FifthLeaf
amateur
Addendum: I'm more worried about papers and scanners disappearing.
bmattock
Veteran
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
bmattock
Veteran
The bar to entry is higher for film than stamping vinyl records. Forte is gone, Agfa is gone, Lucky is in bankruptcy and on its last legs, etc, etc. There is no ADOX film manufacturing. ADOX (Germany) is Fotoimpex, and their CEO says they get (got) their some of their film from Ilford and some from Efke.
When the last of the biggies closes the doors, the party is over, I believe.
FifthLeaf
amateur
That's so sad to hear. But if those facilities still have a useful life through 2015, I can use film until then and then stock up my freezer. Or just suck it up and learn digital.
Will the movie industry all be using RED by 2015? Or will there still be 35mm movie stock left?
bmattock
Veteran
If what Kodak is signaling the market is correct (and if I have read correctly that this was a signal to the market), then the movie industry has until then to make the switch, or move to Fuji materials entirely. And RED is not the only digital cine business in town, is it? I don't know, I'm not into cine.
And I'm sure there will be 'stock' left for a long time after the last master rolls are made. We're still seeing Agfa film respooled and sold by everybody and his brother, and they've been shuttered for at least a couple years now.
FifthLeaf
amateur
So electronic keyboards, which in a sense simulate a traditional piano, undermine the "human drive for curiosity"? And all the music created with them is neither creative nor original?
Just because your preferred medium is dying doesn't make its successor worthless. I bet painters were saying similar things about photography 100 years ago. Or silent film actors about soundies. Or black and white photographers about color. And so on.
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
I don't know, Kodak was making roll film in 1900, it's not like they need quantum supercomputers to do it.
If the big companies quit film, I'm sure some guy will start making it in his basement.
bmattock
Veteran
Actually, you are quite correct. I collect and read old photography magazines and journals, and I study the history of photography. From the very first days of photography, it was decried as soulless, precisely because it was so literal compared to the painter's brush.
The same thing happened when photography entered a new phase - Mister Eastman and others made it possible for dry plates to be replaced by film, and for amateurs to get involved without having an education and basic understanding of chemistry and science. Oh, the clamor! Photography was being murdered by these ruffians! They put this fine art into the hands of the hoi polloi! Madness!
Then the pictorialists were decimated by the straight photography people, and the medium format folks taunted the 35mm camera people - it was called a 'toy camera' and a 'minicam' and was not regarded as being useful for much, and it CERTAINLY would never replace the TLR, and when it started to, well, Good Lord, it's DESTROYING PHOTOGRAPHY!
I have said this before. I never got an answer. I never will. The people who believe that digital is not real photography or that digital has no soul will never recognize themselves in these people.
Here's the fun part. I've got actually letters to editors of photo magazines from people who threatened to never take a photograph again if they were FORCED to use a film camera instead of glass plates. And history repeats itself.
I just laugh. Sure, sure, digital has no soul. Show me the soul part. I want to see it. What? You can't show it to me, you have to feel it? Oh, it's religion, then. Gotcha. Wink, wink. Well, you go pray for me, I'm shooting digital (and film). Gotta keep 'em guessing in heaven.
bmattock
Veteran
No, but they need some really specialized equipment that is very big, and very hard to make, if they're going to make it in commercial volume.
And 100 years ago, they didn't have the EPA telling them what chemicals they could and could not dump into the water and ground.
Show me the guy making Polaroid film in his basement. Come on, trot him out here. I want to see him. I was assured by people who claim to know a lot about business that if there is demand, there will be supply. So show me the guy making the film that fits into the old Polaroid Swingers. Show me the guy making the Polaroid roll film for all those sweet old folders. Where is that guy?
I thought if there was demand, there would ALWAYS be supply?
antiquark
Derek Ross
I hear there's a "Mr. Fuji" in Japan who makes fine instant films:
http://www.hpi.com/photo/instant-film-1/polaroid-and-replacements/
Nothing for your swinger, but perhaps you could replace that with something more modern? I hear polaroid cameras are cheap on eBay these days.
bmattock
Veteran
That's the point. Fuji film doesn't fit in the Swinger, nor does it fit in the majority of Polaorid cameras. There is clearly demand, there is no supply. Fuji has been asked to take over, and has declined to do so. If they won't, who will?
Thus, the old saw 'demand will be met by supply' is disproved.
Telling me about alternatives that don't work isn't meeting the demand.
So now...about this guy who is going to supply the world's 35mm film demand in his basement...
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Well at least we have bmattock to disprove every single notion that is not his own. Talk about supply outstripping demand. Now where is that ignore button?
40oz
...
You are reading that differently than me. I read it as a statement that film is their only real profitable enterprise right now, and might well be their most lucrative field for the next five-plus years. They showed 3rd quarter profits from the digital division, but it's anyone's guess if that is the start of a turnaround or a blip.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It would seem that digital could be Kodak's downfall for the ever increasing need for R&D money to stay current, and no desire of producing anything but a cheap camera. I can't think of a really high end Kodak film camera beyond the 2D View Cameras, and hardly anything one would consider more than a hobbyist camera.
I'd love to see Kodak take a cue from Ilford and concentrate on film & paper and shrink in size. I'll never understand this notion that every company must always grow every year and never consider concentrating on doing something well and settling for a smaller market. But remember, I'm a moron.
I'd love to see Kodak take a cue from Ilford and concentrate on film & paper and shrink in size. I'll never understand this notion that every company must always grow every year and never consider concentrating on doing something well and settling for a smaller market. But remember, I'm a moron.
antiquark
Derek Ross
That's a red herring argument. The fact is, instant film still exists in some form. To say that it doesn't fit your swinger is like saying that digital is dead because you can't buy a memory disk for your Sony Mavica.
I thought the point was, fewer and fewer people would be using film, hence it would be feasible for small companies or individuals to support demand. Sort of like the people who still make buggy whips.
bmattock
Veteran
Not at all. It's like saying disc film is dead because you cannot get disc film for your Kodak disc camera. Which would be true.
The argument which I consistently hear is that demand requires supply to arise to fulfill it. Well, where is the guy making disc film in his basement?
I thought the point was, fewer and fewer people would be using film, hence it would be feasible for small companies or individuals to support demand. Sort of like the people who still make buggy whips.
And I reply that making film is much more complex and controlled by environmental regulations than making buggy whips or making LP records. Complicated to such an extent that a person working in their garage won't be able to do it on a commercial basis.
One gentleman, a retired Kodak engineer, has proven that he can make film in his basement, and he does so - and teaches others. However, it's LF, not 35mm, and it's rudimentary B&W, not Velvia, etc. His operations won't put a roll of 35mm film in your Nikon when Kodak, Fuji, et al, cease making film.
40oz
...
I'm with you. But AFAIK Kodak's digital division manufactures sensors for almost everyone out there. The fact is that Kodak digital imaging systems, whether film or digital, cover the spectrum.
I *think* Kodak has swung back and forth over the years trying to follow market trends at the behest of clueless investors and ambitious management. And for all the flack they've taken over the years for being ignorant morons, they are still pumping out premium films to this day.
bmattock
Veteran
The first Kodak digital SLR cameras, the DCS series, built on pro Nikon and Canon chassis, beat everyone to the punch, and were boffo hits with the news photojournalists. They kept at it for quite awhile, and were usually first to market with innovations in dSLR cameras, but eventually Nikon and Canon ate their lunch.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/camerasIndex.jhtml
They still make, as you pointed out, all the medium format high-end sensors, including the Leica M8 and M8.2, Hasselblad, etc. Nobody else has that technology, only Kodak.
Martian rovers? Kodak sensors.
http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26067
The upcoming Leica Medium Format DSLR? Kodak.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3418&p=6
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/07/09/kodak-s-50-megapixel-medium-format-sensor/
As I said, Kodak is in the top-ten of patent filers in the USA today - they innovate, they create. Their engineers are top-notch - film and digital alike.
The problem has always been marketing. They suck out loud at it.
As to the statement made by others that Kodak should shrink and just do film and not pay so much attention to the constant demand for growth, etc, that can't really be helped. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. That's a legal obligation - in extreme cases, their board and leading managers could be prosecuted and sent to prison for failing to do their duty BY THE SHAREHOLDERS. Sorry, that's the way public corporations work in the USA. If that's not a good thing, then change the laws. Kodak does what they have to in order to secure maximum return on investment for shareholders - by fiduciary obligation. They are just not at liberty to say "Well, we'd be a much nicer company, and more friendly to the film photographers, if we just shrank down and concentrated on the remaining segment of film users."
Besides, even if they could - film sales drop by 30% year-on-year. So a million dollars profit this year is 750 thousand next year, which is 525 thousand the following year, 367 thousand the year after, and so on. Eventually - no more market. What corporation intentionally chooses a route that has only one destination - down?
FifthLeaf
amateur
Sorry, I got ADOX and Fotoimpex mixed up: from what I understand, though, Fotoimpex owns the rights to the ADOX name. The CHM line is from Ilford and CHS is from Efke.
When I was in Berlin last summer I strolled by a store with lots of darkroom equipment displayed through the window. I talked to one of the guys there and he told me that they had bought some of the Agfa film machines and were going to bring them back, but under a new name. I told him that I thought that was awesome and, although I had never shot Agfa before, I had friends who loved their color films. He sheepishly responded that they were only bringing back B&W. And now six months later I now realized I was at Fotoimpex. (And looking at their catalog right now, it looks like I was talking to the founder.)
These are 6 month memories, so some of the above I've probably remembered incorrectly. But it seems plausible that they could have bought a smaller capacity machine used for creating test batches instead of full production runs. Now if only a Google search would have any useful information instead of just rumors.
If Agfa is really being brought back, this would confirm my guess that *someone* will find a way to produce film. Medium, sheet, and 35mm formats hold a place in photography that esoteric Polaroid formats don't: some of these standards have been around for over a 100 years and there's still a ton of equipment floating around (that's forwards compatible with their digital replacements).
Ah well, fingers crossed. Even if Fotoimpex resurrects Agfa, it will still be limited to only certain regions. Countries like Brazil, where Kodak has already pulled out of*, probably won't have a thriving niche film market if Ilford and Fuji leave too.
*Professional films, at least.