- 16 -
in the years in issue because they sold a considerable portion of
their “analog” equipment while upgrading to newer, digital
technology. Petitioners claim that their losses are further
justified by the difficult economic conditions which plagued
large “analog” photography businesses, such as Eastman-Kodak, as
more consumers switched from “analog” to digital photography.
We do not find credence in petitioners’ arguments. First,
petitioners do not claim to be engaged in the business of selling
photography equipment but, rather, taking photographs. Second,
although we acknowledge the phenomenal growth in digital
photography throughout the past decade, petitioners were not in
the business of developing other people’s photographs.
Petitioners purported to be professional photographers. The
effect of the digital photography boom on businesses such as
Eastman-Kodak resulted from consumers’ choosing to develop their
photographs at home rather than use traditional film developing
services. It did not affect the demand for quality professional
photography services for the very types of portraiture and event
coverage which petitioners claimed was their focus; namely,
weddings, corporate prints, and senior portraits. Similarly, the
boom in home developing did not affect the specialized services
that are often the hallmark of professional photographers, such
as portrait sittings, albums, restorations, DVDs, and videos.
Again, while the phenomenon of digital photography has made home
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007