75% of US pros still using film

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Mike Butler

Of course, Kodak is the world's largest supplier of film. Does this mean that's all they do? C'mon, they are not oblivious to the world.

Kodak has always been a great company, and as someone who lived near Rochester for many years, I've known people who worked there. But they're definitely having a hard time making the transition. Their stock is still trading where it was 5 years ago and is only half of what it was in 1999. See the following chart where Kodak is the blue line and Canon is the red line, it tells the whole story: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EK&t...&z=l&q=l&c=caj

They're taking their medicine, but it looks like some difficult years ahead. See the following: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070928/kodak...film.html?.v=1

Even as revenues in its traditional businesses tumble, Kodak is still leaning hard on high-margin film to generate the profits needed to see it through the most painful passage in its 126-year history.
_________

Kodak's work force also is contracting: its global payroll will soon slide to 34,000, half what it was five years ago. In Rochester, there will be fewer than 10,000 employees -- versus 60,400 in 1983.

[Mike Butler]

Yep.

The shift to digital is irreversible now -- Kodak's digital research operations are based at Kodak Park -- but Burley thinks Kodak "wasn't changing fast enough" before the arrival in 2003 of its current chief executive, Antonio Perez.

They need to step it up pronto.

"I think Perez realizes that the company does have a lot to offer and can be successful in this new electronic system of image-making," Burley said. "But dramatic changes are required, and required quickly."

[Richard Alvarez]

KODAK will survive, as they adapt. The question of course, is speed. Can they become 'IBM'??? "International Business Machines" primary business was making adding machines 'back in the day. MECHANICAL adding machines.

I think KODAK will adapt and thrive, but as the articles say, it's a painful process.

[Daniel Ross]

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents...cks_100x80.jpg
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents...rds_100x80.jpg
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents...ies_100x80.jpg

They'll be fine.

The difference, though, is that they don't have a monopoly on the market, as they do with film.

[Leigh Wanstead]

Originally Posted by Rainer Hoffmann

when you spent a hell of a lot of money for a trip to the African bush shooting wildlife.

Hi Rainer,

How much cost involved for a trip to the African bush shooting wildlife?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

[Rainer Hoffmann]

Hi Leigh,

it depends very much on where and how you go. If you go on a four week trip to Botswana and want to have a private guide for the whole time (which is highly recommended for shooting wildlife) it can easily get as expensive as 10-15k$ plus international air fares. But of course you can do a camping trip for much less. However, you won't be able to get to the "wildlife hot spots" then. The Botswana government restricts access to the real interesting places and therefore it's very, very expensive. Alas!

Kenya and Tansania are less expensive but more crowded. Somtimes you have 20 vehicles near a lion sighting. Not very good for photography.

So think twice if you want to make money from wildlife photography. You don't get rich. But it's a lot of fun!

[Leigh Wanstead]

Hi Rainer,

Thanks for the answer.

I can not afford that. Pretty sad.

Regards
Leigh

[Mike Butler]

Never mind get rich! Just clearing costs and not losing a fortune sounds like enough of a problem! OMG!

[Charles Papert]

I would say that 90% of the shows I operate on remain 35mm (and as an indication of the relative budgets, 90% of the jobs I DP are HD...!)

[Peter Phelan]

I would certainly take that Kodak statement with a pinch of salt - 75% ?? I am confident that is certainly not the case here in the UK anyway. As a pro commercial and editorial photog of more than 25 years I have seen many changes over the years and have not shot any film now for the last five of them. Copy artwork onto 4x5 inch trannie was the last to go - at which point I closed my traditional lab facility.

Digital capture has many advantages over film but it's certainly true that post production computer time is now a significant factor. On my commercial location work for example I have found the overall time spent on the assignment to be about the same, but the time split ratio has changed dramatically.

In the past I would have spent a long time shooting Polaroids etc to get the final image on film at the time of shooting. Now I can spend much less time on the actual location shoot, but that time saving is cancelled out by the much longer post production of the raw images.

Digital cameras have a fixed native resolution so any assignment needing really large images - billboard posters for example or automobile advertising stuff etc - could still perhaps benefit from being shot on film since this can then be scanned at very high resolution. However, modern interpolation software does an incredible job of increasing the files generated by digital cameras.

Do I miss the "good ol' days" of film? ... Nope ... not a bit!

Peter

[Leigh Wanstead]

Hi Rainer,

Do you have a website to have a look at your art?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

Originally Posted by Rainer Hoffmann

Hi Leigh,

it depends very much on where and how you go. If you go on a four week trip to Botswana and want to have a private guide for the whole time (which is highly recommended for shooting wildlife) it can easily get as expensive as 10-15k$ plus international air fares. But of course you can do a camping trip for much less. However, you won't be able to get to the "wildlife hot spots" then. The Botswana government restricts access to the real interesting places and therefore it's very, very expensive. Alas!

Kenya and Tansania are less expensive but more crowded. Somtimes you have 20 vehicles near a lion sighting. Not very good for photography.

So think twice if you want to make money from wildlife photography. You don't get rich. But it's a lot of fun!

[Rainer Hoffmann]

Hi Leigh,

yes, we have a website. Since you ask specifically I hope it's ok to post the URL here:

http://www.hoffmann-photography.com

It's not only wildlife, though.

[Leigh Wanstead]

Originally Posted by Rainer Hoffmann

Hi Leigh,

yes, we have a website. Since you ask specifically I hope it's ok to post the URL here:

http://www.hoffmann-photography.com

It's not only wildlife, though.

Wow ;-)

May I ask how you protect yourself from the big cat?

TIA

Regards
Leigh

[Rainer Hoffmann]

Originally Posted by Leigh Wanstead

Wow ;-)
May I ask how you protect yourself from the big cat?
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I'm afraid, we are hijacking this thread, but the big cats are really no big problem. The mosquitoes are! And the "Gentle Giants" can be quite, well, 'un'gentle at times. But that's why I recommend to have a good guide.

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Willard Hill

I think the key to this is that they sent the survey to 40,000 photographers and only 9,000 of them responded. Of that 9,000, 75% still favor film. One could project that had the other 31,000 responded that this pattern would have held true, but perhaps most of those that replied were those who felt threatened by digital and wanted to strike a blow back so as to speak.

Agreed. The survey involves a selective response, made famous by Shere Hite when a ridiculously high number (high 90's) of her audience responded that they had extramarital affairs. Survey methods often neglect to mention the number of surveys conducted and whether the reports an average of those surveys or just one that supports.

Most Kodak "pro" customers would use film since Kodak doesn't have offerings in the DSLR market comparable to Nikon and Canon. If you read the article, there is no single line claiming that 75% of photographers *favor* film .

From the Kodak article:
"75 percent of the 9,000 who responded said they will continue to use film even as they embrace digital imaging."

This is marketing (fancy word for selling) speak for unquantifiable sales, as there is no mention of the volume of film used.