How is Ilford's health?

[cgw]

Ilford are doing a right roaring trade.

Everyone knows they make A class film, and will continue to do so.

I think film died for a while a couple of years after digital came around, but film seems to be booming at the moment.

EDIT - I live about 15 minutes from Ilford in Mobberley and I always smile when I drive past.

Please quantify "booming." Wish it was true but...

http://www.krlretirees.com/News_Items/20120901_US_Film_and_Camera_Sales_1995-2012_-_PMA.pdf


Yet another article about the decline of film

Sorry, your pmanewsline link is 2 full years out of date, and with the amount of film cameras already on the market it's amazing that any new ones are being sold at all.

And you're seeing a roaring counter-trend that invalidates their data on film camera and film sales?

 

[cgw]

Ilford are doing a right roaring trade.

Everyone knows they make A class film, and will continue to do so.

I think film died for a while a couple of years after digital came around, but film seems to be booming at the moment.

EDIT - I live about 15 minutes from Ilford in Mobberley and I always smile when I drive past.

Please quantify "booming." Wish it was true but...

http://www.krlretirees.com/News_Items/20120901_US_Film_and_Camera_Sales_1995-2012_-_PMA.pdf


Yet another article about the decline of film

Everywhere I go I see people rocking film cameras, the pound shops near me are selling it by the tonne, all these hipsters are lapping up film, places light firstcallphotographic in the UK are making millions from selling everything to do with film.

The second hand camera shops in manchester are selling SLRS/Rangefinders quicker than they can get them in, ebay has 1000's of films/cameras/developing tools.

Film is cool right now. I think that will continue for a while to come.

Problem is, none of this nano-trend in film use is doing anything to even begin to reverse the slide in demand for film. Funny but I see far more people rocking iPhones and other smartphones than old Nikon or Pentax SLRs. "Peak" film was around 1999 and has done nothing but decline since. Film is cool for a statistically insignificant sliver of the photo market.

 

[amolitor]

I don't understand.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't an increase in demand for film at all? Because that's silly.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't pushing film back up to the peak demand leves in the last century? Because that's obvious.

Of course the market for film has shrunk. Of course it's a tiny fraction of the film market. It's also a tiny fraction of the GDP as well, so what? The market for unicycles is also quite small, and yet, they keep making them. The actual question is whether the market is:

1) large enough to support a viable number of manufacturers
2) stable enough to continue to support them

 

[cgw]

I don't understand.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't an increase in demand for film at all? Because that's silly.

Are you saying that a small increase in demand for film isn't pushing film back up to the peak demand leves in the last century? Because that's obvious.

Of course the market for film has shrunk. Of course it's a tiny fraction of the film market. It's also a tiny fraction of the GDP as well, so what? The market for unicycles is also quite small, and yet, they keep making them. The actual question is whether the market is:

1) large enough to support a viable number of manufacturers
2) stable enough to continue to support them

Show me the "increase" in demand, please. You really need to look at the PMA figures for film sales from 1999 to 2010 to gain an idea how huge the decline was. What's "obvious" is that the PMA estimated that 1 billion rolls of film were sold in 1999; by 2010, that had declined to 20 million and I doubt there's been much to slow the decline--much less reverse it. The issue is demand. Both Kodak and Fuji have narrowed their product lines. What accounts for the collapse of labs across N. America?

 

[amolitor]

I don't have any market figures, I assumed you did. You described it as a "nano-trend in film use" which sounded like an uptick to me, but possibly I misinterpreted your remark. Regardess, you allow that more people are using film these days, I'm not sure how that squares with a "but film usage is still dropping off" conclusion. Possibly you do not allow as more people are using film these days, though.

I did look at the film sales figures. I even plotted them. It's flattening out pretty aggressively by 2012, it's would not take much of a fad to push the derivative into positive territory.

 

[cgw]

I don't have any market figures, I assumed you did. You described it as a "nano-trend in film use" which sounded like an uptick to me, but possibly I misinterpreted your remark. Regardess, you allow that more people are using film these days, I'm not sure how that squares with a "but film usage is still dropping off" conclusion. Possibly you do not allow as more people are using film these days, though.

I did look at the film sales figures. I even plotted them. It's flattening out pretty aggressively by 2012, it's would not take much of a fad to push the derivative into positive territory.

"Nano" as in exceedingly small, too small to matter in this case. "More" people using film? C'mon, compared to when? Based on what? The reason demand for film tanked is that people stopped buying it, OK? Where's the confusion? Please consider the magnitude of difference between one billion and 20 million and then tell me that any measurable movement from the bottom of your chart upwards(based on what data, please?)will have any effect.

Sorry but the film 'revival' is mostly fabulism.

 

[amolitor]

The billion number is irrelevant. What matters is the 15 million number we're seeing in 2012, in terms of going forward.

You seem to be holding several conflicting opinions. Is there or is there not a trend toward using film? You want, apparently, to acknowledge that there is some increased uptake, and yet to also claim that film sales are continuing to trend downward, without any supporting data either way. Either there IS a trend, nano or otherwise, toward increased usage, or there IS NOT. I don't know which one it is, and I don't much care, but I do know they cannot simultaneously be true. As a former mathematician, I am having trouble understanding what your mental model of film sales over the last 12 months could possibly look like. But you know, that's ok. I don't need to understand it.

Anyways. I don't actually care about whether derivatives are positive or negative. I just care whether Ilford has a viable business model going forward or not. I rather hope it does!

 

[gsgary]

I think film use is much bigger in the UK, i have got more than 20 places i can get a roll of colour film developed within 20 miles and at least 5 within 5 miles and 2 within walking distance

 

[cgw]

The billion number is irrelevant. What matters is the 15 million number we're seeing in 2012, in terms of going forward.

You seem to be holding several conflicting opinions. Is there or is there not a trend toward using film? You want, apparently, to acknowledge that there is some increased uptake, and yet to also claim that film sales are continuing to trend downward, without any supporting data either way. Either there IS a trend, nano or otherwise, toward increased usage, or there IS NOT. I don't know which one it is, and I don't much care, but I do know they cannot simultaneously be true. As a former mathematician, I am having trouble understanding what your mental model of film sales over the last 12 months could possibly look like. But you know, that's ok. I don't need to understand it.

Anyways. I don't actually care about whether derivatives are positive or negative. I just care whether Ilford has a viable business model going forward or not. I rather hope it does!

Tell me what a secular trend is, OK? With respect, anyone claiming to be numerate who can't/won't recognize the difference for a manufacturer between 1 billion and <20 million units of output isn't really engaged. 'Nano-trend' is a sarcastic usage to describe something exceedingly small and, I'd argue, meaningless for a company like Kodak. Do show me 2012 production data for film, since higher prices make sales figures a poor measure of actual consumption.

Ilford is right-sized, innovative and flexible in the face of collapsed demand. They'll be around because they are.

 

[amolitor]

What? What on earth are you on about?

Nobody is suggesting that we're going to return to 1999. The only question on the table is whether there's a bottom or if it drops to zero. The big numbers are irrelevant. Being able to describe it as a "secular trend" isn't interesting or relevant, and smells a bit like someone trying to sound smart. We're in long-tail territory here, the hump of the demand curve is long gone (not very long in years, but we're on digital time now, the hump was an eternity and a half ago).

The shape of the tail is all anyone ought to be worrying about today.

ETA: And with that, ugh. I'm out. I hate myself when I get drawn into stupid **** like this.

 

[cgw]

What? What on earth are you on about?

Nobody is suggesting that we're going to return to 1999. The only question on the table is whether there's a bottom or if it drops to zero. The big numbers are irrelevant. Being able to describe it as a "secular trend" isn't interesting or relevant, and smells a bit like someone trying to sound smart. We're in long-tail territory here, the hump of the demand curve is long gone (not very long in years, but we're on digital time now, the hump was an eternity and a half ago).

The shape of the tail is all anyone ought to be worrying about today.

ETA: And with that, ugh. I'm out. I hate myself when I get drawn into stupid **** like this.

You'll probably get more support over at APUG where many never did get why Kodak hit the rocks in early 2012 and where genuine fact-free "stupid @&%!" discussion on this topic runs waist-deep. You can ignore the "big numbers"(demand?) but film manufacturers, labs, and retailers didn't over the last decade.

 

[compur]

You'll probably get more support over at APUG where many never did get why Kodak hit the rocks in early 2012 and where genuine fact-free "stupid @&%!" discussion on this topic runs waist-deep. You can ignore the "big numbers"(demand?) but film manufacturers, labs, and retailers didn't over the last decade.

Dear cgw,
The gym called. You left your T-shirt in the locker room again.

 

[unpopular]

I think they have the particle physics market nailed.

 

[table1349]

Is Ilford thriving or just getting by and following in the steps of Kodak?

Last I heard Ilford had a sever cold and a touch of bronchitis, but was expected to recover nicely.

 

[unpopular]

of course one key difference between ilford and kodak is that their digital media doesn't suck. Kodak made a major wrong turn in the late 1990's with dye sub, and really that is what ended up killing them.

Mind you though, Kodak still makes high end sensors, and pretty much owns that market.

ETA: I guess as it turns out even the sensors are now being made by a spinoff called Truesense. Audios Kodak...