Are you anxious about the demise of film?

[wgerrard]

I don't think film is going South, but Kodak seems to be.

Technology changes fast, and consumers change their minds almost as fast. They -- we -- are not a sentimental bunch. Kodak was synonymous with photography in the minds of consumers for decades. But, decisions made not that long ago mean we now have a generation of consumers who don't think about Kodak when they think of taking pictures.

If bankruptcy happens, Kodak may emerge leaner, smaller, and smarter. (Remember, bankruptcy does not necessarily mean the end of a corporation.) What happens to the pieces, including the film lines, is anyone's guess. In a time of falling film sales, I don't see anyone buying Kodak's film production facilities with an eye to keeping them going. But, who knows? Maybe someone will get a great deal. What I think is much more likely -- perhaps probable --is someone buying Kodak's film patents intending to use them for one thing or another. That does not have to include selling film to the public. But, Kodak holds many patents and will try to sell those off.

 

[tyrone.s]

Well there's certainly no need to be anxious about the demise of 'are you worried about the demise of film' threads. :bang:

Really, from a technological perspective, very few things cease to exist in the presence of a market for them. Certainly with something as commonly understood and as relatively low entry point as B&W film, it would be hard to imagine it disappearing or mattering if it did at some future point in time - disappear. Even if only because at a certain level the technology for generic colour or B&W film is not proprietary (or high entry point) like Kodachrome was.

Film is already dead as a mainstream commercial product and has been for some years. And yet film is available whenever people want it - often via purchase over that new fangled internet thing that's totally inadequate for displaying the technical advantages (but not personal delights) of using film anyway.

 

[sevo]

In a time of falling film sales, I don't see anyone buying Kodak's film production facilities with an eye to keeping them going.

Well, the Agfa production line was bought in a management buy-out. And so were the Dutch Polaroid facilities.

That Kodak's facilities are in the US, the heartland of neo-liberalism, is reason to be concerned, though - the past decades have eroded most of the labour laws there. The Agfa and Polaroid lines were at least partially saved by the high cost of lay-offs in Germany and the Netherlands.

Coating plants are valuable assets these days, the bioscience, flat-panel and touch panel boom has created a high demand for non-photographic coating. The US, Mexican and Irish production sites of Polaroid were dismantled and sold to China or Korea where they now coat flat panel sheets - Kodak Rochester may well face the same fate...

 

[rogerzilla]

We really need someone else to make film cameras. Currently there is Leica, Voigtlander and some Lomo-level stuff. Rumour has it that Nikon doesn't actually make the F6 any more and is just selling off existing stock.

I'm not sure who would buy an entry-level film SLR now, though, AF or not. There is also the problem that all the cheap SLR lenses are designed for smaller digital sensors and won't cover a 35mm negative, so Pentax or whoever would need to produce a new (or old) range of lenses to go with a film body.

If film gets about 10GBP a roll and/or I don't like any of the emulsions available, it'll have to be a secondhand M9 or sell off the lot and go for something like a Nikon D700. I'm not sure I'd do the latter because I don't really like walking around with a big SLR. I'd probably just stop taking pictures.

 

[Eric T]

I would like to see new film cameras. It was refreshing to see the Fuji GF670 appear recently. But I think the market is too small for the developments costs of anything but nearly fully manual film cameras. In addition, there are thousands of great used film cameras readily available at low prices on eBay and elsewhere.
I like the many options available to us today to capture images on film and electronica sensors. This is a great time to be interested in photography.

 

[goo0h]

I'm going to continue using film because I like film. When it's no longer available, or so insanely expensive I can no longer afford it, then I'll switch to digital. By then, I at least hope there are more options than the M9 so I can get the results I like, along with the ergonomics I insist.

I've looked at digital cameras occasionally over the years, and just hated their interfaces/ergonomics. I think a few, like Fuji, are beginning to figure that out. So I suspect it'll only improve.

I am curious if Zeiss will ever do anything. It seems that the Zeiss Ikon is still selling, so right now I don't think they have any incentive. However, when they stop selling, will they bailout on that market altogether, completely? Somehow I sort of doubt it, but we'll see. Only time will tell.....

 

[Snowbuzz]

Ahem, what I would like to know is which one of y'all cleaned-out Adorama of all the 120 Tri-X yesterday!! Anyway, I gorged myself on Pan F instead.

 

[tomalophicon]

We really need someone else to make film cameras. Currently there is Leica, Voigtlander and some Lomo-level stuff. Rumour has it that Nikon doesn't actually make the F6 any more and is just selling off existing stock.

I'm not sure who would buy an entry-level film SLR now, though, AF or not. There is also the problem that all the cheap SLR lenses are designed for smaller digital sensors and won't cover a 35mm negative, so Pentax or whoever would need to produce a new (or old) range of lenses to go with a film body.

If film gets about 10GBP a roll and/or I don't like any of the emulsions available, it'll have to be a secondhand M9 or sell off the lot and go for something like a Nikon D700. I'm not sure I'd do the latter because I don't really like walking around with a big SLR. I'd probably just stop taking pictures.

Sorry, but there are currently more companies making film cameras now than there are companies making digital cameras.

 

[NickTrop]

Here's a hard estimate - 15 years.

During this period, there will be no new film cameras produced and fewer and fewer people to repair the existing film cameras that break, fewer parts available, the market for film will continue to shrink, digital technology will continue to improve and become cheaper. Already, as I posted on another thread, all the major motion picture film camera companies have ceased production of film cameras. When the "film" industry goes 100% digital, me thinks that will be it, with no production runs for 16/35mm movie film. There will be fewer and fewer places to get film processed, with the closure of film mini-labs. This is already evident in my area in the US. Film prices will inch up... and the incremental cost increases for film, the shrinking availability of working film cameras, and the inconvenience, delay, with more and more film lines being dropped until there are only a couple available... and increasing expense of processing will spell death - eventually... And each of these incremental cost and convenience factors will feed in to each other as more film die-hards each year conclude "it's just not worth it anymore..." - And few, if any, new film users will enter into the fray to sustain the market. One of the things kept film alive over the past 5 years was the single use film camera, and they're even disappearing from the retail shelves due to cell phones - that even Luddites carry, are now capable of taking basic pics. Don't quote me but didn't somebody post that Kodak only did 150 million US last year in consumer film worldwide? That's peanuts, really, even if they are eking out a small profit from it .

Film will die of old age, incrementally, in 15 years I'd say. It will not "die suddenly" which is what I suspect most are concerned about. The first film photograph was made in 1827 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce. I'd say 200 years is a pretty good run for any technology other than the gear, wheel, pulley, and lever.

Let me wax poetic in my prediction - Film will die in 2027 - exactly 200 years after its birth. But it's on lifesupport now.

That's my prediction.

 

[randomm]

I don't really care to be honest. I've just started buying twice the amount of film that I use so to build some kind of a reserve. Once the price of film exceeds the level I can afford, then I'll use my remaining stock and move over to digital.. I reckon I've got quite a few years until a forced shift yet 😉

 

[anerjee]

May you be proven wrong.

Here's a hard estimate - 15 years.

During this period, there will be no new film cameras produced and fewer and fewer people to repair the existing film cameras that break, fewer parts available, the market for film will continue to shrink, digital technology will continue to improve and become cheaper. Already, as I posted on another thread, all the major motion picture film camera companies have ceased production of film cameras. When the "film" industry goes 100% digital, me thinks that will be it, with no production runs for 16/35mm movie film. There will be fewer and fewer places to get film processed, with the closure of film mini-labs. This is already evident in my area in the US. Film prices will inch up... and the incremental cost increases for film, the shrinking availability of working film cameras, and the inconvenience, delay, with more and more film lines being dropped until there are only a couple available... and increasing expense of processing will spell death - eventually... And each of these incremental cost and convenience factors will feed in to each other as more film die-hards each year conclude "it's just not worth it anymore..." - And few, if any, new film users will enter into the fray to sustain the market.

Film will die of old age, incrementally, in 15 years I'd say. It will not "die suddenly" which is what I suspect most are concerned about. The first film photograph was made in 1827 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce. I'd say 200 years is a pretty good run for any technology other than the gear, wheel, pulley, and lever.

Let me wax poetic in my prediction - Film will die in 2027 - exactly 200 years after its birth. But it's on lifesupport now.

That's my prediction.

 

[rxmd]

The first film photograph was made in 1827 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce.

Actually Niepce photographed on asphalt. Asphalt photography died out pretty early. The earliest film photographs were made in the late 1880s.

Regarding your scenario, it's a beautiful story, but ultimately question of supply and demand. If there's a demand for film or for new film cameras, someone will make them. People continued to make turntables even though the flea markets are overflowing with old ones. If there's no demand for film, then it deserves to die anyway.

 

[rxmd]

I've just started buying twice the amount of film that I use so to build some kind of a reserve. Once the price of film exceeds the level I can afford, then I'll use my remaining stock and move over to digital.. I reckon I've got quite a few years until a forced shift yet 😉

People who hoard film now are actually bad for the market.

Someone who bunkers a fridge full of, say, Tri-X because he anguishes about Kodak going out of the market is taking vital income away from Ilford, Foma or whoever continues to make film in the future. The moment a company stays making product X, instead of hoarding as much X as one can, one should immediately stop buying X and start buying some other product Y instead, in order to support the continuing production of Y.

And that's assuming that Kodak actually does leave the market. If Kodak stays in the market, the hoarder is actually taking away future income from Kodak, too. From Kodak's point of view, the Tri-X that you can buy now from a retailer has already generated whatever income it can generate. Film keeps well. A hoarder who buys loads of the already-existing Tri-X now is removing part of Kodak's incentive to make Tri-X in the future.

One thing that will be required of film photographers in the future is the readiness to adapt. If manufacturer X does leave the market, switch to products of manufacturer Y. Hoarding film X accomplishes nothing or is actually counterproductive, no matter what happens.

By hoarding, a hoarder is betting on all manufacturers leaving the market, for the expected benefit of being able to shoot a little longer if or when that happens. In that sense, from an economics point of view, hoarding is egoistic behaviour.

 

[randomm]

People who hoard film now are actually bad for the market.

Someone who bunkers a fridge full of, say, Tri-X because he anguishes about Kodak going out of the market is taking vital income away from Ilford, Foma or whoever continues to make film in the future. The moment a company stays making product X, instead of hoarding as much X as one can, one should immediately stop buying X and start buying some other product Y instead, in order to support the continuing production of Y.

And that's assuming that Kodak actually does leave the market. If Kodak stays in the market, the hoarder is actually taking away future income from Kodak, too. From Kodak's point of view, the Tri-X that you can buy now from a retailer has already generated whatever income it can generate. Film keeps well. A hoarder who buys loads of the already-existing Tri-X now is removing part of Kodak's incentive to make Tri-X in the future.

One thing that will be required of film photographers in the future is the readiness to adapt. If manufacturer X does leave the market, switch to products of manufacturer Y. Hoarding film X accomplishes nothing or is actually counterproductive, no matter what happens.

By hoarding, a hoarder is betting on all manufacturers leaving the market, for the expected benefit of being able to shoot a little longer if or when that happens. In that sense, from an economics point of view, hoarding is egoistic behaviour.

Lucky for all that I'm really only buying end of line stuff, expired film or current stuff by Ilford, Foma and Efke 😉

 

[rbsinto]

Whether the demise of film is about to happen very soon or not at all is not something I worry about. Currently I can get film and developing done, so I'm a happy camper. Besides all the worry and angst in the world will not change Corporate decisions anyway, so why waste time and energy on useless pursuits?
First well see, and then we'll know, and then I'll decide what actions to take regarding photography.

 

[wgerrard]

...ultimately question of supply and demand. If there's a demand for film or for new film cameras, someone will make them. People continued to make turntables...

It's not as simple as that. Demand does not automatically put products on the market. Entrepreneurs have choices. They'll choose to put their money in projects they think will give them the biggest return. Every alternative might be profitable, but only the one expected to be the most profitable will be funded.

As Roger has pointed out elsewhere, Producing today's film is a complex technical procedure that doesn't not lend itself to one-person hobbyist shops. And that begs the question of where that hobbyist would obtain film base. The turntable analogy falls apart there because a turntable is considerably less complex and can be fashioned in a small shop from commonly available components.

I wouldn't be surprised if, 20 years from now, some folks are trying homebrew replications of film-making techniques from the 19th century. But that's a long way from surviving as a commercial product.

 

[jsrockit]

It's not as simple as that. Demand does not automatically put products on the market. Entrepreneurs have choices. They'll choose to put their money in projects they think will give them the biggest return. Every alternative might be profitable, but only the one expected to be the most profitable will be funded.

Luckily some people choose to do things as a labor of love (which obviously film production in the future will have to be).

 

[wgerrard]

Luckily some people choose to do things as a labor of love (which obviously film production in the future will have to be).

Honestly, I doubt that. It doesn't seem any more likely or feasible than people making homebrew Summicrons. Is anyone making 35mm film now in their kitchen?

Sure, some wealthy film fanatics may throw money at it, but I don't think that counts. There *will* be a day when the last commercial film comes off the line at the last film plant. That's the End of Film.

 

[thegman]

There will of course be a day when film comes to and end, but there will be a day when digital (as we know it) comes to an end also. B&W film appears to be able to be made in a relatively low-tech manner, and I read on APUG of a chap who built his own film coater. Underestimate human endeavour at your peril, I think film can continue long beyond commercial viability. That said, I think it will remain commercially viable for a while, but on small scale of course. Car makers like Lotus, Noble, Caterham and the like can keep going on tiny sales because they build their companies with those volumes in mind, future film companies will need to do the same.

 

[jsrockit]

Honestly, I doubt that. It doesn't seem any more likely or feasible than people making homebrew Summicrons. Is anyone making 35mm film now in their kitchen?

You are really going to compare making film to making summicrons? All you have to do is look at any outdated tech that people still enjoy and see that someone will still make it...

Right it makes no sense to make 35mm film in your kitchen because you can still buy for as low as $2.00 a roll. I'm not saying someone is going to make it in their kitchen. However, someone will make it. Who would have thought Voigtlander would have made several NEW rangefinders in the 90s and 00s? Did they do this because it was going to be seriously profitable?