What may kill film

[HAnkg]

Well environmental regulations won't killed film as manufacturing can move to countries with less stringent regs. However if the price of silver where to skyrocket (it has risen astronmically already in the past 5 years) as some precious metal speculators are predicting it could push the price of a roll of silver based film up into the stratosphere.

 

[FrankS]

This thread sounds like a PNet thread with all the rudeness displayed. I'm disappointed in the poor behaviour of several posters. This isn't what RFF should be like. Let's drop the personal attacks.

 

[dazedgonebye]

This thread sounds like a PNet thread with all the rudeness displayed. I'm disappointed in the poor behaviour of some posters. This isn't what RFF should be like.

I've felt the same thing on 3 or 4 different occasions this week Frank. Seems to be a creeping lack of civility.

 

[antiquark]

Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.

I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.

 

[Xmas]

Well my colleague with SLR showcase seems not to have thought about chromogenic & B&W, but I was not rude about his lapse.

Sad that the interesting threads get flamed.

Noel

 

[Socke]

And I definitely know that at least Foto Bischoff in the Balgebrückstrasse carries everything for b&w enthusiast as well as slide or chome film. They even offer developing services for b&w, chromes and color.

FoBi is about half an hour walk from my place, they have some Tetenal chemistry left. Same at Photo Dose in the Bahnhofsstrasse.

 

[sherm]

As I said in my post on Friday night these threads about the death of film are really entertaining.

Look we all have our own opinions on this and every other subject photographic.

It's very simple if, you can buy film then use it. If you like to use film it is available, albeit more difficult to source than 10 years ago or even 5 years. This discourse although very entertaining is a waist of our time. Using one medium over another doesn't make anybody a more "tasteful" or creative photographer, it's what works for them. I recently attended a seminar that featured Dewitt Jones an award winning National Geographic Photographer. He said that the majority of pros have already made the switch to digital because not only had the quality improved, but because it was easier from the processing standpoint. I was amazed that for the typical Geographic shoot they use 400 rolls of film to get about 20-25 shots for the story. This alone according to Dewitt was one of the main reasons that the switch was made.

Dewitt's most profound comments weren't about film vs. digital it was to hone your craft, develop your creativity, see potential shots from different viewpoints and most importantly be ready for the shot. An audience member asked him when shooting film how many "keepers" did he get out of a roll of 36 he replied, "that's the amatuer question, the professional question would be; did you get the shot"?

RFF's go out and get the shot, whatever medium it doesn't matter.

Sherm

 

[Socke]

Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.

I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.

Not so rare in my experience, but only with early 1 hour lab processed films. Usualy I have my C-41 and E-6 processed at CeWe Color, besides dust and the occasional torn film I have no complains with them.

 

[amateriat]

Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.

I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.

This depends. If you're talking really old color negs (say, anything much over 25 years old), there could be a problem with the film itself, sometimes aggravated by mediocre processing and/or indifferent storage techniques. Just as bad old Ektachrome shaped up (E4, and epecially E6), with archival-storage numbers coming within striking distance of Kodachrome, color-neg film has improved quite a bit as well. (Suggestion: even though there are good minilabs here and about, if you're shooting something really impartant, send it to a pro lab with dip/dunk processing, which can help a bit in the longevity department. You're welcome. 🙂)


- Barrett

 

[ChrisPlatt]

... An audience member asked him when shooting film how many "keepers" did he get out of a roll of 36 he replied, "that's the amatuer question, the professional question would be; did you get the shot"?

Yep, dodged the question like a *true* professional...

Chris

 

[Xmas]

My day job is off site trials, my management dont ask how, just was it ok... the movie parlance was 'get it in the can'.

Noel

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.

 

[Socke]

Thanks to 100ds of people shooting digital, the Photo Dose in our main train station has an Agfa Minilab which is connected to a couple terminals/kiosks to process digital, but they do film, too. Usualy I have enough time and have my film processed the next day. One of the technicians told me that they clean the mashine in the evening when they close shop and when they start it up in the morning they calibrate it and get the best quality out of the processor.

 

[40oz]

Right, I'm going to say this once more, and then I'm going to ignore you until you demonstrate some reading comprehension.

Here is my first post again:


My only point was that as a mainstream general consumer format in the West (the words are all there in the orignal post, but it seems I have to emphasise them again and again), film is in steep decline, and will quite soon be dead. All of the replies about how film is better than digital, artists like film more than digital, etc etc, are entirely irrelevant to this very simple point.

You've made a claim that film sales are as high or higher than they were 20 years ago. I merely asked, reasonably enough, for some substantiation of that claim, because, if it is true, then the entire photographic industry is suffering from a mass delusion when they base their long term strategies on the demise of film as anything other than a niche format for a small minority of enthusiasts and art photographers.

Anyway, you seem to prefer to raise straw man arguments arguing against things I haven't said rather than addressing the points I actually have raised, so I can't see any point prolonging this discussion.

Ian

This is at least the second time you've been insulting. I did not make any claim about film sales. I made a statement regarding availability. I see Kodak Gold pretty much anywhere you can buy a pack of gum. You have yet to address that fact, or provide any data of any kind.

I've made an effort to directly address your points. You keep repeating comments about my reading ability. I'm not sure how that's productive.

You keep emphasizing the scope of your claim. I happen to live in what you call "the industrialized West." I'm not seeing the things you are seeing. Perhaps it's my perspective.

There is a concept in debate - the side that attacks the opponent instead of the argument has already lost.

 

[NickTrop]

Silly argument...

25 years ago, you could get Super8 movie film at the pharmacy. Afordable VHS consumer video cameras came out how many year ago, now? 20ish? For making home movies, this technology was superior in every way to the film technology it displaced.

Two years ago:

40th Anniversary of Super 8 film

Kodak celebrates 40th anniversary of super 8 film announces new color reversal product to portfolio

ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry.

Eastman Kodak Company remains committed to providing Super 8 camera users a range of products and creative choices. As such, Kodak has added a new color reversal film to its Super 8 portfolio-the super-saturated, fine grain KODAK EKTACHROME 64T Color Reversal Film 7280 will be available in August of this year.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/news/super8.jhtml
------------------------------

You no longer can get Super 8 movie film at the corner pharmacy. But you can still get it without issue, still get it processed, Kodak came out with a new line of color reversal Super 8 two years ago, and it costs are probably comparable to what it costs ($17 at B&H) when it was "king" - the only game in town, taking inflation into account.

We're talkin soundless "Super 8" movie film people. Who uses this stuff that costs $17 for three minutes with mini-DV cameras costing around $300? Lord only knows - film students perhaps? Dunno, but it's big enough a market for Kodak to keep it going.

Don't worry about 35mm or 120... please.

And furthermore:

2004 article:

Some 222 million one-time-use cameras, typically purchased in drug stores, markets and big-box retailers by cost-conscious consumers, will be sold this year in the United States, up from 211 million in 2003, according to estimates from the Photo Marketing Association, and industry trade group.

Consumers are drawn to the point-and-shoot cameras which are little more than rolls of film equipped with a simple lens and flash, and encased in plastic. At around $10 each, they are handy when one needs to take a picture but does not have a camera.

They are also seen as reliable and safe, in an age where digital photography is on the rise. Many consumers still shy away from using the film-free technology to capture important moments, such as vacations and children's birthdays.

That convenience and low price has fueled the segment, which PMA said started around 1987, and whose volume has doubled since 1998. Eastman Kodak Co. and Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., the world's No. 1 and 2 makers of photographic film, both see continued strength in the segment.

"For a consumer product that is relatively mature, that (5 percent) is not bad growth," said Fuji Photo Film USA chief operating officer Stan Freimuth. "The one-time-use camera still has a lot of life in it. We can do very well with them for quite a long time yet to come."


According to PMA, U.S. film sales will fall by 6 percent during 2004, to 767 million rolls. More than 180 million fewer rolls will be sold than in 2000, when film sales peaked at 948 million rolls.

Kodak is hoping that it can still take advantage of demand for one-time use cameras in those regions and growing demand for other film-based cameras - and film -in emerging markets like China, where demand is rising.

Analysts say that despite the slide in film demand, it is still a large market and will remain so because legions of consumers still use the film cameras they already own, while others will never convert to digital photography.

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/040209/137/2bela.html

 

[icemendicant]

Film availability

Film availability

I agree that over the next few years there will be many changes in the availability of film and the particular brands that are available - but much has been said on this subject and I have little to add there.

The point I would like to make is that much has been said about buying film from shops, but surely the other big change that has been progressing alongside the growth of digital photography is the growth of online shopping.

At the moment, I use more film than I have ever done, and I find it easier to obtain. It takes 5 minutes online at my home or work PC to place an order with 7dayshop or MX2 (for example) and 2 days later my receptionist takes delivery and the parcel is in my mail tray at work. Much better than negotiating with a spotty Saturday salesman in Jessops or other high street shop. Many of my recent gear purchases have been transatlantic, or from Hong Kong - often at very favourable prices.

The point I am trying to make is that while the number of film suppliers and processors may dwindle, we do at least have unprecedented access to a wider range of services worldwide than we have ever had before. Perhaps this will offset some the difficulties we film photographers face in the years to come.

Dan

 

[amateriat]

I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.

Steph: Hi! Great to see you here.

What sort of processing gear do you work with at the lab, and how old is it? I've had a few labs with pretty sad-looking C41 machines, one of which, a year and a half ago, decided to stop working in the middle of running several important rolls (lesson learned; see my earlier thread entry). When I worked for a stock photo agency, one of my jobs was to making color neg-to-slide conversion, and we got so fed-up with turnaround times for testing and such that we ordered and installed a late-model Noritsu processor, which I was put in charge of. Great little machine (and, for some reason, my own percentage of C41-film shooting spiked soon afterward 🙄), but I had to keep a keen eye on those daily conrtol strips, especially on slow weeks. This, along with other general-maintenance matters, is where the rubber meets the road with decent labs vs lame ones. Since you're the more-scrupulous sort, I presume you do what you can within the limitations of equipment and management (my former bosses demanded perfection, which was a green light for me to "micromanage at will"), but dealing with machined that are ill-maintained or needful of parts can be a pain. The fact that you feel compelled to send out your own rolls isn't a great sign.


- Barrett

 

[Iskra 2]

I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.

Interesting Stephanie, how would you rate the minilabs in the new Super Wal-Marts and Super Targets? Agreed that some of the older Pharmacies have marginal machines and operators, not to say you are a marginal operator though. I had to "give up" on a K-Mart location, machine kept breaking down and scans were dirty.🙁

Out of curiosity, who still makes Minilabs?

Regards.

 

[Socke]

Out of curiosity, who still makes Minilabs?

Regards.

Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Noritsu are the ones I know. A&O, the company which now makes Rodinal, bought parts of Agfa Photo because they service the Agfa Minilabs. Agfas Minilab production has been bought by Minilabfactory GmbH.

 

[Iskra 2]

Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Noritsu are the ones I know. A&O, the company which now makes Rodinal, bought parts of Agfa Photo because they service the Agfa Minilabs. Agfas Minilab production has been bought by Minilabfactory GmbH.

So.......... I thought so ...... there is money to be made. 🙂 Then there's hope for us, maybe. 😀 '