Are you anxious about the demise of film?

[Jamie123]

I voted 'yes' because, frankly, I do get anxious about it sometimes. Like last month when my favourite film lab (best and cheapest in town) made a 60% raise on their prices for C-41 processing. I get anxious when there's talk of Kodak going under because Kodak Portra is all I use and I never liked the Fuji alternatives. I get anxious about this because I know that if I fully switch to digital I'll have to compromise on aesthetics as I cannot afford a good mf digital back that would give me the same quality I can get from mf or lf film.

But then again, life's too short to worry about these things.

 

[rxmd]

Does anyone here actually have some real, concrete knowledge of what is required to run an economically viable film production plant? I imagine it to be a lot more complex and difficult procedure than pressing vinyl albums, which seems to me to be the best analogy that's been used so far. But I could be completely wrong. Anyone?

No first-hand knowledge here, but people have been setting up new plants in recent years. The most prominent example is Adox (ex-Fotoimpex), who set up a new facility for coating B&W films and paper near Berlin. They got some some Agfa machinery and ex-Agfa employees, now they make new papers based on Agfa MCC and MCP. They're trying to introduce films, too; it seems to be quite advanced, but they need to sort out some problems regarding silver supply and confectioning (see the long APUG thread about that).

In other words, it may be more complex than pressing vinyl, but nevertheless people consider it a viable. There may be less choice in the future, but there we're already in the realm of luxury problems; after all it's much preferable to have few choices of something, rather than not having the thing at all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Does anyone here actually have some real, concrete knowledge of what is required to run an economically viable film production plant? I imagine it to be a lot more complex and difficult procedure than pressing vinyl albums, which seems to me to be the best analogy that's been used so far. But I could be completely wrong. Anyone?

It is extremely difficult, but not beyond the wit of man. Consider for example a coating head, which may well lay down two (or more) flawless, microscopically thin layers of emulsion on a substrate (itself flawless) which is moving at several metres per second. A real problem is the availability of substrate. I think Kodak make their own, and Fuji probably does too, but as far as I am aware, all of the smaller manufacturers buy it in. Lack of substrate is the thing we should worry about most.

Cheers,.

R.

 

[dct]

I'm an optimistic (and fatalistic) man regarding the future, not only about film emulsion. There are more important and dangerous topics in this world which could make me fear. I'm not worried at all. That's why I voted NO.

My film profile is 70 % color C41, 10 % b&w C41 and the remaining real b&w. The most in 135 format plus a few rolls in 120 and still some 240 format. Totally only about 4 rolls per month.

Look at the weird 240 APS format I'm still shooting. The production of new APS film camera bodies has stopped around the millenium change. And this year you may buy out the last 240 film roll charges. I did! Was I afraid 10 years ago when I saw this format declining? No. I have half a dozen of APS SLR and compact bodies and C41 240 film for several years stock frozen.

This analogy might explain why I'm not worried or in panic about the fact the number of different film brand and types is decreasing. There will be solutions which will fit my needs.

😡 Angry, yes. I don't like changes at all... But no anxiety! 🙂

 

[Steinberg2010]

I am a little bit anxious, mainly because I only purchased into rangefinders this year, while I got fairly good prices I will still be very annoyed if my bodies become useless bricks within a couple of years...

~S

 

[capito]

My take on film in the future:

- Color and slide film will go and be replaced by digital
- B&W will remain, with new emulsions being developed
- The large companies Kodak and Fuji will not be able to justify the film production and kill it off
- Ilford will become a major player in the B&W market
- Niche companies like Adox, Foma and Efke will thrive with new ones coming.

And talking about film is nice and all, but photo paper is another serious issue.

 

[sepiareverb]

Lack of substrate is the thing we should worry about most.

Indeed it was lack of substrate which doomed my favorite paper of all- FOMA 532 mark 1.

 

[Austerby]

All the APUG self-developers cannot sustain even a tightly run Ilford with a customer base shrinking as cameras succumb to entropy....

This is a good point: it's possible there will come a time where the existence of working film cameras diminishes to the extent that film usage is affected beyond the point of commercial sustenance. I don't expect this will be as soon as five years though - but ten, fifteen years hence then maybe...

Perhaps we'll ultimately revert to Victorian processes - large format pin hole cameras, home-made wet plates, long exposures.

Could be fun.

 

[rxmd]

Indeed it was lack of substrate which doomed my favorite paper of all- FOMA 532 mark 1.

And instead there came Fomatone 532 Mark 2, which, while admittedly not identical to its predecessor, is a very, very nice paper.

If all anxiety about film boils down to anxiety of not the same amount of choice between eternally-identical things, I think we have a fairly comfortable future ahead of us.

 

[Maximilian]

I like Ilford's films (particularly fp4 which I shoot 90% of the time), so I'm not too worried. If film actually does die completely, I'm sure someone will have made a digital camera I like by then.

 

[sepiareverb]

And instead there came Fomatone 532 Mark 2, which, while admittedly not identical to its predecessor, is a very, very nice paper.

If all anxiety about film boils down to anxiety of not the same amount of choice between eternally-identical things, I think we have a fairly comfortable future ahead of us.

Sadly the Mark 2 is nothing the same. Mark 1 was a true soft finish paper, like a hot press watercolor paper with an emulsion which was at once part of the paper and yet hovered above it. A glistening of image which I've never seen in any other commercial paper. This was like a handcoated paper with the perfection of a commercial paper. The Mark 2 is only a very flat paper (like the old Kodak M dead flat portrait surface), nothing special. Don't get me wrong- I am a fan of FOMA, and do use the Mark 2 from time to time, tho I use far more of their glossy papers.

To get back on topic: If Kodak & Fuji going under means the loss of film-base itself then I'd begin to worry. I'm curious about where the PET base used by the Rollei & Adox films is from. Perhaps Jan (HHPhoto) can answer that?

 

[chris00nj]

Contributing to the demise of film may be the fact that developing may get harder. My go-to place for C-41 processing is ending their developing.

The mail is always an option, but I'm hesitant and bitter after the Post Office lost my package.

I think at a minimum, we'll have black & white film for a long long time.

 

[wgerrard]

It is extremely difficult, but not beyond the wit of man.

R.

Roger, I wonder if doing a boutique film factory is something that could be done on an artisan level, which seems to be what a lot of people think will happen. I honestly have no idea.

Discussions of film's survival prospects depend, of course, on what you mean by "survival". The lesson from Kodak is not so much whether film can still make money. It's that a large corporation cannot afford to be identified in the minds of consumers with anything they think of as old fashioned and beyond its sell date. People stopped thinking "Kodak" when they wanted to buy a camera.

Can film production facilities be downsized enough to ensure the profitability of boutique film-only makers in a much smaller market? I don't know.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I wonder if doing a boutique film factory is something that could be done on an artisan level, which seems to be what a lot of people think will happen. I honestly have no idea.. . . Can film production facilities be downsized enough to ensure the profitability of boutique film-only makers in a much smaller market? I don't know.

Dear Bill,

Not really. It takes quite a lot of highly skilled people. Modern film emulsions are vastly cleverer and harder to make than those of even 50 years ago, and coating is even more of a problem.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gavinlg]

My worry is not so much with the film, but the support systems like sellers, chemicals and developing (color) - especially here in Australia where it's already cost prohibitive to shoot film on a regular basis. I can only guess it'll get to the point where it's just not worth it.

Besides, I've been able to maintain a level of quality and consistency with digital imaging that wasn't available with my film photographs.

 

[Mcary]

Dear Bill,

Not really. It takes quite a lot of highly skilled people. Modern film emulsions are vastly cleverer and harder to make than those of even 50 years ago, and coating is even more of a problem.

Cheers,

R.

JMO,
But in order for someone to able to produce Kodak films at the current quality level they'd pretty much have to take over the current production facilities and maintain some if not most of the current staff. Now whither or not those people would be willing to take the necessary reductions in benefits is another question entirely. Then of course there's the questions of whither Kodak would be willing to sell off its film productions lines piece meal IE B&W and Color rather then all together.
Also think a company called something like Tri-X films specializing in B&W films could be viable. Especially if they streamed lined their distribution channel to retailers that can order in bulk B&H, Adorama, Freesytle Calumet Ext, Plus direct internet sells with say a $200 minimum.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Thinking very broadly: many products have disappeared from the market during the course of my lifetime. Yet this has caused no actual unmet needs. Newer better substitutes have always taken their place for those who have focused on fulfillment of needs rather than using specific products.

My desire is to make photos, not to specifically use a particular emulsion or even film in general. I see no problems for those of us who want to make photos, but potential problems long term for those who are wed to one specific brand or method.

Do you suppose people went through this when it looked like glass plates were going to become obsoleted? Of course Chicken Little did not have the internet to spread his message "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".

 

[x-ray]

I'm not worried because it's eventually going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it. It's easy to see and prepare for. I don't mean storing film, paper and chemicals I mean looking to the future and becoming savvy and comfortable with digital. Don't get me wrong I'm not happy about the demise of film but the writing is on the wall and companies are dropping products left and right. It's all about the bottom line and future growth prospects.

I've been selling film equipment for the past year and plan to phase out most of my gear in the near future and have spent the available cash on state of the art digital gear and I don't mean an M9.

Film will be here in one form or fashion for some time but the choices are getting slim. As mentioned Fuji is dropping products and Kodak will fade into the dark(room) in the near future. Ilford seems to hang in there and Adox, Efke and Foma seem to be holding their own but have limited choices. Color labs are almost gone and the only decent scanners are used drum scanners or flatbeds like the Scitex Eversmart or Fuji l
Lanovia Quattro with limited support for service and a hand full of very expensive units like the Hasselblad X1 and X5 starting over $10k.

35mm B&W will probably be here for some time to come but limited choices will be available but larger formats like 120 and sheet sizes, I'm guessing, will be nearly extinct in five to seven years. Ultra large and some large format films are now only available on special order one time per year.

Better get used to digital.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not worried because it's eventually going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it. It's easy to see and prepare for. I don't mean storing film, paper and chemicals I mean looking to the future and becoming savvy and comfortable with digital. Don't get me wrong I'm not happy about the demise of film but the writing is on the wall and companies are dropping products left and right. It's all about the bottom line and future growth prospects.

I've been selling film equipment for the past year and plan to phase out most of my gear in the near future and have spent the available cash on state of the art digital gear and I don't mean an M9.

Film will be here in one form or fashion for some time but the choices are getting slim. As mentioned Fuji is dropping products and Kodak will fade into the dark(room) in the near future. Ilford seems to hang in there and Adox, Efke and Foma seem to be holding their own but have limited choices. Color labs are almost gone and the only decent scanners are used drum scanners or flatbeds like the Scitex Eversmart or Fuji l
Lanovia Quattro with limited support for service and a hand full of very expensive units like the Hasselblad X1 and X5 starting over $10k.

35mm B&W will probably be here for some time to come but limited choices will be available but larger formats like 120 and sheet sizes, I'm guessing, will be nearly extinct in five to seven years. Ultra large and some large format films are now only available on special order one time per year.

Better get used to digital.

Yes, but that's conversion and stock control, not coating. Also, it's possible to use the same substrate for 35mm and 120, which is how Ilford managed to do Delta 3200 in 120. I don't think that extinction is any likelier for MF and LF than for 35mm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[x-ray]

Yes, but that's conversion and stock control, not coating. Also, it's possible to use the same substrate for 35mm and 120, which is how Ilford managed to do Delta 3200 in 120. I don't think that extinction is any likelier for MF and LF than for 35mm.

Cheers,

R.

I understand how film is made and how it's all cut from master rolls. Companies like Ilford and Kodak are now requiring substantial orders before setting up to cut these low demand sizes. I believe Kodak requires the commitment to purchase an entire master roll and think this is true of Ilford. Sizes like 120 and sheet sizes are low demand now compared to 35mm. I think eventually even 35mm will become a special order items requiring large purchased and available perhaps once a year like Ilford is doing with sheet sizes other than the popular emulsions and sizes.