An Interesting Article on Film Use Today

[Nikon Bob]

Well when you shrink volume and capacity you increase costs hugely if you are talking producing at a plant. There already has been a huge amount of volume and capacity taken off line in the past decade. If manufacturing film is anything like producing pulp and paper the trend has been to run larger/faster machine 24hrs a day 365 days a year at as fast a speed as possible. You don't want to interrupt the process or slow the machines down as this would eat into profits by increasing costs. I really don't think that the production of film at a level that would provide the same profit margins and keeps costs to the consumer reasonable can be done on a small scale. I am not saying small scale film production can't be done it is just that you will have to pay very dearly for it. That alone drives more people away than it would attract.

Bob

 

[JohnTF]

Well when you shrink volume and capacity you increase costs hugely if you are talking producing at a plant. There already has been a huge amount of volume and capacity taken off line in the past decade. If manufacturing film is anything like producing pulp and paper the trend has been to run larger/faster machine 24hrs a day 365 days a year at as fast a speed as possible. You don't want to interrupt the process or slow the machines down as this would eat into profits by increasing costs. I really don't think that the production of film at a level that would provide the same profit margins and keeps costs to the consumer reasonable can be done on a small scale. I am not saying small scale film production can't be done it is just that you will have to pay very dearly for it. That alone drives more people away than it would attract.

Bob

One of the sidebars states that Kodak will sell off to someone, implying? they either will run it in to the ground, or survive on smaller volume and profit?

Regards, John

 

[Paddy C]

Well when you shrink volume and capacity you increase costs hugely if you are talking producing at a plant. There already has been a huge amount of volume and capacity taken off line in the past decade. If manufacturing film is anything like producing pulp and paper the trend has been to run larger/faster machine 24hrs a day 365 days a year at as fast a speed as possible. You don't want to interrupt the process or slow the machines down as this would eat into profits by increasing costs. I really don't think that the production of film at a level that would provide the same profit margins and keeps costs to the consumer reasonable can be done on a small scale. I am not saying small scale film production can't be done it is just that you will have to pay very dearly for it. That alone drives more people away than it would attract.

Bob

This is something that I think some people have been missing to a degree.

If you work with printers you get the picture. Printers need to have presses running. That's how they make money. It doesn't matter if they are running small jobs at cost in between the big stuff, the presses have to run. That's how you maintain cash flow, that's how you keep people who know how to keep everything running paid and at the printing plant.

If work slows and presses are idle you will begin a domino effect that will end in the printer closing shop.

At the moment, I'm a film guy, but I don't see any of the big players able to keep it going for too much longer I'm afraid.

I do feel that a company like Ilford may be best suited to keep things going on a smallish scale as time goes by.

But don't think this is about people making stuff in a bathtub. It's not. There's a breaking point, I just don't think anyone really knows where it is.

One should also note that the history of photography has been about shedding old technology and processes for newer and better ones. While the "newer" of digital photography cannot be disputed, the "better" remains an argument for only a few and is, at best, highly subjective.

I sometimes wonder if film at this point is as much about cameras as process? The interest in and success of the X100, X1, and M9 give some credence to that possibility. I love simple, well built cameras and these are few and far between in the digital world. This and nostalgia are strong anchors. But if more products like the X100 are released and as sensor technology improves and prices fall (hopefully) will the film fans continue to be fans?

I think I'm at that point where I'm questioning film but not yet able to part with it.

 

[Keith]

This is something that I think some people have been missing to a degree.

If you work with printers you get the picture. Printers need to have presses running. That's how they make money. It doesn't matter if they are running small jobs at cost in between the big stuff, the presses have to run. That's how you maintain cash flow, that's how you keep people who know how to keep everything running paid and at the printing plant.

If work slows and presses are idle you will begin a domino effect that will end in the printer closing shop.

At the moment, I'm a film guy, but I don't see any of the big players able to keep it going for too much longer I'm afraid.

I do feel that a company like Ilford may be best suited to keep things going on a smallish scale as time goes by.

But don't think this is about people making stuff in a bathtub. It's not. There's a breaking point, I just don't think anyone really knows where it is.

One should also note that the history of photography has been about shedding old technology and processes for newer and better ones. While the "newer" of digital photography cannot be disputed, the "better" remains an argument for only a few and is, at best, highly subjective.

I sometimes wonder if film at this point is as much about cameras as process? The interest in and success of the X100, X1, and M9 give some credence to that possibility. I love simple, well built cameras and these are few and far between in the digital world. This and nostalgia are strong anchors. But if more products like the X100 are released and as sensor technology improves and prices fall (hopefully) will the film fans continue to be fans?

I think I'm at that point where I'm questioning film but not yet able to part with it.

It's interesting that Fuji have stated they'll be in it to the end and when you think about it they're one of the few manufacturers to be in a position to do this. Kodak seem to be struggling in areas aside from film and the other players who are purely film manufacturers will likely implode when they can't sell enough of the stuff to survive. Fuji's film business is stated to represent less than 3% of their profit so a down turn won't send them to the wall ... they'll just keep cutting back by reducing emulsions until such time that they just can't be bothered any more. They have a lot of very successful irons in a lot of different fires ... pharmaceuticals comes to mind here!

The X100/X1/M9 are good examples to use here because it definitely changes the playing field somewhat and if Fuji actually brought out a camera with changable lenses another few thousand film shooters would jump ship pretty quickly IMO and so it goes on. If film became unavailable tomorrow my X100 would instantly become my main camera for my hobby and I'd probably start saving for an M9 ... and although I'd shed a tear over the loss of film I certainly wouldn't be devistated. In the meantime I'll happily keep using it!

 

[Nikon Bob]

One of the sidebars states that Kodak will sell off to someone, implying? they either will run it in to the ground, or survive on smaller volume and profit?

Regards, John

We will see, if and when the day comes, whether or not a buyer can be found. If one can be found I doubt very much that they could operate the machinery on a smaller volume and generate enough profit unless the price per roll climbed drastically. There are fixed costs to a plant regardless if it is running or not and that is one of the reasons why a machine needs to run continuously year round as fast as possible. It is just cheaper to do so. Some processes don't do well with constant starting up and shutting down. It is not as easy as flipping a switch. Like I said before, I doubt you will not be able to get film in the future but I am almost as sure you won't like the price.

Bob

 

[shadowfox]

One should also note that the history of photography has been about shedding old technology and processes for newer and better ones. While the "newer" of digital photography cannot be disputed, the "better" remains an argument for only a few and is, at best, highly subjective.

I sometimes wonder if film at this point is as much about cameras as process? The interest in and success of the X100, X1, and M9 give some credence to that possibility. I love simple, well built cameras and these are few and far between in the digital world. This and nostalgia are strong anchors. But if more products like the X100 are released and as sensor technology improves and prices fall (hopefully) will the film fans continue to be fans?

I think I'm at that point where I'm questioning film but not yet able to part with it.

I'd say yes, film fans will continue to work with film because it *is* about the process. I have asked before: To those who has done both film and digital processes, which one do you prefer?

Of course many will say digital (cleaner, faster, etc.) but there will be others -- including upcoming younger generations -- who prefer working with the slower, more hands on processes that was established using film.

Nothing wrong with both approaches, but it is wrong to assume that film has no more use just because digital has "caught up" with the *technical* image quality (sharpness, detail, color accuracy, dynamic range, etc.), which is to me, is the wrong tree to bark on anyways.

 

[jsrockit]

I have asked before: To those who has done both film and digital processes, which one do you prefer?

I truly prefer digital. I never particularly liked the darkroom, it was just something I had to do in order to get prints.

I prefer digital because the workflow works better for me. I can do it in my apartment without any special accomodations. And I can print while doing other things.

 

[Pikapig]

Im glad lomography awareness suddenly brought life to a new group of film users..whether you believe it a not, many youngsters in asia are crazy over films photography because of lomography..im one of them n i progressed beyond those plastic camera!

To help influence the people around me to take films, i offered free scanning for them.
It will be damn sad when the day comes!

 

[NLewis]

I'm not worried about film disappearing altogether, or even becoming expensive. Did you know that, today, you can still buy 20x24 Polaroid instant film? Efke is making a go of it with their antique ISO25 emulsions, and you can buy a 16-pack of Ferrania color film for $20 at fourcornersdark.com.

 

[Mcary]

I'm not worried about film disappearing altogether, or even becoming expensive. Did you know that, today, you can still buy 20x24 Polaroid instant film? Efke is making a go of it with their antique ISO25 emulsions, and you can buy a 16-pack of Ferrania color film for $20 at fourcornersdark.com.

One of the things that's high on my to do list is to go up to NYC to rent the http://20x24studio.com/ for a couple of hours.

 

[tomalophicon]

I can still go to my local supermarket, in the middle of the bush (almost) and buy 2 kinds of FRESH negative film and 2 kinds of disposable camera.
I can still have it processed.

 

[Mcary]

Just got a roll of Kodak Portra 160 NC and a roll of Fuji Superia Reala 100 back from Target, total cost $2.49 for overnight processing+ proof CD.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Mcary -- that's a good deal! Unfortunately, the Target stores I've been to recently all seem to have ripped out their C-41 minilabs.

Back on topic to the Inexorable Death of Film ... I offer a couple unsolicited observations.

1. Last time I was at my local drugstore lab, the technician said their film developing volume is dropping 20% a year. Yikes.

2. In my mid-sized Canadian city of about 1,000,000 souls, there are about 6 places that will still develop C-41. One of them will even take 120. I suppose I should be grateful!

Compared to about ten years ago, I would guess that there were probably ten times that many mini-labs around. There were also 2 or 3 pro-quality labs that the serious professional photographers used on a daily basis. They closed a few years ago.

And don't even get me started on E-6 processing. When I was at my local camera shop, the wizened battle-weary shop attendant said there's only a couple places in Canada that will take E-6, and it's a two-week turn-around. Another fellow piped in cheerfully and commented that he'd be surprised if Kodak lasted another 5 years.

My own personal verdict is this:

1. There are still enough people around the world that use film, for whatever reason. The market will exist for a long time to come. Perhaps it will be come a niche thing, just like fine art materials, or similar artistic necessities. But I can't see it disappearing altogether.

2. There is a rumor that Kodak is going to sell off their film division and re-organize. There's another rumor that Kodak will sell off a few emulsion licenses to the Chinese. Who knows.

3. It can't be all bad! Lomographic Society has a profitable business model. Ilford and Fuji seem to be doing OK. Lucky and Ferrania / Agfa are still kicking.

In the meantime, I'm going to cram my fridge full of as much Ektar / Portra / Plus-X / Eastman 5222 as I can.

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1) Nobody knows

(2) Scaremongering is a great business model. Spot the flaw in the following:

SCAREMONGERING: IS IT THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE WORLD TODAY?

Cheers,

R.

 

[p.giannakis]

A few months ago i read a report from Ilford saying that their sales have increased since Kodak and Fuji are producing less film. I am trying to find that report on the net again but with no success.... I'll keep you informed..

 

[Colin Corneau]

I dunno, tlc. I can put a digital camera set on iA in the hands of someone who has never taken a photo, tell them what hole to look through and what button to push, and they can take a perfectly focused and exposed photo almost every time....

Sure, well, any idiot can be a photographer. Right?

Amazing how all those working professionals have pulled the wool over our eyes all these years...to think, we could all just head to Future Shop and Rebel XTi our way to fame.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"Sure, well, any idiot can be a photographer. Right?

Amazing how all those working professionals have pulled the wool over our eyes all these years...to think, we could all just head to Future Shop and Rebel XTi our way to fame."

I am a working professional.

I live in a county of 22,000, and there are dozens of women with low-end DSLR's shooting weddings and portraits. I've met many of them at various events. Our two full-time wedding/event/portrait photographers have closed up shop in the last couple of years. Folks want cheap...good takes second place. The smart, cheap DSLR's have made it possible to buy a camera one day and hang out your shingle the next.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Mcary -- that's a good deal! Unfortunately, the Target stores I've been to recently all seem to have ripped out their C-41 minilabs.

Back on topic to the Inexorable Death of Film ... I offer a couple unsolicited observations.

1. Last time I was at my local drugstore lab, the technician said their film developing volume is dropping 20% a year. Yikes.

2. In my mid-sized Canadian city of about 1,000,000 souls, there are about 6 places that will still develop C-41. One of them will even take 120. I suppose I should be grateful!

Compared to about ten years ago, I would guess that there were probably ten times that many mini-labs around. There were also 2 or 3 pro-quality labs that the serious professional photographers used on a daily basis. They closed a few years ago.

And don't even get me started on E-6 processing. When I was at my local camera shop, the wizened battle-weary shop attendant said there's only a couple places in Canada that will take E-6, and it's a two-week turn-around. Another fellow piped in cheerfully and commented that he'd be surprised if Kodak lasted another 5 years.

My own personal verdict is this:

1. There are still enough people around the world that use film, for whatever reason. The market will exist for a long time to come. Perhaps it will be come a niche thing, just like fine art materials, or similar artistic necessities. But I can't see it disappearing altogether.

2. There is a rumor that Kodak is going to sell off their film division and re-organize. There's another rumor that Kodak will sell off a few emulsion licenses to the Chinese. Who knows.

3. It can't be all bad! Lomographic Society has a profitable business model. Ilford and Fuji seem to be doing OK. Lucky and Ferrania / Agfa are still kicking.

In the meantime, I'm going to cram my fridge full of as much Ektar / Portra / Plus-X / Eastman 5222 as I can.

I'm just curious as to what city of 1,000,000 only has 6 C41 processors. Here in Victoria, population 325,000....we have all the Walmarts, London Drugs, Costco, Lens and Shutter, Blacks, etc, etc. There is probably 25-35 places in town that process C41 film.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Faintandfuzzy -- I know, I scratched my head on the whole mini-lab situation here in Edmonton. I might have low-balled the figure a bit, but here's what I can get off the top of my head:

London Drugs -- 3 locations have a Fuji minilab.

Don's Photo -- 2 locations have a Noritsu.

Black's -- 2 locations have Fuji minilabs, that I am aware of.

Walmarts here in Alberta don't take film anymore. They used to. The labs have been ripped out for 'digital kiosks'.

There's one Costco that has a C-41 lab that I am certain of, but there are 3 Costcos around here. I've also heard the Costco (in Alberta anyway) is shutting down their film service in the near future.

So what's that for processing -- nine? Yes, I suppose I was a little low. But still -- not encouraging.

It's especially depressing because on my daily drive to and from home, I drive right past the old Kodak Edmonton Headquarters + pro lab building. It's a huge 1970's 2 story warehouse-type building, painted in that trademark Kodak goldenrod yellow.

I have fond memories of going in there as a teenager to drop of my E-6 films and my silly Super-8 home movies.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I am a working professional.

I live in a county of 22,000, and there are dozens of women with low-end DSLR's shooting weddings and portraits. I've met many of them at various events. Our two full-time wedding/event/portrait photographers have closed up shop in the last couple of years. Folks want cheap...good takes second place. The smart, cheap DSLR's have made it possible to buy a camera one day and hang out your shingle the next.

There's always been those people, always will be. In a free market you'll get the top and by necessity the bottom.

I can't recall a time when there's never been worrying over the amateurs undercutting the business model. I also can't recall how many millions of conversations have been exactly on this topic, and the outcome is always the same -- quality sells.
I still see lots of working photographers (commercial, journalistic, fine art) who are true masters...at some point you just have to do what you do and not care about what others may or may not do.

The people who pay for photography like they pay for sausages are not ones you want to work with, anyway.