It would be at least mildly interesting to have the numbers of the
years leading up to 2003, too, though. What I mean to say is that if
2003 was a particularly good year for film processing, then obviously
you might have expected the volume to drop a bit in 2004 and 2005
even without digital.
Up until 2003, film processing had been steadily increasing, rates of
increase anywhere from 8-14 % per year, until 2003, which is where
things peaked off.
OK... The question is (again) of course whether it would have continued
increasing without the advent of digital, or if you should perhaps
instead compare with the levels of, say, 2000 or 2001. That's very hard
to tell, of course...
We were expecting volumes to drop because of the penetration of
digital into the marketplace.
And what now? Do you expect an upswing on the printing at least? I mean,
as a result of more people accidentally deleting one file too many, or
finding out that they should in any case do something more with their
pictures than having them buried somewhere deep down in a folder on
their computer?
BTW, last September I was informed by the local(ish) large Kodak lab
that my film&prints would be delivered a bit late because they had an
unprecedented amount of work (but some of it may have been digital
prints.) About a month later, they announced in the newspapers that
they would be closing down the lab in January. Weird...
A couple of people calling in sick for a few shifts will somethimes
cause that too.
Yes, but I was talking about Kodak's own lab - the only one they had in
this country, I think - which was a major operation, so I think it would
have had to be more than a couple...
- Toralf
