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

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.


--
.... 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)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
: 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.

--




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

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

David Nebenzahl wrote:
: 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.

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 **** 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.


--
.... 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)

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

: David Nebenzahl wrote:
: : 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.
:
: 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 **** 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.

--




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

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

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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

: 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 **** 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.

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?)


--
.... 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)

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

: David Nebenzahl wrote:
:
: : On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
:
: : 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 **** 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.

: 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.

--




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

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.


--
.... 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)

In article ,
says...


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.


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

David Nebenzahl wrote:
: 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.

--




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

In article 1129757804.3b89f67b13378086d5b3933e4f040474@teran ews,
David Nebenzahl writes:

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.)

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