Mackinaw
Think Different
Just remember that we're talking about a world-wide market now with literally tens of millions of photographers. It may be that only a few percent of people shooting film, world-wide, may be enough to keep a film-making plant in production for years to come.
Jim B.
KenD
Film Shooter
Hey Dave, are you giving up film & digital for brushes and paint? ;o)
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Dale Labs in Hollywood, Florida got its start by advertising "Slides, prints, and a replacement roll of film for one low price". They used reloaded Eastman Color Negative 5254, spliced dozens of rolls together, and processed and printed it onto release positive stock for the slides, and then made prints of the same negatives. My wife loved the stuff!
Now they've turned into a good pro lab and Leica dealer to boot.
Now they've turned into a good pro lab and Leica dealer to boot.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
man, Dale, thats bringing back memories. I shot a TON of that stuff. If I remember right I think they gave you the film free! That was my color film for years, forgot all about that. If anyone wants to swap for color motion picture stock I have cans and cans cans of the stuff in my fridge.
amateriat
We're all light!
In a sense, you actually are: read the tech sheets for the new Ektar 100, and a few previous emulsions, and you'll see that we still-film shooters are benefiting a lot from motion-picture film technology. In the case of 35mm, we've been joined at the hip with Hollywood from the get-go, whether we like the idea or not (I do, but only if I get to pick my favorite directors; list available on request
).Bill, I keep wanting to refer to you as the Alan Greenspan (as opposed to Philip Greenspun) of photography here at RFf. But, given recent economic and political events, I wouldn't want to sully your name by linking it with Mr. Greenspan's, so I'm going to have to come up with someone else. You made some cogent points here.
I actually think Rochester is finally getting this. To be fair, Kodak has "gotten" this marketing agenda from time to time, but have, to invoke a horrific pun, frequently lost focus. They would do well to study the Big Three in Detroit, and get a close look at what lack of focus can do to a company in record time.If I ran Kodak, I'd be spending far more money promoting film. Advertising drives sales - I learned that delivering pizza. But that's just me
Steve Jobs once said, more or less, that for Apple to succeed, Microsoft need not fail. The whole film/digital paradigm could use a sizable dose of this thinking.
And, yes, by association, I'm betting on film as well, as it's the medium I most prefer to work in.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Nokton48
Veteran
infrequent
Well-known
how does one process motion picture stock? i am supposing normal c41 process doesn't apply?
Morca007
Matt
Sorry, addendum: ...and process it with the same ease as C-41.
Goldorak
-
It's a shame that there are fewer film users, overall. It's a shame because film is so good. I can't praise Kodak NC160 enough for weddings and such. It simply kills digital. No PP time, no nothing. Just shoot and drop to the lab.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
But what about all those "wonderful" photoshop actions that produce such "appealing" results ?
Sorry two typos there: I meant "woeful" and "appalling"
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Both Kodak and Fuji have stated that they will support film as long as there are cameras for it. Fuji even went so far as to make a filmcamera, the folding Fuji 667 (Bessa III outside of Japan) and will be introducing it into the market in february this year.
Kodak "blew" up Kodak Park, but built a new coating plant to replace it - so they are backing up what they say.
We will be able to buy film for a long time, but our selection of speeds. emulsions etc will be more limited and probably more costly too. Small runs ( a "parent" roll is 52" wide and 4000 ft long - it can be sliced into 35, 120. 4x5 etc as needed). The profit margin on something like Tri X 35 mm is substantial, particularly as they really don't need to market it - it is almost a generic term for bl/w 400 asa film.
I am too a heavy user of movie stock for my 35 mm shooting, EK 5222 (double X @ 250) and EK 5231 (+x @ 80 asa). I am sure. one day it will be gone, but as I keep stocking up 6-8000 ft worth of cans of it - at least I have 2 years supply in stock.
The Rem black backing on the color stuff is messy to remove - has to be done either in the cine' lab machine or by brute force - and everything is coated with small, black particles afterwards!
I wish Kodak all the best - I have supported their film sales for many a decade. I have no idea how many rolls of Tri X I have shot over the last 50 years, but it must be a lot!
Kodak "blew" up Kodak Park, but built a new coating plant to replace it - so they are backing up what they say.
We will be able to buy film for a long time, but our selection of speeds. emulsions etc will be more limited and probably more costly too. Small runs ( a "parent" roll is 52" wide and 4000 ft long - it can be sliced into 35, 120. 4x5 etc as needed). The profit margin on something like Tri X 35 mm is substantial, particularly as they really don't need to market it - it is almost a generic term for bl/w 400 asa film.
I am too a heavy user of movie stock for my 35 mm shooting, EK 5222 (double X @ 250) and EK 5231 (+x @ 80 asa). I am sure. one day it will be gone, but as I keep stocking up 6-8000 ft worth of cans of it - at least I have 2 years supply in stock.
The Rem black backing on the color stuff is messy to remove - has to be done either in the cine' lab machine or by brute force - and everything is coated with small, black particles afterwards!
I wish Kodak all the best - I have supported their film sales for many a decade. I have no idea how many rolls of Tri X I have shot over the last 50 years, but it must be a lot!
Platinum RF
Well-known
FIlm is not dead, however, film is too expensive, many of us can not afford it. so film is dead for most of us.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
And Injet paper and Inkjet ink are cheap?? I've never gotten this argument. Digital can't be cheaper unless you only look at the stuff on screen.
"Kodak expects to still have a film business in 10 years but acknowledges it will be smaller. "
Interesting that any stockholder owned company would allow something like this to happen. Shrinking??? Good golly that's like not eating your Viagra.
I have no worries that I'll be shooting film until I can't hold the camera anymore. I shoot little Kodak film as it is, though I've always got a body loaded with Kodachrome and I use some Ektachrome from time to time. Ilford, Fuji, Agfa and Efke feed my cameras, in that order these days- come summer Efke climbs to second and Agfa and Fuji swap places. My freezer is big and I've still got over 100 rolls of Agfa Ultra 100 to play with.
Last edited:
Platinum RF
Well-known
No inkjet, they are relatively poor quality, I use Costco digital print 12x18 $299 very affordable.
However, a good Kodak film cost $5, plus another $5 for processing and scan on CD, total $10 for one roll, if you shoot 20 rolls per month = $200 one year = $2400 too much for an amature. Digital is one time investment, if you buy used even cheaper such as Nikon D40 D50, D200 they are dirty cheap. When film price goes to $10/roll most amature will not able or justify to pay for film. too expensive. Film is not dead but most of us can not afford it, so it is dead for most of us.
Morca007
Matt
That's where you're going wrong.
A decent roll of CN film costs maybe $2.89, plus $1 for processing, I can scan at home, and have individual prints made if I so desire.
40oz
...
Shooting film isn't that expensive. If you shoot twenty rolls a month you buy in bulk. And if you have a scanner, you can still work digitally. If you develop it yourself, you can save a fair amount of money. But realistically, you won't shoot 20 rolls a month unless you are paid to do so. You just don't need to fire off so many shots once you develop an eye for what works and what doesn't.
Places like Walgreens always has coupons for C-41 prints and a free CD for under $4. The one by my work does a good job. It costs the same whether the shots are film or digital when I bring them in, basically.
The average person getting snapshots a few times a year is not going to see a huge savings from not buying three or four rolls of film a year. But instead of buying a $300 digicam every two to three years, they will be able to take advantage of advances in both film and digital sensor technology just buy spending under $20 a year on film.
They won't need to invest in a whole new camera or/or lenses every time something like Ektar 100 comes out, and the photomat machines will harbor better technology as it becomes cost-effective. You can always have a high quality wet print made from the negative.
But let's face it. If someone is serious about photography as a hobby, they do what it takes. How serious they are is the only limit to budget, so it's kind of silly to argue cost. I could have spent the same amount of money so far on digital photography equipment, but honestly I prefer spending it on film stuff. Cost wasn't really an issue once I realized what the personal return on investment was with film. That happened really early for me.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
At least some stores in the US carry it. Canada with 34 million people hasn't seemed to gotten Kodak's attention for Ektar yet.
aad
Not so new now.
I haven't seen a Costco/Walgreens type print that is anywhere close to being as good as a decent inkjet.
C41 film $2-$3, develop only at $2, or develop and CD for $4, sheesh.
If you shoot 20 rolls a month at 36 frames a roll, you must be a professional.
Platinum RF
Well-known
Costco's print is much much better than Walmark/Walgreens, match the Adorama's print. you can also calibrate the print profile. Many amature take picture for fun, 20 rolls are not a MUST for professional. If you limitted your budget, the $6-10 professional grade film like Kodak 100VS or Ektar 100 will not in your budget reach range. So no fun at all to shoot only budget grade film.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
it is really silly IMO to debate this avenue. If film is currently too expensive for you, it would have been equally prohibitive in 1995, 1983, 1976, 1962, 1955 etc. Its not like it got all impossibly expensive all of a sudden. If buying film is too expensive for you today and digital is somehow more affordable for your selected use, its fantastic that you get to take some pictures digitally because you wouldnt likely have been taking pictures at all 20 years ago.
Its always odd to me to see what people think is "professional". 20 rolls a month is alot? 20 rolls a day is a lot for some of us. 20 rolls a month is nothing. 20 rolls a year, well, some people spend more on ice cream in a year. There are really better things to talk about than how expensive film is or isnt. Cant begin to fathom what someone is doing with a leica if they cant shoot 20 rolls a year...
Its always odd to me to see what people think is "professional". 20 rolls a month is alot? 20 rolls a day is a lot for some of us. 20 rolls a month is nothing. 20 rolls a year, well, some people spend more on ice cream in a year. There are really better things to talk about than how expensive film is or isnt. Cant begin to fathom what someone is doing with a leica if they cant shoot 20 rolls a year...