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2019   #43
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by maigo View Post
The Rochester NY Democrat and Chronicle newspaper thought this such high-profile story that they reported it three days later (today) via a Gannet wire story.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com...ts/2776110002/
From the article:
Film photography is now an “fine art niche,” rather than a mainstream habit, and Hollywood use of film for movie capture won’t continue forever. Out of the four businesses managed by Kodak Alaris, this one was likely perceived to have the shortest lifespan and is therefore first up for sale, [George Conboy of Brighton Securities] said.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2019   #44
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Your data is not correct: In 2003 was the film sales record in North America with this 960 million rolls.
The global sales record was in 1999/2000 with 3 billion rolls.
But that is all irrelevant for the current market.
Look for example at the digital camera market: In 2012 more than 121 million cameras sold, in 2018 only 19,5 million cameras. Less than 1/6 only six years after!

So the collapse was even stronger / bigger / faster in the digital camera market than in the film market (the film market was much bigger six years after its record, more than 1/3).
But all these looks in the past are not helpful. What counts is the current and future situation.
3-4 million additional rolls caused by instant film photographers are a significant support for the current market and very welcome.
Wrong context. When you include smart phones, the number of digital cameras sold has never been higher than now. Even a casual observation shows that the vast majority of all people use smart phones as cameras.

There has been no collapse in digital photography. None at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #45
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler_101 View Post
Ok, but three billion rolls sold per annum at the end of the 20th century only amplifies my point. History is always relevant, but usually difficult to read . . . though perhaps not in this case. The figures on digital camera sales that you provide are part of the story, which is the collapse of the camera market and its uncertain survival. I believe or wish to believe that photography shall survive, but I am still trying to figure out how to present my images in a world awash in trillions of cell phone snapshots and videos. I think the growing tendency toward film on the part of enthusiasts is part of that search.
Of course photography will survive. All this "photography is dead" is FUD generating and running for clickbait.
Since its invention photography has always been done and enjoyed by enthusiasts and lovers of the medium.There is no reason at all why in the future there should not be any photography enthusiasts anymore.
And this enthusiast market will be served by enough manufacturers, digital and film.
It will be a niche market compared to the smartphone market, but it will remain a huge market in absolute terms.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #46
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveler_101 View Post
From the article:
Film photography is now an “fine art niche,” rather than a mainstream habit, and Hollywood use of film for movie capture won’t continue forever. Out of the four businesses managed by Kodak Alaris, this one was likely perceived to have the shortest lifespan and is therefore first up for sale, [George Conboy of Brighton Securities] said.
A very superficially written article. The author has very little knowledge about the current situation in the photography markets. And he is mixings things up.
The problem at Kodak Alaris is not the film photography market. They have significantly increasing demand for their films as they (and lots of big distributors) have explained.
The problem is that they have huge debts which are still from the offspring after the Kodak chapter 11 process. Because of that the whole company cannot generate enough earnings for their owner, the Kodak Pension Plan (UK).
And because of that in the mid-term the company will go under protection of the national UK pension fund. But to make that possible they first have to sell as much assets as possible to reduce their debts.

The best solution would be if Eastman Kodak would buy back the film and paper distribution from Kodak Alaris. And I am convinced they are the one with whom the current talks are going on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #47
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Wrong context. When you include smart phones, the number of digital cameras sold has never been higher than now.
No.
For us as photo enthusiasts the smartphone market is mostly irrelevant.
For us the the market for photography enthusiasts - digital and film - is relevant.
That are several dozen million of photographers worldwide.

And even if you assume that the Canon CEO will be right with his latest statement that the yearly production of digital enthusiasts cameras will further shrink down to 5-6 million units, that will still be a huge market of over 10 billion bucks revenue p.a. for these cameras and lenses. A big enough market for that we will get all we need.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #48
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
The best solution would be if Eastman Kodak would buy back the film and paper distribution from Kodak Alaris. And I am convinced they are the one with whom the current talks are going on.
Agreed. Still not an ideal solution as Eastman Kodak is in very serious financial trouble, but if they go under, Alaris ceases to have any significance whatsoever.

And the film division of Alaris is for sale for only 34 million dollars! Even my tiny 109 person company would sell for 5 times that amount. It's unreal how little revenue there is in film today. 34 million dollars!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #49
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
No.
For us as photo enthusiasts the smartphone market is mostly irrelevant.
For us the the market for photography enthusiasts - digital and film - is relevant.
That are several dozen million of photographers worldwide.

And even if you assume that the Canon CEO will be right with his latest statement that the yearly production of digital enthusiasts cameras will further shrink down to 5-6 million units, that will still be a huge market of over 10 billion bucks revenue p.a. for these cameras and lenses. A big enough market for that we will get all we need.
You were comparing the collapse in film sales with the collapse in digital camera sales. Film involved everyone, not just enthusiasts. Today film usage only involves enthusiast.

Digital photography is just as mainstream as it always has. Even more so as the developed world now has smart phones too.

There has been no collapse at all in digital photography. The film collapse was real, and the minor resurgence it has seen is due only to enthusiast.

This context was needed in your original post comparing the two.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #50
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
And the film division of Alaris is for sale for only 34 million dollars!
It's only film distribution, not production.
The film production at Eastman Kodak has much more value. From an economic point of view this separate production and distribution is quite bad, because it increases costs. Too much administrational overhead. Better to get all back under one roof.
I therefore agree with all in this thread who have said it would be best if Eastman Kodak gets its film distribution back. Let's hope for the best.

By the way distribution is a low margin business in the whole photo industry, including digital. The margins of digital cameras for the wholesalers and stores are also very low. That is one of the reasons why so many brick and mortar camera stores have closed in the last years. Declining sales and low margins at the same time.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #51
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
@Ted Striker:
You are splitting hairs. The smartphone usage has absolutely no relevance for the topic discussed here, the sale of Kodak Alaris film/paper business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Today film usage only involves enthusiast.
Really? Fujifilm assesses the global market of current instax users at about 40 million people.
All of them enthusiasts? Certainly not.
And here in Germany most of the users of drugstore chain film+development/prints customers aren't real enthusiasts either. Most of them are the normal family/vacation shooters (and yes, of course I know that this situation is different in other countries).

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #52
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,550
"KPP2 that acquired Kodak Alaris from Eastman Kodak for $325 million in 2013."

If it is sold now for ~34 million, pretty bad investment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2019   #53
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
"KPP2 that acquired Kodak Alaris from Eastman Kodak for $325 million in 2013."

If it is sold now for ~34 million, pretty bad investment.
The 34 million is just for the film and paper business. There's much more to Alaris than this. And they didn't pay anything to Eastman Kodak. Instead, they wiped away debt that Kodak owed. Money they never would have seen anyway since Kodak was 100% bankrupt shortly thereafter.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:16.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.